The truth about Etruria

...

Though most Dravidian Albinos left Central Asia for Europe from ancient times: due to Mongol pressure and/or a desire for better lands. Some Dravidian Albinos remained in Central Asia, their descendants are clearly visible there today.

Note: we do understand that the average person - after a lifetime of the Albino lie that they (Albinos) are native to the Black Mans Ancient Home of Europe - finds this material hard to believe. So, under the heading of: "Strange Bedfellows" We have this quote from the "Race Experts" at "STORMFRONT:"
Quote: Today's Central Asians are extensively mixed-race with both White and East Asian blood and the White element is older since the Whites were there first and are the indigenous people of Central Asia.

lol this guy

As you ponder what this admission means, you might also consider what nonsense like this means:

If you Google "Where do White people come From" the second result that you will get is this Livescience article; (the first result is Stormfront - go ahead and read it for a laugh).

Why Did People Become White?
Heather Whipps, September 01, 2009

QUOTE: Vitamin D plays an important role in bone growth and the body's natural protection against certain diseases, and the inability to absorb enough in areas of less-powerful sunlight would have decreased life expectancies in our African ancestors. The further north they trekked, the more vitamin D they needed and the lighter they got over the generations, due to natural selection.

Also: While people of all skin types have the ability to produce the same amount of vitamin D in their systems, “highly pigmented (Black) people will need to stay in the sun around 6 times longer than light people in order to synthesize the same amount of vitamin D,” Juzeniene said, and a lack of the vitamin — something occurring among many American children right now, partly because they don't get out much — can make humans more susceptible to everything from heart disease to internal cancers.

That is of course "Pure" lie:

In the last century, cases of Rickets (often caused by lack of Vitamin D) was epidemic in Europe and North America. So much so, that they had to start adding Vitamin D in the manufacture of their Milk, Cereals, Cheeses, and such. This was NOT done for Blacks - who don't need it, it was done for Albino people, who desperately needed it.

THE REASON FOR SUCH RIDICULOUS STATEMENTS AND LIES IS THIS:

If Africans went into Europe circa 45,000 B.C. and STAYED Black.

Then modern Europeans MUST have ALWAYS been WHITE!
i.e. ALBINOS!

HOWEVER! Just as one group of Albino people had decided to admit that they came from Central Asia, and had ALWAYS been White, and thus derived from Dravidian Albinos. Other groups were pressing ahead with new lies to buttress European claims of being Black Africans who turned White because of Vitamin D deficiency. But these new claims have a twist, one would suppose to keep up with the times.

The "Supposed" New research is reported by YahooNews.com from LiveScience. Link to the on-line Newsstory

And the Daily Mail U.K. online. Link to the on-line Newsstory

Nature - International weekly Journal of science (no comment) also carried the story. Link to on-line Newsstory

The LiveScience Headline says: 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene

And the Daily Mail U.K. Headline says: Light skin in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor who lived between India and the Middle East, claims study

The reason for these nonsensical proclamations is THIS, as summed up by LiveScience:
An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed. The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.

...

This drawing depicting a "Dark White Man" is of course the typical Albino falsification of history and science. The fact is that YOU CAN NOT do a Forensic Facial Reconstruction by "DRAWING" it! Making a facial reconstruction can "ONLY" be done by a doctor of physical and forensic anthropology with extensive training in anatomy (both medical and artistic). These facial reproductions draw on the science behind the morphology (shape) of the face as well as a knowledge of materials. Reconstructions start with a SKULL (or mold) and includes laboriously using "shaped" clay to fill-in for Muscles and tissue (including skin) on the skull until it is complete. Only after this process is complete, can you see what the individual might have looked like.

...

Lets take those points individually
. Hunter-gatherers, some of them blue-eyed, who came from Africa more than 40,000 years ago
They would have looked like THIS:

Middle Eastern farmers who migrated west much more recently
They would have looked like THIS:

Here is a link to the actual study (pdf).

The La Brana skeleton's haplogroup was reported as Mtdna U5: (the same as 12,700 year old Cheddar Man in England, and some in the 3,000 year old Lichtenstein Cave in Lower Saxony, Germany).

Dienekes reports the Y-haplogroup as Y-dna C6. That however is not confirmed, but if true, it relates La Brana in Spain to Australian aborigines, the Lani and Dani people of Western New Guinea (100% & 92%), as well as many other Pacific Islanders and Asians.

NOTABLE QUOTE FROM THE STUDY:

Pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome. The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n5=112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n5=113). This pattern confirms that the La Brana 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions.

[The Yoruba people are an ethnic group of southwestern Nigeria and southern Benin in West Africa].

THEN THERE IS THIS!

...

Egyptians, Sumerians, Mohenjo-daroans, Harappans, and Cretans, Elamites, and Nubians, were literate 3,000 years, 4,000 years, who knows how many thousands of years, before the world ever heard of Greeks or Romans. And there is ample evidence of their literacy.
Yet there is not one single entry: describing any of the people of their times, whether it be friends, foes, or invaders: or even more incredulously, there is not one single entry describing invading Whites in any of their literature.
Contrast that with Greek and Roman writings, in which these NEWLY literate people, after suffering through the "Dark ages" caused by the Albinos invasion, describe EVERYTHING and EVERYONE - except themselves!
These discrepancies are of course, not accidental, nor for lack of material. Hopefully, the White man has simply withheld this material, and not destroyed it.

Etruria is probably the best example: aside from Britain; of the White Mans attempts at creating a false history for himself, and in that process, obliterating actual history. In its traditional foundation myth, Romulus and Remus are Rome's twin founders . They are descendants of the Trojan prince and refugee Aeneas, and are fathered by the god Mars or the demi-god Hercules on a royal Vestal Virgin, Rhea Silvia (also known as Ilia), whose uncle exposes them to die in the wild. They are found by a she-wolf who suckles and cares for them. The twins are eventually restored to their regal birthright, acquire many followers and decide to found a new city - Rome. The Romans are also known as Latin's: But the Latin's (or Latini, as they called themselves) were an "Original" people of ancient Italy. Quite different from the White invaders from Central Asia.

The most common hypothesis is that the Italic peoples migrated into the Italian peninsula from Central Asia, sometime during the Italian Bronze Age (ca. 1800-900 BC). The most likely route for the "so-called" Italic migration was from the Balkan peninsula along the Adriatic coast. But it is already accepted that the original Europeans were Black people (and no, they did not turn into White people because of vitamin D deficiency), Note People like the "Iceman" below, whose mitochondrial DNA belongs to the K1 subcluster of the mitochondrial haplogroup K, which appears abundantly in ancient North Africa. Also, the Latin's already existed in Italy BEFORE the White people we erroneously call Romans arrived - thus the people we call Romans could not have been italics either!

Logically then: if the people who were originally called Romans, are descendants of Black Anatolians (Troy), and if the other name that we know them by (Latin's) are a "Native" Black Italian people: then just WHO were the White people from Central Asia who usurped these names, and what name did they go by? In the process of creating their "False" history, Whites, as usual, destroyed the writings of the ancients (the last being the Etrusca Disciplina, the Etruscan books of cult and divination, which were collected and burned in the 5th century), and created "False" artifacts to backup their false historical claims. The stupid irony in all of this, is that not only have Whites wiped out the true history of the original Italians, they also wiped out their own history.

...

As is always the case with Europeanized history, there has always been an attempt by European Academics and researchers to establish a genetic link between modern White Europeans and Europe’s Original Black inhabitants. To that end, there has been no lack of Bogus and mis-attributed Artifacts, along with the requisite bogus history. But today, a new breed of researchers have taken the stage; a group less insecure and more honest - but still not completely honest: Though they present the data, they still present it in a confusing and obfuscating way, and they still can't seem to bring themselves to actually say it, i.e. The first Europeans were Black People and we are Albinos from Central Asia! Note the studies below: there must be some type of Phobia, peculiar only to White people.

As we know, there are three direct ways of entering Europe from Africa:

(1) Cross the Strait of Gibraltar and Enter in Spain, or Cross in Anatolia/Turkey (2) at the Bosphorus (now known as the Istanbul Strait) or (3) the Dardanelle's (formerly known as Hellespont).

We know that modern Africans (The Khoisan like Grimaldi) first entered Europe by way of the Strait of Gibraltar (circa 45,000 ya), because the oldest skeletons are found in nearby France/Monaco.

At about 7,500 ya, African FARMERS moved into Europe by way of Anatolia. These "NEW" Africans mixed with the Grimaldi Africans who were already there. Out of this mixture was born the modern Black European. For centuries, since they first "Usurped" rule in Europe, the Albinos have tried to convince the world that they are "Original" Europeans. It's a lie, and even their own scientists prove it.

The study goes on to say:

Various tests show that the Tuscans (see next study below) are the Etruscans’ closest neighbors in terms of genetic distances. Despite that broad similarity, however, Etruscans and Tuscans share only two haplotypes. This finding is difficult to interpret in the absence of data on any other European population of the pre-classical period. One possible interpretation is that all or most European populations of that time period were as different from their modern counterparts as the Etruscans appear to be. This would imply either extensive gene flow or a high rate of extinction of mitochondrial haplotypes, both processes causing a drastic change of the mitochondrial pool in the last 2,500 years. More importantly, a result of that kind would force us to reconsider the universally held assumption that patterns in the DNA of modern individuals reflect the evolutionary processes affecting their prehistoric ancestors. Alternatively, should other ancient populations prove similar to comparable modern ones, one should conclude that the Etruscans’ mitochondrial sequences underwent extinction at a particularly high rate and look for an explanation for that. Until more ancient DNA data become available, both scenarios will remain possible, although we favor the latter.

But then they go on to say obfuscating nonsense like this:

Etruscans show closer relationships both to North Africans and to Turks than any contemporary population. In particular, the Turkish component in their gene pool appears three times as large as in the other populations. (Note: The Turks are an Albino people from Asia - now heavily admixed with the indigenous Black people of Anatolia - who first entered the west in the 6th. century A.D, and later conquered Anatolia, then called the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire in 1453. Obviously what these liars are seeing is the genes of the original Black Anatolians - NOT the Turks!
(cont)

Albino scientists can't help but lie: because the alternative is to admit that they are Albinos, and invaders of Europe. So the say obfuscating things like this, see above: "Various tests show that the Tuscan's are the Etruscans’ closest neighbors in terms of genetic distances". The problem for them, is that they have no way to cross reference other studies to see if the author is furthering the Albino lies, or trying to tell the truth. In this case, there is another study debunking that lie.

Ancient Etruscans Unlikely Ancestors Of Modern Tuscans, Testing Reveals.

News story from the Science Daily — For the first time, Stanford university researchers have used statistical computer modeling to simulate demographic processes affecting the population of the Tuscany region of Italy over a 2,500-year time span. Rigorous tests used by the researchers have ruled out a genetic link between Ancient Etruscans, the original inhabitants of central Italy, and the region's modern day residents.

The findings indicate (as is obvious from the pictured artifacts), that the Ancient Etruscans had little in common with the people who later came to Italy, said Joanna Mountain, assistant professor of anthropological sciences. The findings as documented in ''Serial Coalescent Simulations” indicate a Weak Genealogical Relationship Between Etruscans and Modern Tuscans. The study was published May 15, 2006 in the online version of the National Academy of Sciences. Uma Ramakrishnan, a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow, and Elise M. S. Belle along with Guido Barbujani of the University of Ferrara in Italy, co-authored the paper with Mountain.

To date; the Etruscans are the only pre-classical European population that has been genetically analyzed, Mountain said. Two years ago, Italian geneticists extracted maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from the bones of 27 people called Etruscans found in six different necropolises (burial sites) in Tuscany. The female lineage was investigated because, unlike the male Y chromosome, many copies of mitochondrial DNA are found in each cell and thus are easier to extract, Mountain explained. The finding is important because it questions the common assumption that residents of a particular place are descendants of its earlier inhabitants, Mountain said.

So who, or more correctly, WHAT are these modern White people of Europe?

They are Albinos, many now admixed with the indigenous Black Europeans they found in Europe: and who they eventually conquered and exterminated: or shipped to the Americas. They originally left Africa with, and as the Albinos, of the Black Dravidians now in India. Physically the only difference between a Black Indian, and a European, is that the European has no, or little, "Melanin" in their skin. Simply looking at a Dravidian, and a Dravidian Albino, bears this out.

The Bhatti tribe of Pakistan still produces Albinos identical to the original Germanics (see their descriptions in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus). (Note: Pakistan was originally part of India).

"God laid down the Albinos in Scandinavia and said "Go forth and Multiply".

No word on how they got to Scandinavia, or where they came from, so obviously God just dropped them there!

This is totally in keeping with the various Albino founding myths:

First they were the original Europeans.

Then they were the original Black Europeans, but they turned White because they weren't getting enough vitamin "D".

When we said, that's nonsense, you're Albinos: they said that they're NOT Albinos because Albinos have "BAD EYESIGHT" and they don't. (They never explain why the Africans with "GOOD EYESIGHT" are still Albinos, but they aren't. (Shouldn't we call those many African Albinos who overwhelmingly have good eyesight "Europeans" or some such thing)?

Genetics clearly traces the Dravidians, and their Albinos, out of Africa, into India, and finally, into Europe. (The predominate Haplogroup of White/Albino Europeans is Y-dna Haplogroup "R").

Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)

In human genetics, Haplogroup R is a Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, a subgroup of haplogroup P, defined by the M207 mutation.

This haplogroup is believed to have arisen around 26,800 years ago, somewhere in Central Asia or South Asia, where its ancestor Haplogroup P is most often found at polymorphic frequencies. Cambridge University geneticist Kivisild et al. (2003) suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup:

Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.

The R haplogroup is common throughout Europe and western Asia and the Indian sub-continent, and in those whose ancestry is from within these regions. It also occurs in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Phoenicians
At around 700 B.C, the White Greeks settled on Malta, especially around the area where Valletta now stands. A century later; Phoenician traders, who used the islands as a stop on their trade routes from the eastern Mediterranean to Great Britain, (from where they obtained Tin, which when smelted with copper (from Cyprus) created the durable metal alloy bronze; Strabo states that there was a highly lucrative Phoenician trade with Britain for tin). They also joined the natives on the island. The Phoenicians inhabited the area now known as Mdina, and its surrounding town of Rabat, which they called Maleth. The later arriving Romans, who also lived in Mdina, referred to it (and the island) as Melita.

Cyrus the Great conquered Phoenicia in 539 B.C. After the fall of Phoenicia proper; the area came under the control of the Phoenician colony in North Africa called Carthage, (which was founded in 814 B.C, under Pygmalion, King of Tyre), it's remains are a suburb of Tunis in present-day Tunisia. During this time, the people on Malta mainly cultivated olives and carobs, and produced textiles.

During the First Punic War (wars with Rome) of 218 B.C, tensions led the Maltese people to rebel against Carthage and turn control of their garrison over to the Roman Republic consul Sempronius. Malta remained loyal to Rome during the Second Punic War and the Romans rewarded it with the title Foederata Civitas, a designation that meant it was exempt from paying tribute or the rule of Roman law, although at this time it fell within the jurisdiction of Sicilia province. Finally, in 146 B.C, after a third war with Rome, Carthage suffered total destruction. It was rebuilt as a Roman colony in 44 B.C. The ancient Phoenician language survived in use as a vernacular in some of the smaller cities of North Africa at least until the time of St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo (5th century A.D).

Having established the true race of the Etruscans, let us now learn about their civilization.
The Etruscans
Etruscans were members of the ancient civilization of Etruria, a country in what is now Italy. Their urban civilization is though to have started well before 800 B.C. But it's true beginnings cannot be ascertained, because their literature, especially the Etrusca Disciplina, the Etruscan books of cult and divination, were collected and burned in the 5th century A.D. by White Christian elements. Some say the Etruscans were originally pelasgians (the original people of Greece), some say that they were Phrygian migrants from Anatolia. But both of those theories seem to miss the fact that the entire area was inhabited by Black people, since about 45,000 B.C, when Grimaldi man first entered Europe. Therefore there is absolutely no reason why the Etruscans could not have evolved In situ.

...

If past behavior is any guide, the ridiculous dating of Etruscan civilization to 800-900 B.C, by White people, is in response to the Etruscans being scientifically proven to be Black people. That very late dating, would serve to make it seem that they were not truly "Ancient". The Etruscans called themselves "Rasenna" which was syncopated to Rasna or Raśna. Those that joined the "Sea People" exodus were known as the Tyrrhenians.

The Etruscan cities were large, and in all ways comparable to cities of the other great ancient civilizations. Etruscan state government, like others of those times, was a theocracy (the king was deified, and considered a god). Their religion employed elaborate cults and rituals.
Very little is known about their social and civic structure, except that their city-states weren't particularly unified. The heads of Etruscan cities, apparently at times, met to discuss military and political affairs. But apart from this, the Etruscans could be considered, as many ancient sources describe them, “duodecim populi Eturiae” or “the twelve peoples of Eturia”, (the twelve peoples, referring to the twelve major city-states).

...

And this is the end for my lesson today. I hope you have been awoken even more to the white fabrication of history.

I will be back tonight with another lesson. Probably more about the Etruscans.

Is this true?

Just ignore it. It's part of of a wave of tripfags who take memes like 'WE WUZ' way too seriously.

spread da TRUTH ma nigga

... this is way too elaborate to be a simple troll

Anyway, mandatory WE WUZ KANGS N SHEIT

Teach us about the black Nazis and the white washing of the third Reich bruddah! Looking forward to it!

Why isn't this troll banned yet?

>this is way too elaborate to be a simple troll
You underestimate NEETs.

I noticed about a week ago we started having an increasingly bad case of tripfags here on Veeky Forums or was it there before and Ì just didn't see it

I like this guy. He's trolling but there's a lot of truth. Europe (in fact the whole world) was settled by Africans originally who would have been dark skinned.

Modern Europeans do indeed come from Central Asia (i.e. Caucasians/Aryans/Indo-Europeans) and replaced the stone age Europeans (apart from the Basques) and aren't the indigenous population.

>Modern Europes do indeed coem from Central Asia
Isn't the most commonly accepted location of the urheimat in modern day Ukraine?