Stonehenge was built by black Britons, children’s history book claims
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
🧠 These people are stupid!
Comments (34)
sorted by:
They was kangz
Yes, they wuz Kungs....
Like the sound a large Broken Bell makes....
Kung, kung, kung....
Ashamed of their actual Heritage, they have to do everything to steal Good Heritage from all others....
I thought stealing was their heritage
Cultural appropriation .... the moment they started to use that phrase, I figured there would be a push to insert revisionist history.
Mozart and Bach were black too, you know.
Just look at Africa, there are a LOT of regions where they still live in mud huts and also eat mud, but you're going to tell me blacks did all this in the UK? LOL!!! Nah I'm good.
How can you say that when they invented the wheel...... and peanut butter!
And we're responsible for the success of the Apollo moon landing.
https://howafrica.com/meet-the-mundari-people-who-bathe-in-cow-urine-to-keep-themselves-clean/
We wuz kangs!!!
They wuz kUngs, kUngs I tell you, kUngs....
Like the sound of a broken thing....
Waukanda. Oh my.
So all brit kids are black now and can't be racist, right?
No, they are raycists,because they descend from evil Angles and Saxons, and Nordics, Normans, because these people invaded the British Isles, as you know, the secret and sacred Black Ancestral Homeland.
If you want a good laugh, check out the Freedom Georgia initiative. A bunch of blacks bought land to be free of white supremacy but they haven’t done shit with it since it began.
No doubt all those paleolithic Black genius engineers were all female, too.
Better yet ... they were trans .... that is why there is no progeny ...
Rebuilt maybe. https://ibb.co/J7d4jqV
https://ibb.co/cTLj3Md
LOL Stonehenge was not built by human beings of any color.
The stones are too heavy and came from over 100 miles away in Wales. Before the invention of the wheel.
We can't even figure out how the stones were moved, let alone erected, much less being able to replicate it today. Stone-age people certainly didn't do this feat of engineering; the suggestion is laughable.
All over the planet are ancient formations of stones too heavy for even modern people to move. Many are cut with lines so straight and precise, no mortar is even needed, and they fit together as perfectly as a jigsaw puzzle. It appears that a number of other societies (not of earth) have figured out anti-gravity and how to harness it.
https://coralcastle.com/
Nan Madol Construction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUdzYvaX3pI
Well most history is based on lies...nothing new under the sun...
The Anglo-saxons built the british lands...
Actually the Khumry actually built Britain. This is the royal line from which kings Arthur I and Arthur II derive. The Angles and Saxons came much later and were contracted by the ancient Brits (Khumry) as coast guards. Hengis the One-Eyed and Horsa were Saxons that betrayed the British kings killing several of them. He was hunted down and killed as a result. In 562 AD a comet strikes decimated the British Isles. The recordings of this event is well documented. The resulting fires could be seen across the English channel in France. So, devastating were the fires, it was written that nothing would grow for over 7 years. Evidence of the the comet strikes and the immense heat is found in Scotland where glassified rock and the remains of a castle are found. King Arthur II sent his brother Prince Madoc Morfran, son of King Meurig to find new lands to resettle his people. Admiral Madoc Morfran sailed to America as it is well recorded. In fact, three voyages occurred in 562, 573, and 574 AD.
My hypothesis ascribes the stories of fire-breathing dragons in Britain having its origins from this horrific calamity occurring in the land. Think how the people of this age could explain away something as devastating as fire from the sky scorching the earth and destroying their crops for years to come. Why is it that fire breathing dragon stories include this type of retribution? My family crescent has three fire balls on it, which I'm researching it to be a vigilant remembrance of this single catastrophic event.
There's much more to this, but the comet strikes greatly weakened the Khumry. As a result, the angles and Saxons from northern Germany established an increasing presence in the British Isles.
The censorship, perfidy, fraud, and persecution of Welsh history starts with the name "Welsh" itself, which derives from 'wallische' in old High German meaning "strangers." It is the name the Saxons gave to the Khumry in their own land. To this day, the Khumric people refer to themselves as the Khumry. The story of the Saxon conquest was not a conquest of superiority, but one as a result of catastrophic destruction to the British surrounding land in AD 562 caused by comet debris.
The Khumry and the Irish are not "Celts." The Khumry are "Khumri." The Irish are "Gaels." In fact, it is now admitted by some leading scholars that there was never any "Celts" in Britannia. This name was improperly promulgated mainly from British 19th Century hack academics of Edwin Guest and Bishop Stubbs. The name was anciently applied to the inhabitants of Gaul. Although, the country was defined between the Ocean and the Palus Maeotis, which ascribed Spain and Germany as well. Gaul was called Gallia Celtica, which was situated between the rivers Sequanna and Garumna, modernly called La Seine and La Garrone. The Celtae seemed to have received their name from Celtus a son of Hercules or of Polyphemus. Notwithstanding, it is yet another name given to them by the writers of history. The first Christian Church was established in England (Lloegres) in 35 - 37 AD. The Druids who accepted Jesus are recorded as stating they always believed in one God and knew of His coming. The Roman Catholic Church does not want you to know this, but will admit it when pressured. The founding of Christianity in Rome in AD 51 started with the British Family of Caradoc I. This is admitted by the Roman Church. The first assumption is that the Romans conquered all of Britain and dominated it for 400 to 450 years. This is false. Tacitus recorded that there were 80 battles with the Brits to which the British won 60 of them. The British histories agrees with this. Julius Ceasar was humiliated in defeat in 55 and 54 BC. One of these battles, they were lucky enough to be escorted back to their ships and told not to return. The last Roman governor of South-East Britain was Sallustus. He was executed by Domitian in AD 80. This is when Bonassus brought the Romans out of England. Roman records prove even before their ejection in AD 80, their new policy was to persuade the British kings and princes to trade with Rome for the things needed by Rome. No accords were reached until Hadrian's visit to Britain in AD 124. It was not by any means to conquer, but to forge a trading agreement, to which he achieved.
In circa AD 44, Claudius, the Roman Emperor adopted the British King, Caradoc I daughter, Eurgain (Gladys). Eurgain was given the name Claudia by Emperor Claudius. Eurgain/Gladys/Claudius became the wife of Roman senator, Rufus Pudens, who was half-brother of St. Paul (refer to Romans 16:13).
British script (writing) was described by Caesar, Strabo, Ammianus Marcellinus. Strabo also recorded that a Briton of the Age spoke Greek with fluency as if he had been bred up at the Lyceum; the great university of Athens. Strabo, circa 50 BC reported on his fulsome admiration for British learning and culture. Caesar described British cities and universities where students from all over Western Europe, especially from Gaul, flocked to study.
The Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinus described the British alphabet and was clear that the Greeks had obtained their similar alphabet from the British. This makes sense if the Brutus migration to Britain in 504 BC is considered. Even Arab historians as late as AD 1100 referred to Britain as Brutusland.
There were actually two King Arthurs. The first Arthur killed a powerful Irish prince, Rhitta Gawr, in c. 367 AD. Gruffydd ap Arthur (Geoffry of Monmouth) and the "Brut History of Tyssilio" relate how Arthur invaded Gaul, besieged Paris, and defeated the Roman Emperor and his barbarian general Soissons = Sassy. Then they tell how Arthur killed the Roman Emperor. These are the exploits of Arthur I, eldest son of Magnus Maximus, grandson of Flavius Julius Crispus Caesar, great grandson of the British Constantine the Great, who as Magnus' chief general did invade Gaul in 383 AD and capture Paris, the stronghold of the Lady of St. Genevieve. This Arthur then defeated the massed armies of the Roman Emperor Gratian at Soissons, and chased him South to Lugdunum = Lyons where he killed him. The campaigns of Arthur I through Switzerland and down through Italy, over to Greece, and up into the Balkans are recorded and well known. He fought two major battles against Theodosius of Constantinople in Illyria = Yugoslavia, where he was greatly outnumbered and finally defeated. Arthur I was known to Latins as Andragathius made his way back to Britain in 388 AD. This Arthur who just as the Histories tell was succeeded by his cousin Constantine Coronog = the Crowned, who invaded Gaul in 406 AD and set up another British Emperor. Constantine Coronog was powerful enough to seize Gaul and Spain and defeat the Germanic confederation of the Vandals, Suyeves, and Alans. Arthur II was a sixth century descended of Arthur I, born in c. 503 AD and died in 579. He fought the Jutes, Angles, Saxons, and others. It was during his reign that Britain was devastated by a comet. Just how three boat-loads of Saxons, hired as coastguards by the usurper Gwrtheyrn (Vortigern) in the civil war of 426 AD, could defeat the military aggressive British, who indeed conquered Western Europe through Magnus Maximus and Arthur I and then repeated the act under a cousin, Constantine Coronog, is not explained. 562 AD is the same year that Arthur II's brother, prince Madoc Morfran, son of King Meurig, sailed to America as it is well recorded. In fact, three voyages occurred in 562, 573, and 574 AD.
Yet, there is far more to the story, I have already spent more time than I should have regarding this fascinating subject. One last note, is that while the printing press was practiced in England from 1474 AD when William Caxton setup his printing press in London, it was illegal in Wales. The Welsh were forbidden to speak their language in public sectors and are prevented from doing so even to this day. In 1996, Mr. P. Flynn, the Member of Parliament for Newport in Gwent, S.E. Wales, stood up and made a few comments and began reading from a book. The Speaker of the House of Commons - a former theater chorus girl - rose to the bait and shouting and bawling in her best fishwife manner she proclaimed that as Mr. Flynn well knew -"not one single word of that Language is to be spoken in this House." Amid laughter Mr. Paul Flynn patiently explained what almost everyone else knew, that the book he was reading from was Chaucer, written in 14th Century Old English. The persecution and suppression of Khumry history, despite it being well recorded and documented continues to this day.
Is it a coincidence that the senior British King dwelt in Glamorgan along the banks of the Severn? Is it an accident that Cardiff, where the fortress was found in 74 AD is the property of Caer-Dydd, and the archaic meaning of "Dydd" is "agreement"? Might it be here that the agreement was struck between the British King and Hadrian, at the Castle of the Agreement? Coincidences? No. There are many more proofs beside this that validates the Roman presence in Britain is very different than what is painted by the highly paid and kosher-approved historians.
Interesting ... considering the book by Geoffrey of Monmouth ... alleging that the British Kings descended from Brutus ... survivor of Troy ....
But what ever it was .... it ain' t black ....
Of course there are exceptions .... Like Merlin ....
Interesting you mention Gruffydd ap Arthur (Geoffry of Monmouth) and the "Brut History of Tyssilio". Here's a little more of the ancient Brit history suggesting that Geoffry of Monmouth was 'onto-something'. Let's look at Julius Caesar and why he failed two times to invade Britain.
In 55 BC Julius Caesar was keen to bring this Britain; this prosperous island into the Roman Empire, and before he invaded - according to many welsh histories - there were several exchanges of letters between himself and a ruler (Caswallon) of south-east Briton, who is referred to by Caesar as Cassivellaunus. This Caswallon did not like the aggressive way in which Caesar demanded a yearly tribute from Britain, and effectively told Caesar where to stick his rather large head.
In his "De Bello Gallico" - obviously intended for a Roman audience so as to enhance his stature - Julius comments that the Britons knew nothing about "war or arms" and so would be easily subdued.
Such was his thinking when he landed at the beaches of the Kent coast. He and his army of around 12,000 men were met with an opposing force containing hundreds of Statue head of Julius Caesar charioteers who were extremely skilled in chariot warfare, as Caesar himself remarks in his "The Conquest of Gaul".
It should be noted here that while Caesar knew of chariots in the context of racing, he had not expected them to be used for warfare, and certainly not with such devastating efficiency. Chariot warfare had all but ceased in Europe, but Britain being an island, and more importantly an island of warriors descended from Brutus, who himself was a great grandson of Aeneas of Troy - where chariot warfare was the norm - would have obviously been kept alive and vibrant, as a very effective form of warfare.
In a series of bloody hand-to-hand fighting, the invaders were forced to flee, and in this encounter Caesar actually lost his own sword while fighting against a brother of Caswallon called Nennius, who actually trapped Caesar's sword within his shield – and admittedly a little of his head too! Nennius unfortunately died a few days later with the terrible head wound, but the Caesar invasion was dead. Caesar's disastorous second & final attempt was in 54 BC.
Caesar however, returned in the following year of 54 BC with a considerably larger army, around 40,000 men and a few thousand cavalry. Now the British under Caswallon – son of Beli Mawr - allowed Caesar to march his troops unopposed across the Thames and northward into the midlands. Caswallon had a trick up his sleeve, and employed a devious tactic of evacuating all their flocks and their people, well in advance of Caesar, leaving no food for his men to eat. Caesar's army were reduced to foraging the land for anything they could find, and even this proved very difficult as Caswallon sent around 4,000 chariots to constantly harass the poor foraging parties of Caesar's army. Caswallon could have sent a far larger force if required, and as modern archaeology suggests, It seems that they're taking a western perspective on this, and not connecting that dots on their own. I'll give it a try here.
The population of Britons at the time could have numbered as many as ten million. Caesar himself remarks that the population of Britain was huge.
Anyhow, the effect of Caswallon's tactic left Julius Caesar and his army stranded, starving, and demoralized. Matter were about to worsen, as he received news his ships where he originally landed were being attacked by a British army, and to put the icing on the proverbial cake, another British army was moving in to intercept his retreat back across the Thames.
This brilliant strategy forced Caesar into a similar position to that of Napoleon, with his retreat from Moscow. A British army ended up "escorting" the rabble army of Julius Caesar back to his ships, and even Julius Caesar himself writes in his "De Bello Gallico" of the scramble to get aboard the ships - each one now carrying three times their usual numbers of soldiers, due to the devastation of their fleets by both the British army and the fierce sea storms.
Laughably but predictably, even this immense and humiliating defeat for Julius Caesar has been explained away by claiming that the surrounding British army - from whom Caesar and his men scrambled aboard their now heavily laden ships - were in fact performing a servile ceremonial escort duty.
Romans were known for exaggerating their accomplishments. Caesar writes of Kent being "by far the most civilized inhabitants", while near enough calling the rest a bunch of uncouth savages. This is in stark contrast with the unbiased descriptions of the contemporary Greek geographer Strabo, who actually traveled to the places he wrote about, and described the Britons as literate and multilingual, whereas Caesar had barely penetrated the Midlands, and so most likely used these slanders as more justification to "civilize" the "barbarians".
The ancient Brits used chariots like the ancient Greeks and Trojans. Coincidence? The Khumry written language is etymologically the same.
Incredibly interesting history lesson. Thank you for the post.
Thanks for this.
I read a book by Iman Jacob Wilkens on troy. It is from this book I got the hint of the book by Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Also, the comic book Asterix mentions a certain Cassiveilaunus. In Dutch: Kassie Weilen means: dead. So, as kids reading this, we always got a kick out of that.
Apparently, the name has much more to it, and a shrewd man he seems to have been.
Interesting. History has been censored, covered-up, and politically erased. A good example of this is the Khumry written language, which is called Coelbren. Despite the Anglo-Saxon (Hanoverian) insistence that it is a made-up language, it is found in Britain on ancient steles (standing blocks), manuscripts, carvings, copper scrolls, tombstones, contemporary accounts from other countries and all manner of other artifacts (especially the cross of Arthur).
The establishment crooks have written off this Coelbren alphabet as the creation of a Welsh-British Antiquarian called Iolo Morganwg during the 19th century, yet the authors easily show in their books how this accusation is completely false and they give many examples of its use and notice centuries prior to the time of the alleged forgery. On example is the golden spoons from Sutton Hoo, which clearly had a form of the Khumric Coelbren Alphabet cut into the handles. It was already almost an impossibility for this ship burial to have been either Angle or Saxon pagan burial.
Any notion of a shared or inclusive Brythonic heritage were forgotten however when the London establishment and Crown imported the German Hanoverian family of the elector of Hanover as their puppet Kings and Queens .
There are traditions of the Ancient British Coelbren Alphabet being identical with Ancient Etruscan, Rhaetian, and Pelasgian Alphabets. Even Julius Caesar makes mention of this alphabet… Caesar described the ancient British Alphabet circa 55 BC. The Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus also described the British Alphabet and actually stated that the Greeks got their Alphabet from the British… [From Assyria the Khumry] left Armenia and migrated westwards through Asia Minor. The Pelasgian alphabet is nearly identical to Etruscan and British Coelbren. The Alphabet appears in the Aegean, and in ancient Palestine and Egypt. From the Dardanelles in Asia Minor half of these people went to Italy to found the Etruria in 650 BC, and the remaining half sailed for Britain in 504 BC.” This was the second wave of migration. The first occurred in 1600 BC, to which Geauntes -Gutian - Albyne sailed with a fleet of ships. Albyne was one of two banished daughters of King Dioclician, king of Surrye - Sirrye - Surrey (Syria)
Further evidence this language is legitimate can be found in the Athens Museum. A rather large stone resides there inscribed with the Ancient British Coelbren Alphabet found on Lemnos Island in 1876 AD. Professor Sir John Morris Jones wrote a Thesis in 1898 that demonstrated how the complex Khumric Syntax and that of Ancient Egypt were identical. Plus the fact that the same seven vowels – A E I O U W Y – were used in Ancient Egypt and by the Khumry.
Thanks!
It reminds me of how preconceived ideas tend to color the facts. By the same token, the alphabet you mentioned could easily have migrated the other way around. Or may have been exponents of an older source.
For instance, say, somewhere in the future, after our civilization has gone the way of all civilizations prior, people discover that there has been a huge battle at Waterloo. So, they start digging in the US. They find a lot of stuff, but nothing actually confirming an early 19th century battle.
Then someone else comes around and says that based on other evidence, the Waterloo to look for is somewhere in Belgium, Europe and is then called a on-orthodox as the most friendly moniker. .....
What is absolutely amazing is translating ancient script like Etruscan an Egyptian has always been easily accessible. Instead, it was hidden from us. I'm in the process of purchasing "Cymroglyphics" 2nd Edition. You can learn to read and write Egyptian hieroglyphs in a matter of hours, not years. The big surprise is the language that unlocks hieroglyphs is not Coptic, but Coelbren (Welsh).
Most people think this is terrible, and it is.
However. most people also think this is a recent occurrence. They / we think the history we learned was the correct history. It wasn't. This shit has been going on for a very long time. They are just being made to put it in the sheeple's faces in such an outrageous manner to expose what they have been doing.
The cope is legendary