Talk:White Separatism

Archive

rebuttal
The National Alliance dismisses all criticism of this type as part of a Jewish plot to suppress the "racial defense mechanisms" of white people by condemning those who believe in "white separatist ideals" as "white supremacists". 


 * The above is not only a valid rebuttel, but it contains information which is quite useful to anyone researching the topic. Sam Spade 02:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's anti-semitic. AndyL 03:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * so are most white seperatists, and probably everybody at National Alliance. Its an accurate representation of their thoughts on the subject, and it is cited. I would think you'd be happy to have Paul provide such an obvious window into that organizations sentiments.


 * the "racial defense mechanisms" bit, and the emphasis on jews is especially telling. I strongly suggest you leave this as is. It has already been NPOV'ed from Pauls original. Sam Spade 03:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You shoulda seen Paul's original. I see nothing wrong with letting them shoot their own feet off. Wikipedia does try to fairly present opinions, even odious ones, without necessarily endorsing them - David Gerard 07:35, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

factual accuracy
who is disputing the accuracy, and why? Can that dispute header be removed, the article seems plenty accurate to me at this juncture. Sam Spade 19:02, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * It is now, as the National Alliance does not call itself "Neo-Nazi" anymore than Cosmotheists call themselves "Piercean", but they do call themselves White separatist. Let those that do go and that do read the material there for themselves determine just what and who they really are.-PV


 * Well, if they call Hitler the greatest man of the 20th century that's pretty neo-Nazi. Don't forget Pierce was a member of the American Nazi Party AndyL 21:53, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That was Dr. Pierce's own "opinion" expressed in a editorial in National Vanguard and Dr. Pierce was an associate of the ANP, but, he soon left the ANP after the assassinaton of Rockwell and a split with Kohl, and thereafter, he no longer was an "Neo-Nazi".-PV


 * I'm pretty sure you don't think paul has forgotten that ;). The article doesn't need to say it, because it isn't what white seperatism is about. Hitler wasn't interested in running away from minorities, he wanted to kill em or dominate em, generally a bit of both. white seperatists want to run away to the great NW. Sam Spade 09:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's not quite accurate. By many accounts Hitler wanted to deport non-Germanic people but by the time he got them rounded up, he found himself surrounded. Unable to manage the detention program inspired by Henry Ford's publication of "The International Jew", he began killing them.
 * This essay is also diminished by efforts to reach conclusive statements about the views of seperatists who often change their views in the context of changing circumstances. That flaw reflects a general trend among inexperienced analysts who attempt to define a character in absolute terms rather than analyzing human responses in the context of emerging situations. J.B.White 02:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I haven't forgotten, and Dr. Pierce had a right to his own "opinion". Besides, the subjective term "greatest" can and does have many meanings. It is quite clear that Hitler was a "White Supremacist", but, it is equally clear that Pierce was a White Separatist, A white separatist FAQ and that his political organization, the National Alliance, actually wants to create their own Free State or Homeland, for Whites ONLY.-PV

Is White Sepratism Racist?
That is one of the more stupid comments I've ever heard on wikipedia. Sam Spade does not know what he is talking about (a trend?), comparing white separatists to libertaraians is borderline retarded. As for the National Alliance being a "white seperatist" organization, sorry the facts point in the opposite direction the late (thankfully) Dr. William Pierce who headed the organization was anything but someone who wanted to "run away" from his problems at all he advocated a violent revolution against those he saw as trying to destroy him and his people (see Turner Diaries as well as his transcipted speechs on the National Alliance site). Maybe he felt as though he was striking BACK against some perceived injustice against him but by no means was he going to go anywhere and hide from his "problems". The fact is, white seperatism is a racist belief system in which the advocate believes in White Supremacism-hence he/she does not want to mix or deal with other races. This argument over whether white seperatists believe in white supremacism is ridiculous. Particularily when there is no evidence to support the position that there are indeed white seperatists or white separatist organizations who are not in fact, white supremacists or hold white supremacist beliefs. GrazingshipIV 12:06, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Stupid" and "retarded" comments? Not exactly. You may be correct in that Dr. Pierce was not the kind of person to "run away" from problems and that he did advocate a revolution, and a violent one if necessary, to prevent the planned destruction of the White Race via miscegenation and the massive Third-World and mostly Non-White Immigration/Invasion of America and the rest of the White Western World. But, White separatism, like any other "separatism", DOES NOT imply "supremacy", whatsoever, and neither does it "racism", but, only the continued "SURVIVAL" and advancement of ones' own quite UNIQUE GROUP IDENTITY and ones own UNIQUE GROUP CHARACTERISTICS. The National Alliance is a White separatist group that is not "racist" nor does it officially have nor officially hold "White supremacist" beliefs, as the quoted speech by Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Alliance has made quite clear, here:
 * and in their offical GOALS of the National Alliance found on their two main websites: http://www.natvan.com or http://www.natall.com
 * You, in fact, were wrong and your POV bias of "glee" at another persons' death, ie. Dr. Pierce's, is solid proof of that fact.-PV

First off when you put something in quotations the otherperson has to say (or state) it I never stated I had ""glee"" over his death I am just glad he is dead because he was a rather nasty human being. Your statement as to the goals of the national alliance prove my point, particularly about racism. You admit to the racism (not yours but of the groups) by using a term like "UNIQUE GROUP IDENTITY" that being the white race as a group. That standard of thinking is textbook racism which anyone who determines that other human beings be compartmentalized along racial lines (note this would include Louis Farakhan and Malcom X) racism is a beleif in race as being factually true. By stating that race as a biological feature exists you are a racist. I do understand that the term itself has negative conotations (as I feel it does) but racism has been around since the early social darwinism movement in Europe so its popular among many. I am stating that "White Seperatism", as defined and used, has all the tenants of White supremacy. The most notable of which is an anti-race-mixing beleif, the reasons of which are a perceived pollution of a unique (i.e better) group. I agree that there are allot of people of other races that engage in the same behavior, that does not mean that makes you any more right or wrong than them. This notion in my opinion is rather silly but to claim White seperatism is not AT LEAST racist is Wrong.GrazingshipIV 19:11, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Saying a particular opinion is wrong is POV. Review NPOV and see if its something you can accept. Otherwise there are plenty of places where you can yell about racism, try a Klan rally. Sam Spade 19:26, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes I admit that I have a point of view in here as do you Sam. On the page I presented factual information. Sam you can pretend all you want to be above such a discussion but the question remains is white seperatism racist or not? Caste a vote or stop pretending to be neutral. GrazingshipIV 19:30, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Civility
Come on, guys. Let's not forget the principle of Civility here. R ADICAL B ENDER &#9733;  19:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, Radical could you organize a vote on this question? GrazingshipIV 19:34, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * What's the contention: that the concept of "white separatism" is "racist"? This is what you say, yes?  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My contention is that to believe in white seperatism someone must adopt the ideals of racism that it is an integral part of white seperatism. So I would say ask "Is White Separatism a racist belief system?"

I would say YES. GrazingshipIV 19:46, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but there's also a second question that I see now (Sam Spade brought it up). The question is also raised whether or not the term racist as it stands as a descriptive word used to describe any group (as opposed to the article, Racist) is NPOV.  I would posit that these two questions are what require answers.


 * Could you post an argument for your position to add "racist" into the article and, since I'm assuming you would then agree with the subequent argument, could you please argue the idea that "racist" can be NPOV as well?


 * Conversely, I would ask the anon, or whomever else is watching to post a counter-argument that 1. racist should not be added into the article and 2. that the term "racist" is not NPOV.


 * If this is done, I will put it together in the form of a poll and also make a mention at RfC. R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arguement for
1.A link to racism (as is in one of my versions) along with categorizing the movement as such, should be added to the article as so many of the sources for and beliefs of the formentioned people and groups are racist in nature. To talk about white seperatism without at least mentioning racism as part of it seems to be a diservice to wikipedia. The National alliance as an example used on the page, is a white supremacist group (view their website to affirm if you so desire) and henceforth warrants the mention of racism on the page. Also the term "white" in white seperatism is a racial term as not being used to talk about the color white in a non-human instance (such as white wash or white lie).

2. When I am saying the belief system is racist, I am making an academic reference. Racism is a belief system that comes from social darwinism in which you must believe that there is a difference between certain groups of people who can be labeled "white, black, brown, yellow etc" and that those differences are drastic enough for them to be seperate in nature. This belief system came from early science which is how people where characterized in early 19th century Europe the terms have stuck.

My contention about the validity of these terms is known to all, but academically (rather than morally) racism is not a POV term it refers to a detailed belief system. The reason it may be considered a POV statement is due to Western societies new social dislike for the term following politcal correctness or that allot of people genuinely disagree with the validity and morality of such characterizations of people. Eitherway, this being an academic entity, an encyclopedia, I think racism and racist as referring to an idea or belief is appropriate-when it is genuinely believed by the person using it. Racism along with racists really exist and henceforth should be labeled as such. GrazingshipIV 20:17, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

problem solved?
I made a couple of changes/additions, maybe this has solved the need for a poll, or whatnot? Sam Spade 20:08, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think its an improvement as in accordance with my response to the previous point 1. But I think the background of the philosophy should be noted somewhere perhaps a "see also: Racism" or something. Note lets see the response to this correction by those arguing against before it's a noted "compromise" or "solved problem" they might not abide that either. GrazingshipIV 20:21, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

recent edits
there should be more quotes from white seperatist organizations on this article, not less. By attempting to censor, you soften the image, and trivialize it. We can be NPOV and also present the facts. We are not to take a side, or present more of one argument than another. Please review the conversation at the top of the page on this very subject. Sam Spade 00:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Cite your sources Verifiability NPOV
 * These are all useful on this subject. Sam Spade 00:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have edited out an obviously POV and "non-documented" false assertion. On which "occasion" has a White separatist declare or label themselves as "racist"? Cite the sources. Provide the quoted proof from PRIMARY SOURCES. -PV

---

A white seperatist is often viewed as racist by their socialist or Marxist detractors.-Is anyone claiming this as being not true? Why was it edited out? The available evidence is overwhelming from Political correctness to those behind promoting the so-called Hate crime laws. -PV


 * It's not untrue but it implies that all detractors are socialist or Marxist. - Fennec 17:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The qualifier "often" doesn't suggest "all" at all. It is a true statement and it is a NPOV and thus it should stay.-PV

It is false by omission. It would more accurate to state "A white separatist if often viewed as racist by their anarchist, socialist, liberal, conservative or libertarian detractors" ie certainly there are many conservatives out their who view "white separatists". Indeed, there are many people of all political hues who view white separatists as racist so it's simply to just say "their detractors" without enumerating themAndyL 03:39, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Either a statement is true or it is false. It was not false by "omission", as that is actually only your own non-Wiki NPOV, POV opinion.-PV


 * It's not false by omission, but misleading and POV by omission. - Fennec 14:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Again, that also is actually only your own non-Wiki NPOV, POV opinion.-PV

Actually it is not a POV to deem white seperatism as racist. By definition it is, as it recognizes race as a true and meaningful classification of humans. Also as it is exclusionary, only whites can live in such communities that the seperatists would create. Also society at large (particularly in North America, Europe and Australia) have designated white seperatist as such-not just marxists and socialists, in fact the only political group who do not think white seperatists are racists are the the white seperatists themselves. The group that is the only listed White seperatists organization (The National Alliance) praises Adolf Hitler who was a racist (note:the anon may even disagree with that). This argument is ridiculous and I again strongly request a vote as discussed above. GrazingshipIV 15:20, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually it is not a POV to deem white seperatism as racist.

Actually, it is quite POV and slanderous to do so. Are not such "separatist" groups allowed to define themselves without being so falsely and so POV slandered?-PV

In answer to the anon- No in fact groups are not allowed to "define themselves" if that were the case every group would be flawless and perfect. On the page all viewpoints shall be given, this is not propaganda for white supremacy not matter how much you want it to be. The views of white seperatists are and should be expressed along with what others think of them. White seperatism is not new and the ideology that preceeded it is well defined so trying to revise history, logic or common sense will not be fruitful for you. It is racist, pure and simple. If you find the term racist slanderous thats your POV and your entiteled to it. But racism really exists as a belief system independent of its negative connotations in Western society. By noting these seperatists as White and believing in Whiteness they are by definition racist. Get it through your head this page is never going to give your group a positive spin because it is going to state the facts. If you wish to type up reasons why white seperatists are in favor of their ideology feel free, but stop pushing your POV on to terms that are already well defined and documented. GrazingshipIV 15:47, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

'''By noting these seperatists as White and believing in Whiteness they are by definition racist. Get it through your head this page is never going to give your group a positive spin because it is going to state the facts.'''

Only by your own biased and bigoted POV beliefs are "White separatists" actually "racist".

http://www.crusader.net/resources/election.html

You are not really NPOV stating the facts at all, and a NPOV is what Wiki supposedly strives for and not just your own biased POV to cast any "negative spin" on anything or upon any ideas or ideals or religion that you, in your POV bias, just don't happen to like.-PV

- Page protected on 12 April 2004

Just to say that someone changed 'most' to 'some', only moments before I did. Given that the apartheid regime of SA plus the 'separatists' of the US south clearly believe in the superiority of the white races, that pretty much accounts for a majority of the 'separatists'. I would stronly oppose any move back. DJ Clayworth 18:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Corrected obvious mis-spellings and edited for a more Wiki NPOV.-PV