Talk:White supremacy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"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."

(cur) (last) . . 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 . . Mirv (rv Vogel vandalism)

Mirv is falsely crying "vandalism", yet again, and always whenever any NPOV by me is being insisted upon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_supremacy&action=history

Put up or shut up when you so falsely cry "vandalism", Mirv.

I've been refactoring the World Church of the Creator, Ben Klassen and Racial Holy War articles. Most of the WCOTC stuff here should be put into the WCOTC article if possible - someone up for doing so elegantly? - David Gerard 18:25, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First attempt at cutting article into sections. Needs a lot of work and more material for the overview. A lot of stuff in the article is still redundant with articles on the individual groups. - David Gerard 13:00, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Could you all please read http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html ? Thanks. --Taw

We need to add more info on this - but also to keep in mind that verifying (or not verifying) one particular claim does not suddenly mean that everything White Supremacists say is true. (In fact, they are obviously not correct. The best lies are the ones made with 10% truth, and 90% innuendo and misdirection.) RK

This is science and there's no such thing as "obviously not correct". --Taw

There is virtually no evidence to support the vast majority of their claims.

One of their most important claim (that whites are more inteligent than blacks) is quite well documented. What are their other, undocumented claims ? --Taw

Their other claims are that blacks are inferior on every level to whites; their literature makes this very, very clear, and it just isn't supportable scientifically. Its also racist. The way that they talk about black people is pretty much the way that we would talk about homo neandrathalis. RK

TAW: You're kidding, right? -HWR

What makes you think that I'm kidding ? Average IQ of black inhabitants of US is lower than average IQ of white inhabitants of US. Comparisions of blacks and whites of the same economic status and of the same level of education confirm this result. --Taw

But there is no genetic basis for this difference, which is what is implied in the article. Conclusions about this usually centre on lack of motivation etc... by black people. -- sodium

In response to Taw - Why is there such an IQ gap? Is it because black people are genetically inferior in all respects? No. Is it because black people are genetically inferior in regards to the kind of intellgence measured on IQ tests (and it does measure something, obviously)? Possibly. But there are many other interpretations; while it isn't politically correct to talk about this, a massive amount of this IQ gap may be due to self-induced physiological damage. Women who drink, smoke and do drugs while pregnant have children with measurable brain damage (e.g. fetal alcohol syndrome; crack babies). An enormous amount of inner city youth really do have low IQ, and it really is physiological. But the cause is the actions of the parent. The parents, as far as I am concerned, are the real racists here. People in the KKK only say bad things about black people; it is teenage black women who take drugs and get pregnant who end up causing neural damage to black children. Who's the real anti-black racist here? The person who sits in his RV in Nevada writing slime on the Internet, or the mother in New York City pushing toxic chemicals into the brain of her unborn baby? I suspect that if the social problems were solved, then the IQ gap would go away. RK

TAW: What are your definitions of "black" and "white"? And how do you think IQ test scores relate to intelligence? And what do you think is the significance of comparative averages? And even if your claim is true, what makes you think the cause is race, rather than racism? -HWR

How the hell do you measure intelligence anyway? Nobody is really even sure what intelligence is, and the idea of 'IQ" is also seriously in question. In my book, racism is a sure sign of its lack, that's for sure. GRAHAMUK 02:15, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This may be an interesting debate. I read the arguments in the 'White supremacy' article, and starting reading some other on the web. Then an idea struck me. Also, please understand that I really don't have any strong opinions on this, as this really isn't my field. My train of thougs was this; Some claim that african-americans are less intelligent than others.
Well, if such a claim is true, what can the reason be?

Then something struck me. Of course, I can't back this up, and I've never read about it. So its just a wild theory I came up with while cooking dinner. :) Some people claim that intelligence is partly inherited. Now, when we remember how black people came to the US, they came as slaves.

Now, think.. "Thinkers are troublemakers". The slaveholders of course would not want troublemakers, and thus.. well, made sure they didn't last long. (I can't back his up, its wild speculations from me :-). If this happens for a few generations AND intelligence is inherited, one should not be surprised if the average drops. Again, this is not based on anything, just wild speculations I came up with while cooking, as a train of thought after reading the thread. :) --arcade

This is not at all my at all field either but it seems very unlikely. First there is *no* respected evidence to suggest that blacks are of lower intelligence. The IQ test was stripped of all credibility as an accurate measure many years ago.

I disagree. It does have some predictative power. RK

Not really. Only when testing people of very similar backgrounds (eg differences in identical twins). It doesn't measure the 'knowledge independant' intelligence that it claims to, although it may measure something it isn't necessarily intelligence. -- sodium

In your scenario there is no reason that 'thinkers' should be regarded as making more trouble than anybody else. Conversely, people with violent tendancies would be more likely to be picked on. Also this selection even over hundreds of years is unlikely to have any difference on the overall population. Finally the difference between races genomes are practically non-existant, and no respectable scientist would suggest that these would make any difference to intelligence. -- sodium

True, but I would argue not really relevant. The total number of genetic differences between races is small, but all you need is a change in one or two genes to convert a normal person into a delta-minus troll. Its not the number of genetic differences that count...its the specific genes that a group tends to carry. My entire, extended family happens to carry genes that protect against cancer. No one in my extended family ever had cancer. Even the smokers. God willing, none of us ever will get cancer. (Of course, I could slip on a banana peel tomorrow and die, but I think you get my point.) The genetic protection that my family enjoys is probably only due to two or three highly desirable gene variations. But its enough! Similarly, some ethnic groups may carry genes for, on average, higher or lower intelligence. But there are so many other factors that are involved in this, I cannot understand how people are so sure that they know that the IQ differences are genetic. RK

But intelligence doesn't just result from one or two genes, it is likely to come from thousands, most working indirectly. The difference between different races would have to be *massive* to have any effect.

In the case of disease-causing mutations, specific crippled genes cause vital proteins to be defective. There is no 'intelligence protein' so there is no single gene you could knock in a whole race to lower the intelligence. -- sodium

Not true. Phenylketonuria causes much worse IQ problems and that's a SINGLE gene. There's no reason why bunch of genes couldn't be responsible for racial IQ gap. --Taw

It is not an 'intelligence protein', it just causes *detriment* in intelligence in an otherwise normal person, as do many genetic disorders (eg Downs). There are plenty of genes which are known to result in such problems, but they are not shared by entire races. -- sodium

There can never be an 'intelligence protein', because intelligence is the result of so many genes. If you drasticly cut out one protein inevitably among other effects there will be lower intelligence. But within races there is a great deal of genetic difference, and there wouldn't exist one defective single gene shared by all. -- sodium

From the discussion, it seems to me that noone here really believes that intelligence is inherited. If it _is_ inherited, then its fully possible that one 'race' is generally less intelligent than another.-- arcade

This is not the case. There is lots of evidence to suggest that evidence (and personality etc...) *is* inherited. My case is simply that the genetic difference between a race and another race is not significant in terms of intelligence, because so many factors influence it. -- sodium

Shouldn't this discussion be moved out of this Talk entry, and with revision, into the main entry on race? RK

The 3 final paragraphs are on "The Bell Curve" and as such belong on another page, with a reference from here. Ed Poor

I simply knew somebody won't care to read http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html !

I have read this page, long before you even mentioned it. I found it enlightening and worthwhile reading. It provided a good balance to "The Mismeasurement of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. Others may have read it as well. RK

I'm not going to enter into this debate, but I did want to point out that we can and should make a sharp distinction between the _is_ and the _ought_ here. Whatever the situation with intelligence _is_, it is not clear to me that any particular policy prescriptions _ought_ to follow from it. Certainly, determining that one group of people has a lower IQ on average is not sufficient justification for them to enjoy any different legal status, or to put it more philosophically, not sufficient justification for the violation of their natural rights as humans. If I'm right, and if most people agree about this (?) then the level of controversy on the IQ issue can be reduced. Nothing much follows from it, either way. -Jimbo Wales

These findings, if true, only discuss averages among populations. They say absolutely nothing about the intelligence and/or worth of any given individual. Further, the association found between IQ and race in "The Bell Curve" is pretty weak. (The authors seem to be correct, but they only fully explain how weak the link is in the appendix, and not in the main text.) As the authors of "the Bell Curve" explicitly state, racism is stupid. No one hires (or becomes friends with) a population of millions of whites, or millions of blacks, or millions of Jews. People hire, or become friends with, individuals, and we must make our judgement of them based on their own personal qualities - not on the average qualities of people they are distantly related to! RK

I moved the Bell curve debate info to the Racism article, as it is largely irrelevant to the claims of white supremacists. -HWR

Sodium, Taw, and RK, as interesting as this debate might be for you, I am not going to stop saying (see this Meta-Wikipedia page) that Wikipedia is not the place for it. Please go elsewhere with this. There are many other places where you can have this debate. Why here?

If we start a Wikipedia discussion forum, let's make that decision consciously and deliberately, and with appropriate software for it. --LMS

Looking at the above discussion, I think it could well be useful for the article. Several points have been raised which deserve to be incorporated. -- SJK

"In the United States white supremacy is sometimes linked to fundamentalist Christianity": this and what follows is a very misleading and incomplete way to put it; a discussion of Christian Identity and its theories, as well as a more generalised nuance of this discussion, should be included. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:58, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I find it both amusing and enlightening to see that White and Black Supremacists are listed, but, no links to any "Jewish Supremacists"?

What could be more "Supremacist" than calling oneself "GODS CHOSEN PEOPLE" above all others, and ruling over other races or peoples, ie. Palestinians?

Curious.

Please don't add external links to things that are not directly related to the article topic. If you want an article on Jewish Supremacy, then write it. --snoyes 23:23, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is obvious that this article is strictly Jewish-Marxist-PC Propaganda against both White people and Black people by Jews. There is nothing wrong with linking to any article that makes the relevant point about "hypocrisy".

How exactly is "Jews hate everyone" part of "white supremacy?" Pakaran . 23:42, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And note that there are already articles on Jewish ethnocentrism and the concept of a chosen people while you're at it. — No-One Jones (talk) 23:29, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Then why not link "Jewish Supremacism" to those and to any other relevant articles? Curious.

For some strange reason mentioning that the article should be neutral would seem to be in vein. --snoyes 23:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you just can't keep the article "neutral" and "unbiased" against both Whites and Blacks, then maybe it just shouldn't exist here at all?

1 Why say led by men?
2 Don't argue with the Dictionary
- 2.1 No Bias?
3 history
- 3.1 Definition of Supremacy
4 This article is HILLARIOUS
5 Nothing hillarious about it.
6 National Vanguard
7 White supremacists, white nationalists and other extremists are nothing more than a bunch of stupid hateful ignorant idiots!
8 Why are'nt they considered white by these people?
9 Stating, as fact, sites are "supremacist"
10 What happened to Stormfront?
11 A new kind of White supremacism?
12 New Info. in the Ideology section. (Pan Aryanism)
13 Nordish Portal
14 Wikipedia is the talk of the Nordish Portal
15 POV?
16 Removal of NAAWP
17 Link question
18 I would also say that
19 The links
20 Stirpes
21 Stirpes
22 Asking again
23 Flawed
24 lead rewrite
25 Lincoln
26 OED access?
27 origins of white supremacy
28 Create a new article
29 Why does the white supremacist profile of individuals exist?
30 Huh?
31 Table of Contents
32 Here's a question

Why say led by men?

I'm unsure why this article makes the statement that white supremacist groups are usually led by men. While this may be true, it strikes me as odd, since in fact most groups are led by men. We don't in the France article say "France's government has almost exclusively been led by men." --Delirium 08:08, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

No surprise to me whatsoever! This article is strictly Marxist-PC POV Propaganda!

Edit made by User:5.1 65.125.10.66, vandal. Mrdice 19:04, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

WARNING: MOST OF THIS ARTICLE IS JUST MARXIST-PC POV PROPAGANDA!

(Why is the TRUTH always considered "vandalism" by SNOYES, ad nauseum?)

I just changed 'many Christians denouce' to 'most...' which I think is fair. If you asked 100 Christians if they thought that White Supremacists accurately represented Christian values I don't think you would get more than a few who agreed. Always a few of course, and it probably varies from place to place. DJ Clayworth 19:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Le Pen?

Would Jean-Marie Le Pen and his political party in France, the Front National, be considered white supremacist?

Well, they're xenophobic and racist, but white supremacist? I doubt it. Mrdice 20:04, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

Why not a white separatist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

"Many people falsely assume that "white supremacism" is the same as "white separatism", when these really do mean two completely different and unique sets of concepts and worldviews and values.

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.

Jewish behavior has traditionally been supremacist: Until recent decades, Jews lived exclusively in other people's societies and that is still the dominant mode of Jewish life today. Jews have a long tradition -- both secular and religious -- of belief in the unique, superior, and 'chosen' nature of Jews when compared to all other peoples. Jews also have a long-established behavior-pattern of suppressing the racial defense mechanisms of their host peoples, defenses which they denounce today as 'racism' -- while at the same time hypocritically practicing racial exclusivity among themselves -- cherishing Jewish ancestry as the very definition of Jewishness, protecting themselves from assimilation and intermarriage, promoting exclusively Jewish schools, defining any opposition to them as a special and sometimes criminal act ('anti-Semitism'), et cetera. The height of Jewish hypocrisy is reached when they condemn White people who believe in the White separatist ideals of, say, Thomas Jefferson or the National Alliance, as 'White supremacists' -- when the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen."

Marxist-PC bigots consider the NPOV always to be "whacky", when they really are the ones that are truely "whacked".

See http://www.cosmotheism.net for an example.

WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article.

24.45.99.191 has turned "white sepratism" from a redirect to here into its own page. Mrdice 14:45, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)

What is "white sepratism"?

No one knows, however,

"White Separatism" is:

Don't argue with the Dictionary

If the dictionary can see a difference betreen separatist and supremacist why can't Wikipedia? You might think that some of those who say they are one are secretly the other but that does not mean that the concepts are not, err, separate. Those who will not allow the distinction confuse PC with NPOV. Shame on you. Paul Beardsell 03:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "sometimes" is more NPOV as obviously this isn't implying "always", which it doesn't and which also can't be proven. Understand?

How can you have a framework for "sometimes" doing something? That's like saying Jack builds a barn for "sometimes" housing his animals. --Faradn 22:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How? Because you are using a false analogy and a false premise, for starters! LOL! :D

It is a false analogy mostly because we are talking about ideas, not barns, and ideas may or may not influence someone to doing actions that are criminal or not.

Secondly, it is a false premise because several hundred thousand people have actually read The Turner Diaries and NOT ALL of them have ever used it to commit any crimes, whatsoever! SOMETIMES, it MAY have caused some very few people to JUMP THE GUN and to do some VIOLENT ACTS, so SOMETIMES is the correct word to use in that specific sentence and instance.

Also, what makes you think so absolutely that "sometimes" Jack doesn't build the barn to house "his own animals" but perhaps "sometimes" he builds a barn only to house "other people's animals"? Obviously, you just know very little about both "cause and effect" and "intent" and even about barns, too?-PV :D

No Bias?

(cur) (last) . . 03:29, 5 May 2004 . . 24.59.253.106 (Checked accuracy and removed "disputed" header. The article shows no bias; it portrays an accurate picture of what is perceived as the white supremacy movement today.) (cur) (last) . . m 19:33, 4 May 2004 . . Texture (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last version by Samuel J. Howard)

Nonsense!

No actual National Alliance members have been involved in any "VIOLENT ACTS", so the heading saying "violent" Activism is false and it is absolute slanderous nonsense and it is quite POV and politically-BIASED. Former members, maybe, and then again, "violent" nor "illegal" actions by members were not ever encouraged nor santioned by the Chairman or Leader of the National Alliance, whatsoever.-PV

history

I'm somewhat confused as to why this article focuses almost entirely on the rather marginal contemporary white supremacy movement and says nothing about the history of the idea. In the 19th century and for some time before that, at least in the United States (and only somewhat less so in Europe), this was a dominant ideology. Surely that history and how that came not to be the case belong in this article. -- Jmabel 04:42, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

NOTE - although the following remark follows mine, it seems mainly addressed to other people's remarks from about nine months earlier. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

A few thoughts: 1) Jews cannot be considered inherently supremacist, because, technically, it is the Jewish religion that declares its followers to be the chosen one, rather than the Jewish race. As such, secualr, Christian, Muslim and other non-Jewish Jews are not "chosen", and the gentile converts to Judaism can become a member of the "chosen people". This is not so fundamentally different from Christianity, in that it claims its members to be the only ones to be favored by God. Also similar to Christianity, the border line between race and religion is subject to interpretation by different branches of the religion. 2) I'm not sure white supremacist and white separatist can be so neatly separated. The segregation in the U.S. is an obvious example. On one hand, it's a separatist movement that nevertheless creates a multiracial society where the different races share all but the physical space, while remain deeply co-dependent economically, politically and sociologically. On the other hand, it's white supremist implication is obvious in its inequality toward the non-whites, as is ultimately agreed by the supreme court. 3) One thing that always puzzles me: if IQ is such an important factor in determining the superiority of certain people, wouldn't it be much more efficient to implement an eugenic policy rather than racial separation? I mean, based on the IQ argument, a caucasian with low IQ is just as much a threat to the white race as any black, hispanic or asian individual? It makes no sense to go against racial mixing while turning a blind eye toward the rampant breeding of the low IQ whites, isn't it? 4) Lastly, just how is the article Marxist?

Okay. I have come to the conclusion that this article shouldn't even exist anymore. Looking through the many edits and the discussion here, I don't see that there's even an attempt to improve this page. An encyclopedic article on white supremacy has no business musing over the merit of this ideology. When there's a controvercy, the different opinions should be stated but not judged, which is what most of the discussion has revolved around. When facts cannot be verified, then they should be stated as allegations, but not ignored. And when evidence is present, they should be pointed to but not adopted as the POV of the article. Anyway, I agree with Jmabel that there should be much more information on the historical aspects of this ideology, and treat it like the development of many other socio-political theories. Though I doubt that will save the article from controversy, at least it *might* be an improvement on this incoherent mess of loaded and entrenched mess. Uly 17:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Definition of Supremacy

Websters (1913)

Supremacy \Su*prem"a*cy\, n. [Cf. F. supr['e]matie. See Supreme.]

The state of being supreme, or in the highest station of

    power; highest or supreme authority or power; as, the
    supremacy of a king or a parliament.

also Wordnet

supremacy

n : power to dominate or defeat; "mastery of the seas" [syn: domination, mastery]

Please note that neither of these definitions, representing the word as defined over a range of nearly a century, is compatible with separatism. The article on white supremacy must either reflect this distinction or be directed to the more inclusive concept of white nationalism.Jim Bowery 20:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is HILLARIOUS

The extensive list of who "white supremacists" wish to rule over is insane! Italians??? Whoever wrote that is a pure lunatic!

All a matter of chronology. Certainly an accurate enough characterization circa 1920.

I've remarked above that this article needs to deal with what this term has meant at various times. It has not particularly improved in this respect. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing hillarious about it.

It is true that southern Italians and other Southern Europeans are not considered white by white supremacist and WN groups because, these white nationalist groups have a definition of whiteness that excludes Southern European people and any other white people who have dark skin. So the one who listed Italians as one of the ethnic groups white supremacists claim they should rule over is not a lunatic. (anon 14 March 2005)

Concur. "Whiteness" is a social construct. There is a semi-famous book How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev (ISBN 0415918251) that discusses this quite well. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

National Vanguard

SamSpade has restored the National Vanguard external link, describing it as "on topic and informative on the subject". I've tried accessing it several times and have yet to see anything fitting that description. I've gotten either a blank page or an irrelevant list of services like bumper-sticker printing. Sam, what do you see when you access the link? And have others tried to access it? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:54, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I checked and found the same thing. Maybe their domain name expired and it's being used for ads now. Maybe it's just been hijacked. In any case, the material there now is irrelevant to the article topic. -Willmcw 20:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I am aware of the organization, and assumed this was their website. I guess not. It was rightfully deleted, and I appologise. I added links to their actual website, and a related group. I appologise once again for my error. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

White supremacists, white nationalists and other extremists are nothing more than a bunch of stupid hateful ignorant idiots!

Who the hell are those people and especially so called "white nationalists" to judge whether certain groups of people are white and non-white? For example, people from the Middle East, North Africa and Mediterranean Europe are considered non-white by these white supremacist stooges. Middle Easterners, North Africans and Mediterranean Europeans are just as racially white as Anglo-Saxon people from Northern Europe. White supremacists and other fanatics in the world make me ashamed of being a human being!

Well! Thanks for ranting here, rather than in the article, that is appreciated. Would you like to form a user account? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are'nt they considered white by these people?

How come people from Mediterranean Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa are not considered white by white supremacists. Mediterranean Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans are Cacausoid people which happens to indicate that they are white. (Gramaic) March 17, 2005.

See discussion elsewhere on this page. I think that for many supremacists, "white" equals "Nordic" or "Germanic". "Caucasian" is a far broader designation. -Willmcw 22:06, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Stating, as fact, sites are "supremacist"

Before stating, as fact, that Stormfront.org is "supremacist" you should at least acknowledge that the primary forum moderator holds a diametrically opposed view and the founder has so long been beyond outraged by what he considers a torrent of libel that he simply mocks the press when it labels him as "supremacist". Indeed, I have yet to run across an avowed supremacist at the Stormfront site. Of course, this doesn't mean that because one were to run across such a person on the Stormfront site that it would justify labeling the entire site "supremacist". Jim Bowery 23:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Despite a few protestations to the contrary, Stormfront is widely referred to as "white supremacist", as is its founder. [1][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357039/posts] [2][3][4][5] -Willmcw 18:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that a point of view held by the majority is still not neutral, libel committed by a majority is still libel -- even though you'll be acquitted.Jim Bowery 22:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that Wikipedia is committing libel (breaking the law) by including Stormfront in a list of white supremacist websites? -Willmcw 23:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Were it not for the fact that criminal charges in this society bring with them a significant risk of prisoner rape by ethnic gangs, I would vote to convict those responsible for said accusations if I were on a jury. Jim Bowery 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Jim Bowery. There is something that I'm kind of curious about you? If you don't mind me asking, are you a forum member of Stormfront?--Gramaic 23:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I post to Stormfront a few times a month and read articles there about as often. You can read my posts there if you like. BTW: If you, as is so popular to do these days to genetic separatists, accuse me of being a supremacist you will be libeling me. Jim Bowery 00:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Stormfront?

Why was the Stormfront site removed from the white supremacist links? Can somebody explain, because Stormfront, no doubt, is a white supremacist website.--Gramaic 04:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jim Bowery seems to be maintaining (if I read him correctly: he is not very clear) that they are separatist, but not necessarily supremacist. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Like you said, Jmabel, Jim Bowery is not so clear in what he's saying. In fact, every white supremacist claims that they are White Nationals, White Separtists, etc., but never identify themselves as supremacists even though they are in everyones point of view, white supremacists. Don't go to far, the founder of Stormfront, Don Black, used to be the head of the Texas branch of the Ku Klux Klan, and everybody knows that the Ku Klux Klan is a white supremacist organization. Don Black may have left the KKK, but the KKK did not leave Don Black.--Gramaic 08:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You'll see above that I have posted several links to websites that call Stormfront or Black "supremacist". In the article there are two lists: one of supremacist organizations with internal links, and one of supremacist websites with external links. It is probably sufficient to have just the internal links. -Willmcw 08:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

A new kind of White supremacism?

As I was searching through the internet I found a WN website that describes itself as "Pan Aryanism" and they call there organization the Pan Aryan National Front. In the past, WN's have only defined white as Germanic and Nordic people of Northern European decent, but this Pan Aryan WN group accepts non-European whites, such as Syrians, Lebanese, Turks, Iranians, North Africans, etc. The website for the Pan Aryan National Front is, http://www.panf.info/upload/index.php?styleid=1 , I thought this odd kind of White supremacism would be kind of interesting for many people who work with this article.--Gramaic 19:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here are the rules for their group in who is defined as white.--Gramaic 19:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) ;

This is the central premise of Pan Aryanism regarding racial definition:

An individual aboriginal to Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Central/West Asia who is Caucasoid descened in whole or overwhelmingly from the following Caucassdoid subraces, or any combibation thereof, Indo-European (Aryan) Old European, Ural Altaic Caucasoid, or Hametic (Basically confined in modern times to Berbers.) irrespective of nationality, religion or modern geographical location.

Given that position Pan Aryanism believes that all racial White sunder that definition are part of out community and must be preserved along with its European core

However!

(1) We do not believe that all of the modern day population of India, Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, West Asia or Latin America are White.

(2) We do believe that under the above standards the following parts of the above areas have White majorities, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, the Caucasus and Southern Latin America, plus Costa Rica. White minorities in widely varying degrees exist elsewhere in these areas.

(3) We do not believe in combining the White nations into a superstate, or erasing national or subracial differences between Whites.

(4) We do not believe that any White nation is obliged to accept even White immigrants from these areas, though in the New World at least it might be helpful to do so.

(5) We do not believe that any individual White should in any manner be impeded from associating dating or reproducing with only his own nationality or subrace, but we also insist that no 2 racial Whites in love with each other be forcibly seperated, or that the White children produced from such unions shoud ever be treated as anything other than honored and respected members of our community.

(6) We believe that no racial White presently in any White homeland should be forcibly removed from that homeland, although this does not impeded that homeland from restricting further entry of any immigrants, even White ones.

(7) We discourage any religion incompatable with White survival, and urge Whites confessing such a religion to either convert or strive for a racialist reformation of their creed. However, in the last analysis, we support religious freedom.

After experiencing that some white supremacists accept whites from continental Europe, and accept whites from from non-European regions such as North Africa, the Middle East and Central/West Asia . Does anybody think that we should create a section or at least state about this mild form of white supremacy in the article?--Gramaic 05:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Info. in the Ideology section. (Pan Aryanism)

I added a lot of new information in the Ideology section which talks about the beliefs of "Pan Aryanism," so we can show the readers that there are many different levels of white supremacy.--Gramaic 23:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nordish Portal

I added the Nordish Portal website in the external links section. When it comes to hardcore white supremacist sites, the Nordish Portal takes the cake!--Gramaic 07:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the talk of the Nordish Portal

In the External Links section, an anonymous user added a link right next to the Nordish Portal site, who are claiming that they're not supremacists. They are obviosly furious about Wikipedia listing the Nordish Portal as white supremacists. Anonymous user, if you're reading this discussion, what exactly is white supremacy in your point of view? The Nordish Portal, has not only been accused of being a white supremacist site, it's also been accused of being a Nordic Supremacist site, because of its non-acceptance of other European whites such as Greeks and Italians.--Gramaic 07:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The protest about not being a white supremacist-oriented forum would be more convincing if it did not include a "senior moderator" who uses photographs of Hitler as his avatar and as part of his signature. Just an obeservation. -Willmcw 08:33, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Good observation! Willmcw, you are exactly right when you point out that one of the members uses a picture of Hitler as his avatar and signature, and he's claiming that he's no supremacist. It's just like saying, Osama Bin Laden is claiming that he's not a terrorist. By the way, one of the users at the Nordish Portal said that "Wikipedia is about as useful as tits on a bull." They also made other claims about Wikipedia being a rhetoric site.--Gramaic 08:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since when do we here at wikipedia 'accuse' sites of being White supremacist sites? I thought this is a neutral project of information gathering?

Jachin 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

POV?

I see that someone added a POV tag to this article, but did not list what they are disputing. In theory, I could simply remove the tag right now; in practice, I will give them at least 24 hours to respond.

By the way, my own main issue with the article, and I think it's a major one, is that the focus is almost entirely on marginalized, contemporary white supremacists, with barely a mention of the centuries in which this was a dominant ideology. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

It should be obvious; the only white separatists/white nationalists/racialists/racial separatists who would agree with being referred to as "White supremacists" are very obscure fringe groups. There isn't even a note on this page about that, because it was written by people who are not a part of racialist culture. The vast majority of racialists consider the term "supremacist" to be a smear word. Only one point of view is expressed here. I'm tired of this pseudo-science, and I'm sure you would find more than a few people who would say the same. If we can't agree on it, then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I might just work on this article over the weekend. -- Rapunzel 06:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Sam Spade 11:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NAAWP

Someone is trying to remove NAAWP from the list of organizations and saying it should be removed because it is dead. National Association for the Advancement of White People is an article in Wikipedia and a legitimate listing here. - Tεx τ urε 16:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi's have an article here but they are all dead too. Anyway, the NAAWP article has a link to its website. It has not been updated in about two years. Mainly. The NAAWP slogan, or motto, is; "Equal Rights for ALL, Special Privileges for none" Theres no way that equals white supremacy, it DOES equal white nationalism/white pride/ or white separatism. ~written by user:220.71.81.105

You go down the list and you'll find that all have innocuous mottos and slogans. What group is going to outwardly say "we hate such-and-such a group of people and are working toward their ill..."? The fact it hasn't been updated does not remove them. What encyclopedia or history book would remove the "Anti-Federalist Party" because it is no longer active? - Tεx τ urε 17:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because I can safely say they are not White-Supremacist. Having them listed here is bull. If this is to be an accurate website, at least a compromise of that, after the 'NAAWP', put "Purports to not be White Supremacist" then. I think thats reasonable~ written by user:220.71.81.105

Your claim does not coincide with the article about NAAWP. - Tεx τ urε 18:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To quote. "National Association for the Advancement of White People From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (Redirected from Naawp) The National Association for the Advancement of White People is a far-right white nationalist political organization in the United States founded in 1980 by David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader, its name a takeoff on — and some assert, a parody of — the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The group claims it advocates "White separatism" and not White supremacy, but many observers dispute this. It is headquartered in Metairie, Louisiana, a suburb of New Orleans.

The organization's views include vehement opposition to affirmative action programs and a strong law and order stance, such as favoring the death penalty and three strikes laws. Its official slogan is: "Equal Rights For All — Special Privileges For None."

Ok, some observers may dispute that, well, some people dispute about if the US Moon Landings were real or not as well. "far-right white nationalist political organization". If they were white supremacist, they would not lie about wanting 'equal rights for all'... If they are white seperatists as stated in the article then they do not want any part of a multi-cultural society. Racial supremacy is the view your race is the best and perhaps should rule others.To Rule others it would be a multi-cultural society. NAAWP and White Supremacy just don't match simply put. written by user:220.71.81.105 "

Here is the common view: some ethnic groups are currently underprivileged by entrenched legal, political, financial, and cultural biases so the removal of benefits for those groups would tend to keep them in their depressed position. Thus "Equal Rights For All — Special Privileges For None" is seen as a way of saying roll back to an earlier system. In any case, it is tricky to make distinctions between nationalist, separatist, and supremacist philosophies. Since separatism is impractical it does not seem to be a sincere appellation. The other two seem to be near synonyms, especially when applied to a skin color. That said, We should avoid calling the National Association for the Advancement of White People supremacist in one place and separatist in another. Is there any independent source that labels it? Cheers, -Willmcw 03:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

    reply to above UTC: I'm sorry but opposition to affirmative action ism ost certainly not a form of white supremacy or any other form or racism/racialism

The National Association for the Advancement of White People is a white supremacist organization. In addition, it's consedered as a white supremacist organization by the ADL and the SPLC. This site lists the NAAWP as a white

supremacist and a hate group, which happens to be provided from the SPLC.--Gramaic 04:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gramaic. That seems to wrap it up. Maybe some editors should also check on white separatism and the NAAWP article to make sure that there's no conflict. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Gramaic, many people consider both the ADL and the SPLC to be hate groups. They certainly hate racially-aware White people, don't they? user:68.191.17.6 Jun 17, 2005

I can see we have a conflict of opinion of what the motto means then. I see no point in arguing it further, soo this is closed. written by user:220.71.81.105 23:45, Jun 2, 2005

It wraps nothing up. Those are still POV as is your assertion that white separatism is impractical therefore we can discount anyone who claims to be a white separatist as a crypto supremacist. The fact of the matter is the Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870 have been so amplified by the courts as to deny even an individual businessman the right to do business with his preferred business associates and prison officials can't keep separate inmates by race when there is rampant prisoner gang rape against whites by blacks and hispanics (this "racist canard" by Human Rights Watch). Meanwhile others mock white separatists by saying they should just start associating only with other white folks, "What's the problem? You can't be serious." And finally we have pieces of work running around posing as qualified editors of "articles" on white identity who claim the SPLC and ADL are authoritative when it comes to declaring _others_ "supremacists". Guess whose world view is now enforced in all nations due to its supposed "superiority"? It sure isn't the NAAWP's "supremacy" that has run amok, I'll tell you that much... Jim Bowery

NAAWP doesn't seem to running amok currently as there are no signs of any activity from it in the last couple of years. Duke has gone on to found a new group, EURO, which is where his attention is focused. Regarding separatism, the best example I know of in modern times was Apartheid in South Africa. That instance involved a large measure of supremacism since the freedom of members of some races was limited by another race. Can you suggest a better example? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid is segregationist, not separatist. Jim Bowery 02:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I was wondering. If you don't consider NAAWP or Stormfront to be associating with white supremacy, exactly what organzations do you consider to be white supremacists?--Gramaic 01:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I know of no way of determining whether there are any white supremacist or white separatist organizations given the current world-wide supremacy of multiculturalism. Hell, even the UN goes out of its way in its charter of "human rights" to specifically deny ethnic groups, and ethnic groups only, the right of self-determination. Jim Bowery 02:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quoting Jim. "Those are still POV as is your assertion that white separatism is impractical therefore we can discount anyone who claims to be a white separatist as a crypto supremacist." I don't recall saying white separatism is impractical, but if I did so its not my intention, I'll put my IP number next to all of my comments. I was the one who tried to remove the NAAWP from the White Supremacist list, but I lost my energy to continue debating it. Anyway, thank you for continuing where I had given up. written by user:220.71.81.105 Jun 6, 2005

Link question

I don't think The Phora can be categorized as a white supremacist board.

Can you prove your point? Many of the posts written on their board were full of racial slurs. After reading some of the threads on that site, anybody can notice that The Phora has white supremacy written all over it.--Gramaic 02:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, do you or do you not believe in Freedom of Speech? user:68.191.17.6 Jun 17, 2005

I would also say that

The Phora doesn't really count as a white supremacist site. If anything, it's more white nationalist. The term "white supremacist" is constantly misused.

Racial slurs don't = white supremacism. How many people there actually hold white-supremacist views?

There's no stated agenda at the Phora: If a bunch of people with other political views showed up, and played by the rules, they wouldn't be banned. But that's just if they played by the rules. The owner of the Phora doesn't have any official ideology rules, there's no restrictions on who can post, there's no party line. The "Opposition" forum there is for Christian Identity types and other extreme WNs. --Edward Wakelin 02:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, racial slurs does = white supremacism and other types of ethnic supremacy. I felt that most of the posters at "The Phora" held white supremacy views. If it's because they prefer to be called nationalist or separatist, let's not forget that this is the attitude of most white supremacists. For example, the members of the KKK and the Skin head refer to themselves as white nationalists, but of course we all know that the KKK and the Skin Head are supremacist organizations.--Gramaic 07:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some want to be supreme. Some want to be left alone. I would reckon that most at the Phora would line up with the Jared Taylor-style "just want to be left alone" white nationalism.

It's pretty easy to tell when a group or person is actually a white nationalist, and when they've just adopted the name because it's less loaded than white supremacist: The KKK didn't really want to send the blacks back to Africa (I believe that was Lincoln, apparently he was planning on trying it before he was assassinated), they wanted to go back to the days of slavery, thus they were white supremacists.

I say that the Phora be included in both white supremacy's and white nationalism's entries, with an indication that opinions on what it is varies, and that it's the people currently posting there as much as anything else that determines what it is. Perhaps the Phora should get its own entry to hash this stuff out. --Edward Wakelin 13:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd contend that nearly all of those links don't belong here: The external links section is for extra reading material on the topic, not for links to organisations or op-ed pieces. Have a look at Wikipedia:External links, and also keep in mind Wikipedia is not a web directory. --W(t) 17:13, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

The links

None of the links placed in the links section applied to the definition of "white supermacist" as defined on WIKIPEDIA. Most would qualify as "white nationalist", but none as "white supermacist". This website makes a clear distinction between the two. These links should all be deleted or transferred to the "white nationalist" section. Some of the links (such as Skadi) don't even technically belong in the "write nationalist" section, by the way, but that's acceptable as this applies to forums that do contain a greater than average amount of "white nationalist" members.--IlluSionS667 18:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. With your claim that the sites listed in this article have noting to do with white supremacy, is this the reason why you put up the POV tag? By the way, all the sites listed are white supremacists, and these are the sources, that were provided by Willmcw from the discussion above, that lists Stormfront and Don Black as white supremacists; [6][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1357039/posts] [7][8][9][10]. Last, we don't need a POV tag on this site.--Gramaic 02:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, don't you understand that Morris "The Sleaze" Dees and his buddies at the SPLC earn lots of money by accusing other people of being "haters?" You're citing the Spanish Inquisition as proof that someone is a witch. user:68.191.17.6 Jun 17, 2005

In that case, can you prove that Dees and his staff at the SPLC are wrong?--Gramaic 02:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you prove that those women weren't witches? After all, if the Inquisition said so, it must be true. user:Loving Bledsoe Jun 19, 2005

Well then, can you site any sources that support your claim?--Gramaic 04:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that what is in the links section as WS sites isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of correctness. If a site has a WS party line, if you have to follow a certain set of rules to post there or if posters there who are in the opposition are regularly shouted down, get their stuff edited, etc, it is WS. If there is no party line, it doesn't matter if WSs post their views there. The Phora is not connected with any actual real-life group, unlike VNNF or the PANF forum or Stormfront or anything like that. --Edward Wakelin 17:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to say. Easier to discern is that Phora doesn't seem notable enough to include. It has a small membership and doesn't appear to be well-known. There must be dozens of websites like this. I don't think the article would be harmed by omitting a minor web forum. -Willmcw 07:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Stirpes

I added Stirpes to the links. They are European supremacists, and therefore White supremacists. user:84.101.121.9 Jun 13, 2005

I don't know who added Stirpes, but someone else just removed them. They certainly lie somewhere in the specturm of racial/ethnic nationalists/supremacists. If not here then under white (European) nationalists. -Willmcw 07:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Outrageous

You should at the very least try to read about Stirpes before doing false accusations. The mission statement of that forum clearly states that:

"We are alien to concepts like Pan-Europeanism, Aryanism, White Nationalism, or any other such constructs which may imply a loss of our individual national identities in favour of an homogeneous pro-European pseudo-identity or, worse, of an amorphous Internationalism based on pseudo-racial delusions. We are simply Europeans and Nationalists, regardless of distinctions in political ideologies and religions." [11]

Also, have a good look around the forum and see how white nationalism is constantly rejected and bashed throughout.

This tells a lot about wikipedia. Shame on you.

user:80.102.172.224 Jun 22, 2005

We allow fair and benevolent criticism of all races; subraces; ethnicities; peoples; religious, cultural and social communities; as well as of ideologies; philosophies; or any other ideas; as well as of persons and Members; attitudes; and conduct, if presented in a civil and non-insulting manner. Your attitude and presentation shall determine whether you will face disciplinary procedures.[12]

The account of Members that are judged to be, even if only partly, sub-racially, racially, or ethnically non-European, may be unappealably terminated if their presence or contributions, either individually or in combination with the presence or contributions of other such members, either by force of their numbers or their impact, are increasingly considered a risk to the integrity of or a burden to Stirpes, its Mission Statement, or its European community.[13]

What makes you think that we didn't look? -Willmcw 09:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Understandind/Comprehension problems?

Allow me to introduce you to a real dictionary entries for:

Main Entry: white supremacist Function: noun

an advocate of or believer in white supremacy

Main Entry: su·prem·a·cist Pronunciation: s&-'pre-m&-sist, sü- Function: noun 1 : an advocate or adherent of group supremacy 2 : WHITE SUPREMACIST

[14]

Where exactly in those texts does it advocate for supremacism?

I can only ask you if you do it out of sheer ignorance or blatant dishonesty. Have your way. Who cares about a so-called encyclopedia with such contributions?

user:80.102.172.224 Jun 22, 2005

Stirpes

Dear Willmcw,

I am one of the administrators of Stirpes, and I would like to comment a bit on your comments.

Some messages above you assert that: "They are European supremacists, and therefore White supremacists."

To start, we are not supremacists, as we do not advocate superiority over others, we are, at most preservationists, but what's wrong with preserving what is yours? I am, in fact, one who opposes white supremacy as it is unfounded, and to be honest, the term white annoys me quite a bit, as I'll explain below, from a post I've made on Stirpes:

The term "white" is an Americanism, and has hardly any meaning in Europe. Europeans think in national, ethnic, linguistic, and tribal categories. Any Slav is, for example, considered a "foreigner" in Germany, he could be as "white" and "blonde" and "Nordic" as he possibly could be; he could even hold German citizenship -- if he is from Poland or Russia, or any other Slavic country, he is a "foreigner".

Technically, the Spaniards are foreigners in Portugal too. However, they are not considered "foreigners" in the same sense by the average nationalist -- they are foreigners in the sense that they are not Portuguese but they are still considered "tribally allied," and there is a high degree of collaboration between Iberians. For instance, when the Spaniards rabble shouts "Foreigners out!" on the streets, other Iberians are not meant or included.

You also said: "I don't know who added Stirpes, but someone else just removed them. They certainly lie somewhere in the specturm of racial/ethnic nationalists/supremacists. If not here then under white (European) nationalists"

Yes, we lie somewhere in the spectrum of ethnic nationalists, not racial, but that doesn't equal at all being supremacists. White nationalists we aren't, for sure, as for European Nationalists, I think you are interpreting it the wrong way, European Nationalists, as we have explicit on the web page doesn't refer to Pan-Europeanism, rather nationalism over Europe. Sane nationalism, not the kind of "let's kill anyone who isn't with us".

I would appreciate if you stopped adding a link to Stirpes, as we would like to avoid white supremacists there.

Kind regards, Johannes de León user:Johannes de León Jun 22, 2005

Asking again

Nine months ago, I remarked

I'm somewhat confused as to why this article focuses almost entirely on the rather marginal contemporary white supremacy movement and says nothing about the history of the idea. In the 19th century and for some time before that, at least in the United States (and only somewhat less so in Europe), this was a dominant ideology. Surely that history and how that came not to be the case belong in this article. -- Jmabel 04:42, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

My remark has now had sufficient time to gestate, but no one has responded, and it seems almost as accurate a description of the article now as it was then. Does no one else share my concern? Do people think the article currently has the correct focus? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible approach. I think this article has always suffered from the muddled concept that the term has today. As you point out, the concept was once very clear and the article could be improved by giving it a more historical focus. Is it covered at all in other articles already? "White man's burden?" Some of the good material in "Race" might be summarized more directly over here. Some of the contemporary material here now overlaps with "White nationalism", and perhaps more of it could be moved to that article. Are there any good sources easily available? (There are a couple of other active editors who may wish to comment as well, but let's not let another nine months go by). Cheers, -Willmcw 07:34, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Like Will has said, it's a sensible approach. I'm one of those editors, Jmabel, who also share this concern. This article mainly focuses on the current trend of White supremacy that is being practiced by some people today, and says nothing about it's old history. I think, maybe, we can state in this article that the United States (for example) never allowed non-Whites to vote in elections in the past, and never allowed citizenship and naturalization to non-White immigrants. BTW, I think we should also state that many White supremacists have allied with Islamic terrorists as shown on this site. Lets work together, and make this one hell of an article! --Gramaic 08:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I started the new "White supremacy through history" section to talk about the historical context of white supremacy. But of course, the section needs to be expanded. So guys, give this new section I started more good information.--Gramaic 04:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flawed

I've merely skimmed this article and made some fairly superficial edits. But the treatment of this topic is, IMO, fairly superficial/pat. It treats white supremacy far too glibly as a phenomenon of extremist groups, when white supremacy is a doctrine which pervades white societies, generally. If one were to make an accurate list of "famous white supremacists," one would have to include people like Abraham Lincoln, Arnold Toynbee, Winston Churchill, etc., etc. Further, white supremacists do not necessarily believe in white domination of nonwhite peoples; but they must, first and foremost, believe in the inherent superiority of the white "race." It is in this regard that there is a major flaw in the definition of the term and, as a consequence, in the treatment of this subject in this article. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

You are so right. I think that many editors agree. In the above discussion we've talked about how the article seems to portray the topic as an attribute of marginal contemporary groups rather than the pervasive concept that informed much of western civilization, especially in the period from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century (and, to a lesser extent, still). This article should cover the topic better. Go for it. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Over time this article has become much better, but yes this article needs more improvement. By the way, deeceevoice. When you talk about an accurate list about "famous white supremacists," why would you want to include someone like Abraham Lincoln? Lincoln is the one who abolished slavery in the United States. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 7 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Regarding Lincoln please see our own article, "white separatism". Coincidentally, another article that needs attention. ') -Willmcw July 7, 2005 09:41 (UTC)

I don't know that I have the patience to rewrite this piece -- at least not right now. I've got too much on my plate at the moment. But I'm glad to see others agree. Another thing which struck me as I skimmed the article, but which I forgot to mention is the complete absence of the "r" word: "racism." How in hell can one possibly write an effective article on white supremacy without mentioning this concept so closely twinned with it? Answer: one can't.

And about good ol' Honest Abe, the "Great Emancipator" who "freed the slaves": he didn't free all of them -- only those in states in rebellion against the U.S. The Emancipation Proclamation was not some great pronouncement sprung from deep moral conviction; it was a calculated political tactic. If Lincoln could have kept millions of blacks in bondage and preserved the Union, he happily would have done so:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

-- Lincoln's response to an editorial by Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, August 22, 1862

Further:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."[15] -- Lincoln-Douglas debate, August 17, 1858

Why Lincoln? Because the historical record clearly shows he was a racist and a white supremacist. That's why. It never ceases to amuse me how Americans hold certain folksy myths about this nation's history so dear to their hearts. George Washington and the cherry tree, Lincoln's "freeing of the slaves," Thomas Jefferson's egalitarianism, John Kennedy's alleged support for the Civil Rights Movement, Ronald Reagan's great presidency, and on and on. Time for folks to grow up and learn the truth instead of the warm, fuzzy folktales fed to us like pap in elementary school, or by the increasingly poorly informed, little more than functionally illiterate, dumbed-down mass media. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not a message board, but I think for the article it might be worthwhile to discuss deceevoice's points at some length -- hope you'll bear with me. Lincoln believed that whites were superior to blacks, especially early on. His desire to free the slaves, however, was motivated not merely by political expedience, but by ideology. He was widely known to be pro-abolitionist, and anti-slavery, which is why the South seceded when he was elected. In other words, he was both a racist and committed to abolition. Despite his flaws, he was widely and justly idolized by large numbers of black people of his day, including Frederick Douglass, who, in my opinion, was nobody's dupe. In the last 40 years or so, black nationalists have often been interested in portraying Lincoln as a cynical opportunist -- as have white supremacists and Confederate apologists, for that matter. I don't have time to do a ton of work on this article either, I fear, but for a full discussion of Lincoln's conflicted outlook on race, you all might check out James Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me," dedicated to exposing the fuzzy idiocies of textbook history -- among them the fuzzy idiocy that no white person in the U.S. opposed racism in the past, and that, as a corollary, we are all becoming more enlightened and less racist every day. The book also includes an excellent discussion of white supremacist ideology in general, and its effect on the U.S. and the world.

Just as an additional note, the second quote deeceevoice gives was made in Lincoln's debate with Douglass -- he moved away from that position later in his career, especially towards the end of the Civil War, by which time white opinion in the north was increasingly egalitarian. Deeceevoice also cuts off the end of the letter to Horace Greeley, in which Lincoln says he, personally, wishes all men were free. It also might be worth reading Lincoln's second inaugural address, in which he declares that the Civil War is a judgment on the south *and* the North for the sin of slavery. It's a pretty breathtaking thing for a president to say in wartime -- imagine George W. declaring that every death in Iraq is the judgment of God on the U.S. for imperialism. Lincoln had many flaws, but he was by no stretch of the imagination an unthinking racist. NoahB 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

As for the issue of what to do with the list of famous white supremacists, I agree with deeceevoice that an actual list would have to include a hefty percentage of the famous people in American history (Woodrow Wilson and D. W. Griffith should be on there, so should Thomas Jefferson, you can make a case for Abraham Lincoln as deeceevoice has done, J. Edgar Hoover almost certainly, and on and on and on.) Maybe you should call it "Famous Contemporary White Supremacists", or some such, since that actually seems like a better description of what you're trying to get at. NoahB 7 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Actually, no. I didn't "[cut] the end of [Lincoln's] letter to ... Greeley"; it simply wasn't pertinent to the discussion. The article is on white supremacy, so the question at hand is, did Lincoln believe blacks to be inherently inferior to whites? The answer is yes. Did Lincoln believe that blacks should occupy an inferior station to whites in society? Again, the answer is yes. So, he was against people owning other people -- but likely would not have opposed whites working blacks for far less money than they would have paid whites, since, being "inferior," blacks likely were unworthy (in Lincoln's mind) of equal pay for equal work or other such injustices/indignities -- because they would be incapable of performing work equal to the caliber of that of whites. So, Lincoln opposed slavery, per se, but was in favor of retaining the master-slave/dominant-subordinate relationship, in principle. Was he known for telling racist jokes that disparaged or ridiculed black people? Again, the answer is yes. Yup. He'd belong on any honest list of famous white supremacists. The man actually stood in front of a group of free black men and lectured them on how segregation/separation -- because black people were somehow "other" than whites -- profited blacks as well as whites. Such addled-brained white arrogance! But how could I mention Jefferson and Lincoln without including good ol' George -- who at least had the decency to free his slaves upon his death. (Jefferson, the slave-raping pig, did no such thing.)

But people feel somehow compelled to defend him as though calling a spade a spade makes Lincoln's role in this nation's history any less important.

And, no, Frederick Douglass was certainly no fool; but keep in mind that the singular most important hurdle for blacks in this nation -- in bondage or otherwise -- was the institution of slavery and all that came with it. And that salient point was not lost on Douglass, himself a former slave. "Idolized"? I don't think so. Douglass recognized the tenuous political milieu in which he necessarily operated. He recognized the tremendous benefit to the race of emancipation (only a deaf, dumb, blind fool would not). But he also spoke, "Power concedes nothing without demand." Douglass, for instance, was an outspoken advocate and activist on the issue of suffrage for blacks. No. Douglass did not "idolize" Lincoln. He knew how to work the system as best he could and give props when such were due. But, first and foremost, he was a race man -- dedicated to the advancement and liberation of his people from all forms of tyranny -- including that of a head-white-man-in-charge who believed him and his people to be his inherent inferiors, when such was so obviously not the case.

I am skeptical that, had he not been assassinated and succeeded by Johnson, Lincoln would not likewise have retreated from the gains of Reconstruction and pulled Union troops from the Deep South in response to the armed and violent opposition mounted by staunchly white supremacist Confederates. I believe that, in view of the carnage of the war and in the spirit of the national reconciliation he so eloquently spoke of in his second Inaugural Address, Lincoln would have cut his losses and readily sacrificed -- as did his racist running mate-turned-head-crakkka-in-charge (:p) -- the aspirations, civil rights and lives of black freedmen and women for the sake of political expediency and some semblance of peace.

Further, the article identifies the antebellum South as a white supremacist society, when the same certainly could be said without credible challenge for all of the U.S. up until the successes of the modern-day Civil Rights Movement -- and that's merely speaking de jure, because, to my way of thinking, the U.S. remains at its core a white supremacist society both domestically and in terms of its often malevolently paternalistic, increasingly bellicose, imperialist foreign policy. deeceevoice 7 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Well thats a charming lot of racism. Please refrain from abusive slurs like "head-crakkka-in-charge". ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 8 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

A lesson on political correctness from you? Now, that's hilarious. "Racism"? That's even funnier -- and so far off the mark it's hardly worth commenting on. *slappin' sides* But I'll indulge you. FYI, Spade, "cracker" is a term that is descriptive of a particular mind-set (much like "redneck") and, if ever there was one, Johnson definitely qualifies. For those curiously unfamiliar to the (common) use of the word in this manner, I even replaced the "ck" with the initials of the Ku Klux Klan as a clue. Not my problem you didn't pick up on it. Consider yourself educated. deeceevoice 8 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

I doubt you are truly so ignorant as to think I misunderstood the KKK reference. Cracker is a racial slur, much like redneck, and I would appreciate your avoiding the usage of such terms in an offensive manner, particularly in regards to a president of our nation. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 8 July 2005 11:43 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Insulting presidents is the American way -- if the First Amendment doesn't cover that, what does it cover? Cracker is indeed a reference to "low-down Southern whites]] according to Hugh Rawson's "Wicked Words", and perhaps would be best avoided, but that doesn't mean it's a particularly deadly insult, nor does it make it racist (at least not in my POV -- I think reverse-racism is a load of hooey.)

Anyway, I'm shortly going to change the title of the list in accordance with my earlier suggestion, if no one objects, and maybe add a few other things to the article. Maybe we can all argue about those instead.... NoahB 8 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

I'm originally from the South, Spade. It is common for people to use "cracker" and "redneck" in nonpejorative ways -- even "peckerwood." Get a clue. And listen to the nameless contributor. Since when the hell did presidents, dead or alive, become sacrosanct? Get off your high horse, Spade. You're 'bout the last person on this web site to preach about this sort of thing. Ya buggin', bwoi, and it's just plain laughable. *x* You come to the aid of a foul-mouthed, racist mental cretin/coward like Wareware and then want to chastise me for criticizing a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabidly racist dead prez? What are you doing -- testing some comedy shtick/routine for the road? Fine an' dandy. Just don't quit your day job. :p deeceevoice 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not nameless! At least I don't think I am.... I may be hard to see from horseback, though...or perhaps my tildes didn't tilde....NoahB 9 July 2005 03:18 (UTC)

My bad, NoahB. I now see your sig at the end of the second para. But my characterization of the low-minded, racist mental cretin is dead-on accurate. (You'd have to have been there.) deeceevoice 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

lead rewrite

I changed the lead in lots of potentially controversial ways. My goal was to make the article geared more towards an analysis of white supremacy in general, rather than just the modern version. As such, I changed the first sentence so that white supremacy is defined as a belief in the superiority of whites, rather than that they should rule over others (Hitler didn't really think Germans should rule over Jews -- he thought the Jews should be exterminated.) I also tried to emphasize that "whiteness" has been defined variously in various contexts. Also, I cast doubt on the separation of separatism and supremacy -- they often go together, in one way or another, and I don't think it's up to the introduction to flatly separate them. I also noted that the U.S. as a whole, not just the South, has been white supremacist for much of its history (though I deliberately didn't give a particular date when it ceased being so). And I mentioned but essentially tabled the discussion of white supremacy's ongoing influence in mainstream political/imperial decision making-- it should be mentioned at the end of the article, at which point I'm sure we can have some lovely edit wars.

If I were to go on (which I'm not, at the moment, anyway) I would move the history section to the front of the article and greatly expand it. I think that makes more sense than starting with the ideology, since the ideology has changed over time and been the basis of many different policies. An important dividing point in the history would be the shift from white supremacy's links with Christian prejudice (i.e., non-whites are inferior because they aren't Christian) to its links to biological theorizing (i.e., non-whites are inferior because they are genetically defective.) That's my two cents, anyway. NoahB 8 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Lincoln

I would agree that Lincoln was a white supremacist -- it was a prevailing ideology of the time; most white abolitionists were still supremacists, and Lincoln was a reluctant and partial latecomer even to abolitionism. However, I don't think he was particularly an ideologue of white supremacy. It's sort of like Richard Nixon, being a man of his time, was in some serious senses part of the mid-20th century liberal consensus, but that really doesn't make him particularly a liberal, and certainly not liberal ideologue. -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware that some people viewed Lincoln as a white supremacist, due to the fact that Lincoln was the one who abolished slavery. To my historical understanding about the American Civil War, Lincoln would be the last person on the face of the Earth of bestowing the white supremacist label upon.--Gramaic | Talk 9 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

I have a much more positive view of Lincoln than deeceevoice does, but he indisputably expressed white supremacist ideas on occasion. There is no contradiction with his stance on slavery; many (though certainly not all) abolitionists believed the same -- it was entirely possible to think slavery was evil and yet to believe that whites were naturally superior to blacks.

James Loewen, in "Lies My Teacher Told Me," quotes the passage deeceevoice quotes above (where Lincoln says he is not in favor of social equality for black people.) Loewen then goes on to say "Textbook authors protect us from a racist Lincoln. By so doing, they diminish students' capacity to recognize racism as a force in American life. For if Lincoln could be racist, then so might the rest of us be. And if Lincoln could transcend racism, as he did on occasion, then so might the rest of us." NoahB 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Well, Noah, at least someone here gets it. (Day-um!) deeceevoice 16:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying about Lincoln, but I don't quite get why you feel it's necessary to insult other editors. It seems counterproductive. Just my POV, of course. NoahB 18:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OED access?

Anyone have access to an OED? I'm interested in the origin of the term "white supremacy" -- when did it start being used and by whom? And what has it meant in the past, and what does the OED think it means now? I think it's important in terms of the history section -- obviously, prejudice of one sort or another has been around for a really long time, but when did it start being codified in terms of the "white race" vs. other races? Loewen traces it to the discovery of the New World, which makes a certain amount of sense, though I doubt the term was used that far back. Any other sources handy? NoahB 9 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

I don't have an OED, but my 1904 (Merriam) Webster gives a narrower definition of supremacy that looks like a likely precursor to the present meaning:

The state of being supreme, or in the highest station of power; highest or supreme authority or power; as the supremacy of a king or parliament.

Jmabel | Talk 23:55, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

"the idea of ‘*white supremacy’ and the later barbarism which demands race-subjection or extermination " 1902, in a letter from Albion Tourgée. Since all their other quotes are English, from 1959-72, and look like they're about Ian Smith, I suspect their collection may be recent and so incomplete. Septentrionalis 22:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

White dominion they date from 1966, though it must be much older. Septentrionalis 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

origins of white supremacy

This account is mostly based on James Loewen. His book is an excellent tertiary source (that is, he's synthesizing secondary accounts.) Still, if anybody has secondary sources available to flesh things out, that'd be great. NoahB 17:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Create a new article

In the "Contemporary White supremacists of note" section, there's a statement that says A list of famous white supremacists would be far too long to include in this article. I was thinking about that, and thought maybe we could start a new article, such as; List of White supremacists, which would be a main article listing all the famous white supremacists from A to Z. Maybe we'll put it up as a link in the current "Contemporary White supremacists of note" section in this article if the readers want to see the main list.--Gramaic | Talk 03:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gramaic, I've added a few obvious folks to the list (Jefferson Davis, Hitler). However, I'm still not sure a list of famous white supremacists is a great idea. White supremacy was pretty much the status quo assumption in the Western world from the 1600s to the mid-1900s, at least. Most any white person of note during that period could probably be described as a white supremacist (with a few notable exceptions, like John Brown and Eleanor Roosevelt). Any list by its nature is almost certainly going to both minimize the extent of the philosophy's sway and single out certain people unfairly and almost at random -- I mean, I've put Thomas Jefferson here simply because I've seen evidence that he was a white supremacist, but I'm pretty darn sure that virtually all the founding fathers were. I dunno -- you've creaed it now, and I'm not going to put it on Vfd or anything -- just thought you might want to think about whether this is really such a good idea..... NoahB 12:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does the white supremacist profile of individuals exist?

I find this quite disturbing, it's more like racial profiling than a wikipedia article, it's totaly detrimental to the wiki project and totally POV based, self declared white supremacists or not. There is no black supremacists list being gathered, no islamic supremacists or jewish supremacists. This is racial vilification at it's finest. And before anyone adds -ME- to this 'watch list', rest assured, I'm not even white.

Jachin 19:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Have a look above, reverse racism doesn't exist according to certain editors of this page, so racial slurs and other insulting behaviour would appear to be perfectly acceptable so long as they are against white males. Oh, and don't forget, historical figures are expected to live up to the most exacting standards of modern day social science academics. ¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸¸,ø?º°`°º?ø,¸ 20:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Social science academic! Me?!?! Why you....ooooooh...I oughta....grrrr....no personal attacks...Rfc....argh!

Okay...heartbeat normalizing...NPOV recalibrating....Phew!

Now...couple things. I do think reverse racism is silliness. That's my POV, and clearly labeled as such in the post above. I didn't say it meant that attacks on white males were okay (I'm one myself, for what that's worth). In fact, I suggested that cracker should be avoided, and provided a link so that people could decide for themselves whether it was the deadly slur you suggested. Furthermore, I did not create, and am not in support of, the list of famous white supremacists. If you check the talk page, you will see that I thought it was a bad idea precisely because, with a couple of exceptions, almost every famous white figure pre-Civil War would qualify -- in other words, I opposed it precisely because (or at least in part because) it's silly to judge people in the past by present day standards. You'll note I provide a fairly impassioned defense of Abraham Lincoln, a man who I admire exceedingly. Furthermore, if you look (once again) at the list of white supremacist talk page, you'll see that it was me who directed Jachin to *this* page so he (or she, as the case may be) could present his/her views about the matter here. I think a list of present-day white supremacists is fine, myself, but I don't have strong feelings about it one way or another, to tell you the truth.

Secondly (or is that thirdly?) -- if you have actual problems with what I wrote in this article, then please bring them up and we can discuss them or deal with them or whatever. I'm also awaiting your thoughts on anti-racism, which I am sure will help to improve that page. I don't discount your views simply because you take reverse racism seriously. On the contrary, I've found your discussion of racism generally thoughtful (especially your posts on Talk:David Duke). I don't necessarily agree with you, but I believe you're a dedicated editor and that you are working in good faith. I know I haven't been on Wikipedia as long as you, but I would appreciate it if you'd extend me the courtesy of assuming that I am as well. Take care NoahB 00:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

Can anyone decipher the section Criticisms of White Supremacy? As far as I can tell, it is worse than nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

That section was started by some anonymous user. It should be removed, I find it very superfluous. --Gramaic | Talk 06:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the format of the article would look much better if we inserted the {{TOCleft}} template. What does everyone think? Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a question

If somebody wanted to exterminate all non-whites, would they be a white supremacist? I mean, they wouldn't exactly be supreme over anybody else... They'd probably end up becoming a supremacist in favour of some white ethnic group (Anybody go to a racist website and see a "Nord-Med" debate? Crazy stuff).

But would they count as a supremacist if they were 1st out of 1? I don't think they'd count as a white nationalist, really...

?--Edward Wakelin 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There are already, as you said, Nord-Med debate. In fact, there are types of white supremacitsts that are called "Nordicists" or "Germanicists," that only define white as the blond haired, blue eyed, and pail skinned people. Then we have Pan Europeanism White supremacy that accepts all native Europeans, and Pan Aryanism white supremacy accepts whites from outside of Europe, such as the Middle East. Despite Pan Europeanism and Pan Aryanism, there always seems to be a conflict between the the Nords and the Meds. --Gramaic | Talk 21:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Edward, I think the current introduction to this article addresses your question -- white supremacy is used in a couple of different ways. Some uses would include those who want to exterminate non-whites; other definitions wouldn't necessarily. NoahB 15:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nord-Med debates are the proverbial shit. Fun fact: The guy who runs the Pan-Aryan National Front, who goes by the name "DiabloBlanco", is frequently referred to as "DiabloNegro". --Edward Wakelin 15:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that DiabloBlanco, the guy who heads PANF, is Italian. --Gramaic | Talk 19:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but they don't like him. OMG HIS BLOOD IS IMPURE! The guy's pretty wacky... I mean, claiming that Europeans have common ancestry to some degree with Iranians, Indians, Pakistanis, etc is anthropological fact, but as far as I can tell he wants there to be one big white country...--Edward Wakelin 22:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:White supremacy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Why say led by men?

Don't argue with the Dictionary

No Bias?

history

Definition of Supremacy

This article is HILLARIOUS

Nothing hillarious about it.

National Vanguard

White supremacists, white nationalists and other extremists are nothing more than a bunch of stupid hateful ignorant idiots!

Why are'nt they considered white by these people?

Stating, as fact, sites are "supremacist"

What happened to Stormfront?

A new kind of White supremacism?

New Info. in the Ideology section. (Pan Aryanism)

Nordish Portal

Wikipedia is the talk of the Nordish Portal

POV?

Removal of NAAWP

Link question

I would also say that

The links

Stirpes

Stirpes

Asking again

Flawed

lead rewrite

Lincoln

OED access?

origins of white supremacy

Create a new article

Why does the white supremacist profile of individuals exist?

Huh?

Table of Contents

Here's a question

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search