Talk:Racism/Archive 6

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

← Archive 5 |

Archive 6

| Archive 7 →

Removed

Removed from article -- perhaps someone can rework this and add it to racial profiling, but I'm not sure... BCorr|Брайен 01:23, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

The rationalisation for this viewpoint is that the most widespread form of terrorism currently is Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism. As a result, a fundamentalist Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist than a white female Christian This howeever, is not a racial factor, as the connection is between the attribute of the person (fundamentalist Muslim) and the group (terrorist). However, since Islam is associated with certain countries (Arab states, Pakistan, North Africa, etc.), and since fundamentalist Muslims are all Muslims, people from these countries (who are more likely to be Muslim than someone who appears to be White and Swedish), are statistically more likely to be terrorists.

[P0M:] I don't understand why the above passage was inserted into the article on racism -- unless as an example of covert racism. ;-) It is the same argument, with the same defects, as other explanations given in support of profiling. If I had to check passangers boarding a plane for possible terrorists, I might well pay special attention to the 6' 2" poker-faced male wearing elevator shoes, and I might pay little attention to the 86 year old grannie in a wheel chair. But the bomb might be packed inside the hollow magnesium frame of the wheelchair. Looking for the obvious factors may blind us to the subtle factors.

I moved this to the profiling article

There are undisputed physical differences between races, such as skin pigmentation, physical build (for instance the movie White men can't jump illustrates the fact that top basketball players are disproportionately black; there are almost no top-class black swimmers, apparently due to different body shapes, not well-adapted to swimming), facial appearance (for instance East Asians tend to have flatter noses than caucasians, who will typically have a more angular bony nose), and numerous other physical attributes. These self-evident (and much less controversial) physical differences are used by some to imply that there are mental differences between races: the theory is that if there are physical differences, there would be mental differences as well.

[P0M:] This passage is an attempt to give racism some intellectual foundations or scientific substantiation. The problem is that while nobody seriously doubts that the average person from Africa looks different from the average person from Sweeden, i.e., that people whose ancestors have lived in different parts of the world for tens of thousands of years are going to show different adaptations to their environments, nevertheless, even simply going from some superficial characteristic like dark skin color or light skin color to categorize the individual as a member of one or another ancestral group is not reliable. A person with a white skin may be an Ainu from Japan, and a person with a very dark skin may be from Sri Lanka. No heritable characteristic is permanently linked to any other heritable characteristic, but that is what is entailed by the belief (not the theory) that physical differences are linked to mental differences. P0M 04:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restored this content - it didn't justify racism, it just presented a source of racist beliefs.

I'm removing this again. Please do some considerable reworking if you want to put in something about sources for racist beliefs. There are many other sources of such beliefs -- religious ideas about reincarnation leading to people who were good being rewarded by being reborn as white, dark-skinned people being cursed because of their progenitor disobeying God; reductive arguments saying that if a group of people performs worse on certain tests they are objectively inferior; the fact that Europeans prospered in the Americas while the indigenous people died off demonstrates their inherent superiority; etc. Selecting one narrow set of such belief for inclusion distorts the article -- and I would argue that attempting to put all of these (and many others) into the article would too much unfocused information. -- BCorr|Брайен 13:41, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and just reverted again. To the author: for obvious reasons we must be very careful when discussing causes of racism not to reproduce racist beliefs ourselves. As Bcorr says, we need to research this. Are you making this stuff up, or have you done serious research? If this is just what you think, you are violating Wikipedia policy and I urge you to go to the community portal and peruse the various relevant sites (What Wikipedia is, what Wikipedia isn't, NPOV, FAQs, and so on). What you wrote shows a tremendous ignorance of scholarly research on race and simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein

Just to add to this: We must also be careful when discussing racism not to oppose racist beliefs either. Rather, we should describe all beliefs in a neutral manner. I don't understand, anyway, how the above paragraph does either. It says "used by some", thus removing Bcorr's objection. I agree it could be better written, but I don't see an attempt by anyone to engage with the content. Be careful when there are a handful of users with the same beliefs working on the same article (as there are here) that the article does not simply become a subtle reflection or endorsement of those users' beliefs. (Also, be careful with citing "scholarly research", as a widespread (and valid) POV on many social science subjects is that academia has institutionalized certain beliefs.) -- VV 21:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree of course with your first few sentences. However, I still have objections to the paragraph in question. To say that races are marked by "undisputed physical differences" is silly and disregards much of the article on race -- all people are physically different (even identical twins!); that different societies use physical difference to distinguish race (and of course, recently -- in Roman times it was different or at least far more complicated) must be qualified and analyzed and not be taken for granted. To make the reference to the film White Men Can't Jump not as a stereotype (or ironic comment on the stereotype), but as an "undisputed" physical difference, is an example of what I object to. Slrubenstein

Usanism

this is apparently hooey [1] Sam Spade 10:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] It appears that it should have been titled "USA-ism". I've never heard the term, but the phenomenon seems familiar. P0M 19:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Slanderously

PV, your use of the word slanderously in your last edit here is POV. Thanks for your concern. - Fennec 15:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! Almost the entire article is written with a slanderous pov, Fennec. A Social Marxist and Politically-correct pov verses any NPOV or any factually-accurate pov. What else isn't new?-PV

Question on Intended Meaning

I just noticed the sentence: "Those who feel it is a different concept, when negativity or hatred is not proscribed, call themselves racialists." I am not sure what the intended meaning is. Was the author trying to say that some people desire to speak of an attitude not characterized by negativity or hatred that still deals with differential treatment for people of different [races], and that they characterize that stance as "racialist"? To "proscribe" means "to denounce, to forbid, to interdict." So the original sentence says that if it is not forbidden to be negative or hateful then there is some attitude toward people of a different genetic heritage that gets called "racialism." I doubt that was the intent of the author of that sentence. P0M

Fundamental inequalities between races in Wikipedia treatment

What follows is a discussion that was erroneously started on the wrong page - the issue was first raised by User:66.185.84.80. Please note that the IP 66.185.84.80 is a shared Canadian IP that is being used here by the banned user User:Paul Vogel. <- BCorr

• I am not Paul Vogel, I don't even know who he is. Before a week ago, I rarely ever visited Wikipedia beyond random reads on topics of interest during surfing. I think it shows bad judgement of you to ban me for unfounded suspicions of being another user, and right as I was in an debate too. I think you are trying to find an excuse to censor me. I demand an apology. - 66.185.84.80

66.185.84.80's issue: I wish to have this issue addressed by more people. For it is clear, when surfing the various race-related articles such as Jews, African-American, Blacks, Caucasian, Whites, and racism, that articles involving the issue of race does not at all give even approximately equal treatment to the various races and ethnicities. In fact, White people seem to consistantly get the deep end of this. Specifically, I bring up that,

• a) Articles about the White race/people discusses the existance and validity of race in disparaging terms, while articles about non-White races does the exact opposite: they contain a lot of encouragement, affirmation, and information about history, accomplishments, and inequalities faced. I submit to you that had this been the other way around, then comparisons to Nazi-Germany and allegations of the grossest of racism would not have been far away.
• b) All articles writing about racism utterly fail in also presenting racism against Whites as an phenomenon of significance, when many public figures and books make it clear that racism is a two-way thing, and that hatred against Whites is just as rampant, if not even more so, than hatred from Whites towards other races. Further, modern institutionalized racism against Whites is not discussed as racism like institutionalized racism against other races immediately is.

Thank you. Please reply with your opinion on this.

I am uncertain exactly what you're going for here. Whites does not appear to suggest that race does not exist, though it does bring up the opinion that some have that white is not a racial category. Caucasian race is a little more suggestive that race doesn't exist - I think that article is in need of a rewrite. That said, half of African-American is made up of criticism of that term, so I have trouble viewing this as systemic racial bias.

Furthermore, Affirmative action discusses many of the issues of racism against whites, as does Reverse discrimination.

I do not think that the problem you are describing exists. Snowspinner 22:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the term African-American is under criticism, but that is because the term itself is thought of to be invalid in that it does not account for White Africans, or Black non-Africans. The Black race is not, and should not, be said to not exist, or be spoken of in disparaging terms. Further, there are a variety of pages under the Black issue, dealing with civil-rights leaders, problems they have faced, et cetera. Another point you bring up are the specific pages of "Reverse Discrimination" (a false term, racism is racism regardless of race) and "Affirmative Action." Giving note that "some say this or that" in "Reverse Discrimination" while ignoring to give racism against Whites equal treatment in racism is not fair at all. Why can't we just treat everybody the same, and allow both PC and non-PC truths under the main articles of a discussion? Thanks for the feedback. - 66.185.84.80

The problem is that "racism", as a word, is generally used in one sense, and if Wikipedia were to use it in a different sense, Wikipedia would become unintelligible. We are bound to the meanings of words, and to generlaly accepted usages and concepts. Racism against whites isn't talked about very much, and few consider it to be racism as such. I'm not sure what white civil rights leaders you'd want represented. There aren't that many. As for Black, the section of that on race suggests the term to be as broad and problematic as Whites does the term "white". Again, I can't find any real instances of what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific. Snowspinner 22:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement about how we should avoid writing about a simple truth simply because current society generally suppresses its discussion. I am speaking of course about the fact that racism is racism, and that Whites are targeted just as much, if not even more, than other races when it comes to getting the shitty end of the stick because of their race (not to mention the "normal" racism like the common use of words such as "cracker," "whitebread" in negative applications). Also, racism have a definition, and it does not depend upon the race of the victim, so your assertion that racism should discuss only racism against non-Whites because that's how you think the word is understood at large, is problematic for me. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I submit that we should write about all that falls under the term and its definition without trying to promote any political agendas by hiding the "bad truth" under a different, whitewashed name, in some rarely linked page. What is currently going on is gravely offensive to me as a White person, and I would understand how it felt for people of other races if the situation was reversed. I think that being racist against a group which does not have strong political pressure groups advocating their rights and wellbeing is just as bad as being racist to any other race. - 66.185.84.80

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and ought reflect things as they are. It is not a force for social reform. It should not uncover hidden and suppressed truths. Racism is not used in the context you're describing it as in any general usage. This may be offensive to you, but Wikipedia is not the place for that reform to begin. Enlighten the world as to white racism, then Wikipedia will change to reflect that. But do not try to enlighten the world as to an unrealized evil through Wikipedia. Snowspinner 22:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not talking about dedicating an important page to some obscure issue noone cares about. I am talking about excerting some basic objectivity, and write of the truth as it is about a major issue, instead of looking to official western political dogma as the only truth that must be included in an encyclopedia entry for a term with a clear definition. But I am curious, are you wholeheartedly convinced that racism against Whites is not racism, while it is racism in situations where racial roles have been reversed? And do you think that if the government had an official and consistant policy of getting less-qualified Whites into positions of education and career ahead of non-Whites, that this should be part of racism? If so, why not for Whites as well? Why not excert equality and objectivity here? It's the same thing, and saying that racism isn't bad anymore when commited against Whites is utterly racist and meanspirited in itself. - 66.185.84.80

There are five paragraphs in Racism on reverse racism. I continue to be unsure what you're asking for that isn't already in Wikipedia. Snowspinner 23:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

User:Hyacinth/Full disclosure. First let me note that, 66.185.84.80, you almost seem to be advancing an anti-affirmative action agenda. At the very least, it seems that you disagree with affirmative action as it now stands (which is fine). It seems that, 66.185.84.80 and Snowspinner, you are both talking about different things. Snowspinner, Wikipedia should indeed reflect reality, which includes not only terms and their usage, but the reality/irreality described and not described by those terms. I do agree with you that racism is usually understood to mean racism against non-white peoples in America. Wikipedia, like many things, has a strong pervasive American bias, and this seems to be one incidence of that. I, at the moment, do not agree with 66.185.84.80 that racism is mostly against white peoples. The burden of proof is on you here, and if you have sources which argue this please cite your sources. Also, feel free to add a paragraph to reverse discrimination regarding objections to the term itself. This too would be greatly improved by citing sources, and I imagine that someone has been critical of the term itself. More importantly, I hope someone has directed you to Wikipedia's policy on neutrality: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Hyacinth 02:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As a note, I do think that cases like Zimbabwe should be added to the racism article. Preferably by someone with more than a passing familiarity with the situation. However, I'm unconvinced that Wikipedia should try to take on the rather awesome task of uncovering the reality hidden by the limitations of language. Not that this isn't a concern of mine. I do critical theory. Just that I don't think Wikipedia is the place to launch those concerns - at least not on a level beyond acknowledging the degree to which they're already being discussed. I remind all involved of the policy against original research. Snowspinner 04:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Hyacinth, you say that I "almost seem" to be "advancing an anti-affirmative action agenda" when the truth of racism in "Affirmative Action" is merely another point to my above complaint. Per the mainstream definition of racism (different treatment based on race), "Affirmative Action" definitely is racism (and that's a hard fact, not bias), institutionalized at that, so I am of course against it. But, I am not trying to advance any agenda except that of taking a second look at pages that are purposely leaving out facts just because politically correct "thought-nazis" wouldn't be comfortable unless only what they are activists for is known. Some basic objectivity is all I ask for. I don't think you need to have a mind that can't rationalize itself for or against something in order to value and practice objectivity and justice in a cooperative work on what essentially is meant to be a book of fact.

Without accusing you of inserting your views on things that are meant to be neutral, may I remind you (since you reminded me) that you, according to your own writing on the "Full Disclosure" page, are highly biased? For example, you dispense with the scientifically correct term "homosexual" (this describes the phenomenon of being attracted to one's own gender in pure NPOV) in favor of the contemporary fad term "gay" (happy), and you also let it be known that you are an activist for a number of causes, including "Affirmative Action" (pro). I hope you see my point instead of taking it as an insult. I am trying to illustrate that all people have biases one way or the other, otherwise they wouldn't have a sane brain. And at the same time, we can all work together to maintain neutrality and non-spin in a factbook.

As for the levels or racism one way or the other, we can't possibly measure it, because you and Snowspinner have rather special definitions of racism that means that it is only racism when done against non-Whites. When done against Whites, you don't think of it as racism anymore, not unless it is *very* explicit like the ethnic-economical cleansing in Zimbabwe.

- 66.185.84.80

You misunderstand my point. I don't claim that anti-White sentiment isn't racism. I claim that it isn't existant. Snowspinner 06:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you do, because of your definition. That's exactly my point. You claim anti-White sentiment isn't existant even when Mugabe is on a mission to clean his land of White devils, the US government makes schools and places of work give you less points if you are White, and crime stats shows that White people are highly victimized in hate-crimes as well. And the best part is, you bravely admit to it. - 66.185.84.80

I have already indicated support for including Zimbabwe. I cannot help but notice that Affirmative Action has not spelled the end of whites getting better paying jobs, better standards of living, better education, and fewer arrests than other races, making me wonder how meaningful getting "fewer points" if you're white is. That said, articles on Affirmative Action are more than amply balanced to account for the opposing POV, so I'm not sure what your issue is. As for crime statistics, I'm going to go ahead and question that without some further evidence. Note that none of this has to do with a definition of racism, and all of it has to do with actually looking at the alleged instances of anti-White sentiment you're citing. Snowspinner 06:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course you will "question" the existence of anti-White hate crime. You are completely shut off to the idea that non-Whites are racists too, perhaps because you are one(?). To put it in your own words, "I don't claim that anti-White sentiment isn't racism. I claim that it isn't existant". You aren't particularly open-minded if that is the style you are going for.

But let's prove it for you then. Here is the second result on Google for the term "hate crime statistics": http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

Well, the statement crime stats shows that White people are highly victimized in hate-crimes as well has been proven already, but I'd like to note that this is a 1995 edition, while some of the ones I have seen earlier from more recent years showed that Whites were in fact the #1 hate-crime victim. And I'm not even going to dwell into how many cases might be reported as standard crimes because of people with the same mindset as you, who refuse to file hate-crimes against Whites as anything other than a normal non-racially motivated crime.

Additionally, you defend yourself by saying that you don't see how "Affirmative Action" can be that bad for Whites. According to fact (and even the majority in society), it is still racism (mainstream definition="different treatment based on race"). Now, whether you see that racism as good, bad, progressive, cool, or evil, is a completely other thing. - 66.185.84.80

The mainstream definition of racism, going from dictionary.com, which can usually be trusted in its lousiness to totally fail to reflect any subtlties in the usage of the word, is discrimination based on race - not merely different treatment. As for your FBI numbers, come on - look at them. Think about the numbers per capita. Consider the number of whites there are to commit hate crimes against, compared to the number of blacks, and then tell me with a straight face that those numbers point to any sort of institutionalized or substantive anti-white trend in America. Look at the arrest rates, and compare them to regular arrest rates by race. Put the numbers in some context, and they immediately show a trivial amount of anti-white crime per capita. About .00067% of whites were victims of a hate crime, compared to .011% of blacks. In other words, blacks are six times more likely to be victims of hate crimes. Nationally, whites make up 37.3% of incarcerations, compared to 60.1% for blacks. In terms of hate crimes, whites make up 53.2% of those arrested, whereas blacks only make up 26.7%. So, no, the statistics don't give you any real support for a claim of institutionalized or substantive anti-white racism in the United States when you actually look at the numbers. As for Affirmative Action, I point out again that criticisms of Affirmative Action exist in the relevent articles. What are you really looking for here? Snowspinner 07:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Now you are straying way of course because you lost the argument, and you are displaying typical trolling behaviours. You claimed that there exists no anti-White sentiment whatsoever. I claimed that Whites are in fact also a targetted group in hate crime statistics. I proved my claim right and your claim wrong off-hand, and it took me two seconds. You saying that Whites being more populous than other races is the reason - a surplus of "targets" that is - doesn't change a thing about that. You don't even consider that a surplus of "targets" also is a surplus of "offenders," what a scientific method you use! ;) - 66.185.84.80

No, what I demonstrated is that, compared to their share of the population, anti-White hate crimes are completely negligible, and cannot be taken to be evidence of any sort of existing sentiment in the population at large. It's hardly a controversial scientific method to note that, when dealing with uneven populations (such as racial ones) raw numbers don't give you nearly as much data or information as rates and percentages do. As for the targets/offenders split, look again. When I move to talking about offenders, I switch to percentage makeup of prison populations. In other words, whites make up a disproportionately large number of perpetrators of hate crimes compared to the general criminal population.

But, however entertaining I find undermining bad use of statistics, you've yet to answer my main question, asked in most of my comments. Many of the articles in question already contain mentions of exactly what you want. Affirmative action and reverse discrimination are discussed in racism as well as in Affirmative action. Articles on blacks call into question the definition of that racial group just as much as Whites does. Hate crime doesn't mention race one way or another, except to list it as a category of hate crime. You have yet to offer any specific examples of the deficiencies you claim exist in Wikipedia. And, honestly, the more I look at articles, the more I think your view has already gotten itself more representation on Wikipedia than it does in most sources.

Please - what concrete things are you looking for here? Snowspinner 14:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Some Fundamental Issues

§ One of the problems with writing about racism is that of whatever stripe it involves a core belief in something that is not real -- [race] (which I put in phenomenological epoche to remind myself of what I am trying to speak clearly about). People often are aggressed against because of superficial characteristics. An Ainu walking on West Tioga street in Philadelphia might catch some opprobrium intended for a [white] person -- because the skin color of Ainu people is white. A Shan tribal person just in from Ching Mai in Thailand, when walking into a posh manicure parlor on Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia might be treated with disrespect because of her black skin color. [P0M]

§ Targeting someone for aggressive acts because one is [white], [black], or whatever is problematical behavior in any society. People who are concerned that the society function well may take legal and/or other measures to deal with these aggressive acts. One approach to dealing with this kind of behavior has been to try to expose the weaknesses of the ideological rationalizations for the agressive acts. One part of that approach is to point out that the "marker" characteristics (skin color, etc.) are not reliable predictors of anything more than, e.g., likelihood of developing skin cancer. [P0M]

§ The person who appears to be [American Indian] may turn out to be [Chinese], so what is your justification for predicting anything else about the individual if you cannot even be sure of your identification of [race]? [P0M]

§ Being targeted for aggressive acts because one has white skin color, black skin color, or because one bears whatever "marker" characteristics is hard on the individual directly and also because that individual's whole community is likely to be impaired because of the same kind of attacks. People who are concerned that their society functions well may take measures to redress imbalances created by these accumulated aggressive acts. [P0M]

§ To evaluate "special favors" correctly, one must look at social context. If the community of [Chinese] in X-ville is being attacked, it would make sense to me to offer special protection to anybody who even looked Chinese, such as the Navaho dentist who just moved to town. [P0M]

§ If somebody decided to have a "White History Day" in my own native place, s/he would be laughed out of town because that area has been about 99% white for the last 150 years, and the people who populated it came ultimately mostly from Europe. But if I were living in a small community of [white] people in China at a time when the majority population thought us ignorant savages, then an appropriate introduction to the positive accomplishments of Europeans over the centuries would be very helpful. [P0M]

§ So I can understand why it may seem that articles may give the impression that "the white race doesn't exist" and that the other [races] have glorious accomplishments. The other [races] do not exist either, but the people who are "tagged" with these racial identifications do exist. Whatever the genetic heredity of an individual, the culture of the land from which s/he came is his or her heritage and should be recognized for its positive achievements. That is not to say that one inherits genetically the accomplishments of the land and the people from which one stems, but that when others know the basics about that culture and its accomplishments they may be more likely to approach one with an open mind. Somebody like Ravi Shankar walking the streets of New York City may be viewed in a reflexively negative way by some people. The same individual playing the sitar is suddenly a window onto a marvelous heritage. P0M 03:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Definition of racialism

The identification here of racialism with white separatist ideologies isn't really accurate. The term means any distinction based on race, or any people who advocate any distinctions whatsoever based on race, whether in the short- or long-term. This includes many people of various races, including minority groups, who strongly identify with their race and consider it an important factor in their personal, political, or cultural identity. This arguably includes many members of black studies university departments, for example. --Delirium 23:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. The confusion over these terms only aggravates racial tensions as well, as people who see an importance in heritage are lumped together w those who revel in "hate crimes". I think the term "racialism" is beneficial, in that it allows some w racial opinions/views to distance themselves from those who wish to harm or oppress others. Sam [Spade] 00:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ideological racialism

Because I didn't find ideological racism to be represented on wikipedia with more than just mentioning it, i've spend some time looking at the website Stormfront and came up with the following conclusions. I'm not sure how representative or even valid those conclusions are. I don't feel comfortable about indenting content, because it makes it indistinguishable from replies, so instead I made it italic. I'd be interested in other racism-related online forums, especially in english and german, and of course in your opinion :o)

Ideological racialism is the identification with ones own race, similarily to the identification with ones religion or subculture. It might be based more on biological or more on cultural terms. The assumption that culture is more or less determined by race makes those two views compatible.

Groups like Stormfront are conglomerates of people having similiar shortterm rather than longterm goals. They are diverse in preferred political system, their motivations and their vision of a perfect world. What they widely agree upon is the protection of white race/culture, the segregation of the white and the other races and increasing cultural race-awareness. Some have respect for other races, but want territorial segregation to protect cultural/biological diversity (seperatism). Others believe in the unconditional divinity of the white race, and thus see any "contribution" from the outside (may it be genetic or cultural) as a degregation of what is good and will only get better on its own (racism). For a crude statistical overview over the properties of the Stormfront-members see the links provided in [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=80544 this thread].

To prevent splitting up as a social/political movement, similiarly to left wing groupations, they are careful about bringing up controversial issues between their members. Such discussions are often seen as a distraction from their primary goals and the attempt from the outside to "devide and conquer" the community.

Problems of society, widely recognized also amongst other, more commonly accepted social groups (like liberals or left wing activists), are looked at as race issues in racialist communities. The uniform, stupifying US media is seen as the Zionist attempt to weaken and rule the white race. The social penalization of controversial thought is seen as jew-inspired method to silence those who try to rebel against the Globalists plans of World Government. Ghetto subculture and violence is seen as the manifestation of the vile black nature. Affirmative action is shunned upon as a symptom of how surpressed the white race has become. Just to name a few.

--Ados 22:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

see nazi.org Sam [Spade] 06:11, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)