Talk:National Alliance (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Alliance (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

old comments

White separatist

(cur) (last) . . 20:33, 17 Feb 2004 . . 24.45.99.191 (cur) (last) . . 03:00, 17 Feb 2004 . . Mirv (quit trying to whitewash this organization)

Upholding the Wiki NPOV is not "whitewashing" anything.

The group was NOT founded in 1960. 1974. Where do you get your facts?

Mirv, just quit trying to "Jewish POV" smear this organization, verses only keeping a Wiki NPOV.

They are a White Separatist Political Organization.

"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 claiout 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."

They are not "Neo-Nazi's", just because some JDL or ADL or other Marxist or Jewish political group falsely claim that they are.

Thanks! :D

I don't agree with "race-hate fiction". I don't think that was a NPOV way to describe the book. I do think it might be ACCURATE, but "racial revolutionary fiction" is actually more accurate, particularly after seeing the Oklahoma city bombing, etc... (BTW, I was reading the "problem user's" page when I found this issue, so I am aware it is controvercial, and I am NOT that other guy) JackLynch

Jack,

You might not agree with the "message" of such "fiction" but the National Alliance is a white separatist political organization and getting "unbiased" and "accurate" information from any and all such obviously bigoted and leftist and politically-biased groups as the Jewish "ADL" or from pc "pan-atheists" or from pc "marxist-leftists" is therefore very highly unlikely.

You should read the fictional novel, "The Turner Diaries", first-hand and you can buy it at: http://www.amazon.com or just go read what the National Alliance actually says from its' own actual website, at: http://www.natall.com before making any real "decision" as to what you do or what you don't actually "agree with" and go see if it does actually agree with REALITY or not.

Best regards,

Needle aka Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

I did read some of it Paul, online, and under fairly funny circumstances. A mixed race (including black and Jewish) roommate of mine insisted that I read it. I got about as far as the 2nd chapter, deciding that I didn't exactly care for the "style". Lets just say I don't find the thesis, prediction, or much of anything else in it particularly believable, and I found it to be less of a page turner than I require. I'm as in favour of hording guns and being independant as the next guy, but I am unconvinced as to the dangers posed to me by black folks. To be perfectly frank I find excess focus on other peoples races to be unhelpful in making friends, prolific in making enemies, and not exactly what Jesus would do when it all comes down to it ;) Sam Spade 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sam,

What "thesis", "predictions", or "much anything else in it" did you not find "particularly believable"? What was it about the "style" that you didn't "exactly care for"? What would you consider to be a "page turner" that you require? Curious.

If you are "unconvinced" as to the dangers posed to you by "black folks", maybe I could pose a challenge to your pc "thesis" for you to actually walk the streets late at night in some of these big cities where such "black folks" are the vast majority of the population?

To be truely frank, to "pc-deny" group racial differences is just not very realistic, nor very intelligent, but, to do so, DOES NOT mean that one can't have any friends of any other races, whatsoever. Everyone should be treated as an individual, on a one to one basis, and based upon their own actual strength of character and upon their actual behavior. Jesus would agree with me, there.

Best regards,

Paul Vogel

http://www.cosmotheism.net

Paul,

I think this discussion is interesting but entirely off-topic. The duty of this page is to provide an unbiased and objective account of the facts. Your assertation that walking on the streets late at night in big cities is evidence that black people are different is interesting, but it is not objective truth by any means and there is a great deal of controversy on the topic. Your further claim that not only is there a group racial difference, but that to deny it is not realistic or intelligent, is also controversial and unproven. Also, I don't know why there is all this Jesus talk going on. Since when is Jesus a moral authority?

Anyway, the point of all this is that Wikipedia should be objective in fact-telling. Presenting one perspective as "right," until it has been justifiably proven, is against the spirit of reasonable research.

- Ryan Delaney

I don't see why you're playing games regarding the Neo-nazi leanings of the National Alliance and William Pierce. There is a great deal of evidence showing the National Alliance is indeed a Neo-nazi group:

Let us see your factual and objective "evidence".

1. The Turner Diaries refers to Adolf Hitler as The Great One. Furthermore, the goal of the fictional revolutionary group in the book is not merely white separatism, it is a group that advocates an all-white world.

Hello. The Turner Diaries is a fictional novel. The goal of the fictional group the "organization" may be one that advocates an all-white world, a "fantasy", but, in the real world and non-fictional National Alliance, they are a political group that only advocates white separatism and only advocates an all-white homeland, or homelands, and not any "fictional nor fantasy" all-white world.

2. http://www.stormfront.org/ns/great.html is an online version of an article published in National Vanguard Magazine, the mouthpiece of the National Alliance. Some quotes:

"April 20 of this year is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era"

He was mostly responsible for some of the greatest changes made to our entire civilization, politically, and globally, for both good and for evil, of the last century, or for the last 100 years. The editor or writer of the article is also entitled to their own "opinion", and that one "opinion" does not make the entire National Alliance organization, "Neo-Nazi", either.

"And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature"

What is so "Neo-Nazi" about the "innermost will of Nature"?

If the "innermost will of Nature" is "survival and advancement", is that main idea "Neo-Nazi", alone?

Curious.

"We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolu-tionaries in the world of today and are branded as such."

Obviously, the author of that specific article likely was a "Neo-Nazi", but, he was only speaking of others of his own kind that are being branded as being such, whether true or not, just as you and some others are falsely branding the National Alliance as being "Neo-Nazi", when they are actually only a White Separatist Political Organization, which is quite revolutionary relative to our existing society.

etcetera, etcetera. 61.120.95.91 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The group's own literature, however, does not support this. For instance, a 1989 editorial from National Vanguard, celebrating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler, says: "April 20 of this year is the 100th anniversary of the birth of the greatest man of our era ... And so the National Socialist philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature ... We National Socialists know that with this conception we stand as revolutionaries in the world of today and are branded as such." [http://www.stormfront.org/ns/great.html]"

BTW:, the stormfront organization actually is a "Neo-Nazi" organization and some very few of them actually have joined the National Alliance, but, not all National Alliance members are such "Neo-Nazi's" , so to falsely brand the entire National Alliance organization as being "Neo-Nazi" is really quite false, slanderous, and it usually is deliberately so, only to discredit their own legitimate rights to advocate White Separatism, or for a White Homeland that is for mostly whites only, just as the Jewish Zionist Israeli's have just about recently done with Palestine mostly only for the Jewish People.

It is about POWER and CONTROL over ideas and over the political process amongst the masses, which both Dr. Pierce and the Nazi's actually considered to be a "trait of the Jews", which are both a religion and a culture and an ethnicity.

That it was off the Stormfront site is not relevant - it's AN ARTICLE FROM NATIONAL VANGUARD. You know, THE MAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE. - David Gerard 16:13, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article can be found at the Georgia National Alliance website: http://www.nageorgia.com/articles_measure.html 61.11.26.142 17:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Link added to article - David Gerard 17:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Nazi or neo?

IMO it is innapropriate to refer to them as "neo" nazi, and rather more accurate to refer to them as just plain nazi. Just my opinion, the evidence seems to me to be pretty clear, but I suppose it depends on how you define "nazi" Sam Spade 18:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The entry for Neo-Nazi defines "neo-Nazi" as "any social or political movement that revive Nazism or Fascism, respectively, and postdating the Second World War." That certainly seems to apply here. --Modemac 18:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, I donno if I agree w that tho. Are modern communists neo-communists? But whatever, its a subtlety, we all know what these fellers (unlike the neo-coms ;) are thinking. Sam Spade 18:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is actually accurate to call the "neo-Nazi": The term was coined to differentiate between the historical group ("the Nazis"), and later groups which hold the same beliefs, but do not belong to the particular movement of national socialism in Germany in the first half of the 20th century. It is a valid and useful distinction. - snoyes 18:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't know that I agree w that, but I will say that what is most important is that this article gives a clear enough picture of who and what they are that the reader is left w little doubt, irregardless of what term we use. If I've learned anything about politics, its that the labels used to describe it are ment more for the purpose of confusing intent than describing it, particularly when you let the rascals name themselves ;) Sam Spade 18:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever read a nicer way of saying: "We're gonna tell you what to think, and you'll like it!" 70.78.209.117 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you agree with the labeling is irrelevant, the fact is that it is the common usage in describing people/groups that hold nazi beliefs, but are/were not part of Hitler's movement. I agree that it is dangerous to just take at face-value self-descriptions, as they are often misleading. We can expand upon that in the articles. - snoyes 18:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, the author of that specific article in National Vanguard likely was a "Neo-Nazi", but, he was only speaking of and for others of his own kind that are being branded as being such, and whether true or not, just as you here and some others in society in general are always falsely branding the National Alliance or others as being "Neo-Nazi", when they are actually only either a White Separatist Political Organization, or a racialist, not racist, which is quite revolutionary relative to our existing society and its false Political Correctness. Why do some "others" always insist on labeling all of the other others, as opposed to letting the people in question label themselves?

Curious.

It is about POWER and CONTROL over ideas and over the political process amongst the masses, which both Dr. Pierce and the Nazi's actually considered to be a "trait of the Jews", which are a religion and a culture and an ethnicity.

Very curious. According to the Georgia National Alliance, the article was written by William Pierce! http://www.nageorgia.com/articles.html 61.11.26.142 18:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He is entitled to his own opinion, which it was, and not all National Alliance members shared them all. :D

Well, labeling is done so as to compact a lot of information into a short space. Notice that the National alliance also engage in labeling, calling themselves "separationists". - snoyes 19:02, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"We're not racists, we're racialists. We're not white supremacists,

we're white separatists!" I suppose we can't really call these guys a hate group either. They don't hate groups, they just hate individual folks. Lots and lots of individuals. --Modemac 19:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, they do call themselves "White Racialist Separatists", only because that much more accurately and objectively describes the National Alliance's own political goals. Notice that such "labeling" of all others is ok when only certain other "others" are actually doing all of the "labeling" or "hating". LOL! :D

Curious.

If you want to be true to current racialist rhetoric, they don't hate anybody. They just love themselves so much that they want to be seperate from other races, particularly when it comes to breeding. Even your average klan website condemns violence and hate against others, but rather focuses on what is more P.C., the defense of ones own cultural values. They essentially feel intimidated, and desire to band together for purposes of defense, rather than agression. That is the current rhetoric, I must make clear ;) Sam Spade 19:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kind of like the current rhetoric that the Zionist Israeli's only want peace, and that they don't really "hate" the arab muslim palestinians, they just want to "seperate themselves" with a huge fence, just take more land, and only prevent terrorism and any resistance to their own dispossession of the native non-Jewish palestinian population. Sure. :D

Hmm. Not bad. Almost a full day elapsed here before the silly term "Zionist" was dragged out. Not that I'm accusing them of labelling or anything. :) --Modemac 19:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The silly term "Zionist"?

The term or label is Jewish.

"Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”). "...Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century..."

How about the really "silly" pc terms, "White Supremacist? Or "Nazi"? Or "Anti-semite"? Or "Homophobe"? Or "Racist"?, almost everytime someone or anyone is ever critical of any "Jewish Supremacism"?

"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."

From:

http://www.natall.com/pub/012404.txt

Curious.

Texture (Reverted edits by 24.45.99.191 to last edit by Jwrosenzweig - "anyone who is willing to drive a plane into a building to kill Jews is alright by me" is not appropriate)

I do agree, and I have taken it out.

Besides, Mr. Roper is now no longer in any official leadership position within the National Alliance political organization.

I have also added links supporting assertions made regarding the group in a Wiki NPOV fashion.

If you fine IP numbers think I'm posting here as part of a Zionist labelling conspiracy, could you let user:OneVoice over on Current events know? Thanks! - David Gerard 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

Extlinks

The inline extlinks are incorrectly formatted as though they are wiki links. -- Arvindn 06:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article has been protected from edits for over a week now, & there has been little discussion about the issues that required it to be protected on this Talk: page. Shall this protection be removed now? -- llywrch 22:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The IP numbers seem to have calmed a little. Let's see what happens. - David Gerard 11:43, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

The Order

Once the page is unprotected, the link to The Order needs to be disambiguated to The Order (group). --ESP 01:53, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

done - David Gerard 10:07, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

If you fine IP numbers think I'm posting here as part of a Zionist labelling conspiracy, could you let user:OneVoice over on Current events know? Thanks! - David Gerard 23:16, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

We all know, David, by your own "actions" and "censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and editing!! What else isn't new?

Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:

There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

Actually, it is the factual explaination that there is a conspiracy against me to ban and censor the truth AND that these same censors and bigots are not "fairly disputing" anything, whatsoever.

The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

You should read it and then just DO what it says, yourself!

Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite" would actually give you some "personal integrity", and that would likely create the desire in people with actual personal integrity to "play better" with you, David Gerard. :D

White supremacy versus white separatism

The current article states that the National Alliance believes "whites are the most gifted, kind and spiritually beautiful race". The white supremacy page states that white supremacy is the belief that "white people [are] superior to people of other (and of mixed) races and/or ethnicities". Therefore, wouldn't one say that that a rational, neutral observer would deem them white supremacist?

Hmmm... I can't say that I completely disagree. However, why remove neo-nazi since it is an accurate claim that some believe this? - Tεx τ urε 15:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How's this for something that includes both views?

The National Alliance is an American white supremacist political organization labeled "white separatist" by supporters and "neo-Nazi" by critics.

- Tεx τ urε 15:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Texture, how do you know a rational neutral observer would disagree with that statement? --Nazrac 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish conspiracy

Bcorr, Your assertion that Wikipedia should classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth because it simply is a myth seems odd. Why is it necessary for Wikipedia to say so? Shouldn't the reader be able to reach that conclusion as self-evident on his or her own? Isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to be a /reference/ material, not one that tells people what conclusions to draw?

- Ryan Delaney

Ryan -- I honestly don't understand your point, but IMHO it seems obvious that "Wikipedia should classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth because it simply is a myth" just as "Wikipedia should classify the Edsel as an automobile because it simply is an automobile" -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 19:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr -- There are two objections I am making here:

.

(1) That the status of of the Jewish conspiracy as a myth is, although you and I may accept that it is an unfounded idea, a point of contention with respect to the National Alliance, and you must admit that you can't prove that there isn't an international Jewish conspiracy, even though it's ridiculous to believe there is given the information we have.

.

(2) Your second point is illustrative. Saying "The Edsel is an automobile because it is an automobile" is not a statement that you would find in Wikipedia. It is redundant. If it is so self-evident that their opinion is false, then saying the National Alliance believes there is an international Jewish conspiracy should be enough. Otherwise, you are claiming that adding the descriptive noun "myth" has added something to the discussion that is otherwise missing. If it is not self-evident, then it should be the responsibility of Wikipedia to provide evidence that is a myth rather than categorizing it as such without any justification.

.

- Ryan Delaney

It would appear clear to myself that stating a disputed statement as fact (as Bcorr is attempting to do) is POV, and contrary to the fundamental principles of the wikipedia. Sam [Spade] 15:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stating something as fact in your own opinion on a talk page is exactly according to the principles of Wikipedia. You have the same right to say he's wrong. When did censorship of opinions become an ideal of Wikipedia? - Tεx τ urε 16:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You severely misunderstand me. I despise censorship. See here. Perhaps I could have worded things better. Wikipedia should not classify the Jewish conspiracy as a myth, as that is a disputed claim. Further, the very lable/concept of "myth" is only appropriate in regards to subjects wherein concensus exists that they are non-factual. Sam [Spade] 11:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Propagated the myth" is not POV

I changed the sentence back to The National Alliance also propagated the myth that Israeli Jews were advised not to report to work at the World Trade Center that day. It's been changed repeatedly to replace "propagated the myth" with "claimed" on the premise that the first is PV while the second is neutral and factual, since calling anything a "myth" is allegedly POV. That change seems unjustified. -- BCorr|Брайен 15:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The status of their claim as a "myth" is disputed and it is not necessary or NPOV for Wiki to state it as such. You have yet to satisfactorily respond to this claim. It seems that you want Wiki to reflect your own POV. Malathion 15:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's be fair here. Even Haaretz has publicised such reports: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C. ElBenevolente 15:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That isn't even the point. That "There is an international Jewish conspiracy" is a disputed claim. That "The National Alliance believes there is an international Jewish conspiracy" is not, and is also far more on topic for this article. This article is not written on the topic of whether there is such a conspiracy, and it is pointless for Wikipedia to make such a controversial statement about another topic when the real subject here is the National Alliance. Bcorr's habit of reverting changes correcting this error without participating in discussion is troubling. -- Malathion 15:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I propose as a compromise using the word "hoax" instead of "myth.

A Haaretz story that 2 people allegedly got IMs warning about an attack is very different from the story that the NA propagated. It is based on a September 17, 2001 story by Lebanese television station Al-Manar posted to its web site, claiming that 4,000 Israelis were absent from their jobs at the World Trade Center on September 11, thus implying that Israel was in some way behind the attack. Later versions were enhanced with the "fact" that "no Israelis were killed in the 9/11 attacks". The 4,000 Israelis that were "supposed" to be in the WTCs is a falsehood. There were approximately 3,000-4,000 Israelis in New York City that the Israeli government was concerned about.The story apparently has its roots in a statement by the Israeli embassy shortly after the attacks that it was trying to learn the status of some 4,000 Israeli citizens in the New York City area.

Is Malathion claiming that there is some proof that this is true, BTW? BCorr|Брайен 16:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a URL for these claims the NA made? ElBenevolente 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now you're just being dense. I don't think there is an international Jewish conspiracy any more than you do, nor have I ever suggested there is. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the National Alliance believes there is one and that passing judgment on their beliefs is not Wiki NPOV.

-- Malathion 17:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr, by replacing "myth" with "hoax", you have replaced one POV term with another. Your insistence that Wikipedia should be passing judgment on the National Alliance is disturbing and appears unfounded. -- Malathion 09:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you guys think your doing, but we are not an editorial staff, and our function here is not to pass judgement on the positions of various political parties. Hoax and myth have no neutral place in describing the views of others. If you want the article to say something negative about these views (as if it needs doing) find a expert source to quote. Otherwise leave your personal assessments of the factual nature of others claims out of the article. Sam [Spade] 14:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think conspiracy theory is the best so far - it's even got the link - David Gerard 14:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cool, sounds like a win. If its a comfort to anybody, the National Alliance prob doesn't like "conspiracy theory" as a label for their theories much better than myth or hoax ;) Sam [Spade] 15:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" sounds good to me, although I'd like to word it in the context of their multiple theories about the "Jewish conspiracy." How about: "The National Alliance claims that Jews were secretly ordered out of the World Trade Center prior to the attacks as part of their theories about the international Jewish conspiracy." ? That seems fair to both sides. Malathion 00:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with David Gerard and Sam Spade. Conspiracy theory is accurate and I don't think that it's necessary to "place it in context." BCorr|Брайен 00:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

defining the "AntiSemitic" label

There are actually websites that openly and repeatedly call for violence against Jews. The National Alliance does not appear do this in the slightest, but they do criticise the actions of many Jewish and Zionist organizations and they do support Hitler who conducted wide scale murder of jews. However, they appear to applaud some dissident Jews such as Norman Finkelstein; they even sell and promote his book "The Holocaust Industry" on their website.

As in the use of virtually any adjective that refers to one's behavior, the term "AntiSemitic" is purely a matter of judgement, and expressing such opinionated labels as uncontested fact needs to be avoided, especially when dealing with such a potentially libelous accusation.

There are numerous print examples of National Alliance literature that are openly contemptuous of Jews. Not everything is on the Internet. The National Alliance is an antisemitic White supremacist hate group.--Cberlet 03:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attacking Jews as a people is anti-semitic behavior, and it is exhibited on the pages of the National Vanguard magazine, available online. For example, Dividing the Race. I don't think that anyone has to worry about losing a court case over libelling the National Alliance by calling them anti-semitic. But thanks for the concern. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Willmcw, except that the term "anti-Semitic" itself is meaningless. — Chameleon 13:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

white supremacist

The National Alliance may sometimes prefer white separatist, but their publications for many years have been openly white supremacist. Not just watchdog groups, but most scholalry texts on the group call it white supremacist and neonazi. --Cberlet 03:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If a "scholarly text" were to write something about how all they want is a nice, white community for people who want it - they're perfectly fine with letting liberals live with the diversity they so love but don't seem to live in currently - and defined the National Alliance as white separatist, then the writers of that text would be expelled for "hate speech" and would have to go to some other country to continue their education. So don't be surprised when no "scholarly texts" are that popular saying that the National Alliance is simply a white separatist organization. 70.78.209.117 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deleted material

I've removed the following chunks, some of it is incomprehensible and much of it contains POV or unsupportable statements. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tension was aggravated, as opponents such as the Anti-Defamation League and SPLC took advantage of the situation by infiltrating and claiming the Alliance was falling apart and that the new leadership was incompetent. The ADL and SPLC continue to maintain these claims despite the fact that the Alliance has largely stabilized with the new leaders and following the formation of the new Executive Committee, and in spite of recent displays of organizational and financial competence such as massive successful literature distributions, billboards being erected, as well as popular festivals and concerts being organized.

While Gliebe was known to have been quite competent at directing the business aspects of the organization, in the nature of his management of Resistance Records, he was not seen by many as possessing the same qualities of intellectual capacity and learnedness which Pierce possessed in obvious over-abundance. Furthermore, it was thought by some that the intellectual prowess of some other members, such as Kevin Alfred Strom, were being squandered by Gliebe.

The new leadership often dismissed these allegations outright, and as a product of this, it was said that the new governship retained the autocratic, centralized nature as characteristic of the organization under Pierce, while somewhat neglecting the well-toned air of academic control cultivated under Pierce.

The choice for National Alliance members now is whether to follow the leadership of Walker, favoring the traditionally centralized, autocratic government, or the arguably more intellectually bent leadership of the National Vanguard's Executive Board.

"Cited" propaganda tactic

There has been a revision war recently over the following sentence:

 The group describes it as a call for all races to embrace their various "heritages", but it has also been cited 
 as a propaganda tactic to shroud their other racist messages.

You cannot say that it "has been cited" without actually providing a reference. Otherwise this is nothing but weasel language that is unsubstantiated and a disguised attempt to have Wikipedia pass judgment on the National Alliance. --Malathion 02:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's nonsense for you to pretend that the facts aren't consistent with the message, but for your edification, the Anti-Defamation League does call them on the blatant hate in their message. Here is a recent press-release about the "Love" day, just to satisfy your call for every Wikipedia fact to have documentation. Perhaps put down the Turner Diaries and invest in a little common sense?--The Grza 07:29, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion on this issue but I would suggest that you take a look at some Wikipedia policy articles, in particular Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule. Your tendency to imply that anyone trying to achieve a level of intellectual honesty with regard to this article must be a neo-Nazi or a NA sympathizer is missing the point, and this endless revision war needs to stop. If you refuse to discuss this civilly I guess I'll have to ask to have the article protected and mediated. I don't think it should be necessary to do that.

It's certainly the case that some hate-group watchdog organizations like the ADL have made such statements, so yes, the edit is in some sense factually accurate. My problem is that the wording seems to come off sounding like Wikipedia is making a judgment against the National Alliance. I'll make some edits to see if we can find something to agree on. --Malathion 11:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know those policies and I didn't violate any one of them. Your edit is fine, it doesn't seem that different to me. The attacks on the page were in effect repeating NA propaganda as if this really was an attempt to help all races, and there is no person on the globe who can be intellectually honest and ignore the fact that NA is an incredibly racist and violent group who attacks other races for their existence, and even this stupid love day tactic comes complete with a blonde haired, blue-eyed aryan woman on the front of the poster. So, my whole point is that trying to justify the NA and their tactics is incredibly blind and racist, which is not a personal attack or a breach of civility, but a statement of fact.--The Grza 17:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section

I've removed the following section because it seems to pretty much duplicate info that appears earlier in the article.

Deleted section

Beginning in 2002, a power struggle arose within the Alliance, as many members, both rank-and-file as well as respected officials, were divided as to whether or not the new leadership would continue to carry out Pierce's program in full. Although most felt the new leaders would do their best, a vocal minority insisted that Pierce's policies were being abandoned.

On April 20, 2005, the Anti-Defamation League outlined a significant ongoing dispute within the National Alliance, which it believes will lead to a "rapid collapse" of the organization. [1] As of April 30, 2005, a large and sudden split within the Alliance has taken place. This division is seen as having been in the making since the death of Pierce, and the ascension of Gliebe as the new chairman of the organization.

An Executive Committee was formed to provide "check, balance and oversight of the governship of the National Alliance body". The committee gave Gliebe a Declaration of Leadership which demanded openness and accountability. Gliebe claimed this represented a coup against the National Alliance, and the declaration was not accepted. Strom, a key member of the Executive Committee, has since left (or been expelled), and has encouraged his supporters within the National Alliance to join him and his lieutenants in a new organization called National Vanguard. Gliebe resigned as chair and became director of Resistance Records.

Supremacists?

I altered the White Supremacists to White Separatists, because that is what the National Alliance stands for, but then I read the Controversia sign wich says to read the discussion page before making any changes to the main article. So I am posting here to see if you agree with this:

A White supremacist is one who wants the whites to reign above other races

A White Separatist is one who wants to separate the white race from others

The National Alliance is the second option, so it is White Separatist. Should I change the article?

Thanks ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.184.167.11 (talk • contribs) .

The form of white separatism espoused by William Pierce is know to the rest of the world as "white supremacism". I think that the existing text properly describes both sides of the issue. -Willmcw 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== A:

It does cover both parts of the issue, I just tought that calling it White Supremacism was wrong and were I editing it I wouldn't even mention it, for reasons exposed above by myself, but I will check the page White Supremacism and read what it says.

==

Out of curiousity, how do you think the NA proposes to make racial separation occur? A variety of races are all intermixed in communities across the world. Since separation would be virtually impossible, the real goal appears to be a return to segregation with the white population in a pre-eminent position. I'm interested to hear your view of what policies the National Alliance has pursued to create separation. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

== A:

I don't know, but they did mention sending non-whites, especially blacks to Africa during the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina because they were causing mayhem shootin rescuers etc. Later I will put the link to where this is mentioned, but it does not mean this is really how they want to do it, I don't really know. I don't know if it is "impossible" to separate the races, but they certainly don't stand for ethnic groups living together with the whites ruling. They want an all-white country instead. Later I will provide you the link. ;-)

If you want to correct spelling errors in my writing please do, I'm brazilian and interested in learning english better. ==

White Supremacists is not accurate for stating at the head of the article. The Nationail alliance says they are a White Nationalist organization and do not advocate white supremacy officially. It is a personal opinion as to if they are a white supremacy organization and that is why I changed it. When stating there organization officially I think its best to go with White Nationalist or White Seperatist and then below say they have been labeled as a white supremacist group by anti hate groups. I think that is fair, balanced, and accurate without giving an unecessary POV.

71.131.245.179 01:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the article should continue to refer to them as white supremists. When segregation was happening, white supremists would insisst they weren't rascist, they just thought "blacks should be seperated" and claimed their facilities were "seperate but equal", every educated person knows this was bullshit, just like they know the National Alliance is a white supremist organization.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Officially they are white nationalists and that is what should remain. As you said everyone thinks its bullshit so I dont see why its important. People will still come to the conclusion without being it drawn for them by editors. It is not a fact officially that they are a white supremacist organization and they always deny it. Therefore the reader has to make up their own minds. I am sure they will come to the conclusion on their own. If you can find me a link where the national alliance officially says they are a white supremacist organization it should stay but otherwise it needs to remain white nationalist officially.

71.131.245.179 20:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant intro

The intro twice mentions that the group self-identifies as "white nationalist" but critics believe they are "white supremacist". This redundancy should be fixed. We don't need this comment twice in one paragraph! Phiwum 11:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the article

What do people think about moving this article to National Alliance (United States) and placing National Alliance (disambiguation) here? I only suggest this as some of the other NAs are of greater importance to their domestic politics than the American one (notably in Italy). However, considering this particular article attracts a lot of edits and has a huge number of links I though i would be beter to see what the general opinion was before going ahead with any move. Keresaspa 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locked for vandalisim.

I saw something on the National Alliance on TV today. So I went to this page and noticed that someone was claiming this was a homosexual group, founded by a gay prostitute. While I absolutly do not agree with the National Alliance, there is no excuse for vandalism in the article. Anyone who wants to unlock it, go ahead. 3D jonny 19:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claim?

Why does it say they claim to be a white nationalist group? They can be white nationalist and white supremacist. If their supremacism is in dispute, that should not effect the fact that they are white nationalist as well, since that is what they call themselves it would not simply be a claim.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.215.8 (talk • contribs) January 6, 2007 (UTC)

White supremacist

That's the way its described by reliable sources (according to our criteria). Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NatAl denied inheritance will in Canada!

There's a story circulated all over canuck news channels. National Alliance was denied a $200K inheritance will from some evil racist. Bnai Brith helped this court ruling, very satisfied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.146.190 (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory discussion

Wikipedia generally does not cite white supremacist websites, independent secondary sources are needed to claim the group is still active, and that it is the same group and not an imitation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor who waspreviously blocked for edit warring is at it again, inserting claims that someone who has ties to North Carolina has taken control of the group.

We don't cite white supremacist websites, but we do not allow those sorts of changes to be made without sources either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should cite so-called "white supremacist" websites and not so-called "independent secondary sources", when the article is actually on those particular groups or websites.Why? Because ANY primary and direct sources are always more up to date and are more factual. It is the same group, as the addresses and po boxes are the same. No one said that anyone in NC has taken over the group. William White Williams, the new NA Chairman, lives in Tennessee.

The SPLC is often mentioned as being a "reliable independent secondary source by Wikipedia"? Sure it is! LOL! :D

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.84 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That will never happen. Read WP:PRIMARY as this is Wikipedia policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else thinking we should just go on and treat the IP as WP:NOTHERE? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

logo

What does that symbol mean? It is like the symbol of national crows party (Alfred J. Kwak) or like upsidedown hippi symbol of peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.95.230.168 (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Lebensrune. The Rune of Life. And ancient German symbol. Also called Elhaz. 112.198.77.39 (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look for Algiz

Algiz

84.95.229.31 (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Alliance (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051113035550/http://www.nationalvanguard.org:80/printer.php?id=4913 to http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=4913

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Alliance (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Alliance External Links

Grayfell, et al. appear to be removing links from the article ruse of wikiguidelines, but really for what appears to be a political agenda. For example, Official links AKA WP:ELOFFICIAL, An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

National Vanguard Official News Portal of National Alliance
White Biocentrism Official Forum and Community of National Alliance

These are obviously relevant links to the organization, but grayfell, et al. are removing them from the article, even though relevant. TonyMorris68 (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:EL. The forum is linked to the offical website, so we don't link it separately. I see no evidence that the National Vanguard website (which makes me want to puke just looking at it) is an official news portal of the National Alliance. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How can we make this a "Good Article"

I am an opponent of the National Alliance, but would like to think that I have improved it somewhat over the last month or so. I think that NA members should contribute to either expanding this article or clarifying some points within it. You might even cause a consensus among Wikipedians that the NA is back, as I quoted Will Williams as saying in the WW subsection. We don't have to be at cross purposes: I think that the NA is misguided but have tried to summarize its recent history using what RS's say, and would welcome a good faith effort from the organization to engage in apologetics about itself. Help me out here. 47.137.184.131 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother asking. Several NA members have tried adding information or tried to correct the misinformation and downright lies on this page, but it always gets deleted. The NA has been back and growing since 2015, but somebody (or somebodies) doesn't want people to know. The information is out there and plain to see, just not here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:7009:100:f03d:7f11:73b3:94f3 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must declare your conflict of interest before editing. NM 07:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a very bad idea for anybody with a conflict of interests to try to edit the article. Anybody who has any independent Reliable Sources showing that this organisation is still active to a notable degree, and that it really is the same organisation and not just a new group reusing the name, is feel free to suggest them here. Blank assertions will get you nowhere but good sources might. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their Website should be added in the Introduction

https://www.natall.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.239.8 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? First, intros aren't the appropriate place for URL's. Second, there is a link in the info box. Squirrel Nest (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmotheist Church

I have found a source that I think will be useful to expand the Cosmotheist church section:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324161710_Cosmotheism_and_the_legacy_of_william_pierce_The_stormfront_connection

However, it contradicts the existing sources by stating that "(Christian Identity) is not the same as Cosmotheism."

I would like interested editors to review the source and suggest how best to incorporate it into the article, and clarify if it is neccesary to scrap the other sources or somehow merge the conflicting information.

Also, it appears that someone tried to edit recently, and gave reason as that the organization opposes Christianity. Clearly, the existing sources say that it is, but given that the source linked above agrees with that editor, maybe there is something to their claim. 2600:1012:B138:62A8:0:32:8393:CE01 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else recently tried to contradict the religious aspect as being CI. If Cosmotheism is not CI, fine, but y'all need to find and provide some reliable sources that say so. I mean, the last edit just swapped Cosmotheist for Christian Identity, but left the sources.2600:1012:B147:4D6F:0:2C:39E2:9F01 (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]