Jump to content

Talk:White nationalism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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.

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)

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 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 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: [1]. 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)


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:[2]

"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." [3]

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." [4]
(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)

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 [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223388 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


[[5]]

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).

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 [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

===================================

"Some white nationalists support white separatism"

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_nationalism/Archive_3&oldid=1137318772"