Talk:The Turner Diaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV quotes

Until and unless you do quote from the book "in context" then you are only falsely adding a false POV verses a NPOV and correct interpretation of this radical fictional futuristic novel.

Why don't YOU quote passages to support your changes? Also, are you even paying any attention to the reverts you make? Not much, it seems to me. You keep changing the link to "Europe" to "European", which if you bothered to click on it, you would find redirects to Europe. -- Infrogmation 19:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are the one making the false claim using a quote "out of its context", and not me.

Europe

Sorry about the link change regarding Europe/European.

My bad. :D

"fictional novel"

In conventional English, like everyone else speaks, the construction "fictional novel" is a tautology. Is this construction some particular form of jargon used in White Separatism? Why do these anon users keep putting it back in? - David Gerard 15:04, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agreed, which is why I changed it to "futuristic", which the novel is, and based upon Webster's On-line Dictionary definition of the word.

One entry found for futuristic.

Main Entry: fu·tur·is·tic Pronunciation: "fyü-ch&-'ris-tik Function: adjective

of, relating to, or characteristic of the future , futurism , or futurology; also : very modern

- fu·tur·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Also, "white separatism" is completely different from "white supremacism", of which the latter only implies the desire or wish to rule over all other races verses over only ones' own.

"A supremacist -- of whatever race -- is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races -- since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs.

A supremacist, in contrast, demands a multiracial society, since it is the supremacist's express wish that he dominate or rule over other races in such a society, such rule often being justified by a doctrine of racial superiority."

http://members.odinsrage.com/turner/epilog.html (deadlink)

Disambiguate The Order

The Order needs to be disambig'd to The Order (group) when this article is unprotected. --ESP 01:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-written

I have read the Turner Diaries, there are major plot details that aren't even talked about in this such as the excutions of 'race traitors,' the atomic bombing of most of the US east coast, and main characters. --Comrade Nick 04:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The summary certainly leaves much out. However I think it gives a fairly accurate idea of the book in the short space taken up here. Wikipedia is loaded with other summaries of books giving general outlines that leave much out. While I wouldn't say that the article needs to be re-written in the sence that what we have at present is wrong, it certainly could be improved by being expanded to describe such details as you mention. -- Infrogmation 13:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Link at end

I understand that wikipedia is meant to be neutral so I accept differing view points. I don't think it is appropriate to put a link to a white supremist site at the end even if it does contain the book text. It would be like putting a link to al queda in the 9-11 entry. Don't want to just delete it to be then accused of vadalism. Like any other book if someone wants to read it they probably won't find it hard getting a copy

And what would be wrong with putting a link to al qaeda in the 9-11 entry? If al qaeda had a web site, surely many readers of the 9-11 entry would be interested in it. A link does not constitute endorsement in any way. Nothing could be more appropriate in a wikipedia article on a novel than a link to the text of that novel.

First Edition

One thing that none of the previous contributors seems to be aware of is that the currently available edition of The Turner Diaries is not the same as the original. I have a copy of the first paperback edition, and Diaries is originally set in the 1980s. Apparently, as real-world dates began to overtake the book, it was decided to move the story ahead a decade in subsequent printings. Prices are also increased by 60-100%. Additionally, there are illustrations and the typeface is bigger. The story is basically the same, but it is interesting to note which details William Pierce updated and which he did not. I intend to add a section comparing the two editions when I have more time.

One artifact of the original text: if you get out some calendars, you will find that if a certain date in 1993 is described in the book as falling on, say, Tuesday, you will find that it was not a Tuesday in 1993, but was in 1983.

By the way, I too agree that the claim that "White world" only refers to the Western nations is bogus. --WacoKid 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

OK, I've added the section on the first edition.

Also, after some internal debate, I decided to add a sentence about Turner joining the Order to the plot outline. Not so much because the synopsis itself suffers from its exclusion, but because there is currently no mention of the Order appearing in the book, which I think is needed to clarify the relationship between TD and the 1980s group. Visitors might infer from the line that the 80s group "was named after the group in the book" that the Order and the Organization are synonymous, which isn't quite true. I don't want to bloat the wonderfully economical synopsis, but I feel the concept of the Order needs to be introduced somewhere.

Another minor change: I directed the red wikilink on gas crunch to the wiki on the 1973 oil crisis. Since TD would have been written before the 1979 Iran crisis, I feel that is appropriate.

Earlier, I added two more excerpts to Quotes. However, on second thought I decided that perhaps I should have solicited discussion first, and I won't add any more without suggesting them on Talk beforehand.

One change I've refrained from making is in the para about Hunter. First, shouldn't it say that Hunter might be a prequel, rather than that TD may be a sequel, since TD came first? But secondly, I doubt this theory entirely. It is true that there is no detailed history of the Organization, but it states that the Order has been around for 58(68) years. I haven't read Hunter, but my understanding is that Pierce said it was inspired by Joseph Paul Franklin, the man who shot Larry Flynt, and that the book illustrates an alternate revolutionary approach, that of "leaderless resistance." However, I don't want to eviscerate the para without offering a chance for discussion. --WacoKid 07:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...

If I go to Amazon.com, I can find the book.book

But if I go to Amazon.ca, the Canadian site, I can't find it...

This leads me to suspect that the book is banned in Canada, probably because of our hate speech laws. Does anyone have any further insights into the legality of owning this book in Canada, or elsewhere with similar laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T ConX (talk • contribs)

T ConX, you are on to something. This is a from a 2000 CNETnews.com article:

Canada prohibits advocating genocide or publicly inciting hatred via spoken or written words. The country also bans the importation of hate propaganda.

The "Turner Diaries" and the "Protocols of Zion" are on a list of books that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency consider illegal to import into the country, agency spokesman Michel Cléroux confirmed. But with $1 billion worth of goods crossing the border from the United States into Canada every day, the agency cannot check every package that comes over the border, Cléroux said. In any case, if the agency intercepted a shipment of banned books, it would contact the Canadian importer, not the U.S. exporter, he said. He added that the agency did not have authority to regulate the actual online sales of the books.

"Electronic commerce is outside our jurisdiction as customs officers," Cléroux said.

(Here is the full article.

So, from this article, importing the book is banned in Canada, but online sales are a gray area, it seems. I don't know about ownership, though. - Thanks, Hoshie | 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So is it illegal to have the book in Canada, or just illegal to import it? Thanks! Just wondering! BartonBelle 09:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"

Over the past few months, I've watched the "Plot" section accumulate a lot of original research, speculation, and POV. I've now split off that material into a "Themes" section, and given it an OR tag. Ashmoo had already dealt with the speculative section about Earl Turner's name, but there's still a lot of material I question. For instance, the description of the "Day of the Rope" as a "super lynch party" (a phrase not from the book), the digression on Nazi intermarriage laws, or the claim that the canyon massacre was "obviously" inspired by Babi Yar specifically (the Nazis did not invent mass execution, nor was that the only Einsatzgruppen massacre). Please bring in sources if you want this to stay in the article. --WacoKid 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Audiobook

Does anyone know where an audiobook can be found, for on the go educational purposes?--Susan Walton 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

external links

I removed the two external links as they lead to a website that had reverted to a domain host page full of advertising links. The original material was gone. User:gunnerclark 18:21, 6 May 2007 (cst)

links in discussions

I marked a few links in discussion that are now dead. Is it right to remove them, and leave partial comments from others, or just mark them as dead, and leave the original comment intact? I figure leaving the original comment intact is the best course of action. If not email me please. User:gunnerclark 21:46, 15 May 2007 (cst)

Accuracy of the strategies depicted in the book

Does anyone here knows anything about the factual background used for the characterization of the strategy/losgistics/skills of the organization described in the book? Are any of the principles found on the story based on any factual example of an organization in history or in established "know-hows" in strategy books? Does anyone know if William Pierce did any investigation on the filed, and, if yes, where did he found it?

I believe this should be considered a very relevant question as to determine the value of this fiction book about a revolution.Maziotis 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dystopia/Utopia

Yea, you're right, it's a POV: the pov of the book. And wikipedia is supposed to provide an npov with whatever it is it details. and by classifying it as a dystopia adds pov to the reporting of the book. i agree. totally. it's by no means a utopia. but the book was written to portray it as one. it's totally inaccurate to say it portrays a dystopia. according to the page itself, the world is classified as "the dream of a White world." dream worlds generally aren't classified as dystopias. i even left in the mildly POV line "most would view it as a dystopia." 82.82.168.232 13:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (and don't fall prey to the general assumption that anonymous users are inferior to signed in users or that they wont return to a discussion. WP:AGF and WP:BITE and all that.)

He's right. The books portrays the change from what the Author sees as a Dystopia (Jewish Conspiricy this, Black Gangs that), into a Purely White Utopia.

A utopia should bear some resemblence in form to More's Utopia; i.e., it should primarily be a description of the author's ideal society. The Turner Diaries is primarily a story about revolution, not a description of the resulting society; from a literary standpoint it is not a utopia or dystopia. However, just because a work is a utopia doesn't mean it's not disturbingly fascist; e.g., consider Plato's Republic.

That said, saying it is a Utopia by White Supremacist and Separatists is quite accurate. T ConX 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• NPOV means we do not simply accept the characterisation of the author, and does not imply the use of euphemistic or bland descriptions. The world depicted in the novel is by definition a violently rascist dystopia. "Dystopia" functions here as an objective term. The POV kicks in when this is omitted or downplayed. A "violently rascist future world" is like "violenty rascist fictional world" and both are redundant. The second new sentence is problematic because its also tends to be redundant, and in its current form, is effectively an apology for Pierce’s views. Its ironic that such sympathetic treatment is seen as being NPOV, or "less POV". However, in so far as it may be possible to contend that it is POV to not mention that violent white supremacists may actually have a "utopian vision" where the vast majority of the entire global population has been murdered, this sentence has been retained with modifications. Obey 06:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot say dystopia is an objective term. It's just not. It hinges completely on what one views as good and what one views as bad. And as it includes one's views, it follows that it must be subjective. The best way to report on it is simply how it was intended. Refering to it as "the Dream" makes it fairly clear that it was meant as a utopia. Relegating that to a clause of "For Pierce and other white supremacists however, a world free of non-whites was the ultimate "utopia"." does not accurately show that the novel was written to describe it as a utopia. And the placement of quotation marks really only serves to point out that no, it's not a utopia - which I do agree with, but is unquestionably point-of-view. 82.83.55.135 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I don't accept this moral relativism so let's agree to disagree on this one. The term is also loaded language so that doesn't help. Anyway, your edit works, and btw I have just reverted to you from another user. Obey 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I live by moral relativism. Particularly when trying to remain POV here. But that, in itself, is POV. Oh well. Agree to disagree it is. 82.82.181.83 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• WacoKid, nice edits (8 March) on this point. Best so far. Obey 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping my edit wouldn't reopen this can of worms, since a compromise seemed to have been worked out. But I thought the phrasing had grown clunky, in the effort to satisfy all parties. I think my edit maintains the balance that was struck, making clear that the novel's ending was not intended to be "dystopian", yet certainly not cloaking its contents in "euphemisms". --WacoKid 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"For novelist Pierce, this was not a dystopian outcome, but rather the fulfillment of his "dream of a White world."" I think this formulation is good, but it could be improved by adding the fact that the depiction of USA before the revolution is a dystopia, from the author's POV and also in the classical meaning (USA are becoming a kind of police state.)Kromsson 13:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Character Wiki for Earl Turner

Just like other fictional characters who have their own Wikis, Earl Turner should also be represented. I have already started on the introduction, but I want to be sure that it would be to the liking of other Wikipedians.

"Earl Turner is a fictional character and protagonist in Andrew Macdonald's novel The Turner Diaries. Starting as a low-level cohort for The Organization, a group dedicated to the overthrowing of the System?, he is inducted into an secret elite group known as The Order after his unwavering loyalty and extraordinary heroism were manifested."128.32.77.22 20:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While the book is well known, I'm not sure that the protagonist is sufficiently notable for an article. The guidelines are in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Since this article isn't terribly long the best thing may be to create a section here and then split it out when it outgrows the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No Non-Caucasian Women

This might be a stupid observation, but did anyone else notice that there are few or no depictions of non-Caucasian women in the book. All non-white characters are male. If there is a "Turner Diaries" scholar out there, and this is correct, in might be worth noting in regard to the characterizations.

It is by no means a "stupid observation". The intention of the author was to create stereotypes of coloured people that would enduce fear and hatred - apparently he found it much easier to create male stereotypes of this nature than to create female ones. Jonas Liljeström 16:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you call that a flaw? Just because it doesnt depict one very specific group of people? The Constitution also makes no mention of minority women. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.13.91 (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

This is a very untrue and quite stupid observation. If you had taken the time to read the book, you would notice that not only are blacks usually just referred to as "Negroes" without actually mentioning the sex, but there are several instances where black women are mentioned. One is that Edna was tortured mercilessly in school by black females, and another instance is that one of the invaders of the abandoned garage hideout that Turner killed with a crowbar was clearly mentioned to be a black female. There are several other instances which do not immediately come to mind where black females were also mentioned. So before throwing around insults towards the writer, you should do your research next time. Billy Bishop (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

'Incorrectly suggested'

The opening of the article claims that it has been 'incorrectly suggested' that the book served as an inspiration for the Oklahoma bombing. It then links to an article that demonstrates that this has been suggested, but doesn't prove that the suggestion is incorrect. In fact it doesn't even try to prove this - it just makes the suggestion. If you're going to throw a hissy fit and claim that Pierce has been hard done by, or maybe that the Jewish media has been manipilating the news to demonise the book, at least try to back up your claims.

And let's not even get started on split infinitives Melaena (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Western world

To the IP that keeps changing the article to say that "A white-only world" refers to a "white-only western world" - that is complete nonsense. It is abundantly clear from the quote in the article what is meant. There is overwhelming textual evidence that the entire world is cleared of non-whites, e.g.:

• "(Note to the reader: "Afro" refers to the Negro or African race, which, until its sudden disappearance during the Great Revolution, exerted an increasingly degenerative influence on the culture and life styles of the inhabitants of North America.)"

Hello, is North America and Europe the WHOLE WORLD or is it actually considered the Western World? It is clear that a "White-world" was referring to the White Western World, only:

http://members.odinsrage.com/turner/epilog.html (dead link)

• "Then, of course, came the mopping-up period, when the last of the non- White bands were hunted down and exterminated, followed by the final purge of undesirable racial elements among the remaining White population...

Within the Whole White Western World. Within North America and Europe. Get it? Not the Whole world, yet: http://members.odinsrage.com/turner/epilog.html (deadlink)

But it was in the year 1999, according to the chronology of the Old Era - just 110 years after the birth of the Great One - that the dream of a White world finally became a certainty." 61.11.26.142 19:48, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Meaning that the Western World was finally all-White only, or North America, and Europe and not the Whole World, yet. Get real. Besides, the novel is ONLY a work of FANTASY or of FICTION, remember?

In chapter XXIII: (Note to the reader: Uganda was a political subdivision of the continent of Africa during the Old Era, when that continent was inhabited by the Negro race. Puerto Rico was the Old Era name of the island of New Carolina. It is occupied now by the descendants of White refugees from radioactive areas of the southeastern United States, but before the race purges in the final days of the Great Revolution it was inhabited by a mongrel race of especially unsavory character.)

It may be a work of fiction, but by the end I was still sickened. --Pstanton (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

David Copeland

On the George Galloway Radio Show June 12 2009 a guest discussing Far Right Groups in England stated that one of the books that formed the attitude of David Copeland the convicted Bomber of Londons Gay Bars was The Turner Diaries. .Contributions/94.196.0.193 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Iron Heel

I'm not going to do any original research, or treat the page like a discussion forum, but as someone who enjoys all kinds of literature, I have to ask: Has anyone ever noticed that The Turner Diaries is essentially a white-power version of The Iron Heel? Has this ever come up in literary reviews or examinations of The Turner Diaries? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of people left

This article says there are only 50 million whites left. I just finished reading this pos book but I recall it saying only that at one point the white population in the U.S. was 50 million, not the entire world.Killua (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to hosting site

Presumably this book is still under copyright. WP:EL prohibits links to copyright violations. Is there any indication that http://www.solargeneral.com/library/td/ has been given permission by the copyright holder to republish the text of the book? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'Turner Diaries' is also located in adobe PDF format on http://www.archive.org/details/TheTurnerDiariesByAndrewMacdonald a mainstream online library. It might make more sense to link to a more mainstream web site, as apposed to linking to the controversial web site www.SolarGeneral.com which is literally the largest website archive of anti-Semitic material in the world. We don't need to be using Wikipedia to promote controversial web sites. Machn (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

North America

I think we should add that the USA in this book controls all of North America. This quote is from chapter 20. while hundreds of other units hit targets all across the country, from Canada to Mexico and from coast to coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.39.52 (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC) @The original seems ambiguous to me. Coast to coast does not include the oceans; should Canada to Mexico include beyond the borders?211.225.34.71 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

predicting 9/11

i;m susprised that the prediction of 9/11 by this bokk hasnt been methoded. --74.237.54.62 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this Word "methoded"? Do you mean forced more mainstream? Unfortunately, no, not in this country. It is Fiction, we do not ban or have Krystallnachs here, if you haven't noticed.68.231.188.151 (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he might have meant to type, 'mentioned' instead of 'but accidentally dropped his copy of 'Mein Kampf' on the keyboard as he was typing the word? Can someone tell me where in the book it predicts 9/11? I have not read the book in its entirety, because I found I found this poorly written book difficult to read. I did however listen to the audio version of the book on the hate site www.solargeneral.com, which can be quite boring at times during some of the audio chapters. I have a copy of the PDF from http://www.archive.org/details/TheTurnerDiariesByAndrewMacdonald but refuse to attempt reading this poorly written hate book again, I would like to know what page it specifically predicts 9-11-2001. Machn (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On November 9th Earl Turner (the book's protagonist) crashes a plane into the Pentagon (suicide attack). November 9th, or 11/9. 9/11 in Europe. Also, William Pierce (the author) was born on 9/11. And last but not least, it seems that William Pierce had a "apprehension" of some kind regarding the 9/11 attacks. In an April, 2001 article named "As ye sow..." he warned of an upcoming, sophisticated attack:

"In the past the suicide bombers have been mostly young religious fanatics, poor and uneducated, and they weren't much better at building an effective bomb than the average Ku Kluxer in this country. The new generation of bomb-makers will be brighter, better educated, wealthier, and better connected. Some of them, like Osama bin Laden of the older generation, also may be religious, but the important thing is that the affluent sons and daughters of the corrupt Arab leadership are finding it fashionable now to be nationally conscious, to support the oppressed Palestinians and Iraqis, and to take action against the newly perceived enemies of their people."

[...]

"I have no specific knowledge of what those actions will be, of course, but I suspect that they will be more sophisticated and more carefully planned and executed than the suicide bombings of the past -- or even the World Trade Center bombing in New York in 1993.[...]George Bush and the other corrupt flunkies of the Jews in America can rattle their aircraft carriers and rage about "cowardly acts of terrorism," and the corrupt leaders of the Arab world can imprison or shoot their own sons and daughters in an effort to hang onto their wealth and power, but the chickens will keep coming. That is a promise."

"It's foolish even to think about trying to keep the chickens away at this late date. Historical events usually are connected. One follows from another. The course of history can be changed, if one looks ahead far enough, but it's like changing the course of a moving locomotive. We won't accomplish much by pushing on the side of the locomotive as it's going past, but if we get far enough ahead and move the tracks in front of the locomotive, we can change the direction in which it will go."

http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0104c.html

He is speaking of Atta and co. (brighter, better educated, wealthier, not that religious| remember Atta and his "friends" were drunkards and whoremongers, not really religious).

"It's foolish even to think about trying to keep the chickens away at this late date". Pierce was talking about an imminent, highly sophisticated attack. How could he know?

Questions and more questions... July 29th, 2010 00:58 (UTC +1)

A little addition:

William Pierce also wrote an article named "Stay out of Tall Buildings" forecasting an attack on high-rise buildings in New York City (mentioning the World Trade Center):

http://natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/newsitems2.html (below)

Also, the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 seems to be directly connected to 9/11 (and "The Turner Diaries"). Andreas Strassmeir, a German suspect and possible accessory in the bombing (never really clarified, but he was at the Elohim City "Christian Identity" compound together with Timothy McVeigh) wanted to buy a 747 plane from Lufthansa:

"Additional documents reveal that at one time Strassmeir was attempting to purchase a 747 aircraft from Lufthansa; however the reason for the purchase is not reflected in the documents."

http://eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh5.html

Another suspect (again, never really clarified; many files were destroyed by the FBI) Hussein Al-Husseini went on (after 1995) to work at Boston Logan International Airport (where on 9/11 both planes that hit the towers took off).

Also, at one time Terry Nichols (second convict of the 1995 bombing) met with Ramzi Youssef (1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind) on the Philippines.

http://intelwire.egoplex.com/nichols022004.html

Timothy McVeigh had "The Turner Diaries" with him, when he was caught. A bombing of a government building described in the book was carried out in the same manner in Oklahoma City in 1995.

And, as I disclosed, suicide plane attacks (even on the Pentagon) were also described in the book... on 11/9 (9/11 in Europe).

When all dots are connected, it seems that "The Turner Diaries" is not just a fictitious book, but a guide. A guide to overthrow the US government and to initiate a "revolution".

"The Turner Diaries" is William Pierce's "Mein Kampf", disguised as a fictitious book.

The book is used by both Neo-Nazis and Islamists who cooperatively carried out the attacks; the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 (see Nichols-Youssef connection), the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing... and 9/11. That would explain all the inconsistencies in the official version of 9/11. It seems that the US government just excluded (in the official version) all American Neo-Nazi perpetrators and blamed the attacks solely on Islamists.

By the way, in the book it's a Learjet that crashes into the Pentagon, which would explain the relatively minor damage on 9/11 at the Pentagon (even though the government insists on the Boeing 757 crash explanation...).

What's really scary is that "The Turner Diaries" also describes nuclear bombs detonated in major US cities as part of the ongoing revolution... July 31th, 2010 02:13 (UTC +1)

Another addition:

Now I know exactly why the US government didn't tell us the truth about the Neo-Nazi perpetrators, the truth about 9/11. Think about it. Think about the consequences, the meaning of it. Another Civil War in the USA, maybe (just like the Neo-Nazis want! See "The Turner Diaries"). What about Neo-Nazis from other countries that were possibly involved, like the German Neo-Nazi Andreas Strassmeir regarding the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; what if German Neo-Nazis were involved in 9/11? The American public would have screamed for war with Germany. "German Nazis attack New York City and Washington D.C.!". That would have been the headlines. The truth would destabilize, or even destroy the fundamentally important and long lasting ties between the USA and Europe. The truth could very well have meant the end of NATO. Chaos, Civil War, many unforeseen consequences. So the US government just blamed the Islamists (who also were involved), and it was the best thing to do, really! August 1st, 2010 15:25 (UTC +1)

I find it interesting that you managed to put so much time in to coming up with this theory, yet forgot to mention that the book specifically mentions blowing up a good portion of Houston on September 11th. :P--173.180.157.63 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Crimes associated with this book

The inclusion of this paragraph appears to be a bit selective. If there is a section listing Crimes associated with this book for the Turner Diaries then surely Wikipedia fairness would be that there should be a similar section for the following books; 'The Bible', 'The Koran', 'The protocols of the elders of zion (which I know is not true)', etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.24.118 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Is the work in question public-domain? If not, the links to the work must be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page." Pavel said that the links have been online for a long time, but that is not in itself evidence that the work has been released into the public domain. Can anyone verify this one way or the other? —Simetrical (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the hate group National Alliance has made their book public domain and offer it freely online. It is no longer in copyright. Pussypimples (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Hunter by William Pierce (deceased) is no longer in copyright and it's public domain. You can see clearly at https://archive.org/details/TheHunterByAndrewMacdonaldWilliamLutherPierce it was added to the Internet Archive in 2010 and has more than 5,500 downloads. The Turner Diaries by William Pierce (deceased) is no longer in copyright and it's public domain. You can see clearly at https://archive.org/details/TheTurnerDiariesByAndrewMacdonald it was added to the Internet Archive in 2010 and has more than 12,800 downloads.Pussypimples (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Pussypimples#Copyright. wctaiwan (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Turner Diaries listed on The Internet Archive clearly states the book is no longer in copyright, public domain, and brought to you by National Vanguard. The book has been there for almost 5 years, has thousands of downloads, and has never been disputed as public domain / no longer in copyright.Pussypimples (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Factual errors

I removed the following passage, which stated, "The Turner Diaries novel was pseudonymously written by William Luther Pierce III, a physicist, who was the founder of the National Alliance, a white nationalist, Neo-Nazi organization who oppose the presence of non-white and non–Christian people in American society." That passage was sourced to a New York Times article available here. Note that the article does not state that the National Alliance "opposes the presence of non-Christian people in American society". The claim that the National Alliance "opposes the presence of non-Christian people in American society" is factually wrong, as anyone can easily establish for him or herself, by examining its website. See for instance here, where Pierce is quoted making it absolutely clear that the National Alliance is not in any sense a Christian organization. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The factual errors were added by Chas. Caltrop, who unfortunately restored them here, along with many unnecessary changes and an unhelpful expansion of the article's plot section, which was already quite long enough, and if anything could stand to be shortened. Chas. Caltrop, please do not behave this way. If your changes are disputed, then you need to discuss them on the talk page. Note that "Clean up; grammar, flow, npov" is not an appropriate edit summary when you are restoring disputed edits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Gender, sex, whatever

@Beyond My Ken and Void138:

The passage in question reads because they presume a legal difference between the sexes.

I can see how either editor could arrive at "gender exists on a biological level" or "there's an actual difference between the sexes," but neither is actually what the text says.

Now, were this some other novel, I'd say just quote the few relevant words, but since this is white supremacist garbage, there's no reason to increase exposure more than is necessary to describe the novel. So, I think that picking from one of the two non-quote phrasings would be better.

Given the following part The women's-lib groups have greeted this development with dismay. It isn't exactly what they had in mind when they began agitating for "equality" two decades ago, it should be pretty clear to anyone looking at it honestly that Pierce/Turner is antifeminist, and no one can be stupid enough to earnestly argue that this meant Pierce was supportive of transfeminism or queer rights or something (Pierce and his ilk generally hate anyone except white men, viewing white women as their property and any other women as a problem). Whether or not this associates white supremacism with "gender critical feminism" is a different matter that frankly no good argument has been presented for (just some Yellow journalism and failure to assume good faith). Many white supremacists also speak English, and yet here we are arguing in English.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"whatever"..."..or something" Right. I see.

I DID "quote the few relevant words" before a) the edit was reversed again and b) I was then sanctioned and accused of acting in bad faith.

Check the edit history of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Void138 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Void138: Stop making false accusations and go read the messages on your page again, because it's clear that you just imagined whatever meaning allowed you to feed your persecution complex without bothering to find out what the messages actually said. If you had read them, you'd know that no one has sanctioned you and that no one has accused you of acting in bad faith. You were told that there are sanctions with regard to gender controversies, and you were told to assume good faith from other users (something you continue to fail to do). Maybe if you paid attention and assumed good faith from others, you'd have an easier time with things here and people would be more willing to work with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Void138: Are you asserting that The Turner Diaries does not assert any biological origin to gender? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've just opted for the third position (as it were). The rhetoric and grammar of the disputed passagein the article makes it very easy to misinterpret what's going on, so that Void and I are sailing right past each other in the moonless night, so I've just eliminated it entirely. The plot section is quite long anyway, and the sentence makes perfect sense without it:

The "System" begins by implementing numerous repressive laws on various forms of hate, by making it a "hate crime" for white people to defend themselves from crime by non-whites even after all weapons are confiscated, and by pushing for new surveillance measures in order to monitor its citizens, such as a special passport required at all times and in all places to permanently monitor where individuals are.

The "rape and gender" section is basically a red herring stuck in the middle of that sentence, which is clearer in this version, and makes the point about the (perceived) liberal repressiveness of "The System". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that. I'm still curious as to whether or not Void things that the TD fails to imply any biologically determined binary nature of gender, but that's pretty much just idle curiosity, to be honest. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Several explicit mentions of white genocide conspiracy theory

It has come to my attention that some people think this book doesn't discuss the white genocide conspiracy theory. It certainly does, starting with its complaint about "the growing percentage of non-Whites" in Chapter 2. Chapter 5 contains this passage:

But one thing which is quite clear is that much more than our freedom is at stake. If the Organization fails in its task now, everything will be lost-our history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years. The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence.

No excuse for our failure will have any meaning, for there will be only a swarming horde of indifferent, mulatto zombies to hear it. There will be no White men to remember us-either to blame us for our weakness or to forgive us for our folly.

If we fail, God's great Experiment will come to an end, and this planet will once again, as it did millions of years ago, move through the ether devoid of higher man.

Chapter 6 has similar passages, like, "the majority of those who wanted a solution, who wanted to preserve a White America, were never able to screw up the courage to look the obvious solutions in the face." Chapter 8 says, "many young Whites, instead of opposing this new threat to their race, have apparently decided to join it." Chapter 10 says, "By terrifying the White population they will make it more difficult for us to recruit, thus speeding our demise." Chapter 14 has this:

Each day we make decisions and carry out actions which result in the deaths of White persons, many of them innocent of any offense which we consider punishable. We are willing to take the lives of these innocent persons, because a much greater harm will ultimately befall our people if we fail to act now.

Chapter 20 gets into the all-out race war, which I won't quote from because it's so stupid. Chapter 21 has several paragraphs on cannibalism of Whites by Blacks, which are far too disgusting to quote. Chapter 22 is all about saving Whites from their otherwise inevitable mass starvation. I have no idea whether the diatribe about whether to preserve, "very light Blacks-the almost Whites, the octoroons and quadroons, the unclassifiable mongrels from various Asian and southern climes," counts as pertaining to white genocide or not.

Then the whites win, and then they hang all the white women who ever dated non-whites, then everyone nukes each other. (Chapter 26: "the newscaster gloated, 'The White vermin died like flies. We can only hope they realized in their last moments that many of the loyal soldiers who pressed the firing buttons for the missiles which killed them were Black or Chicano or Jewish. Yes, the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else, so that racial harmony and brotherhood can be restored to America. We must kill them! Kill them! Kill! Kill!'") The End. EllenCT (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is more or less the same talk page comment you left over at White Genocide Conspiracy Theory - since this deals with the same basic claim, I think we should just centralize the discussion on that page and try to establish consensus before the claim is added to either article. Nblund ^talk 17:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced the claim with these sources:

Since the 1990s, ideological white nationalism in the United States has declined. But since 2008, recruitment based on less-defined racial fear and hostility has risen to take its place, emphasizing ideologically neutral concepts such as “white genocide” and shifting toward less clearly delineated movements (such as the “alt right”). Users participating in these new movements on social media routinely and selectively highlight incidents of racial unrest and black crime as evidence that “The Turner Diaries are coming true” -- Berger, J.M. (September 2016). "The Turner Legacy: The Storied Origins and Enduring Impact of White Nationalism's Deadly Bible" (PDF). ICCT Research Paper Series. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism: 40. doi:10.19165/2016.1.11. ISSN 2468-0656. Retrieved 19 March 2019. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

The recent manifestation of white genocide has its origins in the American neo-Nazi movement. The Turner Diaries, a very influential 1970s novel by William Luther Pierce, posited a dystopian world in which white Americans were oppressed by non-white minorities at the behest of Jewish politicians. -- Ross, Kaz (March 16, 2019). "How believers in 'white genocide' spread their hate campaign in Australia". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 March 2019.

EllenCT (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT Berger argues that The Diaries mark a turn toward ideologically neutral appeals among white supremacists, but that quote does not say that the Turner diaries depict a white genocide conspiracy. I think it's okay to say that The Turner Diaries influenced the development of white genocide conspiracy theory, but the sources agree that Lane himself coined the term in the 1990s. Nblund ^talk 16:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the previous wording gave the misleading impression that "white genocide" meant "The systematic extermination of non-whites" - so I went ahead and rectified that and also clarified that the Diaries may have influenced the development of WGCT, rather than saying that they depict an instance of it. Nblund ^talk 17:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe it is true that they "presented" an instance of the conspiracy theory, and that any educated person can verify that from the passages above without further specialized knowledge, as per WP:PRIMARY. I've asked for other opinions at WP:ORN. EllenCT (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Show us a reliable secondary source that explicitly supports your claim. WP:PRIMARY does not mean what you think it means (this is a recurring pattern of behavior by you, so I would strongly advise that you seek out an admin and ask for clarification). From WP:PRIMARY:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (emphasis in original)

You are allowed to use primary sources to make claims about the plot of The Turner Diaries, Thus you could make a claim such as "The narrative starts with a foreword set in 2099, one hundred years after the events depicted" based upon primary sources. What you cannot do is use a primary source to support your claim that when the book talks about "the growing percentage of non-Whites" in Chapter 2" this is an example of the white genocide conspiracy theory. That would be your interpretation of the primary source material.

You started to use a reliable secondary source, which is good, but as soon as Nblund told you "Berger argues that The Diaries mark a turn toward ideologically neutral appeals among white supremacists, but that quote does not say that the Turner diaries depict a white genocide conspiracy. I think it's okay to say that The Turner Diaries influenced the development of white genocide conspiracy theory, but the sources agree that Lane himself coined the term in the 1990s." you went right back to presenting your interpretations of the primary source as facts.

Your primary source doesn't talk about any conspiracy. It talks about minorities outbreeding whites, which has been a white nationalist talking point for many years, but the idea that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals appears to have come later, when Lane popularized it. Assuming that any mention of minorities outbreeding whites is a mention of the later conspiracy theory that minorities outbreeding whites is a deliberate conspiracy by blacks, jews and liberals is a classic example of original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do you see any mention of outbreeding in the primary source? Is "The Enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the racial basis of our existence," about outbreeding? Is "There will be no White men to remember us"? Is "the Whites and their criminal racial pride have been wiped out in California, but now we must kill the racists everywhere else"? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

...and, as usual, every fucking detail turns into a big fight and a wall of text, all of which could be avoided by this simple thought: "Gosh, everyone is against this. Should I go along with the consensus, or should I argue on and on, despite the fact that in every previous case where I argued on and on I failed to get my way? What to do? What to do?"

Related: The Most Important Thing Possible, Megalomaniacal point of view

I can't take this any longer. I am unsubscribing from this and all related pages. I wish the rest of you the best of luck in dealing with this dumpster fire. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned in Mueller report

Looks like this book was mentioned in a BuzzFeed News article about the Mueller report, saying: "A witness whose name was redacted on privacy grounds said people in Trump’s 'orbit' didn’t care whom they hurt, believed their 'deep state narrative,' 'read books like The Turner Diaries,' and 'downloaded military manuals from the internet.'”

This is not yet enough material for inclusion here, but I will be on the lookout to see whether this detail is picked up in other media outlets. Jlevi (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Capitol attack

An assertion in the lede was sourced to an interview in the Los Angeles Times quoting Kathleen Belew concerning the U.S. Capitol attacks and the "day of the rope" allusion [1] I've removed it for now, since it's not in the body of the article and doesn't belong in the lede without discussion in the body. I will review for additional scholarly discussion. An IP has previously removed it as "opinion." However, the views of a recognized scholar on a given subject are considered authoritative - otherwise, everything can be disqualified as "opinion." She is clearly an authority on the topic. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this real?

Why are they hiding it? 2601:140:8400:6550:E960:9A67:2F5D:23D2 (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? The book is real. No one is hiding it, and things cannot be hidden at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify - the book is real, but it is a work of fiction. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Who's "they"? I found it on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/the-turner-diaries-paladin-press 2603:7000:D03A:5895:5:1D63:6B70:8395 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we add this book to Wikisource?

I've been reading the book "Bring the War Home" by Kathleen Belew, and she notes that Carol Howe, an undercover informant, realised that the Oklahoma City bombing was inspired by the Turner Diaries. Even if it is hate speech, people have gotten copies of this book before the Internet so I don't know what good scrubbing it from the Internet will do. I also don't know if the author would sue Wikipedia for illegally distributing his banned book. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:5:1D63:6B70:8395 (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no formal connection to Wikisource, except that both are sites under the aegis of the Wikimedia Foundation. You should address your question on Wikisource. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Cover

The cover currently used in the article is that of the first edition (?). It used to be the cover of the second edition, but this was changed in 2019. While the first printing is typically what we use onwiki, if another is more notable or recognizable we should use that. Looking it up the second edition cover is far more well known it seems, so IMO we should be using the second cover - the first one seems very rarely used to recognize the book, searching pretty much anywhere (especially given the publication history). I actually can't find any non-wiki sources using the first edition cover.

Additionally, due to a fluke in US copyright law, the cover of a book actually required a separate copyright notice either in the book or on the cover art, separate from the book copyright (if it was published in the period where notice was required for copyright, which this was), so there is a non zero chance one or both covers are actually public domain. I may check this later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)