Talk:The Turner Diaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

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

Contents

[edit] POV quotes

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

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

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

[edit] Europe

Sorry about the link change regarding Europe/European.

My bad. :D

[edit] Western world

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

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

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

http://members.odinsrage.com/turner/epilog.html


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


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


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

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

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

[edit] "fictional novel"

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

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

One entry found for futuristic.


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

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

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

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

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

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

http://members.odinsrage.com/turner/epilog.html

[edit] Disambiguate The Order

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

[edit] This article needs to be re-written

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

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

[edit] Link at end

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

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

[edit] Copyright

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

[edit] First Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Interesting...

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

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

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

T ConX, you are on to something. This is a from a 2000 CNETnews.com article:
Canada prohibits advocating genocide or publicly inciting hatred via spoken or written words. The country also bans the importation of hate propaganda.
The "Turner Diaries" and the "Protocols of Zion" are on a list of books that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency consider illegal to import into the country, agency spokesman Michel Cléroux confirmed. But with $1 billion worth of goods crossing the border from the United States into Canada every day, the agency cannot check every package that comes over the border, Cléroux said. In any case, if the agency intercepted a shipment of banned books, it would contact the Canadian importer, not the U.S. exporter, he said. He added that the agency did not have authority to regulate the actual online sales of the books.
"Electronic commerce is outside our jurisdiction as customs officers," Cléroux said.
(Here is the full article.
So, from this article, importing the book is banned in Canada, but online sales are a gray area, it seems. I don't know about ownership, though. - Thanks, Hoshie | Grand Union Flag 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


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

[edit] Dystopia/Utopia

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

He's right. The books portrays the change from what the Author sees as a Dystopia (Jewish Conspiricy this, Black Gangs that), into a Purely White Utopia.
A utopia should bear some resemblence in form to More's Utopia; i.e., it should primarily be a description of the author's ideal society. The Turner Diaries is primarily a story about revolution, not a description of the resulting society; from a literary standpoint it is not a utopia or dystopia. However, just because a work is a utopia doesn't mean it's not disturbingly fascist; e.g., consider Plato's Republic.
That said, saying it is a Utopia by White Supremacist and Separatists is quite accurate. T ConX 23:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NPOV means we do not simply accept the characterisation of the author, and does not imply the use of euphemistic or bland descriptions. The world depicted in the novel is by definition a violently rascist dystopia. "Dystopia" functions here as an objective term. The POV kicks in when this is omitted or downplayed. A "violently rascist future world" is like "violenty rascist fictional world" and both are redundant. The second new sentence is problematic because its also tends to be redundant, and in its current form, is effectively an apology for Pierce’s views. Its ironic that such sympathetic treatment is seen as being NPOV, or "less POV". However, in so far as it may be possible to contend that it is POV to not mention that violent white supremacists may actually have a "utopian vision" where the vast majority of the entire global population has been murdered, this sentence has been retained with modifications. Obey 06:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
You cannot say dystopia is an objective term. It's just not. It hinges completely on what one views as good and what one views as bad. And as it includes one's views, it follows that it must be subjective. The best way to report on it is simply how it was intended. Refering to it as "the Dream" makes it fairly clear that it was meant as a utopia. Relegating that to a clause of "For Pierce and other white supremacists however, a world free of non-whites was the ultimate "utopia"." does not accurately show that the novel was written to describe it as a utopia. And the placement of quotation marks really only serves to point out that no, it's not a utopia - which I do agree with, but is unquestionably point-of-view. 82.83.55.135 14:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't accept this moral relativism so let's agree to disagree on this one. The term is also loaded language so that doesn't help. Anyway, your edit works, and btw I have just reverted to you from another user. Obey 04:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I live by moral relativism. Particularly when trying to remain POV here. But that, in itself, is POV. Oh well. Agree to disagree it is. 82.82.181.83 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • WacoKid, nice edits (8 March) on this point. Best so far. Obey 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I was hoping my edit wouldn't reopen this can of worms, since a compromise seemed to have been worked out. But I thought the phrasing had grown clunky, in the effort to satisfy all parties. I think my edit maintains the balance that was struck, making clear that the novel's ending was not intended to be "dystopian", yet certainly not cloaking its contents in "euphemisms". --WacoKid 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Turner_Diaries_e101.html"