dinsdag 10 september 2013


Koning Charles II Stuart, The Black Boy, was a black man.

The oldest images of Jesus show him as black, reflecting Black supremacy in the Greek and Roman world

the philosophers of the enlightenment were members of the bourgeoisie and were brown and black in looks.

God was black till 1848 in Europe

Karl marx was called Mohr, because he was so black of skin.

The most famous French Black Madonna de Mont-Brun St.Puy, symbolises that the black elite saw god as black, and she is still revered. There are many Black Madonna's in Europe largest churches. It's not the soot of candles settling alone on hands and face, but they were made to be black. Many are replicas, and do not show the classical African facial traits any more.

Maurits Huygens is not shown at the Huygens museum because he looks like a mulatto. a portrait by Rembrandt, but whitened afetr 1848.

Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737), a rich regent-class woman. Her mother was a niece of Rembrandt, and she was the grandmother of Baroness Isabelle de Charriere. (Belle van Zuylen). This portrait launched the blue blood research.

Rembrandt painted himself as ablack young man. The portrait is whitened with beige paint.

Petronella Borre was the wife of Francois van Aerssen, he was minister of state, and grandmother of governor Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijck. She has classical African facial traits and frizzled hair on a whitened portrait by Harmen Serin.

Johan van der Werff, neef van Maria Susanna Du Plessis (1739-1795). Hij heeft uitsluitend Europese voorouders, en heeft sterke klassieke Afrikaanse trekken. Maria Susanna was een Zwarte vrouw.

De Staalmeetsres (1662) door Rembrandt ogen nu als witte mannen maar....

...waren ooit clasiek Afrikaanse typen voor 1880. Photo by A.Braun found in Museum Bulletin of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The paint did not darken, the people were dark skinned.

To understand the position of so-called foreigners in Holland I read pre-colonial Africa by Diop (1970) and Ancient City by Numa Fustal de Coulanges (1864). De Coulanges did extensive research about ancient Greece, and Diop quotes De Coulanges to make a comparison between Europe and Africa.

When the Dutch declared all the people of color in Holland to be 'allochtonen' they were settling an old score and following the ancient Greeks. The white Europeans are not native to Europe, they came from Central Asia. In Central Asia we find the so-called Ice Mummies that look like blond, white Europeans and not like the surrounding Asian nations. Whites are still trying to proof they are genuinely Europeans and are still following a campaing started in 1848. The idea is that African albinos left Africa as a group, overland, past India and became a foolproof white nation in geographical isolation by intermarriage. They are not albinos anymore but whites with more or less admixture. Because of admixture some whites can tan themselves. But some white people cannot stand the sun for a minute; they stayed close to the albino ancestor. It is not my intention to insult, but a way to explain whites, to show that they resemble albinos in some ways, and that whites came out of Blacks.

De Coulanges never says that the peoples the Greeks called Barbarians were the whites, while the Greeks, the patricians, the nobles were brown and black complexioned Europeans. They were the descendants of the first Europeans who came from Africa, and they were not white. Like Africans they today, they had all complexions but regarded the Blackest African, the classical African as pure of blood. The whites were foreigner, barbarians, slaves, plebeians and serfs. They could never become a Greek citizen because they were not from the soil. They did not belong to the Greek gods; they had their own, different gods. So there was no way for them to be a citizen of any Greece city-state. Religion forbade this.

So no Greek could overrule the law of the gods, and risk his own life. Barbarians however could become clients, make themselves voluntary slaves to a Greek patron, support him, respect him as social superior, and through him they could live in the city and have benefits. It was forbidden for them to have different opinions than the patron. They could not offer any sacrifice to the gods, but the patron could do this on their behalf.

So we brown and black and Muslims in Holland today are not real citizens. We are allochtonen, not from the soil, and not equal to whites who are from the soil. It's not a matter of merits, or how well we speak the language or how well we are integrated. To belong we first need to please a white citizen, and through him we get employment and riches. This is why many successful blacks come across as housenegro's. The whites view them as less; they only tolerate them as house slaves. Even all allochtonen acquire and have in Holland is not theirs to keep. All they have belongs to the state, and if the allochtonen are forced to submit their belongings, because they have to leave the country, it all goes back to the patron or the state.

Short time ago I learned that the Greek nobility was brown and black, like the Medieval nobility (1100-1848) who was brown and black. We do not know this because all the portraits were repainted beige and pink. This can be understood from Alison McQueen, The Rise of The Cult Of Rembrandt in 19th Century France, 2003. McQueen explains how the revolutionary government of France used Rembrandt as a figurehead for a new art politics and a new aesthetics. She does not seem to know that repainting all the old masters was part of this cult. This is a great secret and taboo among European restorers. It can be understood from arts books when they spare some words from old time restoration practices, without going into details. Claiming not to know what the early restorers did to stop the darkening paint. The old master portraits were declared to have darkened, they showed dark figures, and needed to be 'restored' to what Rembrandt and others supposedly intended: to show the ordinary people: The whites. But whites were never accepted as equal to the brown and black Europeans, until 1848 when they took power, and made Europe white. Whites were not part of 'society ‘like they were not accepted as citizens in Greek city-states.

Black Athena, the fabrication of Ancient Greece by Martin Bernal caused a great stir, because he declared that in 1848 the Ancient Model of Greece, which till then held sway, and said that Greece owed its culture to Egypt, was replaced by an Aryan model which declared Greek civilization as a result of an Aryan invasion from the North. It was a civilization that was fully formed, without influence from elsewhere, least of all from Africa. Bernal was right, but he and the others did not know that the European elite was brown and black of complexion, and their portraits have been altered. When whites came to power they turned the Greek civilization white too. This is what my blue blood is black blood theory 1100-1848 is about. And Bernal came close to discover this. Interesting is that he was a big time scholar and professor, and I'm not. His elaborate discursive proof and four books, and big time physical proof, etymology and what not; could not convince his scientist adversaries.

So I stick to my simple proof: the personal descriptions which say certain people we think of as whites were light brown, brown, very brown, and black of complexion. And they were depicted as such until the whites said the paint had darkened. But we still have dark skinned engravings made from the fresh portraits. This should be sufficient proof that the European elite was not white. Alexander de Great and his foster brother were swarthy or black. The Macedonian royal family was black. Cleopatra was black because Macedonian does not mean white. And no white family could possibly sit on an African throne. She is also described as black. Jane Austen was a brunette of complexion, a brown, not a pink color, and all her personages are elite, and brown or black of complexion.

woensdag 4 september 2013



 The Hague, 1 September 2013.
 White supremacy is based on fake over paints of Old Master portraits;
(And every dear person who feels the need to end racism today)
Kindly I inform you that all the portraits at The White House of the earliest presidents of the US, like all Old Master portraits in all museums over the world; are over paints. They made the brown and black faces and hands white. It seems that 1880 was a deadline for tolerating blackness. By 1848, Europe saw its Final Revolutions that accomplished what the French Revolution (1789-1794) could not achieve. The Final Revolutions resulted in the factual of freedom and human rights for all Europeans. In 1848 the French third estate, which were 97% of the French, gained general male suffrage. In The Netherlands, they changed the constitution, and we are told that King William II of Orange Nassau (1792-1849) changed overnight from conservative to liberal. We are also told that the nobility lost some of its privileges. What we are not told is that the third estate were the former serfs and villains who did not have any rights AND THEY WERE THE WHITES OF EUROPE. They were hardly seen as humans, and the historical Declaration of Human Rights (1789) was to give them human status. Most likely 1848 saw the end of a European trade in human leather. A digitalized book, and many articles on the web about the European trade in human leather, says that the French King Louis XVI (1754-1793) was, significantly, presented with a pair of slippers made of human skin, on the eve of the French Revolution. The revolutionary government of France, according to Alison McQueen, ‘The Rise of The Cult of Rembrandt in 19th century France,’ (2003), inherited great state collections of Old Master portraits and genre pieces. And they choose against all proof to the contrary, Rembrandt (1606-1669) as a revolutionary figurehead claiming that he was a painter of the third estate. But that the paint on his, and others, works had darkened and needed to be ‘restored’ to the state he supposedly intended. He was declared to be a painter of the common people, which he was not. This tells us at least that the figures looked dark, and they remedied this condition by over painting all old master paintings with beige and pink. This restoration is still visible to the naked eye and one can see the brown and black layers underneath. You go and check the portraits in the White House , and next take yourself to a museum, demanding to see the restorer-in-chief. Tell them that lying to the president and his wife is high treason, or something. The face contours remained the same, so 10% of the portraits of the Ancien Regime that are reported to the RKD in The Hague, show classical African facial traits. They are the type we call Black today. In Jane Austen’s (1775-1817) time these ‘peculiar’ traits stood for ‘distinguished, proof of pure blood, and proof of noble blood in the family bloodline.’ Jane Austen, who was described as ‘a brunette of complexion,’ also had this look, so we do not get to see her authenticated portrait. But they show us a fake, supplied by her family, to escape hatred and rejection of Jane Austen by the new, revolutionary political elite. Many persons of the Ancient Regime, the elite who were the first estate (the church) and the second estate (the nobility and the bourgeoisie); are described as brown or black of complexion in biographies, but are presented to us as whites. They are described as ‘brown (Charlotte-Sophie of Mecklenburg-Strelitz), black (Leopold I Habsburg), not the white hands (Isabelle de Charrière), The black boy and a tall black man and the swarthy Stuart (Charles II Stuart), the black Prince (Edward of Woodstock), black as chimney (Anna Margaretha van Aerssen), chimney sweeper (Baron Aarnout Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam), swarthy (zwart, Schwartz)(The van der Duyn family), bad complexion (Madame de Staël), very dark with black eyes and dark hair (James Boswell, Queen Anna Boleyn), more brown then white (William I of Orange), brown of complexion and beard (William I of Orange), saturnine (George Sand, Oliver Cromwell), black as ink (Louis XIV’s mummy) and ugly (poet Jan Vos). Next, there are engravings taken from freshly painted portraits, to be able to make and sell cheap copies quickly, and to be used in books. These engravings show the dark skin, and it would then seem that the paintings darkened overnight, which is impossible. Yet, every person in arts will tell you that the paint portraits had darkened and were in need of restoration. It’s often remarked that there are no Black scientists, discoverers, writers etc. Now I can state that they were over painted beige in 1848. According to Martin Bernal (1937-2013), Black Athena I, II, The Fabrication of Ancient Greece, (1987), it was only in the 1840-ies, that the ‘Ancient Model,’ which claimed that Greece owed its culture to Egypt, was replaced by the ‘Aryan Model,’ which said that Greece was invaded by whites from North Europe, finding the white, Greek civilization. This wholly concurs with mine Blue Blood Is Black Blood Theory (1100-1848)(2004) that European whites were emancipated in 1848 and set out to whiten all of history. They painted the black and brown faces of their former masters white. They also whitened the Greek and Roman Civilizations. Apelles depicted Alexander the Great, from the Macedonian Royal Family, as ‘swarthy’. What is missing from all the clever books by clever people, some of them have access to you and advise you, is the simple fact that the first Europeans came to Europe from Africa, around 45.000 years ago. It has not been possible to find a genetic link between the present Europeans and the early ancestors, so the present ones, the whites, came from elsewhere. They came from Central Asia around 6000 years ago, but mostly around 400 AD with the Great Peoples Movements, and around 1000 AD when Europe suffered great barbarian invasions. Europe was in need of protectors, and so the nobility elevated itself into a nobility, exploiting and oppressing the people they claimed to protect. (Numa Fustal de Coulanges, Sheick Anta Diop) In Central Asia there are Ice-mummies that look like blond, white Europeans, and are not Asian in looks. The brown and black Europeans did not just become white, which is not possible, but rather whites invaded Europe. The Greeks claimed to be from the soil, and declared themselves a nobility over these white barbarians, or plebeians. As immigrants, they could not become citizens of Greece. The Modern Age nobility elevated itself in 1100-1200, and saw itself as the inheritors of the Greek Civilization, recently rediscovered, giving rise to the Renaissance. They were descendants of the Blue Men, the African Europeans, and called themselves Blue Bloods. Like the Egyptians, and Greeks they were not all Blacks, but brown and black complexioned, some with classical African facial traits and those were considered pure of blood. The Egyptian, the Greek and Modern Era nobility and bourgeoisie, based their superiority on their looks. The rare, pure Black type was the standard, those were pure of blood. The other brown and black Europeans who did not attend the founding meetings of the nobility became the bourgeoisie and together with the nobility they numbered 3% of all Europeans. The history of Europe could be understood as a battle between these two brown tribes. In the end, the bourgeoisie called itself Caucasians to side with the white Caucasians, to topple their common enemy: the nobility. Human Race as a social construct, for a purpose: a mean to an end. Yet, the bourgeoisie stole the French Revolution, and because of noble restorations like that by Napoleon, the whites had to fight on till 1848. To forestall backsliding they then had all portraits changed to white, and made ancient Greece white, to hide the fact that whites were the barbarians, the serfs and villains, the Greys, canaille, out casts and the common people and did not contribute to the European civilization. This fraud was started in 1848 and whites are still trying to make Blacks the immigrants, and have made themselves the aristocracy by the sleight of hand, changing of the portraits and genre pieces. This is the weakest point in their armour of lies, as we can still study the over painting. But because of these fake over paints, also present in your White House, their white supremacy is since 1848 is based on fake over paints of the brown and black European and American elites. Racism against Blacks was invented around 1760 by the bourgeois philosophers who were brown and black, and was intended as a liberation ideology, a new religion, against the nobility that self-identified as Black with heraldic Moors. With the many, little figures of Blacks, we find in Western art. They also identified as Black and good Christians, and superior, with King Balthasar and many Black Madonna’s in the greatest churches. These were mostly destroyed around the French Revolution and we are shown their black replicas, often with the facial traits changed. The US Founding Fathers, the Framers of the US Constitution, and all slave masters in the Americas were exponents of the European brown and black faced bourgeoisie, and they engaged in trade, which was forbidden to nobles. (Nobles married heiresses from trade, as Othello and Desdemona did. Othello was a heraldic Moor, a symbol of nobility, and the highest-ranking person in Venice. As a skilled military leader, he chose a military solution for his marital problems by killing Desdemona. So, Iago tricked Othello the Moor of Venice, into killing his beloved Syria….oops his beloved wife, Desdemona. He knew Othello would react with violence, because of his violent profession. There is no racism against Blacks in Othello, just some mild joking at the expense of the nobility, by Shakespeare who was a member of the brown and black complexioned bourgeoisie, the gentry.) The early American political elite were brown and black complexioned Europeans. Swedish John Hanson had classical African facial traits, next to dark skin. White cannot be equated with European. Blacks just not become white like that. And the concept of Human Races has been rejected outside the US. George Washington had black skin, and his French ancestor looks Black. Today, there cannot be an equal debate about the state of affairs between Blacks and whites if we do not address the on-going deception with the over painting of portraits in 1848. And that this 165 years old fraud is still maintained by the friendly, smiling white museum and art elite. As I’m blocked everyway to peacefully present my case, and my solution for a peaceful end of racism against Blacks, I appeal to you both. We just need to point to the fake portraits, and we even need not raise our voices. Just you both say the word and it will make you a hero forever. As I believe there are many whites that do not hate Blacks, who are married to Blacks, were raised by Blacks, worship alongside Blacks, or have Black children. So, they will also welcome an end of Racism against Blacks. The Black bogeyman nobles are dead and gone, and they are not coming back to flay whites alive to bind books or make shoes with their skins. Black history is not Black slavery alone, and insisting on stigmatising Blacks as slaves and victims is the mental enslavement and intimidation of Blacks. Often perpetrated by their own Black intellectual elite, and some have access to you too. Kindly help me to end Racism against Blacks today in a peaceful way.
Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
Eemstraat 36
2515 VS Den Haag
The Hague, 2 September 2013


Dear Friends,
Your book is quite helpful to me as a non-scholar as your scientists actually break down their science and eschew jargon for the benefit of popular readers. As I have done historical research which centers around 1100-1848, I tend to view the raised subjects in the light of my own blue blood is black blood theory. This title is the shortest summary of my research, that blue blood, the highest and for some the only true nobility, were Europeans with Black ancestors. This was also the case with the Greek and Roman nobility, while the whites were barbarians, serfs, and slaves. For the whites were considered Central Asian immigrants in Europe.
The brown and black complexioned European elite considered the peculiarly, perfectly Black type, who had classical African facial traits, as pure of blood, as distinguished, and as proof of noble blood in the bloodline. Pearls as adornment symbolized purity of blood, noble blood. Nobility in Europe during the Greek/Roman Era and the Modern Era was based on seniority, translated as ‘from the soil.’ The nobles were descendants of the first Europeans who came from Africa, and considered themselves the only ‘true’ Europeans and they came first. Like Africans today, they had all possible complexions. But although Jane Austen (1775-1817) talks about colorism, skin bleaching, and painting the face white called rouging or face enamelling. Or she discusses in her letters, her stamping out the prejudice of a friend ‘who preferred light coloured men above darker ones,’ the different shades of blackness mingled freely. They were 2-3% of the Europeans during the French Revolution; together with the non-noble brown and black skinned Europeans, who were the bourgeoisie or gentry. As intermarriages was mandatory among the nobility, blackness was breed back in. Noble men would marry a heiress from the bourgeoisie class because they craved the money from trade, and as nobility was only conveyed to the off spring, by the men alone. So they could marry any non-noble woman if she had a suitable dowry. I assume no white woman would do, and a noble person would cut themselves from their family and peers, if they did. Jane Austen writes about Francis Ward eloping, and marrying a white man Mr. Price, who had no education, means or prospects: and was subsequently cut off by her family. Nobles were forbidden to engage in trade.
Othello was a noble man from a royal line and he married Desdemona, who was fair, meaning she was beautiful, not white. He was the highest-ranking person in Venice, and the highest military leader. The supposedly ‘racist’ remarks are not racist, but rather playing with the prejudices, the bourgeoisie or a gentry person like Shakespeare himself, might harbour about the nobility and royalty. Yet his play were performed in front of Royalty, paid by Royalty, but also with an audience of the common people, with their well known class- and political resentments, but who needed to be entertained too. I’m sure that when Gertrude says to her son Hamlet: ‘Cast of thy nighted colour,’ she does not mean his clothes, which are bound to be dark and sombre as he mourns his dead father. It’s rather Shakespeare giving a stage direction about the complexion of a Prince of Denmark, and turning it into a subtle joke, as a Black man cannot cast of his black complexion. Or, that a person like Hamlet cannot be viewed apart from his colour. Colour was important, as it conveyed nobility. Hamlet was like the central Moor in literature or paintings, a symbol of nobility, blue blood, and also a personage. Elements of Nobilitas were analysed, and these were well understood by the intellectuals and nobles. The Moor was a heraldic symbol, and in the arts a ‘pars pro toto,’ conveying the setting of a work of art and literature. Jane Austen uses exceedingly handsome Mr. Elton (‘Mr. Elton, black spruce, and smiling’) and Mr. Crawford (‘Absolutely plain, black and plain: but still the gentleman.’) as Moors. As symbols, they are blameless, but as a personage, they have their flaws. Mr. Elton comes from trade, and understands the hierarchies below him, but not the hierarchy above him, as he deigns to propose marriage to an outraged Emma Woodhouse, the Queen of Highbury. While she, to his horror, designated him to marry her white friend Miss Harriet Smith. Austen shows how the nobility equally looked down on the bourgeoisie as they did on whites. This is the folly that lead to the great horror of the French Revolution, when her niece’s husband, Count de Feuillide was beheaded. Austen shows how the Black Europeans lost power by their own folly, educating whites and giving them positions.
The whites were the serfs and villains, the ‘lower orders’ to Jane Austen and of the French Revolution. They numbered 97%. When Austen remarks to her niece that ‘two to three families in a country town is just the thing to work with,’ she means the percentage of 2-3% of brown and black complexioned Europeans who were the elite. Austen is quite scientific in her estimations and facts.
What is missing from the great Black Athena debate is that human races were invented around 1760, and immediately gave rise to a hierarchy, with whites on top and Blacks way below, just above the apes. Why? What changed in society that there suddenly arose a need for the fantasy of Human Races. The poor Apes were considered degenerated humans, who were morally evil. Who were the morally evil people targeted by the otherwise wise philosophers of the Enlightenment? Surely not the enslaved Black Africans, who were making their master richer by the day. No farmer goes to the stable to kick his cows, which earn his money for him. So, the philosophers, who were members of the bourgeoisie and brown and black in looks, targeted the nobility. The nobility, no matter what they actually looked like, self-identified as Black, with the use of heraldic Moors. This explains the obsession of the European nobles with images of Moors. Thay had names based on the root Moor, they called themselves Maurice, the Moor was used in heraldry, they had Black Saints like St. Maurice, they had Black Madonna’s, and there are toponyms based on Moor. Portraits of noble persons with a small Moor should be understood as the noble person identifying as noble and as Black. The little Moor was not a slave or a servant, although they might have employed a Moor or two as servants, or musicians, to act as a living heraldic symbol to herald their masters nobleness. Most did not get to be depicted, and the painter, who was skilled enough did not to need a Black person in front of him, but just whipped up the Moor from knowledge in many portraits. Old Master portraits often only show the idealised face and fantasized looks of the sitter, while the body shape, dress and ornament were created in the studio. The faces were created to conform to certain standards, and aesthetical rules, as a painter was obliged to create beauty. The sitter wanted to convey status, majesty, nobility, intelligence, good looks etc. with an expensive portrait.
Beauty is what the political elite says is beauty. Facts are what the political elite says are facts. When the political elite changes, so do the facts and the aesthetics. What were the major changes going on? Why was there a need to invent races, a hierarchy, and racism? The nobility needed to go, as they became an obstruction to progress and economical growth. So racism should be considered a liberation ideology to wean whites away from their noble master, they had worshipped as divine creatures. Racism was to teach whites not to promote Blacks to positions of authority and power, as they did in the tenth century when barbarians invaded Europe, and the nobility cast presented itself as protectors.
Slavery of Blacks was not motivated by racism against Blacks, but was based on greed and the need for profit. The brown and black slave masters saw Africans as heathens and uncivilized. They even claimed that slavery might civilize them, and teach them how to live in a structured society. The Europeans loved their own natural children with enslaved African women, and kept them near to them as house slaves. They and their mothers benefited before all other slaves from manumission. They even were educated and became inheritors, often of their own mother or siblings. Fanny Price in Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, was based on the real life, beloved niece of Lord Mansfield, Dido Elizabeth Longsay, who had a mother, who was a former slave. Fanny Price is described in ‘Mansfield Park’ as a house slave. Dido was the Queen of Carthago.
According to Alison McQueen, The Rise of The Cult of Rembrandt In 19th Century France, 2003, Rembrandt was, against all proof to the contrary, inducted by the French revolutionary government, as a new figurehead and a new revolutionary aesthetics was based on his supposedly revolutionary art. Like the Greek civilization, his art was supposed to sprang fully formed from him, as he was free from despotism, which was papism. Missing from this book is the fact that whitening of all old master portraits became mandatory. To prevent backsliding, as the images showed the true dark faces and aesthetics of the hated Ancien Regime. They simply said the paint had darkened while the painter intended to paint whites. In this way, all portraits were restored. What did they do to stop the darkening? They over painted the portraits with beige, white and pink, and it’s still discernible with the naked eye. The brown and black under layers are still highly visible, and art specialist often rave about the false, beige over paint layer, as if it was the authentic hand of the painter. Present day restorers are lying through their genteel teeth.
As they did not alter the contours of the faces, about 10% of portraits show classical African facial traits, the ones we call Black today. At least the portraits submitted to the RKD in The Hague. Not all portraits seem to have been submitted, not all have been restored and whitened. We know that classical African facial features and frizzled hair go together with a dark or black skin. So, white supremacy is based on whitened portraits of the brown and black complexioned elite. From freshly painted portraits, engravings were drawn, for quick and cheap reproduction, and these engravings still show the authentic dark colouring. So, as thinking people, we can conclude: either the original painting showed a brown or black complexioned person, or the paint darkened over night, which is off course not possible. The painters depicted dark skinned elite persons, and dark skinned ‘Greeks’ in mythological, genre pieces. The whites were the outcasts, the common people, canaille, the greys, the lower ranks, the plebeians, and till 1848, there was trade in human skins in Europe. Whites were elevated into humans by the historical Declaration of Man. Life flaying was a common execution performed in public. King Louis XVI was presented with a pair of slippers made of human skin, on the eve of the French Revolution. This must have had a highly symbolic meaning, as the whites, the poor third estate were the enemy of the royals and the nobility. Louis XVI was subsequently beheaded, sending shock waves through Europe, as was proven that these heavenly creatures were not invincible.
The year of 1848 brought the Final Revolutions to Europe, and in France the whites got general male suffrage. Holland saw a major change in its constitution, ‘restricting certain privileges of the nobility.’ Presumably, whites were freed from serfdom, and their skins were not used anymore to bind books and make clothes or shoes for the elite.
J.F. Blumenbach appears to be a dark skinned Bourgeoisie, like his friend Goethe who appears very black of skin. Blumenbach based race on skull structure, not on complexion, and declared the European black and browns: Caucasians. In this way, he forged a political coalition between the bourgeoisie and the third estate, the whites, to topple the hated nobility. Human Race, seen as a true social construct. They succeeded with the French Revolution, a long and major conspiracy by the leaders of the Enlightenment. But the bourgeoisie stole this Revolution, and did not honour agreements with the whites. Because of noble restorations like the one by Napoleon, the whites had to fight on till 1848. To prevent any counterrevolution, Blacks were painted and written out of history. The Greek/Roman Civilization was whitened around the same time, although preparations were made earlier while brown and black Europeans still wielded power. Whites who were the barbarians, the slaves, the serfs, of history gave themselves, or were given a history and turned themselves into the Greek/Roman elite, and the Modern Age nobility. Martin Bernal came close to the truth, but I seem to be the only person in the world who discovered this fraud with portraits, and could make a connection between this and racism, and whites being emancipated.
The whites came out of Central Asia, where Ice-mummies are found that look like white, blond Europeans. European cannot be equated with white, as the first Europeans were Africans and always remained brown and black. The Roma and Sinti are descendents of these first Europeans, and according to David MacRitchie remnants of forgotten royal and noble families who lost their privileges but still act as if they have these rights. I have met a dark Bulgarian who resembled a Pakistani, and he insisted he was not a gypsy, but belonged to another group. The whites were most likely descendants of the albinos who left Africa as a group to travel overland over India, to settle in a more benign climate. They interbreed and became a foolproof white nation, just like how white flowers, horses, rabbits or fish are bred. They are not albinos, but descendents of albinos who are not sick people, but are sensitive to the sun. The whites are the immigrants in Europe and today they want to finish the process to wipe Blacks from history. By comparing whites to albinos, I do not have any intention to insult, as albinos are not sick, as they can function in any position.
Scientific facts are those that the political elite considers facts, and when the elite changed in 1848, Blacks were extirpated from memory and history. Yet they kept the priceless portraits, they did not destroy them, so they still can be viewed in their altered shape. The over paint restoration is still highly visible. (This calls for empirical approach. No longwinded debate necessary, go and look at the old portraits, talk to the restorers) The facial hair was repainted on top of the fake beige layer, and the hair was lightened with blond highlights, like a coupe soleil. Jane Austen’s and Charlotte Brontë’s personages are still light brown, brown, very brown or black, and some talk at length about brown and black beauty. The many Blacks in western art, the Moors, are talked about but misunderstood. Family names have Moor as root. Science cannot establish a genetic link with the hunter-gatherers who arrived 45.000 years ago, so the ancestors of whites came later and ‘from elsewhere.’ They came 6000 years ago, but mostly around 400 AD, and 1000 AD. Leading to the elevation of the Modern Age nobility. Which fact might explain why Greeks were less outspoken about whites, hiding their disdain in religious concepts, while in the Modern Age the oppression was more ideological and severe. The symbolism of a profile of Black King dominating a white woman, was the no nonsense symbol of Black superiority. The Greeks seemed to favour the more benign vase with a black and a white head, back to back. Also showing themselves as not white and not Black, but brown and black complexioned.
Whites today want to finish the fraud of 1848 of turning history white, by eliminating all references to Blacks. Blond actors play Austen’s brown and black personages, even Mr. Elton, who was ‘black, spruce and smiling.’ Whites are not available for rational discussion, even if they are scientifically trained. They have banned me from all Internet forums, to prevent me from peacefully present my research and my peaceful activism to end racism in a peaceful way, by addressing the fake over paints in all museums. They (Professor M. Lefkowitz) use strange logic: like Socrates might have looked flat nosed, but nobody remarked on his supposed blackness, and if he was Black, he must have had immigrant parents, and he could not have been a Greek citizen as an immigrant, and nobody said he was an immigrant: so he could not have been Black. Or Queen Cleopatra could not have been Black because she was Macedonian. But so was Alexander de Great, who was seen and painted as swarthy (zwart, Schwartz) by Apelles. Socrates was also painted as Black on a fresco seen in Pompeii. Cleopatra could never have been white, considering the low position of whites in Greece, as barbarians and plebeians and slaves. They were also forbidden to marry nobles. The whole thing can be understood if we accept that all portraits were whitened in 1848.
As a non-scholar, I do not have the burden of carrying around dubious theories, and theoretical construction based on shaky theories. Assessing if some hapless 19th century person can be trusted. I have little use for scientists, as scientist never can agree on one thing, while basing their conclusions on the same data. The controversy raised by Martin Bernal was not settled. Only Afrocentrism came into the limelight, some Black scientists were even named, and most astonishingly: their teachings were explained and criticised. My experience is that there are persons that block the dissemination of my theory so nobody can hear it. The resistance is organised, and some opponents are Blacks, fat cats on the take. Obscurantism comes into play, so the ignorance of basic facts is intentional. The teaching of philosophy has been de-fanged so students do not really know what the Enlightenment and French revolution was all about, as it would turn them into enemies of the present states. They understand the philosophers as railing brilliantly against ghosts, and do not even know Blacks were compared to apes, as a ruse to get rid of Black nobles, kings and emperors. But mostly that brown and black people invented it all, though after 1848, racism went haywire, and all Blacks were now at peril. The black philosophers opened a Pandora box when they introduced racism. All of history is about Blacks, even if they are painted beige. European Blacks personally turned white after 1880, yet Alfonso XIII of Spain looked extremely black and thick lipped while visiting the US in 1923: in order to keep their power and possessions. Paintings in public collections were over painted, retouched till 1968, but some un-retouched remain today in private collections. Perhaps they are still whitened, by people today who insist to my face the paint has darkened.
So racism may end and Black and white can be at peace together.
Egmond Codfried
Curator Suriname Blue Blood Is Black Blood Museum
The Hague

dinsdag 3 september 2013


  1. 200 years a kingdom: portraits of the brown and black complexioned, black Dutch royal house of Orange-Nassau (1533-2013)
Codfried, Egmond / Suriname Blue Blood is Black Blood Museum / 2013
  2. Badal, or, The suicide of a reformed housenigger (CAN BE READ ONLINE)
Codfried, Egmond / Codfried / 2012
  3. Was Jane Austen black?
Codfried, Egmond / 1st ed / Codfried / 2011
  4. Will there be another Holocaust? = Komt er weer een Holocaust?(CAN BE READ ONLINE)
Codfried, Egmond / Codfried / 2010
  5. Blue blood is black blood : the iconographical proof of a dominating black and colored European race who were a noble and royal elite (1500-1789) = Blauw bloed is zwart bloed : het iconografisch bewijs van een dominerende zwarte en gekleurde Europese natie die een adellijke en koninklijke elite was (1500-1789)
Codfried, Egmond / Codfried / [2009]
  6. De vijand van de Neeger
Codfried, Egmond / Codfried / 2006-...
  7. De vijand van de Neeger ; Dl. 1: Ongeediteerde correspondentie en columns 2004-2006
Codfried, Egmond / 1e dr / Codfried / 2006
  8. Carmelita, Carmen!
Codfried, Egmond / 1e dr / Codfried / 2006
  9. Maria Susanna Du Plessis (1739-1795) : dader of slachtoffer?
Codfried, Egmond / 8e bew. dr / Codfried / 2005
  10. Belle van Zuylen's vergeten oma: Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737) : een beknopte studie over zwarten en kleurlingen in Europa en Nederland door de eeuwen heen
Codfried, Egmond / 1e verb. dr / Codfried / 2005
  11. Belle van Zuylen's vergeten oma: Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737) : een beknopte studie over zwarten en kleurlingen in Europa en Nederland door de eeuwen heen
Codfried, Egmond / Codfried / 2004
  12. Maria Susanna Du Plessis (1739-1795) : dader of slachtoffer?
Codfried, Egmond / 4e bew. dr / Egmond Codfried / cop. 2003