Talk:Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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 organizations 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] Connection with ANUS.com

This website is currently ruled by staff from the anus.com website. This should be portrayed.


Is this a joke? Danny

Nope, I don't think so. The web page is too earnest, and confused. User:Ray Van De Walker

I'm not sure they realize how contradictory their platform is? The party is listed on the politics1.com page. That convinced me to make an addition to the list of political parties. --Damnedkingdom

Der... so, I'm not sure, after vising the website www.nazi.org (this party's site), that they can accurately be described as eschewing racial discrimination, since they seem to endorse race-based theories of intelligence and so on. While this doesn't strictly imply that you should discriminate based on race, i would say it's pretty hard to believe that some races are intellectually inferior as a function of genetics and NOT descriminate on the basis of race. Also they have a banner calling for freedom for Matt Hale, of World Church of the Creator fame, which makes me wonder whether they are in fact as anti-religious as the page claims they are.
I'd certainly keep an eye on this lot, looks like classic third position Strasserite entryism, ie, nazi's trying to 'greenwash' their dubious politics. Let's make sure they don't try & turn wikipedia into a 'respectable' platform...

This one scares me. Frank Quist

Yes, me too. I am new to Wikipedia and I read some articles including this one before I realized that Wikipedia is an open project. I think anyone new who sees this kind of article will think badly of Wikipedia. In the final paragraph the author(s) state to themselves as 'we' which seems to me a severe violation of the neutrality policy. Could this kind of converted manifesto be banned? Sjoerd de Vries

This site is not a joke, nor is it a troll, nor is it a bunch of contradictory ideologies meshed together to mess with people's heads. The name obviously seems contradictory, but the site does present a pretty clear platform. Also, Bill White pretty much volunteered after the whole Weisse thing to be their spokesman because the actual authors of the site are anti-social and don't like the media. The site isn't by him, nor should he be overly tied up with the group when he's little more than the guy who volunteered to take the spotlight the media needed. User:MeanMrMustard

I checked the archives for nazi.org [1] to see if the the website was previously intended as a joke, and then somehow acquired a (serious) life of its own. As I found out, its ideological core has been consistent througout its existence on the Net. More interestingly, it appears that the party is a much older organisation (existing since 1983) predating online pranksterism (and even predating the Sokal Hoax!). As is symptomatic of most political movements, the core ideology has been maintained and expanded upon, with an intent to permeate aspects of practical life and gain new recruits. Similarly the archive of anus.com [2] shows more or less the same result (as is expected since A.N.U.S reputedly predates the internet). The point here is members of LNSGP and A.N.U.S share a subcultural milieu, that has been existing for at least 30 years. No joke can last that long, and symptomatically resemble a genuine movement. Moreover, such a subcultural milieu is plausible since its co-option of Nazism is (technically) no different from the postmodern co-option of Marx and Freud in the academic subculture. It is perfectly concievable that a group of renegade thinkers felt that "Hitler was on to something" while disagreeing with his genocidal policies. Besides being merely plausible, such a subculture even seems well-timed. The "Green", "Tribal" and "Pagan" aspects of LNSGP are very countercultural, and seems likely to be championed by new activists in the late 70s / early 80s who were disillusioned by the lovey-dovey (and ultimately flaky) inclusive counterculture of the 60s, and wanted to create a new counterculture based on tribal authority and fervent defense of/attachment towards "tribal lands" (cf: Völkisch movement,Führerprinzip) rather than some ineffective political action.

[edit] From VFD

  • Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. Seems like a joke website, rather than a political party. Even if they're serious, theres no evidence that they're a genuine political party, do they do anything except produce a website? Their site doesn't seem to indicate that they do. A Google search reveals only their official site and sites that simply talk about their official site. Saul Taylor 13:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • These wackos folks have been around at least since the mid 1990s. They seem more in the category of strange fringe groups which pop up on the internet than a political party of any influence, but as wikipedia is not paper, I make a weak vote to keep. IMO article should be trimmed to a short description and link to their site. I note Wikipedia has had an article on them since March of 2002. -- Infrogmation 19:33, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • The point of Wikipedia is to provide information isn't it? This seems to be information to me: for (e.g.) a student studying politics or extremism (as I am doing for my International Baccalaureate Diploma) this is a useful resource. I intend to make use of it at a later date for an essay on modern fringe politics. Just because something is a joke or offends you doesn't mean that it should be deleted. I move to keep it. Simon Stallworthy
    • Keep. I have been aware of this organization since the early 90's, as mentioned above. go to http://nazi.org/ and study up on them, or heck, contact them and add yourself to their mailing list if you have any questions or concerns, but its not a joke. Jack 03:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reading through the article some of their viewpoints are a bit on the extreme side, and I don't agree with them, but they seem to be a valid political party nonetheless. -- Francs2000 06:30, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • They are not real political party. Their name appears on zero .gov websites and the only information I can find beyond there website are other sites talking about how they believe it is a joke. The page should be deleted or rewritten with verifiable information on the party such where they were on the ballot and what places candidates have run for which elections. Delete. Maximus Rex 08:19, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
they don't run cantidates in any elections, but that in no way suggests that they arn't a political party. The only possible way you can assess them in such an uninformed manner would be from lack of thorough inspection. They are not a joke, and quite the opposite, have quite a bit of interesting information at their disposal. Even if you feel convinced that they arn't a legitamate political party, they are an organization worth mentioning here. I am getting the impression that Deletionism is running amok. Wiki is not paper. Jack 06:30, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I notice that Brianism was listed on vfd, for similar reasons to this page (no evidence for Brianism's existence appart from its own website, and Wikipedia, and Wikipedia copies). If Brianism gets deleted then why shouldn't this page? Saul Taylor 01:20, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This page isn't being deleted because it was voted on, and 4 to 2 (a 2/3rd margin) voted to keep it. That is far more than the requires 1/3rd to keep the page. If you REALLY think it should be deleted, bring it back up in 4 months. I believe thats the suggested time frame for resubmissions. Just so you know, the idea that non-vandalism should be deleted at all is extremely controversial, and Jimbo seems to be an inclusionist. Check out Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion and you may get a feel for how far the opposite direction things are heading from what you were looking to do. Jack 01:31, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
4 months? Is this policy? Because if so, I have an issue to raise concerning a VfD that was held less than two weeks after another one failed for the same article... Rogue 9 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence that the LNSGP actually exists beyond the website

Is there any? Any at all? Something solid and verifiable - David Gerard 17:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of how the party is "commonly regarded"? Lets see a cite on that. Personal POV does not a common opinion make. Sam [Spade] 19:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I doubt they are "commonly regarded" as anything, since they don't exist beyond their website! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Part 2

This was on their website, The LNSG will begin supporting candidates for local elections in 2007. --Saint-Paddy 23:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, weres the source of the copyvio coming from?


[edit] Questionable claims

Assuming this is for real, some of the claims here are rather questionable. According to the page they're against racial discrimination, yet their own FAQ says:

Theirs [the Jews] is a culture that is entirely dependent on finding other cultures with whom to trade, or upon whom to parasitize. An honest treatment of the Jews would be to recognize their "irreconcilable differences" and eject them back to the Middle East.

This sounds slightly discriminatory to me... anyway, the whole thing's written like a manifesto. Evercat 10:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It _is_ a manifesto. Right down to the "we". It is obviously copied and pasted from somewhere.

[edit] Pared down

I've cut down the article to a managable (and readable) size, and added a mention of the connection to Jeff Weise (which I imagine is why most people are stumbling onto this article now). Someone can elaborate on their platform, but I find it so utterly contradictory that I can't really synthesize the text that was pasted in into anything coherent. - Seth Ilys 13:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I did that, the {{totallydisputed}} tag no longer seems appropriate, since it was the massive text drop that created all the contention. I'm going to be bold and remove it for now. -- Seth Ilys 16:29, 23 Mar 2005

[edit] Lack of third-party evidence

You know, there's still no evidence they exist outside their own website - David Gerard 09:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

exactly --- at least no evidence presented hereSpyRing
Nevertheless, they've been getting plenty of press attention since the Red Lake shootings, most of which has some "expert" stating something like "We have no way of knowing how many members this group has..." -- Seth Ilys 13:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The lack of evidence of any political activity beyond the website causes me problems, too. They can call their effort a political party, and some definitions would seem to concur that any two or three people who stand on the street and say "vote for so-and-so" comprise a party. Still, the sentence "The LNSGParty is a minor political party" tended to be redundant, because it said a party is a party. The descriptor "minor" is informative, but we are still lacking a definition of political party.
They are not a US political party, not according to USC TITLE 2 > CHAPTER 14 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 431 "The term 'political party' means an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."


But TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 11 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 611 offers a broader description for foreign political parties:
(f) The term “foreign political party” includes any organization or any other combination of individuals in a country other than the United States, or any unit or branch thereof, having for an aim or purpose, or which is engaged in any activity devoted in whole or in part to, the establishment, administration, control, or acquisition of administration or control, of a government of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof, or the furtherance or influencing of the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a subdivision thereof;
And Electionworld.com defines three kinds of political parties --- democratic, authoritarian or revoluntionary --- that, at face value, would seem to include LNSGP. HOWEVER, being a party requires more than calling yourself a party and posting ideological statements. It would seem to require a statement of intent, which does not seem available at this point from LNSGP. The group, or individual, who publishes the nazi.org site talks about changing power structures, about things they would like to happen, and about how they might happen, but the site does not offer a statement of intent, nor any sort of mission statement, nor even an official mailing address or list of responsible officers. Until such statements are found or presented, my advice would be to call this what it is -- the name of a web site, which in itself is worthy of encyclopedic review, as recent events have shown. SpyRing 08:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just made some changes that were reverted by Sam Spade because of "POV". If he thinks what's left is NPOV, he is sadly mistaken 64.168.30.130 09:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When you say "is apparent that it is little more that a provocation site." and that "the internet term for this is troll, it is clear you are not being very neutral. I don't see anything that remains in the current revision that is overly pro-LNSGP. (comment by 24.46.117.202, apparently User:MeanMrMustard)
MMM's right, your changes were a lot of editorializing and speculation. If you were trying to make the article NPOV (which I doubt), you weren't going in the right direction. Gazpacho 03:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The LNSGP expressly does not advocate violence as a means for achieving its goals because it believes such methods to be ultimately ineffective. It does not, however, refuse to use violence, or draw implications based on such violence on the part of other groups(read: NSDAP), on the basis of morality. Though the same cannot neccesarily be said about contributors to the site's BBS, a "related article" link to Violentization is unjustified, not only because of the preceeding but there is at the time no reason to believe a correlation between Jeffrey Weisse's contributions to the BBS and his shooting rampage. User:MeanMrMustard]

[edit] Ridiculous platform

I have no intention of visiting their site, but the Wiki article makes it look quite ridiculous and absurd... as it probably is. NS criminal ideas paired up with Libertarian and Green? Personal freedom under a NS system? Either they are quite deluded and with fuzzy logics, or it is a bad joke gone tremendously wrong. The kid involved in the Massacre was obviously confused, but the victims of his delusion are surely to be more lamented. User:Dalegrett, a Libertarian.

It's really not THAT absurd... I don't agree with everything they say, but it's not incoherent or stupid or anything, it's just stuff you might strongly disagree with. Why won't you just visit the site? Are you scared or something? It's not going to bite you. If you really want to know, read the site.


--- I won't visit the site because I fear my IP will be registered by you Government as a sick fan of such twisted things. By the way... you forgot to sign.... scared of being publicly acknowledged and of being responsible? --- User:Dalegrett, Hispanic, Moorish-Sephardic descendant and quite brown Venezuelan Libertarian.

Hey, since you're a libetarian from venezuela, what do you think of Chavez? And when you say libertarian, do you mean libertarian socialist (aka anarchist) or free-market libertarian? I am an anarchist and have been wondering what he is like in the eyes of a Venezuelan anarchist.

[edit] Forum POV

"The LNSGP site claims to be open and uncensored, but posts critical of genocide or of the party leaders' views are sometimes deleted." Not only is this an unsubstantiated statement (that is careful to include the "sometimes" as to aver itself of any neccesity for factual accuracy), but the part about the "genocide" is flat-out wrong. The issue of the modern-day use and factual occurence of genocide during WWII is an issue of frequent contention among supporters of LNSGP policies. Many believe genocide should not be used at all, and many are strongly for it. While many of inflammatory/trolling posts (OMG WTF NAZIS U GUYS R GONNA BURN IN HELL) were deleted during the flood that occured after the Red Lake shooting, in the past posts that were intelligent and not inflammatory have typically remained, and now a special section of the forum has been created where all of those types of posts are moved to. Regardless, I think its pretty clear that that particular sentance is inherently speculative, and the part about the YaBB disclaimer seems to be nothing but editorializing and doesn't really contribute anything to the definition and description of the LNSGP. Therefore, after further consideration, I propose to delete that entire paragraph and rename the "Web site" section to "Genocide." User:MeanMrMustard


[edit] Satire vs Real Beliefs?

"The LNSGP is an avant garde commentary and satire of white nationalist groups, mass movements and fringe political parties, and, as such, has no intention of gaining ballot access or fielding political candidates. "

"Its messageboard is a gathering place for Traditionalists and adherents of thinkers such as Julius Evola and Savitri Devi."

"The web site presents an ideological platform that combines three precepts — personal freedom, environmental improvement, and collective action — prioritized in that order. It identifies the National Socialist German Worker's Party ("Nazi") party of Adolf Hitler as its "ideological ancestor" and its symbol is the swastika on a green background (as opposed to the red background of the Nazi swastika). The site claims to borrow elements from libertarianism, environmentalism, anarchist and socialist groups, and some of the European Pagan movements."

These quotes are all conflicting. Is the site a SATIRE as it says in one paragraph or is it an ACTUAL POLITICAL PARTY/GROUP as the rest of the page claims and refers to the group as? If it is a satire why do traditionalists visit it? Do they not get the joke or do they disregard it or is it an actual political group? Could someone clear this up? This whole page has confused me and I can only imagine how a novice to politics who visits this page might be completely befuddled. -CunningLinguist 00:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Baxter2's introduction of that paragraph replaced a previous edit (diff), in which that paragraph read:
"As of 2005, there was no documented evidence of any activity on the part of the LNSGP beyond running a web site. The party has not obtained ballot access in any U.S. jurisdiction, nor has it fielded any candidates for public office, although it claims that it will start supporting candidates in 2007."

with the edit summary: "Removed silly statements about "ballot access"; added some context". As the the statement about ballot acess and fielding candidates came direct from the organization's website and was reported in the article as such, I'm at a bit of a loss as to why the statement: "The LNSGP is an avant garde commentary and satire of white nationalist groups, mass movements and fringe political parties" is an improvement or why the previous statement was "silly." Baxter2, could you provide some evidence backing up this change? -- Seth Ilys 00:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supposedly he is Bill White (activist), and therefore would know. I don't know that I believe that, but it is the opinion of a handful of admins. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This has got to be a joke

If anything this "party"'s name is a dead giveaway. For one, Libertarians and Greens are more or less mutual opposites in political ideology -- yet the one thing Libertarians and Greens would agree on is a rejection of Nazi-istic ideologies. This party's name would be akin to saying "Fat Skinny Human Platypus" or "Box-Shaped Circular Triangle". Salvador Dali couldn't dream up odder contradictions. Either Bill White is insane or this is one big ha-ha joke. --69.234.208.76 01:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill White is insane, check out his page. He is an ex-anarchist turned neo-nazi, which makes zero sense since anarchism and nazism are complete opposites.

Bill White does not own the site -- Sw

[edit] The LNSGP is not a joke/contradictory

I think the reason people seem to be having difficulty here is because they have narrow definitions of what a lot of the terms used by the party mean: "National Socialist", "Libertarian", and "Green". As far as I understand from their website they advocate mainly the following things,:

That all cultural groups/"races" (be they "white", "black", Jewish, whatever) should reside in their own homelands free from outside interference.. This is the "National Socialist" as well as Libertarian element (Libertarian for groups rather than individuals). The anti-Jewish sentiment expressed seems to be based on the conspiracy theory that Jews run the world and interfere in all other races' affairs - going against the LNSGP's desire for all groups to be free from inteference from others.

That the environment is a sacred and important thing that must be protected. Hence "Green".

They're certainly crazy, but it's no joke, and isn't really contradictory. They just seem to have a slightly different take on National Socalism. --86.135.179.53 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: As far as I can tell, the only "evidence that has been brought forward" to suggest the non-legitimate nature of this group is that found at http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm - information that clearly suggests they're not familiar with either the groups claimed beliefs or Neo-Nazi culture in general. The links to Jewish organizations completely fits into its Libertarian (remember, that's for cultural groups, not for people) beliefs that all groups should have the freedom to exist free of inteference from other groups - presumably the LNSGP are Zionist, at least on an idealogical level. The "Nazi moon base" style links are typical of the type of bizarre New Age thought that Neo-Nazism attracts, and are certainly not limited to the LNSGP. Many Neo-Nazis believe "whites" come from Atlantis, or that Jews are descended from lizards etc. Like I said above: certainly crazy, but no joke. If there is no convincing evidence available that this group is not what it says it is, I see no reason to keep the highly speculative "Seriousness of the Movement" section. --86.135.179.53 20:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And all that section says is that there is speculation about whether the party is actually serious or not. Which there is. The section does not come to a conclusion one way or the other, as you'd realize if you actually read it. Everything asserted by Wikipedia there is factual; there is such speculation and it is documented. If the section said "Yeah, this is all just a joke" then you'd be right to modify or remove it, but it doesn't. So saying that it isn't a joke doesn't remove the fact that people advocate the possibility and that the possibility might be real. Rogue 9 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that such speculation is completely groundless. As in the example I gave, why not add a "seriousness of movement" section to an article on the American Republican Party? Any evidence I could provide would constitute "speculation". I could probably find all sorts of crazy stuff they've done and say it means there's a possibility they might not be serious. That doesn't mean that section should be there, though - the evidence would be taken out of context, much as it is here. Just because the people who carried out the "speculation" concerning the LNSGP put it on a website doesn't mean it's notable. --86.135.179.53 13:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Supremacists?

It is hard to argue that self-declared neo-Nazis are not also white supremacists. I realize that they claim that they love all races (except Jews), but their actions seem to speak louder than their words. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Many neo-Nazi groups, including more "mainstream" (in relation to the LNSGP) ones, dislike "Supremacist", because it implies that they seek to directly rule and enslave all other races, which is usually not true. They prefer "White seperatist" or "White nationalist". --86.135.179.53 00:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Calling blacks "monkeys" who belong in a zoo seems to count as wishing to rule over others. [3] -Willmcw 01:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, calling Mexicans "putrid scum" does not indicate a mere desire for separatism.[4] -Willmcw 01:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Both examples given where being used as insults, not as expressions of policy. I wouldn't say this suggests an active desire to rule or enslave, merely that they don't like the people the insults are directed at. I think that the main point is that at the moment "white supremacist" is something of an exonym - mainstream Western society often uses phrases like "White Supremacist" that have long since gone out of common use in Neo-Nazi circles, if they ever even where. It would therefore be inaccurate to use the label to describe many such groups. --86.135.179.53 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That's a dicussion better held at talk:white supremacy. If there is such a characterization as white supremacy, then it fits Neo-nazi groups that insult other races. -Willmcw 07:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I just don't see how insult implies supremacy. --86.135.179.53 12:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Saying that blacks are monkeys who belong in a zoo strongly implies superiority over them. -Willmcw 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article? The actual line was "Hey! The Toledo Zoo called, and they want their monkeys back," to me this implies the person considers those he's insulting to resemble monkeys, not that said people should literally be in zoos. Furthermore in the context provided, it was clearly used as an insult, and not as a statement of policy. I understand the incredibly offensive nature of this and other groups beliefs, but all I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to resort to loaded stock phrases such as "white supremacy" to describe them rather than just clearly explaining their beliefs. We don't need to use these kinds of false and confusing labels. --86.135.179.53 02:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Satire

  • Because of the contradictory nature of many of the LNSGP's stated beliefs, many people have assumed that the website was or is a joke or satire.

Many people? Can we have references to a couple of them? -Will Beback 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the article in "Reason" that I added a link to, for one. There used to be several linkdigger sites online that opined that the LNSGP was a joke, but they have since gone belly-up. If I can find them or similar editorials, should I add links? What would even be the point, though, unless we discuss the possibility of it being a joke in the article? -Qolonoscopy

Thanks. That linked article [5] does mention other references who previously questioned the seriousness of the group, so we could say that "several" commentators once thought it was a joke. On the other hand, that conclusion hardly seems worth more than a sentence. My question with this type of organization is how many members does it have? I appears that if it weren't for the Red Lake shooting it wouldn't be notable at all, and Weise's involvement appears to have been limited to posting on their forum. -Will Beback 02:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What I don't get is the rush to suppress all mention of the possibility of satire. I mean, the entire basic concept is blatantly contradictory, this has been noticed by commentators and is documented by several sources. If ever there was a candidate for the term "satire piece," this is it. Rogue 9 09:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As has been stated many times before on this talk page, any inferred "contradiction" is entirely the result of preconcieved definitions of the terms used. It's no more a contradiction than the term "national socialist" itself is. --86.135.217.213 20:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this joke website being taken seriously as a subject for a Wikipedia article? Neither nazi, nor libertarian, nor nationalist, nor socialist, nor green, nor a party. Just somebody with a sick sense of humor who put up a website. BJAODN it already. KleenupKrew 02:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As has been stated many times before on this talk page, any inferred "contradiction" is entirely the result of preconcieved definitions of the terms used. It's no more a contradiction than the term "national socialist" itself is. ----86.135.125.118 12:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Craig Smith

The wikipedia article about craig smith seems to be about a besketball player. I think it's a mistake. Unixer 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Not good. I've changed the article to wikilink to Craig Smith (politics), which may not be the best choice. (I also changed the title of this section.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/Talk%7ELibertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party_edaa.html"