There is a widespread false idea that, due to intraracial contact, people within the same geno-cultural group are their own arch rivals. The idea lacks basis in reality, it may seem sensible considering the fact that today most issues between people is within their community. The downfall of his idea is also banded with what makes it seem plausible. Why they are tied in is simple, even though most issues are intra-community, the most major thread is ALWAYS external, outside groups have little or no vested interest in recovering the destruction they made and 99 times out of 100 lump all different members of the opposing group in the same basket.
Infighting and criminality exists in all communities but the white media narrative has attempted to paint what is normal as abnormal for black people. Afrikan people keep falling for the tricks, soft power is something we fail to understand, how to harness it, how it is used against us. The soft power of the media has convinced many that black-on-black violence and wars in Afrika are proof that we will always be our own worst enemy, entirely inaccurate but incredibly useful in the brainwashing process. Black people fight black people, black gangs fight black gangs, black poverty concentrates around poor black people, black people don’t trust black people. All these statements may be true but this is due to our proximity to each other, positive things also correlate with our proximity. Black people who own businesses employ black people, black people marry black people, black people enjoy black peoples’ companionship, black people live around black people. If we are a community, despite how disjointed we are, there will always be good and bad things that correspond with out closeness. Propinquity means kinship, in terms of interpersonal relationships propinquity has a heavy effect via both community and physical neighbours. Due to propinquity people will always be attached to those they are related to, especially socially, in socialisation people can be positive and negative (social and anti-social). There is a stark difference between black vs black problems and non-black hatred of us, which is called Negrophobia.
Much of our infighting as Amos Wilson pointed out was originally due to consciousnesses placed within us that were of a Negrophobic root, not originally Afrikan. These behaviours such as black street gangs and mainstream rap culture serve non-Afrikan, specifically European agendas. It is correct to class these behaviours as non-Afrikan, but the former participants many times see the terrible abuse of them and their community once they mature and leave the culture and the inserted consciousness behind. The problem that needs to be solved in this aspect is not to a wholesale removal of the children but for black adults to address this issue head on, there is some evidence that this has occurred in certain countries such as America where the crime rate dropped significantly in no small part due to community based work from black people on the ground. The black murder rate in America reduced drastically over the last 25 years. But the ultimate way to defeat these anti-Afrikan consciousnesses is to attack them head on by creating our own media that can dismiss the temptations on the youth by non-Afrikan controlled media, which has a grip of both working and middle class black children. The other thing which we must observe is continuing the Afrikan traditional spiritual basis for divine hatred of our enemies so as we do not get caught up by the ‘good white person’ or ‘good Japanese person’ whose job is to open the floodgates to the ‘bad ones’. This belief helped many Afrikans free themselves from enslavement without white ‘abolitionists’ who would curb their freedom and power eventually as we did see with Afrikans who were freed and never created maroon territories.
Bare in mind these statistics are over 30 years old, 1985 is before the incarceration rates exploded, this also explains why black downward mobility for black middle class children is fairly common.
One of the primary problems with this is that Afrikans have failed to study successful techniques from our own past as well as what others have done to reach where they are at. Conflict within groups has always existed but never would you here a European say ‘white people are their worst enemy’, they understand identity, it’s importance in building power and how to USE infighting to progress. Europe has been the most violent area to live on the planet until 1945 as small peninsula with little resources, low availability to resources that can preserve food and an intensely warlike culture across the region. Europe struggled with mass slavery from the Roman era onward, pouring millions out of Europe due to slavery where the word slave comes from; Slavic people, going through economic and governmental instability with hoards from Central Asia constantly invading, plagues Justinian reign onwards (Byzantine empire), little power over trade routes, how did these people fix this? They looked at how Afrikans thrived during the ancient period, Kamit, Khanit, Tjehenue, Garamante, major Afrikan civilizations who were governed by Afrikan spirituality and a sense of oneness. The removal of the Afrikan spiritual system led to their downfall and the eventual migration of modern Niger-Congo, Bantu, Nilotic and Cushtic populations Westward and further South from North, Northeast Afrika and the Middle East.
The indigenous Afrikans viewed each other with equality. Though they waged war with one another and viewed each others’ nations as foreign there is a concept of Afrikan nationalism. Afrikan nationalisms’ first occurrence on the world scene, way before Marcus Garvey, was in the ancient epoch. The Afrikans always viewed non-Afrikan peoples as complete outsiders, never as family, never as friends and only as enemies. This can easily be observed in Ancient Kamit, which sprung about as the offspring of Lower Khanit. Kamit in times of Asiatic invasion sought to make alliances and help with other Afrikans, especially their predecessors in Kush. The Egyptians viewed Asiatics as inferior, dirty and their arch nemeses, understanding the Afrikan geno-cultural group and the incessant war between members of this group as not been their permanent enemies but a result of propinquity.
‘Far from being a cultural and geographic backwater, the Kushite 25th Dynasty created one of the largest empires along the Nile in ancient and medieval times. A dynasty of charismatic Kushite kings assumed Egyptian titles and postures for over a century. Their sovereignty over Egypt was acknowledged by the Egyptians, all while retaining their own unique identities. The Kushites not only united a previously fragmented Egypt, which had slid into political and economic decline, but reinvigorated Egyptian material culture with a blend of their own distinctive characteristics with Egyptian prototypes.’ Why did the Kushites, historical opponents of the Kamiti people restore their nation and the pristine form of their religion? Simple, they were related peoples, they helped each other in times of need and when Kamit was invaded by IMA’s many of Kamit’s people fled to Khanit. Other invaders who were Kamit’s and Afrikans’ worst enemies, they tried to corrupt and demolish the religion, such as the Hyksos, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans, these people led to the mass emigration of Afrikans away from Egypt, not the Kushites or Tjehenue aka Libyans (who had conquered Kamit too).
‘Long before the rise of classical maritime trade and Islamic trans-Saharan trade, Nubia provided the ancient Egyptians acces to the interior of Africa, and was therefore an economically strategic area – whoever controlled the middle Nile area, controlled the flow of goods from the south. Moreover, the lands of Kush contained vast mineral resources and good quality stone for building and sculpture. To the Egyptians, the greatest appeal was ivory, and the gold mines in the Wadi el Allaqi and Wadi Gabgaba. Thus, serving to focus the attention of Egyptian rulers southwards for millennia.’ The Egyptians were from the interior of Afrika, this IMA nonsense that they promote; Kamit was only interested in Afrika for resources, is them trying to project their reason for been in Afrika on the Anceint Egyptians. It is well known that Kamit was conservative and mostly conquered areas that were populated by related peoples.
‘In commemorative monuments of the Egyptian pharaohs, Kushites were referred to as “vile” and the land of Kush was known as “Wretched Kush”‘. This shows that the regional rivalry for power was heated and filled with emotions, no less similar than the history between England and France.
‘After the consolidation of power after the defeat and expulsion of the foreign Hyksos kings from Egypt, attention was once again focused south, with the Egyptian monarchs determined to take over full control of Nubia. The Kushite Kingdom was crushed by Thutmosis I and Thutmosis III during the New Kingdom. This occupation was done in pure colonial style, by the imposition of direct rule in the form of an Egyptian viceroy for the next five hundred years. Egyptian occupation left a permanent impression on the Kushites, with the inhabitants becoming increasingly acculturated and Egyptianized.’ Why did they expel the Hyksos out of Afrika but not the Libyans or Kushites? How much of a threat were Asiatics compared to fellow Afrikans in the minds of the Egyptians? The IMA author of this piece claims Kush was culturally conquered by Egypt as an excuse for the entwined religion and culture of the people when in reality Egypt was a child of Kush.
‘During the late 20th Dynasty, Egypt sustained persistent incursions from the Sea People, and the Libyan tribes from the Western desert, such as the Mesh-Wesh and the Libu. The Egyptians ultimately defeated the invaders but, during the final years of the Twentieth Dynasty, the country fell into a state of steady decline. The Libyans, especially the Mesh-Wesh had gradually filtered into Egypt, where they were hired as mercenaries in the Egyptian army. Later, they succeeded in accumulating considerable authority within the Egyptian power structure.’ During times of weakness Kamit was susceptible to other Afrikans gaining power, but they ACCEPTED their rule.
‘Due to the growing military and political efficiency of the Libyan settlers towards the end of the New Kingdom, the Libyan chiefs were able to secure positions of local influence, as they had been rewarded with land for their services and were promoted to high positions within the government. The initial decentralization of government during the 21st Dynasty also contributed to the growth of provincial power bases. As a result, local dynasties of Libyan chieftains, the descendants of the settlers of the Late New Kingdom, were able to increase their autonomy. Consequently, a number of principalities developed, each based at an important town, and at each strategic point controlled by a Libyan chief.’ Tjehenue people, Libyans restoring power in Egypt, maintaining traditional values too.
‘Under the Bubastid Dynasty, Egypt was united once again, and the title “Lord of Two Lands” once more applied to the ruler. The reunited Egyptian empire developed into a strong political and military power. However, after nearly a century of stability, new generations of Libyan commanders sprang up in the important administrative and religious centres, each vying for a piece of the crown. The successors of the 22nd Dynasty tried to unify the realm, but the regrowth of the provincial power bases increasingly weakened royal control, and once again led to the division of the country.’ Maintenance of the Afrikan traditions in Kamit by Libyans broke down over jealously and vying for power, same thing in Afrika during 18th century European imperialism. Infighting without seeing and preparing for a larger oncoming problem is a recipe for disaster.
‘The Kushite Dynasty comprised of some forty kings ruling in succession from the vicinity of Napata, hence the designation “Napatan” to describe this time period. The initial kings, buried in the el Kurru cemetery near Napata, were shadowy figures originating from murky origins that have been lost to time. The first king mentioned by name and known only from later texts is Alara. His descendants invoked his name as the founder of the royal dynasty of Kush in their royal inscriptions, most likely as a means of conferring legitimacy to their own reigns. Not much is known about Alara himself, and it is postulated that he was possibly the brother of Kashta, a better attested Kushite king, and successor to the Kushite throne. Congruently, Kashta’s successors also recorded his name in their inscriptions as the founder of the Kushite Empire extending from Upper Egypt to Butana. This tantalizing claim is maintained by three artifacts, which record his name in a royal cartouche (the Egyptian convention of designating royalty in written form): a fragment of an offering table, a stela fragment from Elephantine, and a metal aegis with counterweight. On the stela, Kashta claimed to be the “King of Upper and Lower Egypt… Son of Re, Lord of the Two Lands”. This traditional Egyptian royal epithet referred to the union of Upper and Lower Egypt in the early Dynastic Period, and was still utilized by the Kushite kings centuries after the Kushite occupation of Egypt had ended.’ Which of the Eurasian invaders did likewise? None, the Kushites were not even classed as invaders like Asiatics, they reinstituted many ancient customs in Kamit.
‘It is not known whether this incursion into Egypt was an aggressive undertaking or peaceful undertaking on Kashta’s part. Torok (1995:50) has put forward a possibility that Kashta was encouraged by some elite Theban citizens to come to Upper Egypt, and offered him kingship of Egypt (this is not a rare event and is attested to more recently in the Glorious Revolution in England). Kashta’s claim to the Egyptian throne is evidenced on the iconography of the counterweight. Here, Kashta is depicted as being suckled by the goddess, Mut. Known to scholars as the “allaiment royal”, this scene was employed exclusively by the Egyptian rulers in their enthronement rites and legitimization of kingship.’ Further proof of the idea of equality amongst Afrikans. When did the Egyptians view the Greeks rulers as legitimate enough to have such treatment? Obviously the Nubians having such a close relation ancestrally had overlapping worship of Afrikan Gods and could easily adopt from each other without merging it with some other irrelevant pseudo-deity. Even the most Eurocentric ‘scholars’ acknowledge that rulers from South of Kamit were viewed as legitimate by the Kamiti but those from across the Mediterranean were not.
‘Not only did the new Kushite rulers have political bonds with Egypt, they enthusiastically revived the religious, intellectual, and cultural achievements of the Egyptians. “Piye’s successors left behind many constructions in Egypt, especially in the Theban region, where they renovated and enlarged existing temples, and built new structures of a smaller size” (Brooklyn Museum, 1978: 45). The vision and undertakings of these rulers in Nubia and Egypt exhibit the features of a renaissance after a long period of stagnation. In this case, due to the dissolution of a centralized Egyptian state at the end of the New Kingdom.’ The renaissance led by fellow Afrikans, who else would do this wholehearted for their ‘worst enemy’?
Bes a popular God in Ancient Egypt and in Ancient Nubia, though it is claimed that Bes came from Punt by the Kamiti people in Medu Neter, Bes is also proven to have been worshipped in the Old Kingdom period right at the start of Kamit’s dynastic period. These two fact prove one another with the fact it is from one site of the Kamitic ancestral home Punt and also with the relation of Ta-Seti (Kush) and Upper Kamit. A shared deity.
Ausar the male aspect of the deity of the afterlife, native Kamiti God he also governs the ‘black lands’, including of the fertile Nile valley as opposed to Set who is in charge of (‘red lands’ red clay and sand). This particular statue of Ausar is from the Ptolemaic period 305 BC to 30BC. This shows effectively that as close as 2000 years ago Negroid features were common in North Afrika. Afrikans of course still live in Egypt, especially the South but this additionally dismisses the foolish propaganda that Niger-Congo peoples were rarely in north of the Sahara back then. His name was bastardised as Osiris by the Greeks and Isis is the corruption of Auset his female companion.
Osiris-Antinous, a pseudo-deity a fake God made by Hadrian and the Greco-Roman geno-culture. Antinous was a faggot who was in a homosexual relationship with Roman emperor Hadrian from the age of 12, a paedophile or a white historians and Eurocentrists like to call him a pederast. He died, drowned in the Nile in 130 AD, he was made a false deity by Greco-Romans and Hadrian created a city Antinoopolis in his remembrance as well as flooding into Kamit from Europe (particularly Greece) to fill the city. He was the made a hybrid God with Ausar aka ‘Osiris’ due to his drowning in the Nile. Fake deity not shared with Kamit by Europeans and also showing historical precedent for pushing a paedophilia and queer agenda by the European geno-culture even before Christianity.
‘When the Egyptians conquered northern Sudan (Kush/”Upper Nubia”) in the early Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1504 BCE), they identified Jebel Barkal as the birthplace and chief southern residence of their state god Amun. As part of their program of conquest, they established the cult of Amun in many places in Nubia, but Jebel Barkal seems to have had a unique importance for them as a creation site and home of a primeval aspect of Amun who renewed life each year with the Nile inundation. Beneath the Jebel Barkal cliff the Egyptians constructed a major religious center and gave it the same name as Karnak (Ipet-Sut), Amun’s great sanctuary at Thebes, some 1250 km downriver (fig. 2). The Egyptians called the hill variously Dju-Wa’ab (“Pure Mountain”) and Nesut-Tawy (“Thrones of the Two Lands.”) (which in Dynasty 25 and the Napatan Period sometimes became Neset-Tawy [“Throne of the Two Lands”]). The settlement which grew up around it they called Napata, which became the southernmost town in their African empire.’ The Egyptians themselves viewed Nubia as the homeland of some of their Gods and Goddesses, this shows their religion was tied together. This was ‘Holy Land’ as far as the ancient Afrikans were concerned. This attests to Nubia been the homeland of Amun and Amunet. Amun is the Supreme Being along with Amunet the female side of the Supreme Being, Afrikans were and still are traditional animatism polytheism and were not gender supreme but correlating with each feature in nature. The failure to speak on Amun and Amunet is due pseudo-Kamiticism which is passed down by those who are not involved in Afrikan ancestral religion but attempt blacken up Eurocentric work.
‘Jebel Barkal’s most distinctive feature is the colossal free-standing pinnacle on the south corner of its cliff (fig. 3). This towering monolith, unparalleled in the Nile Valley, was anciently perceived as a gigantic natural statue with many overlapping identities: a rearing uraeus serpent, a phallus, a squatting god (or several), and, depending on the direction from which it was seen, a vague human form crowned with a sun disk or a White Crown – or perhaps even a Red Crown or Double Crown. Most conspicuously in public art it was interpreted as a uraeus, wearing the tall, knobbed White Crown (fig. 4). Because the uraeus, worn on the front of the the king’s crown, was the primary symbol of Egyptian kingship, and because the White Crown was the symbol of royal hegemony over Upper Egypt (or “the South”), the pinnacle on Jebel Barkal apparently “proved” to the Egyptians that the mountain was an original source of their “Upper Egyptian” kingship and that this kingship, granted by Amun of Jebel Barkal, included all of Kush.’ The Egyptians claiming this is where their royalty came from, Upper Nubia, the very base of Kush itself. Crazy that Eurocentrics claim the Kushite people were viewed as inferior and as foreign as Asiatics.
Pinnacle of Jebel Barkal with remains of the temple to Amun-Amunet. ‘The pinnacle on the south corner of Jebel Barkal, nearly 75 m high from ground level. The ancient Egyptians and Kushites imagined this natural formation, among other things, as a giant statue of a uraeus, and thus, from Dynasty 18, identified the mountain as an important source of kingship.’
‘Shortly after 1100 BCE the Egyptians were forced to withdraw from Kush, leaving Jebel Barkal and Napata politically adrift. Although at present there is no specific evidence linking the two events, it seems difficult not to suspect that the Egyptian loss of Jebel Barkal contributed in some way to the unprecedented political situation that developed in Egypt during the Third Intermediate Period, in which the Amun priesthood at Thebes effectively denied most of the reigning pharaohs of Dynasties 21-23 their Upper Egyptian royal authority.’ But IMA’s want Afrikans to believe that the Egyptians viewed Nubians unfavourably. This even shows that fellow Afrikans the Libyans were not regarded a legitimate in comparison to Nubia which is an direct ancestor to Kamit and had an even closer relationship with them.
‘By the eighth century BCE a family of local Nubian chiefs restored the Jebel Barkal Amun cult and sanctuary and established Napata as the center of an independent kingdom of Kush. Reviving and promoting the New Kingdom royal myths, rituals and propaganda, which were apparently still widely remembered, they claimed Amun of Jebel Barkal as their divine father; they claimed the New Kingdom pharaohs as their “ancestors;” and they declared themselves heirs of the revived kingship of Upper Egypt and Kush, which had not existed since the New Kingdom.’ I’m yet to see any evidence of non-Afrikans claiming the Egyptians as their ancestors, clear sign of kinship, clear sign of their sense of equality, clear evidence of their acceptance by the priesthood of Kamit also showing religious continuity.
Non-Afrikans have endeavoured to hide this aspect of Afrikans interrelatedness and our early relations were strictly with each other prior to the arrival of IMA’s from Central Asia. The claim of Kamit only looking for resources in Afrika is a fraud that has run amok now and must be dispelled.
‘Because, of course, ancient place names do not always, if even often, make it through the ages to our modern era, they frequently become problematic to our study of ancient times. Even within Egypt, we often have problems identifying from ancient texts various cities and sites. More difficult even then this is perhaps the places outside of Egypt to which the Egyptians refer to in their texts. The Land of Punt, for example, has never been positively identified, though various Egyptologists seem to have strong opinions about its location. Another region, featured in Egypt’s oldest narrative of foreign travel dating to the 23rd century BC, is that of Yam. Apparently, Yam was a transfer point for trade with the Sudan and other african regions and a source of tropical precious wood and ivory.’ Ta-Seti (Land of the Bow) aka Kush and Ta-Nteru (Land of the Ancestors) aka Punt are the only lands mentioned by non-Afrikans in relation to Kamit but judging by the excerpt from the Old Kingdom Kamit was deeply involved further inland, not only that it wasn’t only for trade.
‘This account was recorded on the tomb facade of Harkhuf, the governor of Elephantine, who recorded his adventures during the 6th Dynasty. He traveled, not once, but four times to yam, leading an expedition apparently into Nubia south of Egypt. These visits were made for trade, using donkey caravans in which Egyptian goods were exported and traded for those of Yam. On one journey, we are told that some 300 asses brought back “incense, ebony…leopard skins, elephant tusks and boomerangs”.’
‘The third expedition to Yam by Harkhuf was slightly different in nature from the first two that the governor had conducted. Harkhuf does not mention the duration of this expedition, but says that he took the “Uhet road”. Trade was probably the initial purpose of this expedition. Nevertheless, when he arrived in Yam, he discovered “the chief of Yam going to the land of Temeh to smite Temeh as far as the western corner of heaven.”
For one reason or another, Harkhuf decided that the action of the “chief of Yam” was not suitable, and decided to interfere in the affairs of Yam. Perhaps he was aware that Yam would be no match for Temeh, or that a stronger Yam would be a threat to Egypt, or Temeh was one of Egypt’s trade partners as well. Whatever the reason(s), Harkhuf “went forth after him to the land of Temeh and I pacified him, until he praised all the gods for the king’s sake.” Harkhuf used diplomacy, rather than military might to pacify the chief of Yam.’ International diplomacy first practised between these Afrikans to prevent calamities, Egypt intervening before Yam (a nation of peoples in Nubia) were able to wage war on Temeh (Libya).
‘The soldiers of Yam are also attested in a text known as the Autobiography of Weni, which belonged to another court official of the 6th Dynasty. In this text, the soldiers of Yam served as mercenaries during the pharaoh’s war against the “Asiatic sand-dwellers”,
“When his majesty took action against the Asiatic sand-dwellers, his majesty made an army of many tens of thousands from all of Upper Egypt: …; from Lower Egypt: …; and from Irtjet-Nubians, Medja-Nubians, Yam-Nubians, Wawat-Nubians, Kaau-Nubians; and from Tjemeh-land.” ‘ Information on Afrikan groups practising Afrikan Nationalism against Asiatics, Afrikans from Kamit, Nubia and Libya combining to drive out Asiatic invaders to the Negev. None of this information is hidden, IMA’s, East Asians and other groups who have operated against other geno-cultures in such a manner will not advertise this information as it would expose how Afrikans conducted ourselves in ancient times when we were under the law of Afrikan spirituality.
‘His most famous trip to Yam, and the one which appears to have pleased his young master, King Pepi II, the most, was his fourth. This time, he obtained a pygmy (deng), which caused the boy-king of Egypt to write a feverishly excited letter to the returning governor, ordering him to bring the pygmy immediately and safely to Memphis, the royal capital at that time. His instructions were to:
“Come northward to the court immediately; […] thou shalt bring this dwarf with thee, which thou bringest living, prosperous and healthy from the land of spirits, for the dances of the god, to rejoice and [gladden] the heart of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Neferkare, who lives forever. When he goes down with thee into the vessel, appoint excellent people, who shall be beside him on each side of the vessel; take care lest he fall into the water. When he sleeps at night appoint excellent people, who shall sleep beside him in his tent, inspect ten times a night. My majesty desires to see this dwarf more than the gifts of Sinai and of Punt. If thou arrivest at court this dwarf being with thee alive, prosperous and healthy, my majesty will do for thee a greater thing than that which was done for the treasurer of the god Burded in the time of Isesi, according to the heart’s desire of my majesty to see the dwarf.”
So Harkhuf was apparently richly rewarded for his efforts by the young Pharaoh, but this passage also points out that Harkhuf was perhaps not the first Egyptian to visit Yam, but other sources also appear to show the importance of Yam during Egypt’s Old Kingdom. In fact, Yam was not always considered to be on such friendly terms as Harkhuf’s account might imply. It was included among other Nubian lands in the “Execration Texts”, inscribed on figures of bound enemies deposited in cemeteries and elsewhere to abort or prevent, through magic, any attack upon or resistance to Egypt. And even though it was remote enough that its ruler did not have to formally submit to the Egyptian King as did other Nubian rulers, at times Yam sent men for Egyptian ordered labor and military levies.’ This demonstrates that Kamit’s Old Kingdom was solely tied to Afrika, they only explored where Afrikans lived, claimed these areas for religious reasons ‘thou bringest living, prosperous and healthy from the land of spirits’. This also confirms the religious importance of Pygmies in Afrika who only recently have become outcasts due to corruption from invading IMA’s and the consciousnesses they imposed. The sporadic violence between Afrikan groups over regional dominance is decidedly different from the confrontations with outside groups. The infighting was to decide who had the most political clout among Afrikans, fighting outside groups was to expel them and assault their presence which was deemed as divisive. The nearby peoples Kamit fought with had prior relations to them, but the Asiatics were constantly infringing on Kamit’s territory and had no close relation to them they were roving criminals who constantly replaced one another on Egypt’s boarders or invading their lands. The Sea Peoples, Hyksos, Hittites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans were coming one after the other almost as replacements for each other, vying to invade and subdue Kamit. None re-establishing pure Afrikan ancestral religion, geopolitics and geno-culture show that these people were not viewed in anywhere the same light as Nubia and Tjehenue.
Map of where these nations mentioned by Kamit’s Old Kingdom my be. This is in no way accurate as basically all of these nations other than Kush have not been found via archaeology. It should be obvious to those who want the truth and knowledge from ancestors know IMA’s will not bother to figure out where these places are as this would refute their lies about the people of Afrika and our role in history.
The same can be seen in the history of the geno-culture from across the Mediterranean which formulated towards the end of the Ancient Northeast Afrikan one. Europeans had fought wars amongst themselves for control over the group’s power. The Greeks amongst themselves, the Greeks colonising much of Eurasia and even parts of North Afrika around the Mediterranean in the ‘archaic’ era, the Romans arising after them following in their footsteps openly declaring they were culturally colonised by the Greeks and helping to maintain Greek culture in Greece and fusing at an overall level to influence all Europeans. The Romans were then followed by the Völkerwanderung when Germanic tribes conquered Western and Southwestern Europe and took the mantle on from Rome, as well as Slavs and other Central Asians in Eastern Europe who would go on to claim Rome via Byzatine including the Muslim Ottomans. Rome in it’s finale did what Nubia did to Kamit, it attempted to resurrect the Greeks (but in their case) to slow their decline, they re-founded Constantinople which became the Byzantine Empire which took over the Orthodox East of Europe and much of the Middle East. This is where the Western Catholic Church stems from and Eastern Orthodox Church comes from. The Germanics and Slavs effectively displace or absorbed previous white and non-white populations throughout in Europe to make modern Europeans.
Archaic Greek colonies, by the end of the archaic era of Greek society. this is not fully accurate, Naucratis for example, in Lower Kamit was granted by corrupt Kamiti Pharoah Amasis II to contain the presence of Greeks in Northern Egypt, especially since they had begun in Cyrenia next door in Tjehenue’s terrain. The previous Pharoah Apries brought in Greek mercenaries but was later. This in the 26th dynasty AFTER Nubain control, showing corruption and out of place dealings helped these other groups set up shop.
Roman and Greeks wars with one another, demonstrate Rome allowed Greek independence several times but it caused a lack of piece due to their weakness. Eventually Rome colonised Greece but came to acquire Greek cultural traits. This shows wars between members of the same geno-culture since ancient times was different from all out colonisation and subjugation we see with Rome in parts of Asia, Northern Europe and in Afrika.
‘Ultimately, the Germanic groups in the Western Roman Empire were accommodated without “dispossessing or overturning indigenous society” and maintained a structured and hierarchical (albeit attenuated) form of Roman administration. Ironically, they lost their unique identity as a result of this accommodation and were absorbed into Latinhood.’ Germanic invaders at adopting Romance languages and culture, Western Europe and creation of European geno-culture.
‘The Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin from around 895, and the Viking Expansion from the late 8th century conventionally mark the last large movements of the period. Christianity gradually converted the non-Islamic newcomers and integrated them into the medieval Christian order.’ Showing the conceiving of a the European Christian geno-culture, these same peoples would go on to fight the white Islamic geno-culture during much of the Crusades, and show an early fine example their idea of oneness in comparison to outsiders. This did not stop the discord and friction between nation and city-states in Europe or between Eastern and Western Europe but did show they did have concept of a super-culture like the Greco-Romans before them. The views of Muslims and Afrikans in Europe during the Medieval period in Europe expose deep seated difference between their concept of themselves and these groups, showing it is much, much older than their period of global colonialism.