Talk:White supremacy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why say led by men? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Don't argue with the Dictionary

message: 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)
thread_title: Definition of Supremacy

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Vanguard 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  A new kind of White supremacism? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Info. in the Ideology section. (Pan Aryanism) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nordish Portal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please do. Sam Spade  11:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I would also say that 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Asking again 

message: 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." -- 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)
thread_title: Flawed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lincoln 

message: 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)
replies: text: White dominion they date from 1966, though it must be much older. Septentrionalis 22:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OED access? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  origins of white supremacy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Create a new article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huh? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I believe that DiabloBlanco, the guy who heads PANF, is Italian. --Gramaic | Talk 19:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Here's a question 

message: Hello. 
Regarding  this revert, for context, this was written in 1967 by George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, and republished in 1996. It appears the publisher, John McLaughlin, is a farmer associated with the National Alliance, one of the neo-Nazi groups which claimed to follow Rockwell's example.  
I appreciate the bookfinder link. My concern is that listing this misrepresents an extreme and fringe view as being important without any context. As the bookfinder link says, 
Since neither Rockwell nor the American Nazi Party are mentioned elsewhere in the article, I do not think we should recommend this as one of only three "further reading" entries, at least not without a hell of a lot more context. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's a good point, given the context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you, I wasn't sure if I was missing something. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Lincoln Rockwell