Weigan

The list goes on and on, and each and every so-called "invention" can be refuted in a similar manner, from the biscuit cutter (A. P. Ashbourne, 1875) to the "portable shield for infantry" (H. Spears, 1870). Anyone familiar with history should be aware that whites have been using devices to cut out biscuits long before A. P. Ashbourne, and I am sure that Roman soldiers from the first century never went into battle without a "portable shield for infantry." Michael Harney, another black, is credited with inventing the lantern. Why not credit him with inventing light or fire? Again, these claims are so ridiculous as to boggle the mind, yet many Americans blindly accept what they are being told as truth - white or black. What is worse, children are being taught these lies in schools supported by our tax money. There are also federally funded "black history" museums throughout the country spreading such lies. Even the claim that the mulatto George Washington Carver invented peanut butter is false. The truth is that early civilizations often crushed peanuts into paste and Civil War soldiers ate "peanut porridge." As far as modern peanut butter is concerned, a St. Louis physician encouraged a food company owner to produce and sell peanut butter in 1890 to individuals who had difficulty chewing food. The physician had experimented with grinding peanuts and recognized peanut paste to be highly nutritious. Bayle, the owner of the food company, sold peanut butter for 6 cents per pound. Additionally, the first patent for peanut butter was obtained by John Harvey Kellogg, another physician experimenting with sources of protein for his patients. George Washington Carver didn't even begin his "peanut research" until 1903. Most of the so-called black inventors are mulattos like George Washington Carver, and do not deserve to be called black anyway. Lies such as these are harmful not only to whites, but to blacks as well. Black children are armed with such flimsy lies which are easily torn down, and white children are taught to appreciate so-called "black culture" as being better than "white culture." White children are no longer allowed to be proud of their heritage, which is full of white men and women who have built nations, constructed civilizations, and who have contributed to a full history of art and science. While many of the claims stated above are almost comedic in their absurdity, it is no laughing matter when lies such as these are spread. Some promoters of so-called "black inventions" go so far as to claim that blacks created, among other things, civilization, chess, medicine, paper and the alphabet. Liars use the fact that early white civilizations created some of these things on the continent of Africa. Thus, they state that "Africans" invented all of these. While the geological identification may be correct in some instances, the race is certainly not. It is a well-known fact of history that Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and so on were white people who created their respective civilizations. Cleopatra was not black, and neither was Marc Antony. Both were very clearly white people who bore no resemblance to the blacks or mongrels we see in America today. Alexander the Great was a white man, though he may have visited the continent of Africa. The builders of the pyramids were certainly not kin to the mud-hut builders of the desert. Socrates, Hippocrates, Plato, and so on were also certainly not blacks. Even Ethiopia was once a nation of white people, ruled by white kings and queens, until only recently when the blacks took over. These are all facts of history and easily verifiable, especially when one has the ability to read the historians of the time, who were, once again, also white. Unfortunately, most of these great nations toppled in the wake of the plague of mongrelization, a story which has been repeated in every great nation founded by white men throughout history. All of these attempts to change history and discredit white culture are merely the beginning when it comes to the deviousness of the mongrel mind. Martin Bernal of Cornell University attempted to rewrite history over a decade ago with his books: Black Athena The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization 1: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785-1985 (London: Free Association Books. and New Brunswick: Rutgers University: 1987) and Black Athena 2: The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (London, Free Association Books; New Brunswick: Rutgers University:1991). Bernal's works attempted to credit black Africans with the creation of the Greek Civilization and therefore western civilization in general. The works were easily refuted by leading Classicists and experts, yet Bernal's "work" continues to garner unwarranted attention. Bernal's work consists of trying to prove an Egyptian-Phoenician influence on Greek Classical culture. Even if his interpretation of history were correct, which it is not, it is certainly not correct to state that the ancient Egyptian and Phoenician civilizations were created by Negroes. Bernal's books are simply extensions of an earlier work and an on-gong attempt to change the truth of history. In 1954, George G.M. James published a book entitled Stolen Legacy, which offers no proof for his claims of African influence on Greek philosophy. In one argument, he states: "[The Greeks] did not possess the native ability essential to the development of philosophy ... the Greeks were not the authors of Greek philosophy, but the Black people of North Africa, the Egyptians." Again, his claims that the Hellenists stole their philosophical ideas from the Africans are unfounded. Even more unfounded, however, is that the "Black people of North Africa" were the same creators of the Egyptian civilization. The builders of the pyramids and Egyptian rulers were most certainly white. Even Cleopatra was a Macedonian Greek, whose family went to extreme lengths to preserve their Greek racial line, even to the point of incest. Two other works have been written refuting Bernal's claims. The first, Not Out of Africa by Mary R. Lefkowitz easily discredits Black Athena. More recently, Black Athena Revisited, Edited by Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, offers over 500 pages of proof written by numerous scholars against "Afrocentrist" claims of the black creation of civilization. One popular claim is that Aristotle and Alexander raided the library at Alexandria (which is in Egypt) and that was where they stole their ideas from the Egyptian civilization and that Aristotle was black. This, of course, is utterly ridiculous for several reasons. First of all, the library at Alexandria was not built until at least 25 years after Aristotle's death. Secondly, this library was assembled by a Greek student of Aristotle, Demetrius, and contained books written almost entirely in Greek. Thirdly, the city of Alexandria, though located in Egypt, was by no means an "Egyptian" city. It was the ruling center of the Ptolemies, the Macedonian Greek family of which Cleopatra was a member. It was even designed by a Greek architect. The name of the city was, of course, taken from the Greek ruler, Alexander the Great. Even the colony of white Judeans living in Alexandria, which numbered over 1,000,000, were a Greek-speaking people, as recorded in Philo. The Bible says, "No lie is of the truth ... "no liar has eternal life" and "the lake of fire was created for all liars and all who help make a lie."

Black Innovation? Recently, it has become popular to spread yet even more misinformation, this time regarding black inventions. While history has proven that blacks have failed to contribute anything significant to the building of civilization, campaigns are spreading across America attempting to credit black "inventors" with certain inventions. One such campaign is promoted by IBM who offers a poster of "Famous Black Inventions." Included on this poster are pictures of blacks and their supposed inventions - including the traffic light. While the black Garrett A. Morgan did submit and receive a patent for a traffic signal in 1923, he did not invent the traffic light. The first "traffic light" was created in London in 1868, used to control the traffic of pedestrians and buggies. It was illuminated by gas using green and red colors, and was manually operated by policemen who turned a lever to reveal the appropriate color to the appropriate lane of traffic. Railroads were already using a lighting system as well. It was a police officer, William Potts, who first improved on the gas-light invention, which required a police officer to operate. William Potts recognized the need for something better when he observed that police officers were spending much of their time directing traffic after the invention of the automobile. He created an electric lighting system using red, amber, and green to control automobile traffic in Detroit. It was first used in 1920 and was the herald of the modern traffic light. William Potts was not black. Garrett A. Morgan's traffic light of 1923 did not contribute significantly to the traffic light of today, but resembled train switching lights already in use. When reading these lists of so-called inventions, which are especially prevalent on the Internet, it becomes painfully obvious the lies contained within those lists. These lists are especially popular on college campuses. Afrocentrism is the term used to describe the attempts to cover-up the truth of history by spreading lies which claim that the blacks of Africa actually created civilization. This ridiculous theory is being taught in many schools and even universities. Many college graduates think they are being intelligent when they state that without H. A. Jackson, we wouldn't have a kitchen table, which he "invented" on October 6, 1896. This is how ridiculous these lists have become. I am sure that the kitchen table was invented centuries ago, although I don't believe the blacks in Africa were furnishing their mud huts with kitchen tables. H.A. Jackson may have submitted an idea for a patent which was a special modification of the kitchen table, but he certainly did not invent it, and neither did his patent have any significance on the civilization of the world. This is also true for W. R. Davis, Jr., who is credited with inventing the library table - in 1878! What many are doing is obtaining patent lists of blacks and then attempting to pass them off as inventions. Most of what these people are doing is taking a certain invention, modifying it in some way, and then patenting that modification. In other words, they are not patenting original creations. Many are just outright lying. One list credits Sarah Boone, a female black, with the invention of the ironing board in 1892. White people were ironing clothes on ironing boards long before 1892. J. Standard, another black, is credited with inventing the refrigerator in 1891. Yet, the truth of history reveals this is another lie. William Cullen demonstrated the first known artificial refrigeration at the University of Glasgow in 1748. In 1805, Oliver Evans, an American, designed the first refrigeration machine, and in 1844, John Gorrie used this design to build a refrigerator which he used to cool the air for his patients suffering from yellow fever. This all happened well before J. Standard ever submitted his patent. Furthermore, the concept of refrigeration was known by whites long before the first artificial devices were ever created. The lists go on and on. One credits the invention of the two-stroke gasoline engine in 1950 and the internal combustion engine in 1958 to a black, Frederick M. Jones. The truth is that thermal engines were created as long ago as the 1600's by whites. Almost one hundred years before Frederick M. Jones, N. Otto developed the first successful four-stroke spark ignition gasoline engine in the 1870's. The same year, Dougald Clerk built the first successful two-stroke engine, which remains in use today. The first person to actually experiment with the internal combustion engine was a Dutchman, Christian Huygens, who did so in 1680. Most of the modern gasoline engines are descendants of Gottlieb Daimler's creation of 1885. For those who don't know this, Daimler was a German. Frederick M. Jones is also credited with the invention of the starter generator in 1949; however, electric ignitions had already been introduced in 1924. On the same note, another black, Andrew J. Beard, is credited with inventing the rotary engine in 1892. This is completely unfounded. The first practical rotary engine was created by a German, Felix Wankel, in 1927. On a lighter note, Lydia O. Newman, a black, is credited with inventing the hairbrush in the late 1800's, despite the fact that white women have been brushing their hair for centuries. Burridge and Marshman supposedly invented the typewriter in 1885, despite the fact that Remington and Sons had already been selling the typewriter since 1874, and the original machine was created in 1868 by Christopher Latham Sholes. The initial typewriter did not have lowercase letters, but the shift key of the Number 2 typewriter, manufactured by Remington in 1878, allowed for lowercase letters. Other claims include riding saddles, which were supposedly invented by W. D. Davis in 1895. Again, this is claimed despite the fact that riding saddles were in use long before 1895, primarily by whites. Another famous claim is that a black, Paul Williams, invented the helicopter. Again, a little research will prove this to be false. The fact is that no one person "invented" the helicopter. However, Leonardo da Vinci did pen down his own version of a helicopter long before Paul E. Williams was born. Furthermore, the first successful lift-off of a helicopter was accomplished in 1907 by a Frenchman, Paul Cornu, and Etienne Oehmichen, another Frenchman, was able to fly a helicopter 1 kilometer in 1924. This flight lasted 7 minutes and 40 seconds. From that moment, white engineers advanced and perfected the helicopter, and in 1937 the first practical helicopter was introduced. Not surprisingly, this first practical helicopter was a German creation - the Focke-Wulf Fw 61. Igor Sigorsky, a Russian, is credited with many innovations and record setting flights after this time which greatly enhanced helicopter engineering. Perhaps one of the most ridiculous claims is that a black, W. A. Lavallette, invented the printing press, which he had patented in America. This was undoubtedly news to Gutenberg, who had already invented the printing press in 1445, long before America was even a country and almost fifty years before Columbus even landed. <...continued below...>

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of Whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting Whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-White group - a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood - is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when Whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved. Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of Whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of Whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-White. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-White. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity." It is, of course, only White nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost criminal to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind. What if the United States were pouring its poorest, least educated citizens across the border into Mexico? Could anyone be fooled into thinking that Mexico was being "culturally enriched?" What if the state of Chihuahua were losing its majority population to poor Whites who demanded that schools be taught in English, who insisted on celebrating the Fourth of July, who demanded the right to vote even if they weren't citizens, who clamored for "affirmative action" in jobs and schooling? Would Mexico - or any other non-White nation - tolerate this kind of cultural and demographic depredation? Of course not. Yet White Americans are supposed to look upon the flood of Hispanics and Asians entering their country as a priceless cultural gift. They are supposed to "celebrate" their own loss of influence, their own dwindling numbers, their own dispossession, for to do otherwise would be hopelessly racist. There is another curious asymmetry about American racism. When non- Whites advance their own racial purposes, no one ever accuses them of "hating" another group. Blacks can join "civil rights" groups and Hispanics can be activists without fear of being branded as bigots and hate mongers. They can agitate openly for racial preferences that can come only at the expense of whites. They can demand preferential treatment of all kinds without anyone ever suggesting that they are "anti-white." Whites, on the other hand, need only express their opposition to affirmative action to be called haters. They need only subject racial policies that are clearly prejudicial to themselves to be called racists. Should they actually go so far as to say that they prefer the company of their own kind, that they wish to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their European heritage, they are irredeemably wicked and hateful. Here, then is the final, baffling inconsistency about American race relations. All non-whites are allowed to prefer the company of their own kind, to think of themselves as groups with interests distinct from those of the whole, and to work openly for group advantage. None of this is thought to be racist. At the same time, whites must also champion the racial interests of non-whites. They must sacrifice their own future on the altar of "diversity" and cooperate in their own dispossession. They are to encourage, even to subsidize, the displacement of a European people and culture by alien peoples and cultures. To put it in the simplest possible terms, White people are cheerfully to slaughter their own society, to commit racial and cultural suicide. To refuse to do so would be racism. Of course, the entire non-white enterprise in the United States is perfectly natural and healthy. Nothing could be more natural than to love one's people and to hope that it should flourish. Filipinos and El Salvadorans are doubtless astonished to discover that simply by setting foot in the United States they are entitled to affirmative action preferences over native-born whites, but can they be blamed for accepting them? Is it surprising that they should want their languages, their cultures, their brothers and sisters to take possession and put their mark indelibly on the land? If the once-great people of a once-great nation is bent upon self-destruction and is prepared to hand over land and power to whomever shows up and asks for it, why should Mexicans and Cambodians complain? No, it is the White enterprise in the United States that is unnatural, unhealthy, and without historical precedent. Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession, much less to work for their own interests. Never in the history of the world has a dominant people thrown open the gates to strangers, and poured out its wealth to aliens. Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage, and giving away to others its place in history. Of all the races in America, only whites have been tricked into thinking that a preference for one's own kind is racism. Only whites are ever told that a love for their own people is somehow "hatred" of others. All healthy people prefer the company of their own kind, and it has nothing to do with hatred. All men love their families more than their neighbors, but this does not mean that they hate their neighbors. Whites who love their racial family need bear no ill will towards non-whites. They only wish to be left alone to participate in the unfolding of their racial and cultural destinies. What whites in America are being asked to do is therefore utterly unnatural. They are being asked to devote themselves to the interests of other races and to ignore the interests of their own. This is like asking a man to forsake his own children and love the children of his neighbors, since to do otherwise would be "racist." What then, is "racism?" It is considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. It is any opposition by whites to official policies of racial preference for non-whites. It is any preference by whites for their own people and culture. It is any resistance by whites to the idea of becoming a minority people. It is any unwillingness to be pushed aside. It is, in short, any of the normal aspirations of people-hood that have defined nations since the beginning of history - but only so long as the aspirations are those of whites.

The 'racist' double standard: how Whites are made to feel guilty and "hateful" for loving their own people and culture. There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off. For example, when a White Georgetown Law School student reported earlier this year that black students are not as qualified as White students, it set off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism. Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism? Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this. Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard- working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil. The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to Whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is White racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with pervasive racism. Nothing else could be keeping them in such an abject state. All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on White wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's Whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's Whites must have oppressed them. If Whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them Unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then societal institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of White people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of White people. The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-White failure is White racism, every time a non-White is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, White society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-Whites is standing proof that White society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-Whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as Whites, Whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them. This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by White people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only White people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all Whites are racist and that only Whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality? Although some blacks and liberal Whites concede that non-Whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-Whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of White oppression. What appears to be non-White racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by Whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true. Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a White man kills a black man and uses the word "nigger" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random Whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-Whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on Whites. At election time, if 60 percent of the White voters vote for a White candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is Whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically White colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of... the same thing. To resist would be racist. "Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of White pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist. Blatant anti-White prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of Whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism. All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for Whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist. At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for Whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc, and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the White students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-Whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a White enclave but whose members simply happen all to be White is branded as racist. <...continued below...>

Check this out then: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/ If you try to "rage" it however you will be taken care of.

To me, they all looked like raving serial killers with pedophile tendencies. 8/10