Mr. Bauer,
I find extensive parts of your post extremely
problematic.
"Definitely a difficult area you have chosen. I should
point out my personal position which is that while
theoretically a "white" nationalist organization could
exit which is not a neonazi organization, in practice,
they do not."
This kind of ignorance is precisely why I am so
adamant about balancing the Wikipedia entry. The most
basic level of white nationalism is advocacy of white
civil rights, i.e., a repeal of all racist laws which
enfranchise non-whites at the expense of whites:
affirmative action laws, the 1965 civil rights act
which abrogates freedom of association, federal hiring
quotas for minorities, etc. This is neonazism?
Creating a National Association for the Advancement of
White People would be neonazism? Advocating the idea
that white people should advance their interests as a
bloc, as Asians, blacks, Hispanics and Jews do is
neonazism?
Please review the writing at
www.Amren.com and get
back to me with the examples of neonazism you find
there.
"Your posting, 'Until now I've been relying on fair
play. I could of course bring this up at the
Stormfront.org board and have dozens of posters there
come here and join this controversy.', implies your
positionis congruent with that of
Stormfront.org which
appears to be a typical neonazi organization."
Eh?
Stormfront.org is an international white pride
Website, not a neonazi organization. It's simply a
Web board dedicated to discussion of anything and
everything of interest to ethnocentric white people.
Again you show that you just don't know what you're
talking about.
There is no single position or position-set to BE
congruent with at
Stormfront.org, as is the case with
every forum known to man.
"My personal position is that in the United States,
just as in Germany, such advocacy and organizations
should be criminalized, illegal, and dealt with in
Wikipedia articles in such a way that the racist
and totalitarian aspects are emphasized. In other
words, I'm not a civil libertarian."
That much is obvious, Mr. Bauer. What you suggests
sounds far more totalitarian than libertarian. My gut
instinct tells me that you are German, but that's just
a stab in the dark. I've encountered much the same
"totalitarian democratic" leanings in Germans before.
This sort of belief is distinctly un-American, and
frankly will never be legal here, without a further
shredding of our Constitution. We don't outlaw ideas
here, Mr. Bauer, in fact we consider such proposals
morally repugnant.
"This however is not Wikipedia policy which welcomes
all viewpoints andprovides that they be dealt with
from a neutral point of view."
Wikipedia policy also requires a "sympathetic"
treatment of subjects, in addition to a "neutral" one.
"This statement which you made in a previous post is
unarguable, "I DO expect it to fairly present WNist
beliefs as held by WNs themselves, rather than
present a anti-WN p.o.v." This presents a problem,
however, as the premier White Nationalist, Adolf
Hitler, consistently misrepresented his position, to
put it bluntly, he was a lier on a mass scale."
Adolf Hitler presents a single historical example of a
single position holdable within white nationalism, but
he is anything but "the premier white nationalist."
This kind of ridiculous thinking really baffles me.
It's like saying "Nixon, the premier Republican,
consistently lied to the American people, therefore
any sympathetic presentation of Republican party
ideology must consist of a pack of lies."
I'm wondering if this line of argument even meets the
threshold of requiring refutation.
"Any article written on White Nationalist positions
from a neutral point of view must in fairness point
out that history of outrageous lying."
I take that as a challenge. I can see now that this
is going to be a full-fledged battle. I propose that
this email list is insufficient to the task. I for
one am much more comfortable with a Web forum.
Unfortunately, I find neutral ground almost
non-existent. Perhaps you or another poster could
recommend a suitable venue? If you don't know of such
a place, I have a free speech forum in mind whose
admins might be amenable.
I would be glad to accept your implied challenge and
prove you wrong, but I have to warn you this involves
a protracted discussion, since white nationalism
involves a wide range of subject matter. We can keep
this between ourselves or broaden it to whoever seeks
involvement, I'll leave that up to you.
edit: after reviewing the paragraph I quoted above
again, I realized that you were simply conflating the
"lies" of Hitler with the ideology of white
nationalism. In that regard, my challenge above is
misplaced. White nationalism is only peripherally
related to National Socialism Mr. Bauer, and I am in
NO way interested in a debate about Hitler, or
National Socialism, or the inconsistencies of either.
My white nationalism is of the strictly modern kind.
"It is expressed today, for example, in holocaust
denial."
What is expressed today in holocaust denial?
Holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism are
essentially peripheral to white nationalism, at best.
I'd be willing to stipulate to the entirety of
holocaust orthodoxy for the purposes of argument.
"Although I have not examined every edit you made you
appear to have consientiously followed the
requirements Wikipedia makes for courtesy and while
you may, as a new user, have broken the 3 revert rule,
I could not
find any grounds for banning you, or even disciplining
you."
I appreciate that much at least. I am generally a
courteous person. When my blood gets up that changes
quickly, but I make every effort to comport myself
civilly. I did not make a single revert, as the logs
show, unless of course "revert" has meanings outside
of that used in the logs, i.e., if it means editing in
changes, then repeating those edits once they are
reverted again.
"You made controverial edits but attempted to discuss
them on the talk pages and in large part your
assertions were unanswered there."
Again, thank you for recognizing the truth. I found
it exceedingly frustrating to have my edits repeatedly
removed, and to subsequently receive a message
requesting that I discuss them on the talk page, only
to find no one was interested in talking at all.
Imagine how much more frustrated I became when a
Wikipedian kindly pointed out a series of links on
Wikipedia policy, which I reviewed and found far more
supportive of my actions than of the actions of my
reverters.
"You appear to be of Slavic ancestry, judging from
your name. Why on earth would you support such a
philosophy when Hitler's intent was to enslave (and
probably ultimately exterminate) all Slavs?"
Hitler was a Germanic nationalist, solely a
pro-Germanic racist. I am not. I'm not a National
Socialist either. Hitler informs my white nationalist
beliefs strictly in a (vague) historical sense - none
of my beliefs flow from Hitler. I am a pan-European
white nationalist, my ideologies are informed by the
present more than the past. In fact, a frequent bone
of contention between myself and certain other white
nationalists is the relevance of Hitler, the Third
Reich, the NSDAP, and National Socialism to modern
non-German white nationalism - I frankly think there
is little to none.
As for my ancestry, my name is misleading since it's a
pseudonym based on an historical figure. My ancestry
can best be described as American - my father's family
is of English extraction, and landed here before the
Revolutionary War. My mother's ancestry is
Dutch-Irish.
To be clearer - I consider Slavs to be white, and
welcome them to the fold of white nationalism as fully
as I do all other groups I consider to be white.
"I am not going to unban you, your ban is almost up
anyway, and perhaps you did violate the 3 revert
rule."
As I stated before, I didn't even know what a revert
was until after the hubbub and just prior to being
banned - I have never made a single revert to a
Wikipedia entry, in the 'technical' sense. As I said
before, I'm not sure of the connotations of the word
'revert' in the common parlance here.
"However you seem to have been improperly banned and
ought not to be provided you continue to edit in a
constructive and courteous way."
Courtesy and constructive behavior are not binary
issues, they exist in a continuum. I feel that I have
been treated discourteously, and in an unconstructive
way. It is safe to say that without public apologies
from all the offenders, that part of my courtesy and
constructiveness has been "used up" with regard to
these people.
With that exception in mind, I intend to do exactly as
you have written.
"For you own protection you need to continue to
attempt to discuss controversial edits on the talk
pages as you have been doing."
Rest assured that I will do so, in fact I intend to be
more scrupulous in that regard.
Thank you for your attention on this, you have at
least shown a propensity for fairness in regard to
evaluating my behavior, even if you have not done so
in informing yourself as to my beliefs.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/