Talk:White nationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.


Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] What constitutes 'white'?

Further from the discussions on this page and ambiguity in the rest of the article, it would be helpful to point out that to the majority of 'white nationalists,' the white race is constituted of those descending from Western, Northern and Central (to a degree) European racial stocks- not Nordic countries only, nor Western or Central European countries only.

I really believe that this should be merged with 'white supremacy' into a general article of 'white separatism' or something similar: these two concepts, despite the delineation often employed by white racists, are virtually indistinguishable. White nationalists are invariably white supremacists, and we shouldn't pander to their idiotic claims by acting as though this is not the case (one statement claiming a 'seperate but equal' position will often be followed moments later by an outright racist - and thus white supremacist - statement).

What is white supremacy? If you're going to conflate white nationalism (racial nationalism for white people) with white supremacy, perhaps you should define the latter. As for what constitutes white, one of the more popular definitions is "descendants of European Christendom." The fact is that politically, for myself and many other white nationalists, the issue of racial supremacy is 100% politically irrelevant; my personal feelings as to which race is "best" or "better" or "supreme" simply don't enter the picture. I value the white race, I want to see it thrive, and my politics follow. An excellent analogy is family sentiment; we want to see our families succeed, we want them to grow, and questions of "supremacy" don't really matter. Poor, stupid, uneducated families and rich, smart, educated families generally share this sentiment, regardless of feelings of supremacy or superiority or inferiority.

[edit] White separatism

Article: 'This version of White nationalism is distinct from those versions that promote general expulsion or genocide.' This is wrong, because it states that there are some other versions of nationalism that DO promote expulsion or genocide. Changed to 'distinct from supermacism', but got reverted. So the question to Homeontherange is: names of these versions? AlV 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I have an easy, painless solution to all this

Why don't we just separate the article into pro and con sections (on the same page, or on different ones, it makes no nevermind to me)? That way White Nationalists can present their views as they see them (why this should be an issue of contention is beyond my ken), and those opposed or "neutral" or whatever can present the "mainstream" view of White Nationalism.

This would solve everyone's problems, I think, except of course those whose goal is to censor someone else's views.

Just to gripe further, I'm a bit disappointed that no one has yet responded to the issues I've raised with regard to the article's text. If this issue is so "controversial," if people are interested enough to remove my edits, then a response shouldn't be too much to ask for.

[edit] Better soloution

The people trying to keep links off the article page should be ashamed of themselves. Additionally anyone who can bring in knowledgable users should be commended, not harassed. If you do indeed suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, please review the respective ISP's. I find the way this page is being handled to be in defiance of common sense, intellectual honesty and wiki-policy. Please review your statements, actions and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Sam [Spade] 01:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When someone threatens to bring in an army to enforce their view on others we will look at their ISPs. In the meantime, no one is suggesting that anyone is a sock puppet. (Or even a newbie, IMHO.) I have no problem with my statements and actions. We merely disagree that slanting an article (or set of links) to one point of view is correct. Nor do I agree that it is in Wikipedia's interest to create tandem sets of articles with skewed POVs to each side. (Isn't that the goal of disinfopedia or one of the other wikis?) The best solution is to discuss these links on the talk page and gain some consensus on what belongs. After hearing your opinion and solution, this is my opinion and solution. - Tεxτurε 02:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Your solution is fine, and I am discussing. I would like to see more links (and more users involved here specifically, and in the project generally), not less. I do agree with evening the links out, but only by adding more links, not less. The above question by Svigor about the policy on him inviting others to the discussion was answered by an assault on his character, and severe assumptions of bad faith. I rebuke that response, and question the benefit of suspecting a new user of being an old one (that happened to me, and was rude enough to almost convince me to leave the project, BTW). Where is your proof against the gentleman, good sir? Produce such, or kindly cease all defamations of his character. Sam [Spade] 04:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


How is it insulting or "an assault" that I am not suggesting that he is a newbie? (or a sock puppet for that matter.) I did not use that lack of assumption of newbie or sock puppet to make any accusation. Why do you leap to such a conclusion? I find your rebuke puzzling and rude. Instead I responded to two concepts: inviting numerous people who agree with one pov to force his view on the rest of us, and splitting the article into two (within this article or without). - Tεxτurε 04:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cry me a river. Its quite simply a personal attack to suggest he is a sockpuppet or returned user w/o proof. Stormfront is by no means a single POV BTW, they have a fair amount of anti-racialist trolls who try to shout them down. Bringing in knowledgable users of all persuasions is always a good thing. Exclusivity is anti-wiki. Sam [Spade] 04:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Cry me a river" - I don't need to reply to that. - Tεxτurε 04:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Texture, there's no point in discussing anything with Jack (AKA Sam). He's a troll who's only here to disrupt things. RickK 04:25, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

You refuse to answer what you have no answer to. You slander that which you do not understand. Every personal attack is another sign of your intellectual dishonesty. Next time, try logic. Sam [Spade] 05:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lets move on

I hope I speak for the group when I apologise for any misunderstandings. The important thing is to acheive NPOV and factual accuracy within this article. We can best acheive that thru mutual respect and determination, NOT thru personal attacks. Lets move on. Sam [Spade] 05:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Links

[edit] Great points, Svigor

The current definition is a great example of putting groups in a false light without actually slandering them. The omissions and hostile use of the " symbol alone are clear violations of the Neutral Point of View rule.

Prison comment: priceless.

And thanks for pointing out the abundance of friendly links provided in the Zionism article. I'll paste them here for a comparison with the one lonely link to Stormfront:

edit: In the interest of concision, I took the liberty of editing out FenrisSF's inclusion of the links, because I think I have a pretty good idea who he is, and I don't think he'll object. If he does, he can always change it back, and I'll apologize. Here's a link to the page & section in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism#External_links Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By purely random chance FenrisSF's first and only edit is to this very talk page. - Tεxτurε 15:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why would it be "by purely random chance," Texture? Do you have ANY comments to make here that don't fall under the ad hominem attack category, or any contributions to make other than hostile reverts contrary to Wikipedia guidelines? Svigor 04:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What This Article Should Be About

Here's my understanding of things that the term white nationalism can mean, and my opinions on what should be described here, and what should be mentioned but point to other articles:

  • White nationalism can mean support for separate white nations, or white areas within nations. This is better dealt with at white separatism, however, which is a fairly unambiguous name for that viewpoint, and mirrors black separatism.
  • White nationalism can be support for the idea that white people share a common heritage and ought to share a common identity as an abstract "nation of people" (not nation as in nation-state), and perhaps also have advocacy groups to work on their behalf, essentially white versions of groups like the NAACP (a group that works on the behalf of black people). I think this is primarily what ought to be described here, and it also parallels black nationalism closely, so we keep our terminology consistent.
  • White nationalism can also be white supremacism, in the same sort of sense that US nationalism can be US supremacism (belief that the US is superior to other countries). This should be mentioned, and critics of white nationalists that accuse them of being white supremacists in disguise should also be mentioned, but the primary documentation of the white supremacist movement itself should be at white supremacism. Note also that this must be done carefully: it is undoubtedly true that there are closet white supremacists who masquerade as white nationalists, but in the minefield of identity politics, accusations of racism are thrown around quite commonly in all directions.

--Delirium 19:53, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I find that generally agreeable, and would mention in response to your second point that there is just such an organization : N.A.A.W.P. Another reason for more links, not less, eh? Sam [Spade] 00:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sometimes, even as a WN, I fail to see the forest for the trees. I agree with virtually all of what delirium has said above, especially his definition of white nationalism. He is perfectly correct that WNism is about white people thinking and acting as a political block, as people of other races do. Svigor 04:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent ban

Here is some important info regarding the recent ban, well said by a wikipedia:arbitrator [1]. Sam [Spade] 23:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of page as of 6-11

(feel free to post commentary within the text if you wish, as long as it's signed) Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph as it stands now is a vast improvement

More extreme white nationalists may also support white separatism, the belief that white people should live separately from non-whites, either in separate all-white nations or in separate white areas of existing nations (see also racial segregation).

"More extreme" is probably not the best way to put it. "Many white nationalists" would be better.

White separatism is indeed characterized by the belief that white people should live separately from non-whites as stated above, but I still believe that the "(or at least be allowed to live)" clause should be included right after "should live." It is absolutely essential that the distinction be made, because otherwise the common assumption that white separatism demands an across-the-board separation of the races is not dispelled. A minority of white separatists do indeed seek such an enforced separation of the races, but in my experience the vast majority recognize that forcing a large population of anti-ethnocentric whites to live in a white separatist state would doom that state to failure. Most white separatists welcome a parting of the ways between anti-ethnocentric whites and ethnocentric whites. In fact, a great many WNs and white separatists identify the white anti-racist ruling class of the western world (safely ensconced in its limousines whilst traveling between its all-white gated communities and its cloisters) and white anti-racists in general as their most powerful enemies.

Historically, white nationalism has been connected to opposition to black civil rights and to white supremacism.

I think explication is needed here. How, why, and when has WNism been historically connected to white "supremacism" [sic] and opposition to black civil rights? Whether or not this connection still exists and, if different today, how so is also relevant.

Many modern white nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists, arguing that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage, including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as racial supremacists do. However, many of their critics charge that white nationalism is simply white supremacism in disguise.

I'd like very much to find a way to express the idea that "many modern white nationalists explicitly deny being white supremacists," and the idea that many modern white nationalists indeed are not white "supremacists" [sic], without the writing seeming schizophrenic. I don't have any ideas on how to do that at the moment, I just wanted to point this out. Kudos to the author (Delirium?) on the "to be allowed" part, that really is starting to get to the crux of the matter, as it is congruent with the fact that most white nationalists do not seek to enforce racial separation across the board.

Are X vs.Y articles allowed, i.e. socialism vs. communism, libertarianism vs. liberalism? If so, I think white nationalism vs. white "supremacism" [sic] would make a capital addition to the collection.

The term "race", though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value, still holds social value for many who (in part or in whole) base their personal identity upon genetic characteristics, especially those that affect outward appearance.

[old criticism] "Though according to some long dispensed-with in terms of any meaningful scientific value" - is this really the place to insert this information? Is this a definition of White Nationalism, or a refutation of it? [snip] As I stated above, I don't expect this entry to be a WNist tract, but I do expect an honest representation of what WNism is, and I do expect enough room for that representation to breathe. I'm sure the entry on race that is linked to has more than enough grist for the race-denial crowd. Even if this caveat does belong here, it shouldn't be included in the same paragraph that sets forth the WN beliefs concerning race, much less in the same sentence.

[new criticism] This statement is no better than its previous incarnation (which appeared sans the "especially those that affect outward appearance" addition), and demonstrably worse. There is absolutely NO basis for the idea that white nationalists base their personal identity vis-a-vis race "especially [on] those [genetic characteristics] that affect outward appearance." Generally, and especially among the WN intelligentsia, WNs see the surface differences between races as markers for race, not as the important substance of race. Of course, social identity theory tells us that these surface differences are important in and of themselves, but generally, they are held by WNs and race-realists essentially as race-identifiers, not as the significant part of racial differences.

In other words, contrary to the wildly popular delusion, it isn't all or mostly or even significantly about skin color. Skin color generally ranks near the bottom of the list of the average WN's "racial differences list," far below behavioral genetics, except as a race-marker. Try a post at Stormfront.org about how racism is all about skin color or surface differences, and enjoy the mockery you receive.

In all parts of the world, personal identity reflects the degree of awareness and connectivity to the outside world and foreign cultures, thus "race issues" tend to be seen as related to xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and other "culture clash" paradigms.

This still makes no sense. Can someone explain the significance and meaning of this passage to me? I still maintain that it's muddy and pointless.

Similar concerns that may be a catalyst for a distinction of personal identity are religion, gender, language, and differences regarding these issues are often manifested in conflict of one form or another.

This still has no direct bearing on the subject at hand - what in the blue blazes does this have to do with white nationalism, specifically? Doesn't this belong in some other entry, in "personal identity" perhaps?

Some of these groups have condoned violence in the past, and some have built up strong followings mainly in prisons.

There are many Republicans and Democrats in prison too, what's the point? It's also too general - which groups, when, and where are the references? Otherwise, it just looks to me like what it probably is - an attempt to pathologize white nationalism and associate it with criminality. I think I'd find an in-depth study of this issue very illuminating. As I said before, the National Alliance has a membership in which the highly educated and members of the professions are overrepresented by a factor of 7 compared to the public. This is still as relevant as the unsubtle prison assertion.

I mean really, many Hispanic identity groups are mainly prison societies, is that to characterize the article about Hispanic identity groups (if there is such a beast?). Many historically Jewish identity movements are mainly communistic affairs, should we slide that little tidbit into the section on Jewish identity or Zionism?

As a result of the violent and radical image of some of the white supremacist groups, a growing number of white nationalists have adopted less hostile rhetoric, and portray themselves as conservatives interested in maintaining traditional values, including white dominance in American life.

The growing strength of mainstream, non-violent voices in WN groups is not solely a result of the violent and radical image of some white supremacist groups, therefore I think this sentence should begin with "partly."

Many of these groups deny advocating white "Supremacy" and instead call for "Separatism" - often with the canard that 'mainstream' minority groups such as the NAACP and LULAC are "separatist" as well.

It is not only true that many of these groups deny advocating white supremacy, many groups actually do not advocate white supremacy. This sort of not-so-subtle phrasing is part of what I object to. Is this to be an honest presentation of WNism, or a refutation of WNism? As for the "canard" statement, this has little to do with WNist belief, even if true. I've never heard a WN refer to the NAACP as a "separatist" group. I have many times heard from WNs the complaint that advocacy groups for non-whites are publically supported and given positive press, while advocacy groups for whites are automatically classified as "white supremacists." This is a quite salient distinction, no?

Many also reject the label of "Racist" for "racialist", and point to studies which they contend show clear disparities in "racial" abilities.

The WN view on race and racial science deserves it's own paragraph, not just the second half of a sentence. It's also worth explaining why many WNs reject the term "racist," if it's worth mentioning the rejection itself. Some may object to my proposed rewrite (in archive1), but in my experience the word "hatred" does not appear in dictionaries in the definition of "racism," while it does appear in the definition of the term in the vernacular.

It would also be nice to dispense with the not-so-subtly disparaging quotes around the term "racial."

American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens are two leading examples in the United States.

They're two examples of what? This is poor writing. The only logical conclusion is that the examples being cited either are being cited to support something that hasn't been stated, or they are being cited to support the last applicable idea put forward in the previous paragraph (i.e., Amren and CoC include the "canard that 'mainstream' minority groups" are separatist. The former seems more likely since the latter is patently absurd and demands references.

In Europe, several far right political parties such as the British National Party, France's Front National, and the Austrian Freedom Party have won fairly wide support based on platforms widely seen as advocating racial separatism in addition to traditional nationalism.

I think the "widely seen" bit needs to be supported or withdrawn. Just because the press says it doesn't make it so - the American public feels the same way, if the latest Pew study on mass media credibility is to be believed.

Jewish and Muslim peoples are rarely considered "white", even if they appear to be European.

If this is to be mentioned, an explanation is required.

Hispanics, Portuguese, and Italian people may or may not be considered white, based on regional backgrounds (Basque Spaniards and Northern Italians may be accepted while Sicilians and Puerto Ricans aren't).

This passage is extremely problematic. First of all, Portugal and Italy are nations, not races, and currently neither nationality carries racially exclusive connotations. Swedish and Russian people "may or may not be considered white" too. So, the passage is nonsensical. Second, "Hispanic" is a very racially ambiguous term, and essentially includes a variety of racial groups whose membership in the group "Hispanic" essentially boils down to language and history, not to race. Third, the idea that Sicilians and Puerto Ricans are considered non-white by all WNs is simply wrong. Many WNs recognize that some Puerto Ricans are at least genetically white, and most accept Sicilians as white.

Put simply, this passage needs to go, it's far more wrong than right.

In white minority nations such as South Africa or some Latin American states, there are often arguments for a "white homeland" as well, and white Nationalism takes on a more literal meaning.

There are indeed arguments for white homelands in South Africa and some Latin American nations, but I fail to see how there WNism takes on a more literal meaning - explication is called for here.

Again, these aren't my only problems with the existing article, but I think we're moving in the right direction.

Regarding external links - deleting the links to WN and WN-sympathetic sites is simply reprehensible. I'm no expert on the anti-WN presence on the Web, so I'll leave those links to others (I'd be bored and irritated by the inevitable accusations concerning "softball" anti-WN links anyways). Before anyone removes the any pro-WN links provided, I'd advise a quick perusal of the number and nature of external links at the Zionism article for perspective: there are 21 of them (or there were as of June 10th), and fully two thirds of them are pro-Zionist.

Svigor 04:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute header

who is disputing what, and what needs to be changed/added/removed/discussed so that it can be removed. Sam [Spade] 20:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You added the header; please do explain why. —No-One Jones 22:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, seeing as there is no objection at this time (myself included, I believe...) I have removed the header. Svigor, would you like to start implemeting your suggestions? Sam [Spade] 00:33, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer that I receive some feedback about my commentary above first. Since I'm currently working on a WNist treatment of WNism at Wikinfo [2], I'm willing to be patient until it's finished. In fact, I'd be willing to settle for a prominently displayed link to my Wikinfo article and caveat that WNists find the Wikipedia article highly objectionable (assuming that the Wikinfo article is allowed to remain unmolested). Svigor 21:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Svigor is working in a very hostile environment over at Wikinfo. It is Wikinfo policy that the editorial policy of writing from a sympathetic point of view does not apply to subjects such as White nationalism, totalitarianism, Marxism-Leninism, North Korea, Hitler, Nazism, Ku Klux Klan, Pol Pot, etc, where little factual basis for a sympathetic point of view exists. It is possible he may be able to write a signed article there eventually but the main article he wrote on the subject is clearly unsatisfactory. Fred Bauder 20:19, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)


Ok, whichever. Sam [Spade] 21:49, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prominent display may be a problem, external links are ment to be at the bottom of the page, in the "external links" section. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd be okay with putting the link with the others at the end of the article, say at the top of the pro links, or better yet in a separate section with a header like, "other definitions of WNism" or somesuch. As long as it's easily noticeable, and labeled something like "Wikinfo Internet Encyclopedia definition of WNism." I just want a good article from a less hostile p.o.v. readily available to people who view this article. Perhaps a link early in the text somewhere, in a sentence like "for a more sympathetic treatment..." etc. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reading this article reases a few questions for me, that I would like to see addressed by someone who knows the answers:

  1. What exactly is the difference between a white nationalist and a white separatist? The articles don't make it clear. If there isn't a real difference they should be run into one article.
If you don't like my comments interspersed, say so and I'll move 'em. White Nationalism and white separatism are related, but quite distinct. White Nationalists are people who want whites to start thinking like a group with a common identity and working identity politics like other races do. White separatists (practically by definition WNs) are those who want white people to be allowed to create their own monoracial nations. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  1. We need some historical context of the term.
  2. What do white nationalists think about things like mixed race marriages?

DJ Clayworth 13:40, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no monolithic WN position on mixed-race marriages, but the overwhelming majority disapprove. If you ask a more specific question I can give you a more specific answer. I'm not aware of any links specifically about this, but a Google for "Jewish intermarriage assimilation" should find you a Rabbi or two whose opinions are congruent with many WNs in many ways. Svigor 18:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] White Religion?

I think it's really ironic that white nationalists claim to believe in the promotion of the white "shared heritage" yet they almost excusively follow the middle-eastern/semitic religion of Christianity.

If white nationalists were really concerned about "heritage", then shouldn't they all be Wiccans/Neo-Pagans?

Just a thought.

--Corvun 01:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"yet they almost excusively follow the middle-eastern/semitic religion of Christianity"
Not true at all. A great many are odin worshippers. Have a look at websites like http://nazi.org/ , they hate christians. Sam [Spade] 04:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
nazi.org would be the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party for which there is still no referable evidence of them being other than a straight-faced joke ... - David Gerard 12:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

whatever, check out Ásatrú then, or this, from stormfront. Sam [Spade] 23:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of this. It doesn't really surprise me, though. It seems inevitable that with such an emphasis on "white heritage" there would be those who would reject the Semitic religion of Christianity to reconnect to their "white roots" through the older Pagan religions of Europe.

--Corvun 03:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but don't assume it only flows in one direction. See Mysticism in Nazi Germany, Thule-Gesellschaft, Germanenorden, Vril Society etc... for the flip side of the coin. Sam [Spade] 04:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


- White Nationalism is not restricted to only christians. There are many atheists/agnostics, creators, Odinists, And christians.


See this article: "Christianity, Pro and Con" and responses to it from readers in American Renaissance, for a good, summary illustration of the disagreement among White Nationalists "about the effects of Christianity on the struggle to preserve Western Civilization". - Morning star 02:14, 04 April 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan picture

On another note, I feel that the Klan picture is innappropriate. While the KKK are white nationalists, white nationalism is not only them. The Klan will promote images of White Nationalism to readers that aren't necessarily true to the concept of White Nationalism.

I confess to being the main author of the first two paragraphs of the article and the one who put the picture in the article. It illustrates the negative viewpoint. Originally there was a balancing picture which arguably illustrated a more modern and positive viewpoint, but that image turned out to be unavailable. I don't know a good image that could be put in but I suggest someone find one and use it to illustrate the article in a positive light, in so far as it is possible. Fred Bauder 11:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The history of organizations like the Ku Klux Klan hang over any attempt to organize White people in a positive way, as a legitimate advocacy group. How a legitimate group could effectively distance itself remains an unanswered question. But censoring this article is not part of the answer. Fred Bauder 11:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Nationalism

Why is white nationalism under the category heading : Neo Nazi? Whilst a small sub group of white nationalists could be desribed as adherents of National Socialism, the majority are not National Socialists. I think it is time for a new 'nationalist politics' category.

How about nationalism? Fred Bauder 03:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
The anonymous editor who posted the original inquiry did add Category:Nationalism to the article but it was reverted. I think they were right and put it back in. That category is relatively undeveloped and has not been used in a number of instances it should have been including Zionism and Hindutva. I have added the category to those articles also, (Why quarrel in only one controversial article which you can have three fights for the price of one?). There are probably other nationalist movements it could be added to. Fred Bauder 12:04, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with a nationalism category. Neo nazi is appropriate to the article and its contents. - Tεxτurε 01:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both are appropriate. Fred Bauder 03:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

It should be under Neo-Nazi, White Nationalism is racism. --Eurytus

Racism is a dead word. It has no meaning anymore. It's become so broad that it's useless; essentially, every man woman and child on earth is racist, at least according to this definition:

rac·ism n.

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

and this one: n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

since one of the definitions of discrimination is: dis·crim·i·na·tion Audio pronunciation of "discrimination" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn) n.

  1. The act of discriminating.
  2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Now, if we come to sanity on the definition of racism, then we have a two-edged sword. On one hand, all of the saintly egalitarians are off the hook, but unfortunately, some of the diabolical White Nationalists are off the hook too. It is perfectly possible to be a WNist without being a racist, if racist is defined in a useable fashion.

National Socialism, Nazism, Neo-Nazism, whatever your favorite term for the Third Reich and its sympathizers, are NOT coterminous with White Nationalism. National Socialism was not intended for all white people, it was intended for Germans. It is pan-German racial nationalism. It is erroneous to refer to all WNism as Nazism or Neo-Nazism.

As an aside, this article is absurd. It's poorly written and schizophrenic; it's a broth that stinks of too many (poisonous) cooks. It reads like a Nazi-haters guide to what Nazi-haters hate. Its authors are ill-informed. Frankly, it's a circle jerk.

Regarding the category choice: I have come across editors who insist that White Nationalists are not neo-Nazis. Further, I believe that few groups or individuals self-identify as "neo-nazi". And other groups have no interest in Germany or Fascism. For example, the Council of Conservative Citizens is definitely white nationalist, but probably not neo-nazi. Therefore, I believe that there ought to be a separate category for "white nationalists", parallel to the neo-nazi category. -Willmcw 00:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since several commenters here have felt free to sling mud about WN beliefs, I'll point out that I'm amused by the idiotic habit of anti-WNs of referring to WNs as "Nazis" and "neo-Nazis." Their intention is clearly to attach a word with enormous political and social baggage to a group of people to whom it does not apply. For example, I'm a WN and I prefer American Constitutional Republicanism. This tactic is about as intellectually honest as referring to all of European politics as "commie" or "pinko" because of the relatively socialist leanings found throughout.

[edit] RE: My most recent edit

Aside from visiting the International Spy Museum, I don't have much knowledge of White nationalism, nor do I aspire to. That said, the following statement, which I have removed from the introduction, does not belong on Wikipedia. Please do not attempt to replace it without consulting the talk page.

Removed: While the political and economic elites which rule the earth can (with the exception of the Japanese) fairly be described as "White", these elites do not rule exclusively for the benefit of White or Caucasian people as a group. These ruling elites have, on the contrary, extended civil rights and economic opportunities to those of other racial and cultural backgrounds who from a White nationalist viewpoint can be viewed as competing for opportunities with less favored members of the White race.

-- Alterego 10:59 12/2/2004

[edit] lincoln quote

I revised the introduction to the Lincoln quote. First, there is no evidence in the quote that Lincoln was opposed to the civil rights movement; any claim is an anachronism, any way. Second, as introduced the quote violates our Wikipedia: No original research policy. This quote is an example of a primary source; the way it is placed in the article interprets it a particular way. This is a perfect definition of "original research." If we can cite secondary sources that argue that Lincoln was espousing the same views held by White Nationalists today, then we can say "According to X, Lincoln himself espoused the same ..." and provide a proper citation. That is how to write an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein 03:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A new kind of Whte nationalism?

As I was searching through the internet I found a WN website that describes itself as "Pan Aryanism" and they call there organization the Pan Aryan National Front. In the past, WN's have only defined white as Germanic and Nordic people of Northern European decent, but this Pan Aryan WN group accepts non-European whites, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Turks, Iranians, North Africans, etc. The website for the Pan Aryan National Front is, http://www.panf.info/upload/index.php?styleid=1 , I thought this odd kind of WNism would be kind of interested for many people who work with this article.--Gramaic 19:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are the rules for there group in who is defined as white.--Gramaic 19:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ;

This is the central premise of Pan Aryanism regarding racial definition:

An individual aboriginal to Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Central/West Asia who is Caucasoid descened in whole or overwhelmingly from the following Caucassdoid subraces, or any combibation thereof, Indo-European (Aryan) Old European, Ural Altaic Caucasoid, or Hametic (Basically confined in modern times to Berbers.) irrespective of nationality, religion or modern geographical location.

Given that position Pan Aryanism believes that all racial White sunder that definition are part of out community and must be preserved along with its European core

However

!(1) We do not believe that all of the modern day population of India, Iran, Turkey, the Middle East,North Africa Central Asia , West Asia or Latin America are White

(2) We do believe that under the above standards the following parts of the above areas have White majorities, Iran, Turkey Lebanon, Syria,the Caucasus and Southern Latin America, plus Costa Rica. White minorities in widely varying degrees exist elsewhere in these areas.

(3) We do not believe in combining the White nations into a superstate, or erasing national or subracial differences between Whites.

(4)We do not believe that any White nation is obliged to accept even White immigrants from these areas, though in the New World at least it might be helpful to do so

(5) We do not believe that any individual White should in any manner be impeded from associating dating or reproducing with only his own nationality or subrace, but we also insist that no 2 racial Whites in love with each other be forcibly seperated, or that the White children produced from such unions shoud ever be treated as anything other than honored and respected members of our community

(6) We believe that no racial White presently in any White homeland should be forcibly removed from that homeland, although this does not impeded that homeland from restricting further entry of any immigrants, even White ones

(7) We discourage any religion incompatable with White survival, and urge Whites confessing such a religion to either convert or strive for a racialist reformation of their creed. However, in the last analysis, we support religious freedom.


[edit] Recent notes

Willmcw, with reference to your note in the history: http://www.skinheadz.com website may remain, but please leave where you have placed it, at or near the bottom of the Pro links, not at the top. Thanks.

[edit] No King Over Us Button

Where's the picture of the button? Theshibboleth 00:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The user who added it did so under a faulty copyright release and so it would have been deleted eventually. Before that could happen he decided that he didn't like Wikipedia so he copied over the images that he'd uploaded. -Willmcw 00:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-WNs

Cut a bit out of the previous heading, and changed the neo-Nazi bit to what it is currently, since I think my version is a bit more accurate. Outsiders confusing neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Christian Identity people, and White Nationalists is common, as is neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and Christian Identity people claiming to be White Nationalists because it carries a bit more respectability.

Of course, the more extreme bits of those groups (possibly the majority in some) don't WANT to be called WN's, since they see WNs as being wusses, basically. --Edward Wakelin 21:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I should point out here that the confusion about what is and is not WNism is in large part self-inflicted; self-professed WNs themselves often do not know what is and is not WNism; the largest area of confusion seems to be conflation of WNism and white separatism.

[edit] Southern Europeans

Okay, so what's this BS about White Nationalists having something against Southern Europeans? That portion of the article is inaccurate and entirely misleading.

I've removed that tripe three times.

Who's the bonehead that keeps putting it back in? 08:00, August 12, 2005 user:Honestly

The "bonehead" was one of your fellow editors. Please be more respectful of your colleagues. You are probably referring to this text:
  • Some nations of southern Europe, such as Greece, Portugal or Southern Italy, are not considered white by extremist groups because these areas were at one time ruled by non-European invaders; and there is a fear by some white nationalists that in these populations bloodlines have been polluted, or that significant non-European heritage may remain.
I'm not sure about the exact wording and reasoning, particularly the last half. But, for many White Nationalists, "White" = "Nordic". I think we can cover this material better. Would you like to try? -Willmcw 09:16, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've revised it a little, I think that it's a bit simpler now. --Edward Wakelin 15:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
PS, can you describe your edits beyond just "see talk"? That's not infomrative in and of itself and makes editors dig through the talk page to see what you're talking about. Discussion in talk pages is very welcome, but so is a little note in the summary giving the gist of the edit. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:35, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Many white nationalists don't consider Southern Europeans to be of the White race. Ever hear of The Nordish Portal or Skadi? --Gramaic | Talk 21:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Put that in, didn't I? I basically shortened the sucker to "Definitions of what is white change" or something along those lines. If you listen to the Mediterranean Supermacists or whatever they call themselves, it sounds awfully odd: If the Nords ain't white, what are they?
Pink and too thin? 128.135.121.91 01:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Skadi-tNp member (myself)

Nordish Portal and Skadi are NOT White Nationalist.

Skadi is NOT for White Nationalism, it's for Germanic preservation. Germanics are a WHITE subrace.

These forums support Europe but they are dedicated to NORDISH (not Nordic) preservation of Northern European racial types and culture.

[edit] White nationalism and White Supremacy

A number of the "Pro" groups listed on this page are actually overt White supremacist groups, ranging from mild to neonazi. This page is highly biased in favor of white nationalism; and serves as a way to send people off to White supremacist websites as if there was no difference between White nationalism and White Supremacy. The entire page needs a rewrite to be more NPOV. --Cberlet 13:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

On this point:
1) The White Supremacism vs White Nationalism split should be appropriately solved by removing White Supremacist groups to the relevant page: an action which I leave to you.
2) Ygg, Stormfront, and Nationalvanguard are not however supremacist. I invite study of these sites.
3) In general your actions betray a fascistic intention to equate White Nationalism with White Supremacism and condemn both, and to enforce this judgment irrespective of any attempt at NPOV.
You have an entire separate article dedicated to White Supremacism: apparently you want to have two.
Is it too much to request that you keep comments about White Supremacism in the appropriate article???
There is indeed a difference between White Nationalism and White Supremacy, but this article offers no scholarly cites to explain that difference. Many of the groups listed are routinely described as White supremacist in scholarly studies (and in many published articles), and for good reason. Is it too much to ask that this page not be based on a total fictions that mask overt White supremacist racism? If you want to move the White supremacist groups, please do so. I think the distinction is useful. I dispute your claim that Ygg, Stormfront, and National Vanguard are not White supremacist. If you wish, let's discuss them one at a time. As a common courtesy, could you please sign and properly format your posts on this page?--Cberlet 13:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront

Stormfront This link displays a calendar of so-called "White Nationalist" events. "Dr. William L. Pierce Memorial Literature Distribution" dedicated to a neonazi. "Ku Klux Klan - Fall Unity Gathering 2005" needs no further explanation. "Hammerfest 2005" a gathering of racist skinheads. "2005 CJCC/AN World Congress" that expands to be the Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations annual meeting. This event is sponsored by an overtly racist Christian Identity roup that thinks Black people are subhuman creatures and Jews are the spawn of the devil and must be exterminated in an apocalyptic race war.--Cberlet 13:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for feedback Cberlet.
Stormfront is primarily a discussion forum with a wide variety of opinions represented: this inevitably includes Supremacist opinions.
However the fact it links to overt Supremacist sites in its calendar (thoug it does not AFAIK describe them as White Nationalist, please check http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.php) does not in itself make it White Supremacist.
On detail, Pierce was not a neonazi, if by that you mean a nostalgic devotee of National Socialism: the CI are unquestionably Supremacists and often creepy religious maniacs as well: and the KKK groups typically deny Supremacism as a public front but fervently believe it in private (but this varies, some are outright Suprmacists).
These points however are relevant to a designation of these respective groups or sites, but have no relevance whatever to a discussion forum that merely mentions them.
I'd have no objection to you describing SF as a "discussion forum with a range of opinions including overt White Supremacism," since that is accurate. However there is in fact no way of defining the stance of a discussion group outside the rules it imposes on its members.
These rules may be accessed at http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4359 and I quote them below.
Welcome to the Stormfront discussion board!
Our mission is to provide information not available in the controlled news media and to build a community of White activists working for the survival of our people.
If you have technical questions regarding the operation of this board, you should first check the FAQ or use the search option for the Questions about this Board conference. If you can't find the answer to your question, feel free to ask there.
Guidelines for Posting:
DO NOT advocate or suggest any activity which is illegal under U.S. law.
Keep discussion civil and productive
No profanity. Avoid racial epithets.
No personal flames.
No attacks against other White nationalities.
If you wish to debate religion, you must request to join the Theology usergroup. Religion is a personal issue which often becomes bitterly divisive.
Make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and capitalization (no ALL-CAPS posts).
No spamming. Don't post unless you have something relevant to say.
Post only to appropriate forums.
Post only under one user name. Anyone with "multiple personalities" will have all their accounts deleted.
If you're here to argue with us, confine your posts to the "Opposing Views" forum if you don't want them deleted.
Before you post anything, remember that words have consequences, both for you and others. This is true even if they're posted pseudonymously on a discussion board. Don't come back in a few months or years and ask us to delete all your posts because you can't take the heat or you've "changed your mind." It wouldn't make much difference anyway, since public posts are cached by search engines and recorded by countless other people with varying motives.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask a moderator.
I invite you to discern a supremacist posture in these rules.
More generally: there is a considerable degree of justice in your original criticism concerning the overlap of "White Supremacism" and "White Nationalism" in the sites appended to this article, and I agree with your initiative in moving certain sites out. It is of course impossible to stop people adding their favorite sites willy-nilly, but, since I oppose Supremacism, I would prefer to cooperate with you to the greatest extent possible.
I hope this signature is correct : Pinlighter 19:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Stormfront is a White Supremacist organization trolling for converts by posing as a White Nationalist organization. See this article: [3]. It is run by Don Black, a White Supremacist with a long and notorious history. --Cberlet 20:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
USA Today is a popular, low-quality, daily, newspaper :Pinlighter 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Just posting the rules of a forum doesn't really prove anything, unless the administrators and moderators make sure those rules are 100% followed, and never step over the line. --Edward Wakelin 19:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
That's a pretty ludicrous standard. By that standard, democraticunderground.com is an antisemitic website because some of its thousands of posters may be anti-semites. The bottom line is that Stormfront is intended to be White Nationalist, per its rules. 64.110.214.176 02:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Vanguard

Here is the membership requirement for National Vanguard.

"Persons of Jewish descent, homosexuals or bisexuals, criminals, persons with a non-White spouse or sexual partner, or persons with more than an undetectable trace of non-White ancestry are specifically barred from membership."

Biological White Supremacy in a nutshell. Several of the writers listed on the table of contents are well known White Supremacists.

Huh? Restricting membership to law-abiding heterosexual whites with white partners/spouses is "supremacy"? Perhaps you can explain, given the definition of supremacy we're all working with here outside of Bizarro World.

Here is an example from H. Millard:[4]

"Fast forward to today when immigration is not primarily from White Europe, but from the Brown Third World. Will a Brown America be the same as a White America? Of course not. The genetic mix will determine the nature of the country, as it always has and as surely as the ingredients and their quantities in a recipe in a kitchen determines the nature of the meal. If current trends continue, we're going to be a Brown Third World nation, not a White First World nation. You may think this is a good thing, or you may think it is a bad thing, but that's where we're heading unless things change. And it has little to do with illegal vs. legal immigration.

"So, what does becoming a Brown Third World nation mean in a practical sense? Well, just for the heck of it I grabbed some statistics on two states that I knew were different from each other genetically but which were similar in other important ways, such as income and population size, to see what a less-White America promises. You can do the same thing for different states and will probably come up with even greater disparities, but here's what I came up with between New Mexico and Maine. New Mexico is the 39th most populous state and Maine is the 40th. If humans are fungible, you might expect to see similar violent crime rates among different populations. That's not what we see in these two states and its not what we see in any examples that I've ever seen. My guess is that if you took all the people of Maine and put them in New Mexico and you took all the people of New Mexico and put them in Maine that the violent crime rates of the two states would be reversed. It's not the geography that matters, but the people.

"According to the 2000 Census, the estimated population of the state of Maine was 1,274,923 and it was 96.9% non-Hispanic White. The violent crime rate was a very low 109.6 per 100,000 people. This makes it the 49th most violent state.

"Contrast that to the state of New Mexico with 1,819,046 residents and which was only 44.71% non-Hispanic White. The violent crime rate was a very high 757.9 per 100,000 people. This makes it the 4th most violent state.

"As the percentage of Whites in the population of America drops, so too, among many other things, will the crime-free First World quality of life drop. Think not? Prove me wrong with facts and figures. I have an open mind, and I'm willing to listen to logical arguments. But don't try to tell me that apples are the same as pears." [5]

White Supremacist polemic. --Cberlet 21:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's trace over these points:

"Persons of Jewish descent, homosexuals or bisexuals, criminals, persons with a non-White spouse or sexual partner, or persons with more than an undetectable trace of non-White ancestry are specifically barred from membership."
REPLY: Where is the statement here about superiority? There isn't one. Just what rules would you expect a White Separatist organisation to employ other than "Whites only?"
You really are reaching with this one : Pinlighter 15:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
"As the percentage of Whites in the population of America drops, so too, among many other things, will the crime-free First World quality of life drop. Think not? Prove me wrong with facts and figures. I have an open mind, and I'm willing to listen to logical arguments. But don't try to tell me that apples are the same as pears." [6]
(plus other similar articles)
REPLY: White Supremacism is the assertion that Whites are globally superior to all other races. This is not the same thing as the assertion, backed up as here by careful documentation, that they are less criminal than some other non-white groups.
National Vanguard is careful to point out this from time to time to ensure balance
For example here, is the front page of National Vanguard today: an article describing the excellent behaviour of non-whites in Japan following a hurricane far more severe than Katrina:
Super-Typhoon Nabi Leaves 300,000 Homeless in Kyushu, Japan
Report; Posted on: 2005-09-08 15:03:26
No looting, raping, robbing or lynching seen in the aftermath of Japan's monstrous super-typhoon Nabi. Rescue workers work without attacks, remain unmurdered.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=6030
Pinlighter 15:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
In this dreamworld, overt vicious anti-Black White supremacist diatribe is OK, because it is accompanied by philo-Asian exceptionalism? What nonsense. Feel free to promote your racist dogma elsewhere, but here, the standard rules of Wiki apply. The vast majority of scholarly and reputable published sources consider these groups lurid racist bigots. That some of these White Supremacist groups now try to mask that by claiming to "merely" be White Nationalist to gain recruits is an important aspect of rejecting your claims. Wiki editors need not be clueless about this dishonest campaign. Feel free to complain or ask for comments or whatever, but I contend that it is easy to show that National Vanguard and the other groups are White Supremacist. --Cberlet 16:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting that you've gone from "supremacist" to "not OK" in your characterizations. In other words, you concede the point. :)


Well, we are certainly gaining recruits hand over fist, though this article has little to do with it.
I'll try to reach out to you in courtesy again.
White Supremacism requires the idea that whites are Supreme: that is, superior to other races, and moreover to **all** other races. There is a furthur implication that whites have the right or duty to rule other races.
Neither NatVan nor the WN movement in general are "Supremacist" in this or any other reasonable sense.
Saying that we are is a slander. We do not advocate white rule of non-whites, white interference with non-whites, or white contact with non-whites in any way, and we do positively advocate respectful and just treatment of non-whites where contact is unavoidable.
The fact that you can't see us as any thing but genocidal horrors is your problem, I'm afraid. We are not genocidal, and we are not horrible.
I have a limited amount of time to spend on this, and I think I have ascertained that your ideas on this matter are not amenable to change.
Pinlighter 16:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


I think the question here is one of who gets to define a term. The broader community or those to whom a specific term is applied. I suspect that "white nationalists" have a different definition of "white supremacy" than others. Since we try to maintain a Neutral Point of View we cannot simply allow a specific interest group to define themselves. Homey 18:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


I await your explanation of how the Wiki article on White Supremacy differs from the definition I have used above. (quite a good article).
Pinlighter 19:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that you will have to wait. The issue on this page is that many scholars and serious observors of the groups I claim are actually White Supemacist agree with me, not you. Sorry. NPOV means we report the claims of you and your allies, but also rely on the majority view in the academy and major media outlets to craft an NPOV analysis. --Cberlet 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Nationalism, White Separatism, White Supremacy, Neonazism

There is an effort to blur the distinctions among these categories on Wikipedia. This is happening at a time when there is also a national recruitment campaign by members and supporters of these tendencies. I think Wikipedia has an obligation to create careful and NPOV articles on these different tendencies, but not allow itself to be used to mislead readers and thus assist White Supremacists and Neonazis in their recruitment. Groups identified as White Supremacist and Neonazi by scholars and reputable ptint publications should not be listed merely as White Nationalist or White Separatist. We can discuss the proper way to do this, but sanitizing reality to help racists recruit is not a proper option.--Cberlet 20:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! It also should work in the other direction: Actual White Nationalists/Separatists shouldn't be identified as White Supremacists, neo-Nazis, etc. Of course, this depends on figuring out a reliable method of differentiating them. I'll get started on that as soon as I figure out this "cold fusion" thingy. :p Seriously, though, a good litmust test might be "What do they think of Jared Taylor?" If they think he's a wuss, they probably aren't White Nationalists. --Edward Wakelin 20:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No, Not quite. Jared Taylor is controversial among WNs because he essentially refuses to address any WN issues concerning Jewry, and refuses to allow the matter to be discussed at Amren.
White supremacists are best sussed out by their insistence on white supremacy. Simple, isn't it? Manifestations of this include an insistence on European superiority and denial of evidence to the contrary, e.g., refusal to accept as valid I.Q. studies that consistently show east Asians and Jews have higher mean I.Q.s than Europeans. To be frank, the problem people have vis-a-vis categorization of politically-ethnocentric whites is that they want to refer to them all as white supremacists because the term has negative popular cache, sounds more aggressive than WNism or white separatism, and makes for better guilt-by-association ad hominem. More to the point, white supremacists constitute a small minority of politically-ethnocentric whites, which doesn't serve the purposes of demonization well.
White separatists want separate living space for Europeans. Simple, isn't it? In my experience most WNs are also white separatists.
White Nationalists believe in the 14 words, in race as nation. Ergo, WNism doesn't require white separatism and allows for a diaspora mentality within multiracial nations. Essentially, WNism is compatible with multiculturalism.
btw, this article is still a poorly-written, inaccurate piece of crap, which is to be expected here at censor-central. I suggest that an article on racial nationalism would go a long way towards solving the problem. Whites have far fewer problems with non-white racial nationalism per se than they do with WNism and so would be less likely to ruin an article on the former as they have the latter. An RN article would allow the basics of RN to be explained without the sin of including whites. Then smaller articles could explain the specifics of WNism, BNism, JNism (or point to Zionism), etc.
I have seen plenty of self-dubbed "White Nationalists" talk about how whites are superior, talk about how inner-city blacks must be "controlled", etc. I don't know if White Supremacists are a minority, given that unless someone is bright enough to accept the more nuanced argument of "Different races/ethnicities/cultures are valuable in different ways, as such differences should be protected" over the simpler, more emotionally "easy", and thus more successful "Whites are superior, and thus should protect themselves from breeding with lesser races". And even people and groups that accept the former can occasionally lapse into the latter, because that's politics.
An article on racial nationalism alone would be a good thing. And I agree that more of a line between nationalism and supremacism would be a good thing. But how and where is the line drawn? --Edward Wakelin 13:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The previous characterization of white supremacists as those who believe whites are superior in every way is not correct. White supremacists do not necessarily judge their race by any particular metric. The apparent superiority of other races, whether it be in foot races or IQ tests, is rationalized away (fast people are like animals, brainy people are devious, but only white have good character). Also, separatists do not necessarily call for separate nations for each race, many may simply want a return to segregation, with the races living together yet apart. -Willmcw 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
But they still believe they're superior in general. For example, they love Rushton's stuff claiming whites are smarter than blacks, but either just ignore his stuff claiming Asians are smarter than whites, or create some rationalisation about how Asians are less creative (Ignoring paper money, gunpowder, etc). And of course racial separatism doesn't necessitate "race nations". --Edward Wakelin 20:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I have thousands of posts at Stormfront, many of which confirm that WNs are perfectly capable of acknowledging areas where non-whites are superior to whites (mean northeast Asian and Ashkenazi I.Q., which if you'd read my post above you'd see I'd already acknowledged). THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED THE METRIC ABOVE for distinguishing WNism from white supremacy.
For the cheap seats: supremacy means SUPREME. Look the word up if you must. SUPREME doesn't mean better in some ways, and worse in others.
As far as Asian creativity goes, you surely must recognize that Europeans have dominated at innovation for half an eon now, regardless of I.Q. means. It doesn't take a WN to notice noses on faces.

The article is not without its faults, but I admit it is much improved.

I would like to state here and now, to try to clear up some confusion, that White Nationalism is independent of White supremacism, and is also exclusively White separatist, based on the White Nationalist Position Statements. It was formulated and perfected after much collaboration and discussion, and it is the consensus among White Nationalists. It's probably the best expression of White Nationalist philosophy available.
White separatism is a part of nearly all of the other ideologies (National Socialism, White Nationalism, and White supremacism). White Nationalism and White supremacism are separate philosophies based on definition (again, see the White Nationalist Position Statements and Merriam-Webster's definition of White supremacy), but National Socialism is compatible with both WN and WS (though most serious NSists are WN). Many people get the impression that WN and WS are one and the same based on the fact that the two philosophies only have one distinction (advocation of supremacy), and organizations of both camps are frequently allied based on the common goal of advancing the interests of White people as a group.
Hope that helped.
--Ryodox 02:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Nationalism or White Supremacism

" White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people.

White nationalists explicitly deny being racial supremacists, arguing that they merely wish for each group of people with shared heritage, including white people, to be allowed to promote and preserve its heritage, and do not desire to oppress or dominate other races as racial supremacists do. Critics argue that white nationalism intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy or white racism. "

The same could be said for any form of racial nationalism surely? I mean Black nationalists like the panthers or Islamic Nationalists such as the nation of islam are racist too.

Yes, but the article is not saying that they are not racist - indeed, if you look up the word in an Oxford dictionary, you will see that the article is explicitly saying that they are - but rather pointing out the (alleged) distinction between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" (in theory, the two are different types of racism, but the former is really just a cover used by the latter). elvenscout742 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of White regarding Pan Aryanism

An anonymous user constantly deletes that Syrians are accepted by White nationalists who follow the Pan Aryanism ideology, and keeps saying that only Lebanese Christians are accepted as White by these type of White nationalists. Caucasians who are of the Muslim religion are accepted by Pan Aryan white nationalists, and this anonymous user keeps deleting this statement. To prove my point, here's a link to an FAQ list from the Pan-Aryan National Front website, (who are of course Pan Aryan White nationalists). http://www.panf.info/upload/showthread.php?t=4443 --Gramaic | Talk 01:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just some stupid message board. And the poster doesn't even know how to spell "Lebanon." Syrian and Lebanese people are Semitic, Arabic, Muslim and mostly dark. There's no way they would be accepted in bulk by any White nationalists. I've heard of the few Christians in the Middle East being considered non-Arabized remnants of ancient "Aryan" populations, but no more than that. There has to be some connection to Europe for inclusion in the Pan-Aryan movement.
Anyway, the description of Pan-Aryanism is too long. So I'm shortening it and making it more generic (like the Pan-Europeanism description).

I am including also the following comment, which refers to an aspect of white natinalism that is too often ignored:

On the other hand, some Southern Europeans, especially in Greece, but also in Italy and Spain, consider Northern Europeans as second-class whites, or descendants of barbarians, based on the perception that most civilizations associated with the white peoples were actually Mediterranean. HCC.


Please could you give some citation as where you draw this idea of southern europeans considering northern europeans non-white from?

I´m from Spain and whenever I´ve read white supremacist books or texts written by Spanish, I´ve never seen such thing.

My understanding has been that historical perception shifted with the fortunes of European civilization.
In other words, when classical Greece and Rome were ascendant the view was that they were civilized and cultured, whereas the "barbarians," the outsiders, i.e. Gauls and those from the North, were uncivilized.
After the decline of Hellenic and Roman civilization, this view changed, until the Renaissance, after which it receded and returned, depending upon historical events.
I don't know if this means that Southern Europeans viewed Northern Europeans as "non-white," per se, but there are pre-existing tensions that still complicate politics to this day. Witness the popularity of political separatist organizations like the Northern League, whose establishment is premised upon the notion that there is some qualitative difference between Italians from the Alps, and cities like Florence and Turin, and ones that hail from Sicily and So. Italy. And that Northern Italians, by inference, are genetically or culturally superior.
I'm not sure where precisely this fits into the broader debate over white nationalism, but I'm sure that there are white nationalists/supremacists from Mediterranean latitudes who hold views similar to the ones expressed by people such as Umberto Bossi.

Ruthfulbarbarity 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalizing racial groups by colour?

I want to know if there's any consensus on how to capitalize informal names for racial groups ("Black" and "White", primarily). I always capitalize them myself, but I've seen some inconsistency even within articles (see Black nationalism).

--Ryodox 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering myself. The Ungovernable Force 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronymtastic

WN currently redirects to Southwest Airlines. I think that people would be more likely to type in WN looking for White Nationalism than Southwest Airlines... thoughts? Drett 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racial characteristics beyond appearance

The Ungovernable Force's latest edit brings up an interesting contention. There is an abundance of information correlating behaviour and IQ to race, and it should be recognized that race will play a large part in defining such factors. Race is clearly the basis for outward appearance, so it stands to reason that it would affect other things, including the brain, and hundreds if not thousands of studies have supported this hypothesis. I understand that discussion of racial differences beyond appearance has been made taboo in our society, but the evidence showing these differences should at least be considered.

--Ryodox 19:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting and I think it should be talked about. It is possible that race could effect IQ and behavior. But there isn't any conclusive evidence that the correlation of various IQ's and such is caused by race, as the sentence I edited tried to portray. I personally think there probably are some differences that are biological, but I also think that the vast majority of them are due more to culture than to biology. Heck, as the article says, some scientists don't even think race exists outside of a cultural construct! So to say someone's race effects their intelligence and behavior in the same way it effects their appearance is incredibly inconclusive and biased. If someone wants to rewrite those thing in with those clarifications feel free, but the edit I made only undid something that was recently added itself. The Ungovernable Force 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There is not necessarily any scientifically valid evidence re the genetic determinants of differences in "race" in America worth cosidering at all. Outward appearance is very powerful as far as something which human beings use to naturally classify things, but as an overall genetic determinant, it's fairly feeble. Consider, for instance, Strom Thurmond's daughter by a "black" mother. Given that the mother undoubtedly has some "white" ancestry herself, the daughter is obviously genetically closer, overall, to a "white" American than to any actual Africans. Yet, racially, she is "black" and would be lumped in with Desmond Tutu rather than, for instance Strom himself. This is true of most "black" Americans, who actually represent a huge assortment of genetic mixes from almost all "white" to almost all African, with a random sampling of Native American, Asian, and pretty much anything else tossed in. And of course, there are an unknown number of supposedly "white" Americans who have an unknown percentage of "black" ancestry. As such, it makes as much sense to try to correlate behavior, test scores, etc. with "blackness" genetically as it would to correlate dogs' behavior with black coloring on a genetic basis. It should be pretty clear that, in the absence of any more sophisticated markers for actual African genetics, any perceivable differences in behavior, test scores, etc. between "black" and "white" Americans would be much more likely to be environmentally linked to skin color than genetically linked, and "serious consideration" of same tends to be limited only to those who have preconceived notions. Gzuckier 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
@ Gzuckier:
You seem to be under the impression that race is nothing more than skin colour, but as I've said, simple observation will prove the fallacy of this. Ancestry can be genetically tested through mtDNA. I'll get back to this page soon with the evidence I cite.
--Ryodox 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Eugenics. I don't think there has been much "conclusive" evidence-or any reliable, empirical data-proving a correlation between one's race and his or her IQ, or correlation between racial characteristics and IQ in general.
I realize that there are many individuals and groups, e.g. eugenicists, racial separatists, among others, who have invoked this argument in the past and present, but I have yet to see any convincing, let alone dispositive, evidence that race and IQ are inherently linked.
This reminds me of the continued controversy over the preponderance of African-American athletes in professional sports, and the implication made that it has something to do with genetics, even though there has never been a single study-to the best of my knowledge-demonstrating that African-Americans are more genetically predisposed towards success in athletic competition than their non-black counterparts.
Despite the assertion by white "nationalists" that there are genetic differences in this area among races that theory has yet to be demonstrated. In fact, from what I recall William Shockley was thrashed in the much-publicized debate he had with Roy Innis, which involved his contention that whites were genetically superior to blacks. Somewhat embarrassing, considering the fact that Shockley was a brilliant physicist and engineer, and consequently, should have been able to hold his own in a pseudo-scientific debate.
Also, I think the issue of interracial marriage and procreation-at least, with respect to the United States-should be considered in this discussion, as someone alluded to earlier.
If the view of eugenicists is correct, then they have not provided an adequate explanation for the large segment of the population that is of mixed ancestry.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Studies have shown, with mountains of indirect evidence, that there probably is a genetic component to intelligence. I find it odd that anyone speaking about this subject would not already know that.

One such study showed that black children adopted into middle-class white families did not, on average, have higher IQs than the rest of the black population. If it is known that white people have a higher average IQ than black people, which has been demonstrated, and that this difference is purely environmental, you should conclude that those black children would have the same IQ as middle-class whites. They did not. This in itself is very convincing for the claim of a genetic factor, as indirect as it may be.

Another study done on white and black children showed that when offered one lollipop that day, or two lollipops three days later, many more of the black children chose one lollipop that day than did the white children. This demonstrates a shorter time-horizon and an inability to maintain personal restraint among the black children, while the white children showed more of an aptitude for thinking ahead.

And still more, a study was done on black and white individuals to determine their "g Factor", or general intelligence. It basically went as follows: Repeat a series of increments of numbers, adding a set of two numbers when those numbers are given by the instructor. Then, do the same thing but repeat the numbers backwards. For example; 24-35-61, and the sets continue until you cannot continue. Then another set of numbers is given but to be repeated backwards; so the instructor says 34-15-69, but the subject has to repeat the numbers backwards, 96-51-43, etc. The study showed that the black subjects did about as well as the white subjects when adding forwards, but when adding backwards, which requires more "general intelligence", they faired much worse.

These and a plethora of other studies done on intelligence provide, as I said, mountains of evidence for believing that intelligence is partly genetic.

As for the debate on White Nationalism:

The difference between White Nationalism and White Supremacy, to me, is very simple. White Supremacy advocates hatred through it's belief that whites are inherently superior. White Nationalism does not advocate hatred, although it's adherents tend to believe most of the same things White Supremacists believe. White Supremacists tend to be driven by hatred, while White Nationalists are driven by what they consider rationality and logic. Groups like the National Alliance or National Vanguard, the Aryan Nations or any other neo-Nazi group tend to promote genocide, although it is not seen by them as likely to happen. If you listen to the music these groups promote, the lyrics are often genocidal in nature, such as "piles of dead Jews" or "Holocaust, Holocaust, 2000", referring to the desire for modern day genocide to finish off the Jews.

White Nationalists such as Jared Taylor shy away from anti-Semitism mainly for two reasons 1) They aren't actually anti-Semetic and 2) Many White Nationalists or Seperatists who are academics, have many Jewish colleagues who are on "their side". Much of the research done on race and intelligence is done by Jewish scholars. White Nationalists lean more towards anti-Zionism, which they see as a pervasive force within the U.S. government, lobbying, and policy-making. Whether someone is Jewish or not is not a factor, since not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. They also oppose "Judeo-Christian" Zionists, Evangelicals and Neo-Conservatives who all strongly support Israel. As inherent isolationists, they see the strong support of Israel as not only unnecessary but dangerous, because of it's supposed repracutions with other nations. Political support of Israel by the government is seen as the Israeli lobby's immense power of persuasion over the government, which they believe should not be influenced by foreign powers or U.S. citizens sympathetic to those powers, who for example, often times have familial ties to that nation. The White Supremacists stance is filled with conspiracy thoeries and blind hatred towards Jews.

Can you show any sources for those studies? Who conducted them? The Ungovernable Force 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to divert this discussion onto an unrelated tangent about Isreal, but suffice it to say I do not agree with the assumption that our pro-Israel foreign policy bears much relation to the lobbying exercised by the Israeli government, any more than I believe our equally strong alliance with Australia is directly related to lobbying undertaken by the Australian diplomatic corps. I think it's more a matter of shared cultural, political, and historical values and common strategic intrests, in both cases.
Although I agree with your contention that Judaism and Zionism are not-and have never been-synonymous, as illustrated by the existence of organizations like Nateurei Kartei, ISM, among others, and from an historical perspective, the divisions those who felt that establishing a Jewish state was in the best interests of worldwide Jewry and those who disagreed, I think your analysis fails to take into account the hundreds of thousands-if not millions-of Hindus who support the concept-at least, in the abstract-out of a mutual anxiety stemming from the threat posed by Islam. Granted, the base of support-within this country, at least-comes from Christians, but that is not true in other parts of the world.
As far as genetic differences and IQ, perhaps I should clarify my earlier remarks.
I'm not implying that there have not been significant studies commissioned in the area of racial differences relative to IQ. However, there have been been other studies that have taken issue with the assertion that racial characteristics are dispositive with respect to collective IQ patterns.
I'm not going to get into tit-for-tat citation-since this subject has been explored in-depth above, and the discussion would probably be more appropriate for the IQ Wiki-but I will say that I'm not invested, either politically or scientifically, in the debate over the empirical assessment of IQ with regard to race. IQ as a stand-alone factor, at least. My point is that I haven't yet been convinced that there's any significant impact of race upon the respective intelligence of certain ethnic or racial categories.
That being said, here are a few links to interesting debates on the subject,
http://danny.oz.au/communities/anthro-l/debates/race-iq/index.html
http://www.isteve.com/Articles_Genetics.htm
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/scitech/archive/95sum/bell.html
As far as the distinction-insofar as one exists-between white "nationalists"-a self-descriptor that I view to be a misnomer, like the one used by their black corollary, i.e. black nationalists-and white supremacists, I believe that the former is a category specifically invented in order to avoid the obloquy customarily visited upon the former by mainstream public opinion.
I'm not saying that there are no differences in rhetoric and/or strategy-there most certainly are-but in terms of substantive philosophical disagreements I do not see any major distinction between people who use Stormfront and those who favor the Vanguard News Network, or the members of the World Church Of The Creator and David Duke's new "white power," organization, whose name escapes me at the moment.

Ruthfulbarbarity 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[[7]]

In this study, the IQs of the black children was raised by only a few points. These children's IQ may of been raised by a better environment, yet held back due to social conditions, or any other social stigmas. Or, environmental variables could only do so much for them, raising their IQs slightly, and genetic factors caused the rest of the defecit. Those would be the two major contentions.


I would agree that there are no major distinctions between what most white nationalists and white supremacists believe, but it is important to remember that this fact does not make them one in the same. You are mistaken in thinking that people who call themselves white nationalists, or who more often are labeled as white nationalists, are actually white supremacists. Although some of those people who do, such as David Duke, are actually supremacists. There are also different variants of supremacists/nationalists/seperatists. One definition of white nationalist, and probably the most accurate, is one who wishes to maintain a white majority within their respective nation. I will cite an example of an individual who I would consider a white nationalists, who could not be considered a supremacist, unless done so by extremely biased means.

James Edwards is the host of a Memphis radio show called The Political Cesspool. He was a political aide for Pat Buchanan's 2000 presidential campaign. He is a member of a group, Council of Conservative Citizens, which is often called racist or white supremacist. The guests on his show are anyone from Bay Buchanan, to Sonny Landham, to Jamie Kelso, who I believe administrates StormFront. The Political Cesspool is also considered a hate-group by the SPLC. There isn't much controversial about Edward's views on race, except his view that the U.S. should stay majority white to maintain it's "Anglo-Celtic" heritage. He also acknowledges racial differences in IQ, and high levels of non-white crime. He would be a good example of a sort of white nationalist that is extremely moderate when it comes to the racist-right's views on race. Perhaps a section should be created to address this.

Maybe.
I did find an interesting link exploring this seeming dichotomy of views.
http://movementexposed.blogspot.com/2005/12/stormfront-fake-fraudulant-and-full-of.html
Although, to be perfectly honest, a lot of these factional, internecine disputes seem to revolve around fiduciary obligations and mismanagement of funds-and I can't say that David Duke, Don Black, or any of the other white supremacist leaders strike me as being honest with their contributors-with a few ad hoc critiques based upon alleged ideological conflicts.
One thing I have noticed is that self-professed "white nationalists" go out of their way not to disavow Christianity, although again I think that's more out of political expediency than genuine belief.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first, what's with everyone claiming that David Duke is a "supremacist"? I have read and heard much of his views on race; he denies that he's racist (some anti-WN's will probably take issue with this) but his statements about race are certainly reflective of this. But, then again, a White person acknowledging race is enough for him or her to be labelled "racist" by our pitiful modern standards.
@ Ruthfulbarbarity: David Duke's White rights organization is called the European Unity & Rights Organization (EURO). Indeed there are few actual inter-organizational ideological disputes; they mostly arise from leadership scandal (a good example is the recent departure Bill White, a former FBI informant, from the National Socialist Movement after he made false allegations of Satanist activities in the organization's leadership).
--Ryodox 20:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't know about world-wide, but nationalists in the south-east are usually very religious. Yet they dislike most of the modern-day "peace and love" Christianity. They see modern Christianity as "pussified", but they are nonetheless devout Christians just like their political forebearers, the Founding Fathers, whom they seem to admire greatly. I don't see any difference between the beliefs, politically or religiously, of the people who founded the United States and modern 'racially-conscious' paleo-conservatives.They see old-school isolationist Christianity as the purest form, and wish to maintain it. People like Hal Turner and David Duke probably are not 'true' Christians.

I believe Christian Identity is more of an excuse to further hate people, it's adherents are probably not generally 'good' Christians. But, I don't know any CI adherents, or David Duke or Hal turner, so this is just speculation.

This is what strikes me as being fundamentally dishonest about the whole "white nationalist" movement.
I can't tell you how many WN forums I've visited where there was at least one person with an avatar depicting the Confederate flag, either the Stars & Bars or the "Bonny Blue Flag," which would seem to contradict the purported goals of the group in question.
From my perspective the whole term is a bit of an oxymoron, at least as far as Americans are concerned, since this nation was not created as a construction of white identity, and there have always been large segments of America-since its inception-who have disputed the notion that being patriotic or nationalistic and being white were synonymous.
America was founded on a host of concrete philosophical and political ideals, not merely a set of immutable genetic characteristics.
But the idea of articulating a desire to return to the CSA seems almost as problematic, even though the Confederacy, unlike the United States, was uniquely based upon the presumed innate superiority of white Americans.
Wouldn't white "nationalists" from New England, the West Coast, or other parts of the United States, object to the divisive imagery used by a WN from the South?
I've seen WN warnings against factionalism of this kind, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn't yet prevented neo-Confederate WNs from promoting their values, which would seem to be at least partially in conflict with the broader goals of some of the aforementioned organizations.
I've also noticed a similiar conflict on StormFront, between Irish Republicans and Unionists, and British members who support the Crown.
Don't you think these disputes serve to discredit the entire concept of "white nationalism?"
I mean, if you are truly devoted to worldwide "white unity," then why would you spend so much time engrossed in sectarian, parochial arguments involving groups like Sinn Fein, the DUP, among others?

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


America was founded as a nation for white Christians, the Founding Fathers were fairly explicit in letting that be known. None of those points totally discredit the concept since even if they got what they want, there would still be factions. There will always be factionalism, in any nation, within any movement. That doesn't mean those factions can't work together towards a common goal, afterwards working out whatever qualms they have. I agree that there are many different groups of people who work against eachother. For example, paleo-conservative white nationalists don't like Nazis since they make them look bad, and Nazis don't like paleo-conservatives because they are too 'soft'. There are also white nationalists who accept Jews, while Nazis obviously would rather do something entirely different with them.

As political movements though, if their goals ever came to fruition (which they never will in this country), whichever group's ideas had the most support, those ideas would become the mainstream.

I beg to differ.
While there were probably some who viewed the United States as a white-dominated nation in perpetuity there were plenty of others, e.g. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, to name just a few, who disagreed vehemently with this notion.
Even those founding fathers who did not support racial equality, e.g. Thomas Jefferson, believed that the institution of slavery was detestable, and would need to be abolished in time.
You need look no further than the Constitution of the Confederate States of America to discover that your impression of the principles upon which this nation was founded is inaccurate, to say the least.
That is a Constitution that is predicated specifically upon the alleged superiority of white Americans, and racial discrimination is explicit-not merely implicit, or sanctioned by default-within the body of its text.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how David Duke's denial of racism validates this point of view.
Yes, he has also denied being an anti-Semite, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm sure that if you asked Michael Moore about his weight problem he would deny being obese.
Passing off someone's obviously biased opinion of their own beliefs as empirical truth is not a convincing argument.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists, a minority of those wanted to integrate freed blacks. You are making it seem like they were all 'multiculturalists'. A majority of them, including a vast majority of the citizenry, had no intention of merging the races. You failed to mention the efforts made by people like Jefferson and John Jay to send freed slaves to West Africa because of their fear of integrational failure. America had a 'white' identity until the 1960's.

@ Ruthfulbarbarity:
Regarding the Confederacy issue, some people admire the Confederacy and identify with Southern heritage. It doesn't necessarily mean they literally believe the Confederacy will be re-created. And yes, I do detest sectarian conflict.
You also state that the Confederacy was based on the principle of White supremacy, but you are aware that slavery was still widespread in the North even during the War Between the States, are you not? The Emancipation Proclamation liberated the slaves in the Confederacy, not in the Union. In the article to which this talk page is associated, the Naturalization Law of 1790 is cited as permitting naturalization of any free White person who has been a citizen for two years. The Constitution did not specify "White" because White supremacy in the early Americas was understood. Indeed, it was the rule right up until the 20th century.
Also, again, I'd like for you to actually read some of Duke's writing and listen to his speeches before forming an opinion of him, instead of taking his detractors' word for it. Certainly he has said some things in the past that might qualify him as a supremacist, but this is not the case now. For example:

I didn't want to oppress them [Black people], hurt them, imprison them or exploit them. I simply desired to live in a society where my progeny could grow up in harmony and accomplishment, in beauty and brotherhood. I knew that those ideals were possible in a society of my European heritage, and ultimately impossible under integration and multiculturalism.

— David Duke, My Awakening (1998), p. 170
--Ryodox 04:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage in a North v. South flame war here-I've done that on plenty of other websites, where it was pertinent to the subject under discussion-but suffice it to say, I disagree with you.
My point wasn't that that the North was a bastion of racial equality.
It was that the U.S. Constitution-while flawed-was not ratified for the exclusive purpose of institutionalizing white supremacy, whereas the CSA constitution was.
However, the broader point is that white "nationalism"-and again, I think that the term itself is an oxymoron in the United States, for the aforementioned reasons-should, theoretically at least, reject separate divisions along geographic lines.
Isn't the objective of many of these individuals to carve out an all-white territory within the United States?
Perhaps you could illuminate matters.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

@ Ruthfulbarbarity: Indeed, the primary goal of White Nationalism is separation from other races, and this includes the possibility of the creation of an all-White state within the United States.

Also, White Nationalism is called such because it advocates the formation of a cohesion among Whites (ethnonationalism).

[edit] Christian Identity

I just looked up Christian Identity, and discovered that it's grouped under a series of articles related to Christianity.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit odd, considering the tenuous-at best-relationship the Christian Identity movement has with orthodox and/or estoteric Christianity?
Even Fred Phelps-who most people wouldn't consider a conventional Christian-does not have views that accord with this movement.
Shouldn't that article be grouped under "fascism" or "white nationalism?"
Just a suggestion.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Could be... I found this for reference, not sure if is legit or not [8] 64.12.116.68 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Christian Identity is a small Christian branch based on British Israelism, so it would belong in the category of "Christianity" as well as "White Nationalism".
--Ryodox 03:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dimopoulos and white nationalism

There is a book by Dimopoulos on the ethnic origins of the Greeks, and no doubt he claims that Greek culture is superior. That does not make him a white nationalist, but a Greek nationalist. More specific info is needed to categorise him as a white nationalist.Paul111 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens

I was rather surprised to see references to the guiding lights of White Nationalism removed from the White nationalist groups section of this, namely American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens. The reason given was “AmRen and CoCC talk about racial issues, but they don't call for specifically "white nationalism." Which is roughly the equivalent of saying that the Wall Street Journal talks about business but don’t call for improving the economy. Amren and CCC talk about racial issues, at great length, because they take a separatist/WN position. Yakuman left in references to the neo-Nazi groups, so I can only surmises that in Yakuman’s opinion, if you’re not neo-Nazi, then you’re not WN. I am not sure where he came up with this definition, but it’s not the definition used on this page.

The current definition used for this page: White nationalism is a variant of ethnic nationalism, advocating a racial definition (or redefinition) of the national group.

The old/former definition on this page: White nationalism is a political and social movement to advance the social and economic interests of white or Caucasian people.

Both Amren and the CCC meet either definition. It is their racial stands, specifically WN, which defines them, not any political stands separate and distinct from race.

Amren:

From Jared Taylor, editor and founder of Amren: “I started American Renaissance 17 years ago in order to awaken whites to the crisis they face and to encourage them to unite in defending their legitimate interests as a race.”

Quote taken from the CCC website “"When white people are asked to celebrate diversity they are being asked to celebrate their dwindling influence," he said. "We're supposed to believe that diversity is our strength, but diversity is clearly a weakness." Taylor talking about the 2006 American Renaissance Conference; titled “The White Man's Disease: The Fantasy of Egalitarianism.” Yes you can oppose diversity and not support WN, but lamenting the dwindling influence of white people is purely WN. Big meeting in Memphis, TN

CCC:

from "A Statement of the Principles of the Council of Conservative Citizens"

(2) We believe the United States is a European country and that Americans are part of the European people.

We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character.

We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime.

(European/Western here = white)

(8) Cultural, national, and racial integrity.

We support the cultural and national heritage of the United States and the race and civilization of which it is a part, as well as the expression and celebration of the legitimate subcultures and ethnic and regional identities of our people. We oppose all efforts to discredit, "debunk," denigrate, ridicule, subvert, or express disrespect for that heritage. We believe public monuments and symbols should reflect the real heritage of our people, and not a politically convenient, inaccurate, insulting, or fictitious heritage.

(Talking about Confederate heritage without actually naming it. Neo-confederate groups are by definition WN.)

Brimba 18:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A separate state for whites

I reverted the edits on this issue. Most self-identified white nationalists do not advocate that white people move to a separate state, most of them do not advocate the creation of a separate white homeland in the northwestern US and Western Canada, and so far as I know not even the farthest fringes suggested that all white people should move there. White-homeland proposals do exist, in the US and South Africa, but their advocates are a 'minority within a minority'.Paul111 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi paul, that is incorrect. Almost all White Nationalists demand a separate sovereign nation for Whites only. Also, this means that most White nationalists are white separatists too. If you spend any amount of time on Stormfront, which I have, I am an active member on Stormfront, you will find that almost all White Nationalists demand an all-White nation. If you take the word "White Nationalism" and break it down, you will get this:

White Nationalism

White National

White Nation

The main goal of White Nationalism is for a White nation. For documentation of my membership on Stormfront, my username is Osmium14. For further evidence, I point you to the White Nationalist Position Statements here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223388

Position Statement 1 explicitly states the creation of a White homeland that is free from non-Whites.

Osmium14 19:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And where would they put this 'white' nation, with its approximately one billion inhabitants? Where is the evidence of support for this option?Paul111 19:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We have not determined the location of our future White nation. However, Europe or North America would be good candidates. Evidence for the demand of a separate sovereign nation?

1) The White Nationalist Position Statements that I linked above talks explicitly about an all-White nation.

2) Just go on Stormfront and talk to the other White Nationalists there, most of them will tell you that White Nationalism is about having an all-White nation. Like I said, it is the main goal of White Nationalists. One of the reputable members such as MuadDib, JohnJoyTree, David Duke, Don Black, or others would agree. Osmium14 19:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The demand that an existing nation should be white, is not the same as a demand that a new white nation be created. That is what the section is trying to explain. Polish nationalism was about creating a Polish nation-state, as national homeland for all Poles. By the same logic "white nationalism" would imply creation of a vast new state, uniting all white people. If that was what it advocated, then this article should say so - but the evidence won't support that description.Paul111 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

White Nationalism does imply the creation of an entirely NEW nation. Although, some WNs wish for an existing nation to be all-White, this is not the main objective. The main goal of White Nationalism is the creation of a new nation for Whites only or the dissolution of an existing nation into smaller entities, each small piece would be an independent nation within itself. Thus, we emphasize the birth of an all-White nation. Osmium14 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I clarified the wording on this issue. There is no evidence that the majority of US white nationalists reject their American identity in this way, or that they want to move to British Columbia, or that any substantial number of white nationalists want to create a white superstate. There is no evidence that white nationalists in other countries reject their national identity either, in fact most are aggressively patriotic and chauvinistic. Wikipedia has criteria of notability and accuracy, and proposals by very small groups, and individual views, merit no more than a mention in an overview article.Paul111 09:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

So you basically didn't read the White Nationalist Position Statements. The majority of U.S. Wihte nationalists prefer to create a White superstate separate from the non-Whites. Osmium14 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the statements themselves, but judging by the "cover letter" here, it appears that they are the personal ideas of one Stormfront contributor. Based on that document, how can we say what the majority of WNs favor? At most it is what its author and some forum posters agree on. -Will Beback 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Paul111 is confused about White Nationalism. The British nationalists, French nationalists, and German nationalists aren't WHITE nationalists. The BNP (British National Party) promotes a Britain for white Britons though. The BNP disagrees with many issues of White Nationalists in general such as creating a nation for all Whites; the BNP espouses the idea of a nation for the native British people and ONLY for native BRITISH people. White Nationalism, on the other hand, is for the creation of a separate state for Whites only. Here is a FAQ from a very reputable member of the White Nationalist movement, his name is YGGDRASIL, he speaks for many White Nationalists, just read up on him on Stormfront and on his webpage: http://www.whitenationalism.com/wn/wn-06.htm and here's an excerpt of the first question:

1. Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Will Beback, I know JohnJoyTree posted his White Nationalist Position Statements, one by one, on the forum, for everyone to vote on, and thousands of White Nationalists voted on the position statements. You can go to the link I gave above, and look in the 2nd post where he lists the statements. These statements can be considered as what "White Nationalism" is about. It is a folly and inaccuracy to think that "White Nationalism" doesn't imply a nation-state. Paul111 does not know what White Nationalism is, nor is he a White Nationalist himself. I am a White Nationalist and I've been with the movement for over 8 years, since 1998.

To say that White Nationalism is not about creating a nation is like saying you like to go swimming without getting wet. It is stupendously illogical. The whole idea of White Nationalism is about creating a nation for Whites to live in. Wikipedia needs to reflect the truth and this article needs to be edited for accuracy. I have provided abundant evidence for my case. Osmium14 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Picking one statement at random, I see that 169 Stormfront subscribers voted, about 88% agreeing with the proposal. We can certainly say that the majority of Stormfront voters support these proposals, but they are not necessarily a cross-section of Stormfront subscribers much less of the whole international White Nationalism movement. We all know that the validity of polls of this type is very low. -Will Beback 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Will Beback, that is a baseless accusation without foundation. The polls do represent the general opinion of a majority of White Nationalists. And so does YGGDRASIL's WN FAQ. The majority of White Nationalists in the world do espouse the creation of a nation for Whites only. To mention White Nationalism without affirming the idea of a separate nation is slander and disinformation. If we picked at random any White Nationalist in the world, he or she would agree that this movement is about creating an all-White nation. This is common knowledge to anyone active in the movement. If you believe otherwise, I want to see evidence that the majority of White Nationalists don't espouse the idea of an all-White nation. Osmium14 05:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The accusation is not baseless. I checked and none of the statements polled more than a couple of hundred votes. Please show me where you find "thousands" of responses. Also, since when is Stormfront the only WN forum? The plain fact is that there's no way we'll ever know what the majority of WNs think. -Will Beback 05:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I again clarified the text, pointing out that a segregated whites-only zone is not a nation. The article should stick to standard terminology, and I emphasised the commonalities and differences with other nationalist movements. I also added that is is difficult to judge the degree of support for any option. The only sources are forums and websites, and a 'movement' website might be the work of one individual. But given the amount of patriotic rhetoric, and the emphasis on the heritage of white Americans, I think it is clear that most US white nationalists don't seek to abandon their American national identity in favour of a giant White-o-stan. That helps put them in historical perspective, since there is a long tradition of 'white-America' politics, and comparable traditions in other countries.Paul111 10:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To have a Wikipedia article on White Nationalism, without stating that WN is about the creation of a White nation is tantamount to talking about swimming without getting wet. This article is a disgrace to White Nationalism and Wikipedia's tradition of accuracy and non-biased factual information. White Nationalism does NOT equate to American nationalism. It has no "American" identity present. The desire to retain an "American" identity is ABSENT. We are not White American nationalists, we are WHITE Nationalists. An American identity would be present in American nationalism, not White Nationalism. Notice when you go to www.stormfront.org, look on the top-left of the window it says "White Pride World Wide" because White Nationalism is a worldwide movement, not an American one. The request for a segregated "Whites-only" zone is not generally present either, most White Nationalists demand the creation of an entirely NEW nation for Whites only. A segregated Whites-only zone would be a logical stepping stone to an eventual White nation though. But it is not the main goal of White Nationalism. Also, White Nationalism is not "White America" politics. Show me evidence of the tradition of "White-America" politics. There may be a historical perspective and comparable traditions, but they do not relate to White Nationalism specifically. They are isolated events that bear no relationship to the current White Nationalist group. Anyone spending even a small amount on Stormfront will immediately realize what I'm saying. I am editing this travesty of an article to reflect accuracy and truth, rather than libel and slanderous disinformation. I encourage Paul111 and everyone else to go to this "Beginners Guide to White Nationalism" and scroll down to the "White Nationalist Solution" part and read the articles listed there. It will explain to you what White Nationalism is about. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=324762 Osmium14 17:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Beginners Guide to White Nationalism' gets a grand total of three Google hits. Like any forum post, it is inherently non-notable unless it attracts support. It is not, in itself, evidence for any political movement. There is no evidence for a widespread total rejection of American identity among US white nationalists. Segregated zones are not a nation, and proposals for segregating the United States are not in themselves a proposal to create a new nation. It is nationalist to seek a new and separate nation-state in the western USA and Canada, but there is no evidence of substantial support for that option. Wikipedia is not a forum, and the purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, in the context of nationalist ideology in general.Paul111 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I do not understand why you insist on misrepresenting White Nationalism. Where is your evidence that we only demand segregation within the USA? Most White Nationalists, if not all, demand the creation of a NEW nation for Whites only. Spend a few minutes around on Stormfront and you will quickly get the evidence you need. Why do you insist on this inaccurate description of White Nationalism on Wikipedia is beyond me. Can you at least back up your "claims" with some evidence? Why am I the only one providing evidence? Dr. William Pierce and his articles are widely-read by White Nationalists throughout the country. It takes only a minute to understand the White Nationalist movement. The fact that you still haven't understood it is a testament to your stupidity. I already provided ample evidence with the White Nationalist Position Statements which were voted on by hundreds of people PER position, so if we add up the hundreds, we get thousands of votes for the complete position statement. If you don't think thousands of votes is enough evidence, then there is something wrong with you. It is your turn to provide evidence for your claim now. Or I shall submit this case to Wikipedia to be mediated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation Osmium14 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

William Pierce described himself as an American. So do most other white nationalists in the USA. There is no evidence that a majority of white nationalists have abandoned their national identity as Americans. The fact that they seek to segregate the United States does not make them a separate nation. In discussing nations, nation-states, and nationalism, this article should use acepted terminology, and also match the usage at those three articles. The fact that a group of white Americans want to live in a whites-only zone does not, in itself, make them a 'white nation'. The section on relationship to nationalism does note, that a fully-segregated state would no longer be a nation-state, since the national unity has disappeared.
Online polls at one forum are not evidence, and the voter totals can not be added up since the same people may be voting in successive polls. Additionally, sources quoted by Osmium14 often contradict the interpretation he gives to them. For instance, the White Nationalist FAQ by 'Yggdrasil' explicitly identifies white nationalists as European-Americans, and proposes the segregation of the United States by Congressional districts. It does not state that whites are non-Americans, and it does not identify a new territorial homeland for them. The suggestion that most US white nationalists have ceased to feel American, and are prepared to withdraw from the United States and leave it to non-whites, is inherently unlikely. With a few exceptions, the reverse seems true: they think whites are the real Americans, and that non-whites don't belong there. I suggest that users who are interested in this issue read the articles on Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism, as examples of what a separatist nationalist movement entails. (The comparison could be added to this article, to help clarify things).Paul111 11:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront is a World Wide forum for White Nationalists everywhere, not just in the USA. If you need further evidence that we demand the creation of a new nation, whether using existing territory from the USA or not does not matter, it is a new nation for Whites only. There is NO EVIDENCE that the majority of White Nationalists demand to live in a "segregated Whites-only" zone within the United States. The author Carol Swain, a black female, has written a book on WN. Her book is called "The New White Nationalism..." and also another book from her is "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America." These books have quotes from the leading White Nationalists such as Jared Taylor, Don Black, David Duke, and others. The whole point of the movement of White Nationalism is for the creation of a White nation. Your links to Basque nationalism and Breton nationalism are irrelevant! We have a common saying in WN, it is "Our Race is Our Nation," and this means the rejection of any form of "American" identity. 'Yggdrasil' states in his FAQ in the 2nd question and 1st question that WNs intend to create our own nation,

Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm

I do not agree with some parts of his FAQ (such as a new nation for Whites and a segregated zone for Asians within the "White nation), and this FAQ is old, from 1994 I presume from what I can remember. The White Nationalist Position Statements are better suited as the almost near-perfect opinion of White Nationalists everywhere. I have private messaged Don Black, David Duke, and others about the WN position statements. Also, 'Yggdrasil' posted in the thread for the original position statements. There is abundant evidence that we WNs do want to create a new nation for ourselves only, not living in a segregated Whites-only zone within the USA. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ME WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE of White Nationalism promoting YOUR IDEA. For the meantime, I am submitting this to be mediated by Wikipedia. Osmium14 16:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any white nationalist ideas, and therefore nothing for white nationalists to promote. The purpose of this article is to describe white nationalism, and not primarily for white nationalists, but for others. The appropriate theoretical perspective is the theory of nationalism, and comparisons with other nationalist movements. That will go some way toward neutrality, and prevent it being used as a propganda vehicle. Wikipedia is not a forum where white nationalists talk to each other, about what they think is the true version.
If the majority of US white nationalists turn their back on the United States, in the way that Timothy McVeigh did, then that would be a very significant development, and would deserve a prominent place in this article. But there is no evidence of this, and in the absence of reliable surveys of white nationalist majority opinion, Occam's razor suggests that the least unlikely view be attributed to them. The section can be re-arranged to start with the minority who do want to fully secede from the USA, and that will clarify the position of those who consider themsleves 'white' but still American.Paul111 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The comparisons with other nationalist movements are warranted, however, they must be used in perspective. Since this is not American nationalism, we do not have any affiliation with an American identity, or a "White American" one. This article is simply erroneous. Your refusal to submit to your errors is appalling. The majority of White nationalists (NOT JUST US White Nationalists) do not care about the United States or America. There is evidence in the WN position statements, WN FAQ, and with the opinion of the major leaders of White Nationalism. This section needs to reflect reality: the MAJORITY of White Nationalists do want to fully secede from the USA, to create their own nation either using the existing territory of the USA or completely new territory somewhere else. Osmium14 19:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections have been re-arranged, rewritten, and the 'race' section combined with the 'definition' section. Criticism and response were moved to the criticism section. The article now says explicitly, that there are no reliable sources for how many white nationalist support which version.Paul111 11:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have submitted this article for a "Request for Mediation" on Wikipedia. Please go here, and sign the article right below my name, and next to the "Agree." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/White_Nationalism Osmium14 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is not appropriate for simple content disputes. I will rewrite the section, as indicated above.Paul111 18:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No. We need mediation because you and I differ on what we consider the "majority" of White Nationalists' opinions are on the issue of a "segregated zone within a nation" or a completely "separate new nation." I have provided supple documentation for my case, but you reject the FAQ, the WN position statements, and other material such as books. You simply intend on smearing White Nationalism and misrepresenting our movement. I do not acquiesce to your libel. I should've placed a neutrality POV tag on that section too. Osmium14 19:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atwater / Powell paragraph deleted

The comparison with mainstream nationalist beliefs is already noted, and the critcism is also noted in the Criticism section, so this paragraph had nothing to add. I don't think specific names were necessary here, and removing the paragraph also removes the last citation-needed tags, so on balance removal was better.Paul111 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ===================================

"Some white nationalists support white separatism"

This statement is ridiculous. All White Nationalists are searatists by default.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/h/i/Talk%7EWhite_nationalism_37ef.html"