Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

this again is not a neo-nazi organization at all. This is not right.WHEELER 17:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's the white separatism in this case. Are you disputing that they hold this view? - David Gerard 19:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] is Don Black of stormfront a member?

is Don Black of stormfront a member?

At a CCC convention between 1995 and 2002 attendees/members present included:

Mark Cotterill BNP

Carl Clifford AFBNP former US Army techie. Now contractor teckie develops battlefield medical tech.

Jeff Anderson? runs seperatist.org

Annanomous member who's father was (at the time?) the state Majority Leader of the Senante, Mr X had been a White house Press officer, he also had been thrown out of DC's Univeristy Club for bringing his friend Dr. William Pierce there Mr. X sued the club for 6 million for doing that. Also friend of Willis Carto (kind of), has locker next to Pat Buchanan at a gentlemen's club.

Edward "Fisheye" Cassidy

Don Black creator of stormfront

Multiple Baptist Ministers

Steve Barry, Former Special Forces sergeant & millitary Advisor to Dr. William Pierce. Now runs own magazine for other S.F. guys with similar beliefs.

Gayle Witney a Professor of Psychology at Florida State University anti-gun control, conspiracy theorist and anti-semite.

Peter Gemma, political lobbyist "moderate extremist" former GOP Campaign Manager and fundraiser defected with Buchanan from GOP to Reform Party.

Sam Francis former columnist for the Washington times and friend of Buchanan.

[edit] my info comes from "into a world of hate"

my info comes from "into a world of hate"

[edit] CCC/KKK

  • The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a American paleoconservative political organization who's name may be a sly reference to the KKK since both groups have a three letter acronym and both "C" and "K" make the same sound.

The added clause draws a conclusion, spoonfeeding the reader. If a notable critic has pointed out that there's a similarity, then we should attribute it in some way. Is it from "into a world of hate"? Otherwise to say that something "may" be true sounds like original research. In any case, it is a bit of trivia that, if true, should be placed in the body of the text rather than the intro. The real activities and goals of the CCC or CofCC are sufficiently interesting that we don't have to spice it up. -Willmcw 22:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] current lede

  • The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a white supremacist and white separatist American paleoconservative political organization.

This text keep getting changed. How is it inaccurate? -Willmcw 06:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC) If you're talking to me I only felt that paleoconservative is a downplayer.

grazon 07:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

But is it wrong? Some of the people prominently connected to the CCC are known (even self-described) as paleoconservatives, such as Francis and Abernethy. -Willmcw 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also Members of the GOP like Trent Lott.

grazon 07:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

David Frum, a notable commentator, seems to put the CCC in the paleo camp here, and identifies Francis as a leader: Unpatriotic Conservatives. -Willmcw 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the GOP allows paleoconservatives to join, or used to. Here's an article by Francis on Lott. [1] -Willmcw 08:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The GOP (and the DNC for that matter; see Zell Miller) cannot stop anyone from joining. All anyone has to do is register to vote as a Republican and they're in.
You know, I've got to wonder. They run whites-only schools, they have ads for white supremacist online stores on the front of their website, and they're obviously obsessed with the "white race," so how in the heck can they possibly deny that they're racist? I'm not saying that they don't; I'm just flabbergasted that they'd think anyone would fall for it. Rogue 9 05:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] supremacist

Racist does not necessarily equal White supremacist.

Oops. Hit enter too quickly, making a quick edit...

A white supremacist is someone who wants to rule over others... A white nationalist is a racist who wants a homeland for people of their own ideology / race. The two are not the same thing... and adding white supremacist into Council of Conservative Citizens amounts to not keeping a NPOV. Other sources may label them as white supremacists but does that really mean they are? Rchamberlain 20:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not for us to decide what they are. We have their self-description and we have the descriptions of them by others. NPOV calls for reflecting all of those viewpoints. Their self-description should be noted, but it is not definitive. -Willmcw 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course. but there is still a major world of difference between SUPREMACISTS and SEPARATISTS. Rchamberlain 21:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, there is considerable difference between the two ideologies: they can not be compared to each other without fanaticism and total disregard for common sense. The article as of now (December 26, 2005). Has no pretentions for NPOV, it is slanderous and full of misinformation spread by someone with a political agenda. We need to strive to take responsibility and not let our preconceived notions ruin factual information.Zexarious 21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
December 26th? Let's focus on how the article is today, December 22. It doesn't matter to us, as Wikipedia editors, if the CCC is supremacist, separatist, or universalist. We're just here to summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. The CCC is widely described as "supremacist" so we need to say that. It calls itself "separatist", so we need to say that too. If reliable sources call it "universalist" then we'd need to include that too. The meaning of those labels is irrelevant to our project. -Willmcw 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
the two ideologies cannot even begin to be compared.
the dictionary definition of supremacist from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com): a doctrine based on a belief in the inherent superiority of the white race over the black race and the correlative necessity for the subordination of blacks to whites in all relationships
and the dictionary definition of separatist from Merriam-Webster (m-w.com): a belief in, movement for, or state of separation (as schism, secession, or segregation)
now, tell me, does the CofCC fit the first or the second definition? I believe they fit the second Rchamberlain 21:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
For us to make a decision on our own would violate Wikipedia:no original research. We should restrict ourselves to summarizing other sources. -Willmcw 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
But that is exactly what you are doing when you leave supremacist in there when by all definitions of the word, they are obviously not. Rchamberlain 21:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
At the very least it should say that some "crazy group makes the outlandish CLAIM that this is a supremacist organization" this way it still includes the libel and satisfies the sick desires of those who want it included in there, while at the same time not lending much credence to it.Zexarious 21:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)Zexarious

Compare the 561 Google hits for ["Council of Conservative Citizens" separatist OR separatism] versus the 28,100 hits for ["Council of Conservative Citizens" supremacist OR supremacism]. It is not a single group that calls them "supremacist", it is a large number of groups, far exceeding the number who call them "separatist". -Willmcw 21:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

is wikipedia about factuality or opinions of sporadic users? i guess its not a real encyclopedia at all, just an attempt to spread personal opinions on a larger scale. Rchamberlain 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an interesting attitude at arriving at the 'truth' and 'factual information' kind of like ask the audience on who wants to be a millionaire. Interesting, but morally reprehensible. Zexarious 21:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Is suggest you both read Wikipedia to find out what this project is about. -Willmcw
is suggested that you read the dictionary Rchamberlain 21:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am familiar with the goals of the wikipedia project and in my opinion the core is objectivity and factuality. Last time I checked making wild accusations based on a personal biased point of view (no matter how much you say otherwise) and presenting them as unquestionable facts is not one of the goals of the wikipedia project, unless I missed the memo in which case let us say the Council of Conservative Citizens members eat puppies and sacrifice baby christians to the goat-horned lord and are responsible for september 11th WTC attacks. I could post this on my blog and wait for google to spider it then it would of cousre be the undeniable truth.. Google says so.Zexarious 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to go ahead and delete the text 'white supremacist', because Willmcw cannot demonstrate or prove that the group wants to rule over other races. Also due to the consensus reached in this discussion, we've demonstrated that CofCC is not supremacist and that supremacy and separatism are two very different incompatible ideologies. Rchamberlain 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel this last edit (5:53 EST) represents reality and factual information the best, as such it is the version which aligns the most with the goals of the wikipedia project. There still appear a few entries whose inclusion in the article does not appear to be entirely NPOV but the tone of the piece is now much more professional and worthy of wikipedia. I would like to thank all involved, we all have a common goal and with every edit we are one step closer on our way to perfection. Zexarious 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless you guys can show that the CCC is not called "white supremacist" that term needs to stay. It is a fact that they are widely called that, and it is not a "wild accusation". -Willmcw 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Will, why are you changing it again? The consensus has been reached in this discussion, and adding that back proves that you have a biased POV and should not be editing this article. Rchamberlain 23:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Two against one is not a consensus. See WP:CON. -Willmcw 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I still believe the article should be objective, none of willmfcs's sources are 'verifiable' and he, being the one who makes the claim should be the one to support it. This is dissappointing that something so simple, a smoke, has to be turned into a fire. Your agendas should stay at home, wikipedia is no place for them. Please revert the article back to the factual and professional version and leave it that way. Zexarious 23:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We cannot say that this organization (and other organizations) are not supremacist just because they say so. This makes as much sense as saying that a murderer and a rapist are innocent victims because they said they're innocent, even though every and each source and evidence proves that they are guilty of these crimes. The same goes for CCC, and other white supremacist organizations. Rchamberlain was making a not about the definitons of seperatism, and supremacy in the dictionary; and one of the words for seperatism can also be referred to as segreagation. Segregation, might I remind everyone, is highly regarded as racial supremacy; as evidenced through out history during Jim Crow in the Southern United States which inspired the Civil Rights Movement, and apartheid in South Africa. --Gramaic | Talk 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, the ideology of the CofCC is certainly reprehensible, but the fact of the matter is that separatism and supremacism are two opposing ideas. It's not just the dictionary definition. If you want your own land where you can live separate and deluded, then that definitely cannot be called supremacy. They are either one or the other. They either want to rule over other people or they want to live by themselves with no interaction from outsiders. Rchamberlain 05:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, explain this on some of your previous edits. It shows that you already have a bias towards ideas such as these. I am a Christian myself and find racism to be morally reprehensible and an incompatible ideology with Christianity, but let's stick to the facts. Your own edits and other user objections show you have a bias concerning this subject.
For instance re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_supremacy#Disputed.3F:
I do agree that this article is not neutral, because it describes people as supremacists even when they a) clearly state that they are none and do not want to be classified as such and b) the definition of white seperatism is simply not the definition of white supremacism. Those who ignore fact a) and b) are consciously making a bad name out of white seperatists at the cost of neutrality. Aor
Rchamberlain 05:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's stick to discusing this article, shall we? Comments about an editor should go on the editor's talk page. -Willmcw 08:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is relevant because it's about the same exact subject. It also shows that this user has already made up his/her mind on who is or is not a white supremacist. this breaks the NPOV rule. Rchamberlain 08:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the Wikipedia:neutral point of view. Every editor has a point of view. Our jobs are to show all points of view without judging which is right or wrong. The core Wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V, require that we simply summarize the verifiable information using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires us to call the CCC "white supremacist" because that is what almost everybody calls it. We should also say what they call themselves. That is NPOV. -Willmcw 09:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe: WP:NPOV requires us to report that they are called X, not call them X ourselves, since it's disputed. The current version ("that some also hold to be") seems to report this adequately. --Nectar 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, even better. -Willmcw 23:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Now I don't dispute the neutrality of this article as long as it is left in tact as it is now. I'll go ahead and remove the NPOV warning if it's kept as it is. I'll put it back up if it's changed again though. Rchamberlain 05:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Supremacist Category

Per the consensus reached above regarding whether or not to call the CCC a white supremacist organization, I removed the category "White supremacist groups in the Untied States" at the bottom of the entry. This is only fair, and consistent. If the charge is not fact in the main article, it is not fact in the category section. --Alsayid 00:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that there was any consensus. From what appears to be CCC's self-admitted ideology (see CCC in Its Own Words), and b/c CCC's roots trace to the White Citizens' Councils movement, returned CCC to category of "White supremacist groups in the United States". --Cortez3100

[edit] Racism category

Some editors have been going back and forth over the racism category. While mentioning that someone called it racist in the article is proper, including it in the racism category suggests that that's definately what the group supports. I've noticed that many similar articles avoid this conflict by using a more neutral category instead, like "politics and race." It has been my hope that using this category instead would/will be seen as a fair compromise to the dispute, as it is accurate without being potentially POV. --Alsayid 06:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Category:Politics and race" hardly suits an organization that the NAACP, SPLC, and ADL all have publicly identified as a racist hate group. Favoring the group with placement there instead of "Category:racism" is a whitewash that won't withstand NPOV scrutiny.
The Category:racism is accurate considering that literally dozens of reputable and respectable groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center say again and again that the Council of Conservative Citizens is racist.
The idea of a "fair compromise" here is a red herring. There's no provision in our policies to provide for avoiding uncomfortable facts just because a few ideological ax-grinders ignore Wikipedia's policies and goals. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, but I ask that you avoid attacking other editors, as it only fosters a combative atmosphere.
Using "Category:Politics and race" is preferrable to using the racism category precisely because it isn't a fact that the Council is a racist hate group. The NAACP, ADL, and SPLC are advocacy groups, and should be treated as sources of opinion. The New Black Panthers, VDARE, MEChA and other articles are not included in the racism category for the same reasons. --Alsayid 18:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Rchamberlain 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to add the following, or a summary of the following to this article. Does anyone disagree?

In an article titled (Trent) "Lott Renounces White 'Racialist' Group He Praised in 1992," Washington Post staff writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote on December 16, 1998, in an article the Post published on p. A02:

The CCC, which has strong ties to the old white Citizens Councils, is considered racist by conservatives and liberals. Many of the most prominent figures in the organization are proponents of preserving the white race and culture, which they see as under assault by immigration, intermarriage and growing numbers of Hispanic Americans. [2]
The Citizens Council, many of whose members helped found the CCC, was a segregationist organization. The membership generally included local establishment figures in the South, small businessmen, mayors and other white community leaders.
The CCC has been barred from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). David Keene, head of CPAC, said "we kicked (them) out of CPAC because they are racists."
A number of the leaders of the CCC describe their views as "racialist," and adamantly reject portrayal as white supremacist. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/dec98/lott16.htm

In that same article, The Washington Post quoted "Jared Taylor, a Washington area leader of the CCC and publisher of the magazine American Renaissance, from an essay Taylor wrote:

"It is certainly true that in some important traits -- intelligence, law-abidingness, sexual restraint, academic performance, resistance to disease -- whites can be considered 'superior' to blacks. At the same time, in exactly these same traits, North Asians appear to be 'superior' to whites. Is there someone who believes that there are probably genetic reasons for this a 'yellow supremacist'? . . . AR expresses an unapologetic preference for the culture and way of life of whites. It also expresses the belief that only the biological heirs to the creators of European civilization will carry that civilization forward in a meaningful way."

Skywriter 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's well-supported and relevant, I'm not opposed to it being included. FeloniousMonk 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in the lead

Alsayid and Doktor Faustus:

Please explain your edits removing White Citizens Councils from the lead of the CCC. Since you both are so fond of "heritage" why are you removing the "heritage" from the CCC in the lead? Also, why are you replacing "racist" with "controversial." CCC opposes racial integration in public school. I'd say the current lead is milquetoast. I think you both have POV issues. A more neutral lead would be to revert it to:

"The Council of Conservative Citizens (abbreviated CCC or CofCC) is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of White Citizens' Councils. The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools and intimidation of black voters. Apologists refer to CCC as an American paleoconservative political organization that supports European and White Heritage. CCC is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, and its most active chapter is in Mississippi. Other states with active chapters include Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and New York. Sporadic CCC activities occur in other parts of the country as well."

Folks, I'd like a discussion on this. Who else approves of the lead proposed above as apposed to the whitewashed 'CCC is a controversial org' that the 'extreme political left orgs label a racist org' yada yada yada.

FeloniousMonk, The subject is already covered in article in a more a more neutral way. If you already think the article proves your point; why are you adding more?-Doktor Faustus
I think FM is heading in the right direction. The CCC is well-known to be the successor to the WCC. Their agendas are clearly racial to the point that they fit the definition of "racist". Saying that it is "controverisal" is conveys litle meaning - it's better to say why it is controversial. -Will Beback 17:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not about whether this view point should in the article, it is. It is about keeping the first paragraph neutral. Southern Poverty Law Center view point is covered in the article.-Doktor Faustus 2 August 2006

Doktor Faustus: The first paragraph is not neutral when attempts are made to remove any language suggesting CCC as the successor of white citizens' councils. Further, inserting "SPLC viewpoint" in the lead is only relevant in so much as the lead for National Socialist Party in Germany ought to include the Anti Defamation League's "opinion" that the holocaust was anti-semetic. History proves the holocaust was racist in design.

This is an encyclopedia--not a recruitment poster for your hillbilly racist agenda.

signed: not FM

PS To the WikiGods: Jay Gatsby 67.166.145.63 is a vandal. Do not trust his editing. He is agenda driven.

Attacking other editors like this is entirely out of bounds, so please stop. People can debate the SPLC statement in the opening paragraph, but I believe most have shown they'd rather keep the rest of the intro paragraph over your preferred edit.--Alsayid 03:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Alsayid: Your POV attacks are enitirely out of bounds. How about addressing some of the points made above?

[edit] The CCC in Its Own Words

FeloniousMonk:

I question your framing of the lead as a mere "SPLC viewpoint" that the CCC is racist. Let's take a moment to look at the CCC in their own words.

The CCC in Its Own Words

According to the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website (www.cofcc.org, 12/98), Abraham Lincoln was "surely the most evil American in history," while Martin Luther King was a "depraved miscreant.” On the other hand, for the CCC’s Citizens Informer (Summer/94), former Georgia governor Lester Maddox, an unreconstructed racist, was the "Patriot of the Century.

"Each of the three major races plays a distinct role in history. . . . The whites were the creators of civilization, the yellows its sustainers and copyists, the blacks its destroyers.” (web site, 12/98)

"Western civilization with all its might and glory would never have achieved its greatness without the directing hand of God and the creative genius of the white race. Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself." (Citizens Informer, Fall/94)

"Our liberal establishment is using the media of television to promote racial intimacy and miscegenation…. All of the news teams on the major networks have black and white newscasters of opposite sexes." (Citizens Informer, Fall/98)

“Is it racist to say that it is legally and morally wrong for government to force a mixing of the races to produce a mongrel?" (Citizens Informer, Spring/97)

"The Jews' motto is 'never forget, and never forgive.' One can't agree with the way they've turned spite into welfare billions for themselves, but the 'never forget' part is very sound." (Citizens Informer, Winter/97)

"The presence [in Congress] of even one white person with our interests foremost in his mind is simply unacceptable to the issues-obsessed conservative race traitors. Texas Governor George Bush and his brother Jeb in Florida have manifested their self-hatred by embracing Hispanics ahead of whites. Somehow we must find a way to relieve whites of their self-hatred." ("Open Letter to White People,” website, 12/98)

"If we want to live, white Americans must begin today to lay the foundations of our future and our children's future.... Start today, fellow white Americans. Look at the faces around you: Find the faces like yours, and see them as your brothers and sisters. Find the fair-skinned babies and see them as your children." ("A Call to White Americans," website, 12/98)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1451

[edit] Alsayid's POV vandalism

Alsayid: I would like you to use the talk page. I use it extensively. You bulldoze edit then threaten me repeatedly on my talk page, without even the benefit of discussion going into your reverts. You are abusing your priviliges. And from looking at the history of this wiki entry, and others, this seems to be your modus operandi. I think of your reverts/edits without discussion as simply POV vandalism. I am trying to discuss all points of view, hence the addition of the "CCC in Its Own Words" entry. Why don't you attempt to discuss this entry before deleting it several times within the next 24 hours?

There seems to be longstanding controversy in this article as to whether CCC is "racist," or merely "controversial." This is a theme of many of the edit wars within this wiki entry. In fact, this is a theme of the present edit war in our collective efforts to construct a neutral, and accurate, lead. There are clearly CCC apologists, and non-racists, trying to hammer out an agreeable lead.

Is the reason you want to completely remove "CCC in Its Own Words" because such an admission of racial bigotry from the CCC itself might tip the scale towards wiki consensus that CCC is "racist" as opposed to "controversial"?--Cortez3100

First, you can stop calling me a vandal (or worse). You should also not make personal attacks against other editors, as you have done with Doctor Faustus and Jay Gatsby. I have politely asked this of you more than once, which you have chosen to ignore. You vandalized my user page, to which I left the appropriate template on your talk page. You quickly deleted it, to which I left the appropriate template against deleting legitimate warnings, as well as notifying you of the three revert rule. This is considered the appropriate way to notify you of actions you have taken against Wikipedia policy. As far as "bulldoze edits" go, look at your own edits in this regard. You have reverted everyone else who believes your preferred edit is POV, not just here, but on the Haley Barbour page as well. Now, if you can remain civil, I will attempt to engage you regarding the "In Their Own Words" edit.
Jay Gatsby is a bot. Or at least he is running an editing script. There is nothing unprofessional about insulting a script. As for "vandalizing" your user page, I thought I was messaging on your talk page...which, you apparently feel free to do to mine. But, you remove my comments off your page and throw tissy warning if I attempt to remove your comments off of mine. As for the Haley Barbour page...well, I await your response to my suggestions on the talk page there.
I do not have a problem with a sourced quote. However, you simply copy-and-pasted a series of excerpts from a piece you found at Fair.org. Does anyone else think that's professional, or reasonably succinct?
I confess on the first edit I did copy and paste (w/o thinking) from the fair.org article. However, after your first revert I rewrote the passage. Please be mindful that there was VERY little to rewrite and rearrange b/c most of the edit is CCC in Its Own Words. These are quotations, all of which are attributed to the CCC, not the fair.org article. So, take a different push poll rather than "does anyone think plagiarism is professional?" How about, "Does anyone else consider these quotations evidence of CCC's racism"?
As to the opening paragraph, changing it to say "apologists" refer to the CofCC as conservative is not neutral. That holds true regardless of the "racist" description. Secondly, saying that the group supports "European and Southern Heritage" is accurate. Replacing the word "Southern" with "White" makes the sentence somewhat redundant, and less accurate. Finally, it is also redundant to call the group racist, and say that the SPLC calls it racist in the same paragraph. --Alsayid 04:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the word apologist would be best removed, seems it might be an uneccesary flamethrower...but why in the world should the word "racist" be removed from the lead? CCC is clearly and unapologetically racist. Maybe a compromise would be something along the lines of "...CCC is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of WCC. The lynchpin of Citizens' Councils has traditionally been opposition to racial integration in public schools and intimidation of black voters. CCC members refer to themselves as an American paleoconservative political organization that supports European and Southern Heritage...." If we agree to maintain "is a contemporary incarnation of the racist U.S. movement of WCC" in the lead then maybe using "Southern," as opposed to "white," heritage is a good compromise. (I think we could source either stmt). I agree it is redundant to call CCC racist and then in the same paragraph state the "SPLC viewpoint." I propose the "SPLC viewpoint," represented elsewhere in the article, should be removed from the lead.--Cortez3100

I agree that "As to the opening paragraph, changing it to say 'apologists' refer to the CofCC as conservative is not neutral." I dislike the CCC, but I certainly agree that it is paleoconservative! I added "opposes multiculturalism" to the first sentence, which serves the purpose of calling it racist without actually saying "it's racist." It is indisputable that the CCC opposes multiculturalism, but it is debatable that it is "racist." I believe it definitely is racist, but my views are irrelevant as to whether it is neutral to label it as such, without attribution, in the first sentence of the article. This version of the intro paragraph, I think, is accurate and neutral. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the racism self-evident from the selected quotes, if nothing else? The organization's mission was white supremacy. To euphemize white supremacy as opposition to multiculturalism is bad writing at best, but closer to obfuscation. I say that with all due respoect to your NPOV intentions, which I don't doubt.Verklempt 22:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Talk%7ECouncil_of_Conservative_Citizens_b3f4.html"