Talk:National Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

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


Contents

[edit] old comments

White separatist

(cur) (last) . . 20:33, 17 Feb 2004 . . 24.45.99.191 (cur) (last) . . 03:00, 17 Feb 2004 . . Mirv (quit trying to whitewash this organization)

Upholding the Wiki NPOV is not "whitewashing" anything.

The group was NOT founded in 1960. 1974. Where do you get your facts?

Mirv, just quit trying to "Jewish POV" smear this organization, verses only keeping a Wiki NPOV.

They are a White Separatist Political Organization.

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


They are not "Neo-Nazi's", just because some JDL or ADL or other Marxist or Jewish political group falsely claim that they are.

Thanks! :D


I don't agree with "race-hate fiction". I don't think that was a NPOV way to describe the book. I do think it might be ACCURATE, but "racial revolutionary fiction" is actually more accurate, particularly after seeing the Oklahoma city bombing, etc... (BTW, I was reading the "problem user's" page when I found this issue, so I am aware it is controvercial, and I am NOT that other guy) JackLynch

Jack,

You might not agree with the "message" of such "fiction" but the National Alliance is a white separatist political organization and getting "unbiased" and "accurate" information from any and all such obviously bigoted and leftist and politically-biased groups as the Jewish "ADL" or from pc "pan-atheists" or from pc "marxist-leftists" is therefore very highly unlikely.

You should read the fictional novel, "The Turner Diaries", first-hand and you can buy it at: http://www.amazon.com or just go read what the National Alliance actually says from its' own actual website, at: http://www.natall.com before making any real "decision" as to what you do or what you don't actually "agree with" and go see if it does actually agree with REALITY or not.

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

I did read some of it Paul, online, and under fairly funny circumstances. A mixed race (including black and Jewish) roommate of mine insisted that I read it. I got about as far as the 2nd chapter, deciding that I didn't exactly care for the "style". Lets just say I don't find the thesis, prediction, or much of anything else in it particularly believable, and I found it to be less of a page turner than I require. I'm as in favour of hording guns and being independant as the next guy, but I am unconvinced as to the dangers posed to me by black folks. To be perfectly frank I find excess focus on other peoples races to be unhelpful in making friends, prolific in making enemies, and not exactly what Jesus would do when it all comes down to it ;) Sam Spade 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sam,

What "thesis", "predictions", or "much anything else in it" did you not find "particularly believable"? What was it about the "style" that you didn't "exactly care for"? What would you consider to be a "page turner" that you require? Curious.

If you are "unconvinced" as to the dangers posed to you by "black folks", maybe I could pose a challenge to your pc "thesis" for you to actually walk the streets late at night in some of these big cities where such "black folks" are the vast majority of the population?

To be truely frank, to "pc-deny" group racial differences is just not very realistic, nor very intelligent, but, to do so, DOES NOT mean that one can't have any friends of any other races, whatsoever. Everyone should be treated as an individual, on a one to one basis, and based upon their own actual strength of character and upon their actual behavior. Jesus would agree with me, there.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Paul,

I think this discussion is interesting but entirely off-topic. The duty of this page is to provide an unbiased and objective account of the facts. Your assertation that walking on the streets late at night in big cities is evidence that black people are different is interesting, but it is not objective truth by any means and there is a great deal of controversy on the topic. Your further claim that not only is there a group racial difference, but that to deny it is not realistic or intelligent, is also controversial and unproven. Also, I don't know why there is all this Jesus talk going on. Since when is Jesus a moral authority?

Anyway, the point of all this is that Wikipedia should be objective in fact-telling. Presenting one perspective as "right," until it has been justifiably proven, is against the spirit of reasonable research.

- Ryan Delaney






I don't see why you're playing games regarding the Neo-nazi leanings of the National Alliance and William Pierce. There is a great deal of evidence showing the National Alliance is indeed a Neo-nazi group:

Let us see your factual and objective "evidence".

1. The Turner Diaries refers to Adolf Hitler as The Great One. Furthermore, the goal of the fictional revolutionary group in the book is not merely white separatism, it is a group that advocates an all-white world.

Hello. The Turner Diaries is a fictional novel. The goal of the fictional group the "organization" may be one that advocates an all-white world, a "fantasy", but, in the real world and non-fictional National Alliance, they are a political group that only advocates white separatism and only advocates an all-white homeland, or homelands, and not any "fictional nor fantasy" all-white world.


2. http://www.stormfront.org/ns/great.html is an online version of an article published in National Vanguard Magazine, the mouthpiece of the National Alliance. Some quotes:

"April 20 of this year is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era"

He was mostly responsible for some of the greatest changes made to our entire civilization, politically, and globally, for both good and for evil, of the last century, or for the last 100 years. The editor or writer of the article is also entitled to their own "opinion", and that one "opinion" does not make the entire National Alliance organization, "Neo-Nazi", either.


"And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature"

What is so "Neo-Nazi" about the "innermost will of Nature"?

If the "innermost will of Nature" is "survival and advancement", is that main idea "Neo-Nazi", alone?

Curious.


"We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolu-tionaries in the world of today and are branded as such."

Obviously, the author of that specific article likely was a "Neo-Nazi", but, he was only speaking of others of his own kind that are being branded as being such, whether true or not, just as you and some others are falsely branding the National Alliance as being "Neo-Nazi", when they are actually only a White Separatist Political Organization, which is quite revolutionary relative to our existing society.

etcetera, etcetera. 61.120.95.91 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The group's own literature, however, does not support this. For instance, a 1989 editorial from National Vanguard, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler, says: "April 20 of this year is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era ... And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature ... We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolutionaries in the world of today and are branded as such." [1]"

BTW:, the stormfront organization actually is a "Neo-Nazi" organization and some very few of them actually have joined the National Alliance, but, not all National Alliance members are such "Neo-Nazi's" , so to falsely brand the entire National Alliance organization as being "Neo-Nazi" is really quite false, slanderous, and it usually is deliberately so, only to discredit their own legitimate rights to advocate White Separatism, or for a White Homeland that is for mostly whites only, just as the Jewish Zionist Israeli's have just about recently done with Palestine mostly only for the Jewish People.

It is about POWER and CONTROL over ideas and over the political process amongst the masses, which both Dr. Pierce and the Nazi's actually considered to be a "trait of the Jews", which are both a religion and a culture and an ethnicity.


That it was off the Stormfront site is not relevant - it's AN ARTICLE FROM NATIONAL VANGUARD. You know, THE MAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE. - David Gerard 16:13, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, the article can be found at the Georgia National Alliance website: http://www.nageorgia.com/articles_measure.html 61.11.26.142 17:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Link added to article - David Gerard 17:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi or neo?

IMO it is innapropriate to refer to them as "neo" nazi, and rather more accurate to refer to them as just plain nazi. Just my opinion, the evidence seems to me to be pretty clear, but I suppose it depends on how you define "nazi" Sam Spade 18:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The entry for Neo-Nazi defines "neo-Nazi" as "any social or political movement that revive Nazism or Fascism, respectively, and postdating the Second World War." That certainly seems to apply here. --Modemac 18:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Maybe, I donno if I agree w that tho. Are modern communists neo-communists? But whatever, its a subtlety, we all know what these fellers (unlike the neo-coms ;) are thinking. Sam Spade 18:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is actually accurate to call the "neo-Nazi": The term was coined to differentiate between the historical group ("the Nazis"), and later groups which hold the same beliefs, but do not belong to the particular movement of national socialism in Germany in the first half of the 20th century. It is a valid and useful distinction. - snoyes 18:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't know that I agree w that, but I will say that what is most important is that this article gives a clear enough picture of who and what they are that the reader is left w little doubt, irregardless of what term we use. If I've learned anything about politics, its that the labels used to describe it are ment more for the purpose of confusing intent than describing it, particularly when you let the rascals name themselves ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree with the labeling is irrelevant, the fact is that it is the common usage in describing people/groups that hold nazi beliefs, but are/were not part of Hitler's movement. I agree that it is dangerous to just take at face-value self-descriptions, as they are often misleading. We can expand upon that in the articles. - snoyes 18:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Obviously, the author of that specific article in National Vanguard likely was a "Neo-Nazi", but, he was only speaking of and for others of his own kind that are being branded as being such, and whether true or not, just as you here and some others in society in general are always falsely branding the National Alliance or others as being "Neo-Nazi", when they are actually only either a White Separatist Political Organization, or a racialist, not racist, which is quite revolutionary relative to our existing society and its false Political Correctness. Why do some "others" always insist on labeling all of the other others, as opposed to letting the people in question label themselves?

Curious.


It is about POWER and CONTROL over ideas and over the political process amongst the masses, which both Dr. Pierce and the Nazi's actually considered to be a "trait of the Jews", which are a religion and a culture and an ethnicity.



Very curious. According to the Georgia National Alliance, the article was written by William Pierce! http://www.nageorgia.com/articles.html 61.11.26.142 18:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He is entitled to his own opinion, which it was, and not all National Alliance members shared them all. :D

Well, labeling is done so as to compact a lot of information into a short space. Notice that the National alliance also engage in labeling, calling themselves "separationists". - snoyes 19:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
"We're not racists, we're racialists. We're not white supremacists,

we're white separatists!" I suppose we can't really call these guys a hate group either. They don't hate groups, they just hate individual folks. Lots and lots of individuals. --Modemac 19:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they do call themselves "White Racialist Separatists", only because that much more accurately and objectively describes the National Alliance's own political goals. Notice that such "labeling" of all others is ok when only certain other "others" are actually doing all of the "labeling" or "hating". LOL! :D

Curious.


If you want to be true to current racialist rhetoric, they don't hate anybody. They just love themselves so much that they want to be seperate from other races, particularly when it comes to breeding. Even your average klan website condemns violence and hate against others, but rather focuses on what is more P.C., the defense of ones own cultural values. They essentially feel intimidated, and desire to band together for purposes of defense, rather than agression. That is the current rhetoric, I must make clear ;) Sam Spade 19:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kind of like the current rhetoric that the Zionist Israeli's only want peace, and that they don't really "hate" the arab muslim palestinians, they just want to "seperate themselves" with a huge fence, just take more land, and only prevent terrorism and any resistance to their own dispossession of the native non-Jewish palestinian population. Sure. :D

Hmm. Not bad. Almost a full day elapsed here before the silly term "Zionist" was dragged out. Not that I'm accusing them of labelling or anything.  :) --Modemac 19:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


The silly term "Zionist"?

The term or label is Jewish.

"Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”). "...Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century..."

How about the really "silly" pc terms, "White Supremacist? Or "Nazi"? Or "Anti-semite"? Or "Homophobe"? Or "Racist"?, almost everytime someone or anyone is ever critical of any "Jewish Supremacism"?

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

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

From:

http://www.natall.com/pub/012404.txt

Curious.

Texture (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last edit by Jwrosenzweig - "anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is alright by me" is not appropriate)

I do agree, and I have taken it out.

Besides, Mr. Roper is now no longer in any official leadership position within the National Alliance political organization.

I have also added links supporting assertions made regarding the group in a Wiki NPOV fashion.

If you fine IP numbers think I'm posting here as part of a Zionist labelling conspiracy, could you let user:OneVoice over on Current events know? Thanks! - David Gerard 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Extlinks

The inline extlinks are incorrectly formatted as though they are wiki links. -- Arvindn 06:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article has been protected from edits for over a week now, & there has been little discussion about the issues that required it to be protected on this Talk: page. Shall this protection be removed now? -- llywrch 22:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The IP numbers seem to have calmed a little. Let's see what happens. - David Gerard 11:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Order

Once the page is unprotected, the link to The Order needs to be disambiguated to The Order (group). --ESP 01:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

done - David Gerard 10:07, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)



If you fine IP numbers think I'm posting here as part of a Zionist labelling conspiracy, could you let user:OneVoice over on Current events know? Thanks! - David Gerard 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

We all know, David, by your own "actions" and "censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and editing!! What else isn't new?

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:
  1. There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
  2. You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

Actually, it is the factual explaination that there is a conspiracy against me to ban and censor the truth AND that these same censors and bigots are not "fairly disputing" anything, whatsoever.


The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

You should read it and then just DO what it says, yourself!

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite" would actually give you some "personal integrity", and that would likely create the desire in people with actual personal integrity to "play better" with you, David Gerard. :D

[edit] White supremacy versus white separatism

The current article states that the National Alliance believes "whites are the most gifted, kind and spiritually beautiful race". The white supremacy page states that white supremacy is the belief that "white people [are] superior to people of other (and of mixed) races and/or ethnicities". Therefore, wouldn't one say that that a rational, neutral observer would deem them white supremacist?

Hmmm... I can't say that I completely disagree. However, why remove neo-nazi since it is an accurate claim that some believe this? - Tεxτurε 15:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How's this for something that includes both views?
The National Alliance is an American white supremacist political organization labeled "white separatist" by supporters and "neo-Nazi" by critics.
- Tεxτurε 15:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Texture, how do you know a rational neutral observer would disagree with that statement? --Nazrac 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish conspiracy

Bcorr, Your assertion that Wikipedia should classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth because it simply is a myth seems odd. Why is it necessary for Wikipedia to say so? Shouldn't the reader be able to reach that conclusion as self-evident on his or her own? Isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a /reference/ material, not one that tells people what conclusions to draw?

- Ryan Delaney

Ryan -- I honestly don't understand your point, but IMHO it seems obvious that "Wikipedia should classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth because it simply is a myth" just as "Wikipedia should classify the Edsel as an automobile because it simply is an automobile" -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bcorr -- There are two objections I am making here:
.
(1) That the status of of the Jewish conspiracy as a myth is, although you and I may accept that it is an unfounded idea, a point of contention with respect to the National Alliance, and you must admit that you can't prove that there isn't an international Jewish conspiracy, even though it's ridiculous to believe there is given the information we have.
.
(2) Your second point is illustrative. Saying "The Edsel is an automobile because it is an automobile" is not a statement that you would find in Wikipedia. It is redundant. If it is so self-evident that their opinion is false, then saying the National Alliance believes there is an international Jewish conspiracy should be enough. Otherwise, you are claiming that adding the descriptive noun "myth" has added something to the discussion that is otherwise missing. If it is not self-evident, then it should be the responsibility of Wikipedia to provide evidence that is a myth rather than categorizing it as such without any justification.
.
- Ryan Delaney
It would appear clear to myself that stating a disputed statement as fact (as Bcorr is attempting to do) is POV, and contrary to the fundamental principles of the wikipedia. Sam [Spade] 15:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stating something as fact in your own opinion on a talk page is exactly according to the principles of Wikipedia. You have the same right to say he's wrong. When did censorship of opinions become an ideal of Wikipedia? - Tεxτurε 16:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You severely misunderstand me. I despise censorship. See here. Perhaps I could have worded things better. Wikipedia should not classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth, as that is a disputed claim. Further, the very lable/concept of "myth" is only appropriate in regards to subjects wherein concensus exists that they are non-factual. Sam [Spade] 11:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Propagated the myth" is not POV

I changed the sentence back to The National Alliance also propagated the myth that Israeli Jews were advised not to report to work at the World Trade Center that day. It's been changed repeatedly to replace "propagated the myth" with "claimed" on the premise that the first is PV while the second is neutral and factual, since calling anything a "myth" is allegedly POV. That change seems unjustified. -- BCorr|Брайен 15:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The status of their claim as a "myth" is disputed and it is not necessary or NPOV for Wiki to state it as such. You have yet to satisfactorily respond to this claim. It seems that you want Wiki to reflect your own POV. Malathion 15:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let's be fair here. Even Haaretz has publicised such reports: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C. ElBenevolente 15:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That isn't even the point. That "There is an international Jewish conspiracy" is a disputed claim. That "The National Alliance believes there is an international Jewish conspiracy" is not, and is also far more on topic for this article. This article is not written on the topic of whether there is such a conspiracy, and it is pointless for Wikipedia to make such a controversial statement about another topic when the real subject here is the National Alliance. Bcorr's habit of reverting changes correcting this error without participating in discussion is troubling. -- Malathion 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I propose as a compromise using the word "hoax" instead of "myth.
A Haaretz story that 2 people allegedly got IMs warning about an attack is very different from the story that the NA propagated. It is based on a September 17, 2001 story by Lebanese television station Al-Manar posted to its web site, claiming that 4,000 Israelis were absent from their jobs at the World Trade Center on September 11, thus implying that Israel was in some way behind the attack. Later versions were enhanced with the "fact" that "no Israelis were killed in the 9/11 attacks". The 4,000 Israelis that were "supposed" to be in the WTCs is a falsehood. There were approximately 3,000-4,000 Israelis in New York City that the Israeli government was concerned about.The story apparently has its roots in a statement by the Israeli embassy shortly after the attacks that it was trying to learn the status of some 4,000 Israeli citizens in the New York City area.
Is Malathion claiming that there is some proof that this is true, BTW? BCorr|Брайен 16:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a URL for these claims the NA made? ElBenevolente 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but now you're just being dense. I don't think there is an international Jewish conspiracy any more than you do, nor have I ever suggested there is. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the National Alliance believes there is one and that passing judgment on their beliefs is not Wiki NPOV.
-- Malathion 17:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr, by replacing "myth" with "hoax", you have replaced one POV term with another. Your insistence that Wikipedia should be passing judgment on the National Alliance is disturbing and appears unfounded. -- Malathion 09:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you guys think your doing, but we are not an editorial staff, and our function here is not to pass judgement on the positions of various political parties. Hoax and myth have no neutral place in describing the views of others. If you want the article to say something negative about these views (as if it needs doing) find a expert source to quote. Otherwise leave your personal assessments of the factual nature of others claims out of the article. Sam [Spade] 14:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think conspiracy theory is the best so far - it's even got the link - David Gerard 14:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cool, sounds like a win. If its a comfort to anybody, the National Alliance prob doesn't like "conspiracy theory" as a label for their theories much better than myth or hoax ;) Sam [Spade] 15:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" sounds good to me, although I'd like to word it in the context of their multiple theories about the "Jewish conspiracy." How about: "The National Alliance claims that Jews were secretly ordered out of the World Trade Center prior to the attacks as part of their theories about the international Jewish conspiracy." ? That seems fair to both sides. Malathion 00:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with David Gerard and Sam Spade. Conspiracy theory is accurate and I don't think that it's necessary to "place it in context." BCorr|Брайен 00:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] defining the "AntiSemitic" label

There are actually websites that openly and repeatedly call for violence against Jews. The National Alliance does not appear do this in the slightest, but they do criticise the actions of many Jewish and Zionist organizations and individuals. However, they appear to applaud some dissident Jews such as Norman Finkelstein; they even sell and promote his book "The Holocaust Industry" on their website.

As in the use of virtually any adjective that refers to one's behavior, the term "AntiSemitic" is purely a matter of judgement, and expressing such opinionated labels as uncontested fact needs to be avoided, especially when dealing with such a potentially libelous accusation.

There are numerous print examples of National Alliance literature that are openly contemptuous of Jews. Not everything is on the Internet. The National Alliance is an antisemitic White supremacist hate group.--Cberlet 03:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Attacking Jews as a people is anti-semitic behavior, and it is exhibited on the pages of the National Vanguard magazine, available online. For example, Dividing the Race. I don't think that anyone has to worry about losing a court case over libelling the National Alliance by calling them anti-semitic. But thanks for the concern. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Willmcw, except that the term "anti-Semitic" itself is meaningless. — Chameleon 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] white supremacist

The National Alliance may sometimes prefer white separatist, but their publications for many years have been openly white supremacist. Not just watchdog groups, but most scholalry texts on the group call it white supremacist and neonazi. --Cberlet 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deleted material

I've removed the following chunks, some of it is incomprehensible and much of it contains POV or unsupportable statements. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The tension was aggravated, as opponents such as the Anti-Defamation League and SPLC took advantage of the situation by infiltrating and claiming the Alliance was falling apart and that the new leadership was incompetent. The ADL and SPLC continue to maintain these claims despite the fact that the Alliance has largely stabilized with the new leaders and following the formation of the new Executive Committee, and in spite of recent displays of organizational and financial competence such as massive successful literature distributions, billboards being erected, as well as popular festivals and concerts being organized.
  • While Gliebe was known to have been quite competent at directing the business aspects of the organization, in the nature of his management of Resistance Records, he was not seen by many as possessing the same qualities of intellectual capacity and learnedness which Pierce possessed in obvious over-abundance. Furthermore, it was thought by some that the intellectual prowess of some other members, such as Kevin Alfred Strom, were being squandered by Gliebe.
  • The new leadership often dismissed these allegations outright, and as a product of this, it was said that the new governship retained the autocratic, centralized nature as characteristic of the organization under Pierce, while somewhat neglecting the well-toned air of academic control cultivated under Pierce.
  • The choice for National Alliance members now is whether to follow the leadership of Walker, favoring the traditionally centralized, autocratic government, or the arguably more intellectually bent leadership of the National Vanguard's Executive Board.

[edit] "Cited" propaganda tactic

There has been a revision war recently over the following sentence:

 The group describes it as a call for all races to embrace their various "heritages", but it has also been cited 
 as a propaganda tactic to shroud their other racist messages.

You cannot say that it "has been cited" without actually providing a reference. Otherwise this is nothing but weasel language that is unsubstantiated and a disguised attempt to have Wikipedia pass judgment on the National Alliance. --Malathion 02:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's nonsense for you to pretend that the facts aren't consistent with the message, but for your edification, the Anti-Defamation League does call them on the blatant hate in their message. Here is a recent press-release about the "Love" day, just to satisfy your call for every Wikipedia fact to have documentation. Perhaps put down the Turner Diaries and invest in a little common sense?--TheGrza 07:29, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your passion on this issue but I would suggest that you take a look at some Wikipedia policy articles, in particular Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. Your tendency to imply that anyone trying to achieve a level of intellectual honesty with regard to this article must be a neo-Nazi or a NA sympathizer is missing the point, and this endless revision war needs to stop. If you refuse to discuss this civilly I guess I'll have to ask to have the article protected and mediated. I don't think it should be necessary to do that.
It's certainly the case that some hate-group watchdog organizations like the ADL have made such statements, so yes, the edit is in some sense factually accurate. My problem is that the wording seems to come off sounding like Wikipedia is making a judgment against the National Alliance. I'll make some edits to see if we can find something to agree on. --Malathion 11:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know those policies and I didn't violate any one of them. Your edit is fine, it doesn't seem that different to me. The attacks on the page were in effect repeating NA propaganda as if this really was an attempt to help all races, and there is no person on the globe who can be intellectually honest and ignore the fact that NA is an incredibly racist and violent group who attacks other races for their existence, and even this stupid love day tactic comes complete with a blonde haired, blue-eyed aryan woman on the front of the poster. So, my whole point is that trying to justify the NA and their tactics is incredibly blind and racist, which is not a personal attack or a breach of civility, but a statement of fact.--TheGrza 17:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted section

I've removed the following section because it seems to pretty much duplicate info that appears earlier in the article.

[edit] Deleted section

Beginning in 2002, a power struggle arose within the Alliance, as many members, both rank-and-file as well as respected officials, were divided as to whether or not the new leadership would continue to carry out Pierce's program in full. Although most felt the new leaders would do their best, a vocal minority insisted that Pierce's policies were being abandoned.

On April 20, 2005, the Anti-Defamation League outlined a significant ongoing dispute within the National Alliance, which it believes will lead to a "rapid collapse" of the organization. [2] As of April 30, 2005, a large and sudden split within the Alliance has taken place. This division is seen as having been in the making since the death of Pierce, and the ascension of Gliebe as the new chairman of the organization.

An Executive Committee was formed to provide "check, balance and oversight of the governship of the National Alliance body". The committee gave Gliebe a Declaration of Leadership which demanded openness and accountability. Gliebe claimed this represented a coup against the National Alliance, and the declaration was not accepted. Strom, a key member of the Executive Committee, has since left (or been expelled), and has encouraged his supporters within the National Alliance to join him and his lieutenants in a new organization called National Vanguard. Gliebe resigned as chair and became director of Resistance Records.


[edit] Supremacists?

I altered the White Supremacists to White Separatists, because that is what the National Alliance stands for, but then I read the Controversia sign wich says to read the discussion page before making any changes to the main article. So I am posting here to see if you agree with this:

A White supremacist is one who wants the whites to reign above other races

A White Separatist is one who wants to separate the white race from others

The National Alliance is the second option, so it is White Separatist. Should I change the article?

Thanks ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.11 (talk • contribs) .

The form of white separatism espoused by William Pierce is know to the rest of the world as "white supremacism". I think that the existing text properly describes both sides of the issue. -Willmcw 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

== A:

It does cover both parts of the issue, I just tought that calling it White Supremacism was wrong and were I editing it I wouldn't even mention it, for reasons exposed above by myself, but I will check the page White Supremacism and read what it says.

==

Out of curiousity, how do you think the NA proposes to make racial separation occur? A variety of races are all intermixed in communities across the world. Since separation would be virtually impossible, the real goal appears to be a return to segregation with the white population in a pre-eminent position. I'm interested to hear your view of what policies the National Alliance has pursued to create separation. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

== A:

I don't know, but they did mention sending non-whites, especially blacks to Africa during the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina because they were causing mayhem shootin rescuers etc. Later I will put the link to where this is mentioned, but it does not mean this is really how they want to do it, I don't really know. I don't know if it is "impossible" to separate the races, but they certainly don't stand for ethnic groups living together with the whites ruling. They want an all-white country instead. Later I will provide you the link. ;-)

If you want to correct spelling errors in my writing please do, I'm brazilian and interested in learning english better. ==

White Supremacists is not accurate for stating at the head of the article. The Nationail alliance says they are a White Nationalist organization and do not advocate white supremacy officially. It is a personal opinion as to if they are a white supremacy organization and that is why I changed it. When stating there organization officially I think its best to go with White Nationalist or White Seperatist and then below say they have been labeled as a white supremacist group by anti hate groups. I think that is fair, balanced, and accurate without giving an unecessary POV.

71.131.245.179 01:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article should continue to refer to them as white supremists. When segregation was happening, white supremists would insisst they weren't rascist, they just thought "blacks should be seperated" and claimed their facilities were "seperate but equal", every educated person knows this was bullshit, just like they know the National Alliance is a white supremist organization.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Officially they are white nationalists and that is what should remain. As you said everyone thinks its bullshit so I dont see why its important. People will still come to the conclusion without being it drawn for them by editors. It is not a fact officially that they are a white supremacist organization and they always deny it. Therefore the reader has to make up their own minds. I am sure they will come to the conclusion on their own. If you can find me a link where the national alliance officially says they are a white supremacist organization it should stay but otherwise it needs to remain white nationalist officially.

71.131.245.179 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews owning the mainstream media

I posted a link of them proving that people of Jewish descent who are ardent Zionists do control the mainstream media in America. They dont claim it they prove it. It's inaccurate to say they claim because they do prove it so I feel that we have to say that in the article.

71.131.245.179 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

the national vanguard is not a reputable source for that kind of information. The Ungovernable Force 02:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
It may be national vanguard but its factual information which can be verified. So is Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Harvey Weinstein, Edgar Bronfman and the rest of the people listed not really Jewish? Are they not Zionists? Its documented information and it may be from national vanguard buts its legitimate. I dont see why it should be removed because of the link. That is the definition of censorship.

71.131.245.179 07:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no reputable or reliable source that claims all the people you mention are zionists, just becasue they are Jewish doesn't mean they are involved in some kind of nefarious plot.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Just because they are jewish does not mean they are part of some ZOG plot to take over the world. Anyway, I bet there are quite a few white christians high up as well (actually, I know there are, perhaps more than anyone else). The Ungovernable Force 19:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
They are not only Jewish but all ardent Zionists. The statement only says that Jews have large influence and control of the government which is true. That statement alone doesnt say that there is a conspiracy theory for them to take over the world it just says people who are Jewish control the mainstream media which is true. I dont see the problem and how its inaccurate. Btw there are other claims that they make and I havent documented them so I leave it as a claim but in this case they prove it and it should remain.

71.131.245.179 19:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actuaslly it is not true that Jews have conttrol of the government, and they are not ardent zionists.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Righto! And again, National Vanguard is not a reputable source, so even if it's true it isn't worth anything on wikipedia. The Ungovernable Force 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It has just come to my attention that people who like the color blue and enjoy eating french fries may be in control of the mainstream media. Can anything be done? —Viriditas | Talk 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I was waiting for someone to make a comparison like that :)--The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is Espiscopals who were members of the Boy Scouts. They probably drank mik as children. We must expose this sinister plan for world domination!--Cberlet 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The only sentence I say that they prove the is the mainstream media is owned by Jews which is true. We are not talking about Jews owning the government only the mainstream media so that is not the issue.

Governable, what do you think the Jews are going to do on their networks? Say "Yes we own the media!" Its so obvious and documented that the Jews own the media. Read this article: http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/

What I am telling you it doesnt matter where the information comes from as long as its accurate. If you can point out to me that the information is not verifiable factual information please bring it to my attention but otherwise it needs to stay up.

71.131.245.179 03:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is their being jewish the only thing that matters? No. If we are just going to starts saying "All the people who own the media are ____" we will need a long list because there are many common factors between the people who own the media, not just that they are Jews (which I strongly doubt). For example, they probably all eat meat, are probably mostly men, are all adults, are all (insert whatever adjective here). By claiming that jews own the media you make it seem as if this is somehow incredibly important (it may be, it may not be). The thing is, regardless, the national alliance's website is not a reliable source, so even if the info is correct, it can't be used other than to say that the national alliance says they have proven jews own the media. It can't be said that jews do own the media.

However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly, or about their viewpoints. (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources)

Also on the reliable sources page is a heading labeled "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence", please read this. The website of an extremist group is not exceptional evidence by anyone's standards (and I'm an extremist myself, but I would never consider infoshop.org to be a highly reliable source on wikipedia for information other than on anarchism as a movement/philosophy). And yes, of course jews in the mainstream media would never say something like "we own the media", it's a catch 22 but you have to go with it. You're the one who seems to think people should make up their own mind, so let them see the link and decide for themselves if jews actually own the media outlets. The Ungovernable Force 17:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
i posted a pretty mainstream article of Jews themselves saying on eonline that fellow Jews occupy 60 percent of the media positions. This is proven. I dont see the problem. So If Nazis took over the media and Jews said that the Nazis own the media on a non mainstream source would that not be credible because its not accepted in the mainstream? This is censorship and frankly it's ridiculous. It doesnt matter what source its from as long as the information is true and can be proven which in this case it is. You didn't answer my question. Is Gerald Levin, Michael Eisner, Harvey Weinstein, Edgar Bronfman and the rest of the people listed not really Jewish? Are they not Zionists? If you can prove to me that this is not true I will go away but if you cant the sentence needs to remain.

And what you are saying for the reader decide "facts" for themselves is nonsense. That is like saying the KKK murdered a black guy and saying "You cant say that they murdered the black guy even if its proven you have to simply let the reader make up their own mind"

71.131.245.179 19:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I just read the article from e online--the whole thing is basically about how the fact that jews run hollywood doesn't matter (and btw, hollywood is only one component of the media, so it doesn't prove jews run the media, only hollywood). So if you want to prove jews run hollywood, link to the e online article, not the NA one since the NA has no credibility regardless of whether what they publish is true or not. I think you'll have trouble finding a way to do it though, since this is an article on the NA, not on jews owning the media. And again, just because they are jews proves nothing. As to your question of those individuals--I don't know and frankly I don't care. Some of the names seem jewish, but still, that doesn't prove anything about zionism. And as to your last statement about letting readers decide themselves being ridiculous, this was your argument for why they shouldn't be called white supremacists, so if you don't think it's a good argument, why did you use it? I was only following your line of intellect. I think it's ridculous to not call the National Alliance supremacists (which they clearly are), yet you seem so insistent that the reader decide--you can't have it both ways. The Ungovernable Force 22:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously they are going to say Jewish ownership doesnt matter over anything but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is run by Jews. Hollywood is one component of the media that is why I posted the two articles. One proving the news media and the other hollywood. National Alliance says that "Jews" own the mainstream media which I have displayed. I dont see the problem they claimed that Jews run the mainstream media and everyone who owns the mainstream news media is Jewish. Point proven.

For National Alliance being white supremacists it is an opinion not a fact. Can you prove they are white supremacists? I personally think they are but it is an opinion so you have to state it like that. I just think we should provide all the information which would indicate they are white supremacists and let the reader come to the conclusion themselves (That is what encyclopedias are supposed to do)But officially they say they are a white nationalist organization so we have to go off that. If they said officially that they are a white supremacist organization we would put that.

It's different for the Jews owning the media because that is a fact. The statement from the national alliance says "Jews own the mainstream meda" that is a substantiated statement because people who reside in the ownership positions are Jewish which can be verified.

71.131.245.179 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Internet is wide open and there are plenty of websites where people promoting fanatic antisemitism and racism have plenty of room to exercise their First Amendment rights. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia. Most reputable sources do not support the claims being made that "Jews own the mainstream meda." Most reputable published sources call the National Alliance antisemitic, white supremacist, and even neonazi. Alas, your claims do not rise to the level of reputable research. Sorry.--Cberlet 13:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe because all reputable sources are run by Jews? I hardly find the SPLC and the ADL reputable sources. I am telling you the information is factual verifiable information. If you can prove that it is in fact wrong and I will leave you alone otherwise you are censoring info and it needs to stay up.

71.131.245.179 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The National Alliance is NOT A REPUTABLE SOURCE! Why can't you understand that. They could say something as obvious as 2+2=4 and we still wouldn't be able to use their cite as a source for that fact. They just aren't reliable. And what, you think the National Alliance is somehow less biased than the ADL or SPLC....please. The Ungovernable Force 03:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual owners of mainstream media

Who owns the media? The stockholders, of course. For public companies, it's easy to find out who owns what. Let's take your first two names just as examples. Gerald Levin of Time Warner:

Levin is not even listed as a major direct owner in forms filed with the SEC. Yet the % of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 72% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TWX So, Levin isn't on the ownership radar.

Michael Eisner of Disney:

Eisner owns 13,954,813 shares. % of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 0 Eisner's shares, and those of the other major insiders, are 0%. % of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 69% http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=DIS

So, who owns the media? Does this need more explanation? -- Perspective 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious who made you say that....The Jews of course.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant intro

The intro twice mentions that the group self-identifies as "white nationalist" but critics believe they are "white supremacist". This redundancy should be fixed. We don't need this comment twice in one paragraph! Phiwum 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving the article

What do people think about moving this article to National Alliance (United States) and placing National Alliance (disambiguation) here? I only suggest this as some of the other NAs are of greater importance to their domestic politics than the American one (notably in Italy). However, considering this particular article attracts a lot of edits and has a huge number of links I though i would be beter to see what the general opinion was before going ahead with any move. Keresaspa 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locked for vandalisim.

I saw something on the National Alliance on TV today. So I went to this page and noticed that someone was claiming this was a homosexual group, founded by a gay prostitute. While I absolutly do not agree with the National Alliance, there is no excuse for vandalism in the article. Anyone who wants to unlock it, go ahead. 3D jonny 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENational_Alliance_4338.html"