Talk:Black supremacy: Difference between revisions

Earlier discussions on this article may be found here:

• Talk:Black supremacy/Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Most recent round of edits

I've made several edits to the text, which I believe are improvements. Doubtless, there will be some disagreement, but I've tried to provide an explanation with each change.

One rather large, wholesale edit is with regard to the following paragraphs:

It its simplest form, black supremacy is the belief in the inherent superiority of the "black race." Historically it has manifested itself among various religions or cults.

I've deleted the reference to "religions" or "cults," because it black supremacy is not, by far, limited to religious groups or cults. It's my experience that the majority of blacks in this nation who believe in the inherent superiority of blacks are not members of what might be commonly called the "lunatic fringe," do not belong to any cult or similar organization, and are either mainstream Christians or are irreligious. (I do, however, mention the word "cult" in a later reference to the Nation of Islam, where it does apply.)

Unlike many "white supremacists," who generally embrace the label, most "black supremacists" reject the term because of its implicit meaning. They do not regard their belief in black superiority as an equivalent opposite of white supremacy, rather, they claim they are advocating the love of their own people, self-acceptance and black pride and see themselves as a kind of self-empowerment for the historically marginalized and oppressed peoples.

This is not the heart of the issue. The rejection of the term is not to disguise their contempt for whites; many (usually on the fringe) are quite vocal about that. The distinction, the reason they reject the term is because of the implicit parallel to white supremacy and the way white supremacy functions in the world. Further, the section is poorly worded in an attempt to incorporate my earlier wording regarding the notion of "self-empowerment for historically marginalized oppressed peoples." And it is inaccurate. Again, there are lots of black supremacists who do not express this belief through organizations or cults targeted at the poor and dispossessed; they are everyday people. In this way, they are no different from lots of whites and Asians folks who believe black people are inherently inferior. It is misleading to pigeonhole black supremacists as though they are all loud, outspoken, militant, on-the-fringe nut cases "down for the cause."

Black supremacy as a core belief in the inherent superiority of indigenous peoples of Africa has been a thriving, if marginal, notion among blacks since the 1920s.

Black supremacy is certainly far, far older than that. Native Americans considered whites poor, stupid and pathetic when they first came into contact with them. Asians considered them "barbarians." Muslims considered them "infidels." Many West Africans' first impressions of Europeans were that they were low-minded; godless; ignorant and, of course, brutal, having no respect for their religious traditions, no respect for village elders or the virtue of their women. It's probably as old as black-white contact. It is in the unfortunate nature of civilizations/peoples to regard outsiders/"the other" through lenses colored by their own indigenous values and by historical precedent. That is why, when I wrote the original language, I used "the modern era" -- which is particularly relevant here because this article deals only with black supremacy from the Rastafari onwards.

Further, I have restored (again) some of the comparative information on black and white supremacy, because it is important. It is not an "apology" as the racist Wareware claims. In fact, I was not the one who originally included the quote from celebrated author bell hooks; someone else thoughtfully included it. She's a highly respected writer, and the quote is directly on point.

I also reverted (again) the change in order of the paragraphs. As an editor, I definitely would put the basic information about and elucidation of black supremacy before the examples of black supremacist organizations. People should understand the fundamentals of the concept before they find out who espouses it -- a strictly journalistic decision, which I think serves the article far better. (Though I admit it would be more striking to see the colorful image accompanying the info on Rastafari earlier on.) deeceevoice 15:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing: someone objected earlier to my use of "liberation theology" to describe some applications of black supremacist doctrine -- and changed the language -- on the basis that it LT is a Latin American concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the phrase may have been coined to characterize the practice of Catholicism among Latin American peasants who agitated for land reform and challenged the fascism, terrorism, violence and greed of often U.S.-supported military regimes in Latin America, the concept is a universal one; and the phrase has come to be more broadly applied. For example, no knowledgeable student of African-American history would dispute that enslaved Africans practiced liberation theology when they identified with Moses and the "children of Israel" and their exodus from Egypt. "He's a battle axe in the time of war and a shepherd in the time of the storm." That's from a traditional African-American spiritual. Denmark Vesey considered himself a prophet, an instrument of God -- as did John Brown. As well, few scholars would contest the use of the term to describe the heavily syncretic African "Christian" religious practice in the Americas during their centuries of bondage. deeceevoice 15:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point isn't what you think if black supremacy is connected with or similar to liberation theology, but if scholars generally apply this theology to black supremacy. Otherwise, you're doing original research again. It might make sense to you to make the connection but if it isn't backed up by sources, it shouldn't be here. A google search [1] shows only 37 results and that liberation theology and black supremacy aren't even mention in the same paragraph and there are no relations, even though you claim that one can describe another. That's original research. Can you show us a source where it says liberation theology is applicable to black supremacy? Otherwise I'd just stick with something similar "therapeutic self-empowerment." Wareware 19:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point is that "liberation theology" refers to the NOI's black nationalist "do for self" ideology. The NOI made a reputation for itself as a self-help organization. It got addicts off dope, prostitutes off corners, kept people out of prison, helped released convicts reestablish themselves, taught people to carry themselves with dignity and respect and discipline, established a huge network of black-owned businesses, etc., etc., etc., encouraging its members to "buy black." It reformed people lots of traditional black churches shunned. As other forms of liberation theology -- in Latin America and Africa -- the NOI was/is a religious organization that sought to address and redress the material, real-life socioeconomic difficulties its members face. It still does, though the NOI divested itself of its businesses (bakeries, restaurants, publications, supermarkets, barbershops, etc., etc., that employed thousands of adherents) years ago under Wallace Muhammad. It is these aspects of the NOI that historians and social scientists (and others) took note of when referring to it as a black nationalist or black separatist organization, its theology as liberation theology. It is these attributes of the NOI that are its most enduring legacy and what gave the NOI its street credibility in black communities across the country. It is these attributes of the organization that the U.S. government and municipal governments took note of when various administrators of public housing projects around the country employed members of the Nation of Islam (the Fruit of Islam) to provide security for government housing projects in the middle of the crack cocaine epidemic a couple of decades back. I've been acquainted with the NOI for years, and all this time never knew that it was a black supremacist organization, per se. There are other aspects of the NOI that have come to the fore in shaping perceptions of the organization, particularly since the black supremacist rhetoric has waxed and waned with different leadership, different circumstances, different movement objectives over time. Liberation theology also has been used to describe movements to uplift the downtrodden in Haiti, South Africa and other nations. The concept of liberation theology had been used more broadly, outside of the narrow confines of Latin American Catholicism, to refer to religion in the service of social and economic upliftment of the dispossessed for decades. It is in this context that the NOI as a religion is a kind of liberation theology. deeceevoice 19:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again you're the one making the connection between the rhetorics. Repeating it twice in greater extent doesnt make it any more legitimate. Can you give us a source, like from a book or even a website, that claims black supremacy as a kind of liberation theology? Another thing, in the context that you've written, liberation theology applies to black nationalism or black separatism, not black supremacy, especially in the way you described NOI. But the sentence reads Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed, so there's definitely something wrong with that. You seem to support that NOI is not a supremacist group, but a separatist one, so why meld supremacy and liberation theology together now? Wareware 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. Your contention was that I was attempting to equate liberation theology with black supremacy, which is not the case. The link with liberation theology and the Nation of Islam is its work in the black community for which it has been known for decades and in the light of which it has long been regarded by many in the African-American community. Liberation theology has nothing to do with black supremacy, but everything to do with, again, the use of religion as a tool in the upliftment and mental, spiritual, political and socioeconomic empowerment of the dispossessed. Such work of the NOI has in the past overshadowed its black supremacist dogma, which generally has been downplayed over time -- because that is the face of the NOI that generally has been most visible to outsiders, including to federal and municipal government officials. And that explains why the NOI has not traditionally been considered a black supremacist organization, but a black nationalist/black separatist organization, by sociologists and historians. That is one of the reasons the placing of the NOI on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of hate groups made such news (a fact which I've already added to the article). deeceevoice 11:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're not answering the question. The sentence highlighted clearly states that "black supremacy has manifested itself...as some kind of liberation theology." Can you read? If anything, liberation theology as you described it should go into black separatism or black nationalism, not black supremacy. The sentence would be okay if it were changed from black supremacy to black separatism. But as it stands, you're pretty much contradicting yourself again. Wareware 02:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, no. Read the passage again. Here is the exact quote: "Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed." And there is no contradiction. deeceevoice 05:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. Can you even read? From your quote it says black supremacy is an idelogical tool in framing somekind of liberation theology. It should be black nationalism/separatism, NOT supremacy. And from you pretty long post on the NOI anyone can see that you're contradicting yourself. From the activities of NOI you posted it should be separatism, as some sort of economic independence from white people, so can you tell me what's supremacist about it? Wareware 06:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. It is correct as I wrote it. Black supremacy frames and informs the ideological construct in which the religion functions as liberation theology. Does that [make it] any clearer to you? I am reinserting the paragraph, because it is important and accurate. Further, in the above paragraphs, I do not address black supremacy. My objective was to explain to you why and how NOI dogma/religion has functioned as liberation theology. It's already been established that NOI dogma is black supremacist, so I saw no point in repeating it -- particularly since your questions dealt with the phenomenon of liberation theology and its applicability to the NOI, which I believe I adequately have explained. And change your tone. deeceevoice 08:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You people all disgust me. I was hoping to find some insightful commentary on this page, but instead I find a bunch of pretentious, egotistical, spiteful, petty, over-educated children with sub-average intelligence, arguing about important issues to heighten their inflated sense of faulty intellectualism. Write a book. Do something with your time other than act like you have social consciousness with people who have no goal but to boost their ego. Black supremacy is bad, just like white supremacy and any other institution that glorifies one race above another. I have friends who have been beaten by skinheads and I have friends who have been shot by gangsters for no other reason than they were white guys in the wrong neighborhood. Next time I read this discussion page, I hope to hear something constructive and thought-provoking. (user: a man fed up with political correctness and pop psychobabble) 12:09 26 March 2005

Just what sort of "commentary" were you seeking? The purpose of the article itself is not so much to comment on anything, but to provide information -- hopefully presented in as objective a manner as possible. You should expect to find information here (on Wikipedia) of the type that can be gotten in, hopefully, any well-written encyclopedia -- nothing more. If were looking for some sort of treatise offering support for, or condemnation of, black supremacy, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. If, in your search, you find some additional information, hopefully, you will return to Wikipedia and offer here it for others. deeceevoice 10:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just dropped in to check the melanin page, and followed a link over here. I've got no special enthusiasm for Deeceevoice: I think she's got strong social convictions and prejudices and uses her intelligence to clumsily plumb the natural sciences for data to adduce in support of her ideas/fantasies. The results are usually predictably amateurish and ill-informed. But having said that, Deeceevoice is dead right in saying that Wareware's transparent race-baiting and 19th century insults about primates and jungles were wildly unacceptable, and it's outrageous that sysops haven't stepped in. Shame on everyone else for not coming to Deecee's support in their exchanges. She's certainly got a strong committment to Wikipedia if she's willing to truck on through that kind of ugly garbage. Babajobu

Hello, Baba. Well, thanks for your support -- kind of. You will note that a lot of the information regarding the research into melanin and its properties which I have brought to this discussion page is, indeed, accurate -- contrary to the earlier assertions of some participants. So, don't be so quick to dismiss (or to make certain assumptions about what I do or do not believe.) Check your e-mail. deeceevoice 13:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I pumped in black liberation theology after reading WareWare's failed attempts to connect the 2, and got 210,000 results here, all the initial one's being directly relevant, --SqueakBox 23:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC) Historically, however, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed is not true according to WareWare. I think it fits Rastafari perfectly,--SqueakBox 23:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide citations

I have removed this paragraph, as it has no citations.

Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa. In the context of comparative religious study, the "Doctrine of Yakub" has been viewed as simply an allegory for the evolution of whites from blacks as a result of climatic differences as humanity migrated out of Africa and populated other areas of the globe. Such colorful storytelling, argue some NOI adherents, is little different from the Bible's account of God creating Eve from Adam's rib, or the creation of heaven and earth in six days.

Please provide evidence that some significant percentage of NOI adherents explicitly rejects the literal teachings of Louis Farrakhan and Elijah Muhahmmed, and have reinterpreted them in this allegorical fashion. RK 03:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the opinion of writers on comparative religion that the Doctrine of Yakub is an allegory similar in nature to the two cited in the Bible, I've searched online and cannot find documentation. I read this years ago -- where I cannot recall. I can do a check of my personal library to see if I can find something, but I don't think the specific reference(s) I'm recalling were in my possession at the time.

With regard to the second matter, those who have followed the NOI in its various permutations over the years and who know and have spoken with NOI adherents are well-acquainted with this fact. Whether there is readily available documentation of it, however, I cannot say. Over the years, there has been a demographic shift in black religious denominations in this nation as blacks have become more upwardly mobile educationally and economically. This phenomenon is apparent in not only such denominations as the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and other pentecostal/fundamentalist denominations, but also in the Nation. Generations who were, say, marginally literate domestics and menial laborers have now raised college-educated physicians, attorneys, educators, etc. They are more sophisticated, better educated, more worldly than their parents and grandparents and may no longer believe precisely as their parents believe.

In the case of the NOI, many no longer strictly adhere to some of the more controversial tenets of the NOI as enunciated by Elijah Muhammad, and some have explored more mainstream Islamic religious tenets beyond simply keeping the Five Pillars of the Faith. Much like some "lapsed Catholics" who disagree with the Church's stand on women clergy, abortion, homosexuality, or birth control, they still identify with the faith in which they have been raised, though they may reject even key religious tenets. They attend NOI mosques because they are comfortable there; they are black nationalists by tradition and in their fundamental orientation. My knowledge, though accurate, is entirely anecdotal; I have no statistics. Such is often the case with matters treating African-American life and culture; this is not the sort of thing that is generally studied by the white majority society. There is a tendency among whites to see the NOI as outsiders often tend to view cultures, governments, religions, etc., that are foreign to them: monolitically. But in this regard, NOI adherents are certainly no different from— and, perhaps, no less diverse in their beliefs regarding specific precepts than— believers of other religious traditions with which you and others may be more familiar. Not every NOI adherent is a black supremacist or even a black separatist. And, for that matter, black supremacists can be found in every walk of life, in virtually every religious tradition -- just as can white supremacists.

And, yes, I know this is an encyclopedia where references are required. You've deleted the relevant passage(s?). Fine 'n' dandy. Be that as it may, that does not change the objective reality of the situation. deeceevoice 08:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. I have no doubt that there are individuals with such beliefs. But I am asking for references because we need to find out if their beliefs are representative of any significant fraction of NOI adherents, or are representative of what any significant fraction of NOI ministers or leaders teach. When asking for references, I do not mean to place a high bar in your (or anyone's) way. But having never come across some views, and finding them in contradiction to what I have read thus far, I hope you understand why I am asking for some sort of sources. In fact, over the next few months you or I may find some, especially if you get a chance to visit a university library and do some article searches in their journals on sociology and religion. (I have spent some time in libraries searching for academic references on articles for science and religion topics.) RK 21:25, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I for my part dispute "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that the first early human beings evolved in Africa.". See single-origin hypothesis and multiregional hypothesis, neither are particularly conclusive at this point. I think we've discussed this before, havn't we DC? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Given the difficulty of finding hominid remains, and the rate at which we are making new discoveries, I (and many scientists) think that it would be foolish to assume that we can make a firm conclusion on this issue at the present. We hominids have so many recent branches on our family tree, and our ancestors were so adept at moving around, that this won't be a quick and easy question to answer. Frankly, it might take another century's worth of fossil finding to accurately flesh out the origin of modern humans. RK 16:02, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, it is foolish to try taking a firm stand on such a substantive issue when the evidence is currently so very thin and the opinions of experts are so diverse. Best to leave out that portion. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits

Black supremacy vs. white supremacy

1. Restored as a critical, defining factor of such groups: "Historically, black supremacy has manifested itself among various religions or cults as an ideological tool in framing a kind of liberation theology for the societally marginalized and oppressed." This is a critical point. Both Rastafari and the NOI, as well as Marcus Garvey's UNIA, took root among the poorest, least educated, most marginalized blacks. Mainstream, successful, upper- and middle-class black folks were not, and generally have not been, attracted to such movements.

2. Restored: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy -- as many nonblacks are inclined to believe -- mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion." Important to state that black supremacists actually believe in black supremacy. Yes, as the ideologies of these organizations is formulated, black supremacy is, indeed, a tool for their upliftment. But for the believers, the notion of black superiority is not an artifice or a deception; they strongly believe that blacks are inherently superior to whites; it's not just rhetoric. The same can be said for black supremacists who, like a lot of white supremacists, don't belong to any official organization or group. It's simply part of what the believe.

Further, the comment that it "is little more than an intellectual construct" leads into/speaks to bell hooks' comment about the lack of institutional infrastructure of black supremacy; it has little impact beyond the confines of its believer community. If I understand the objection raised about "documentation," this fact is readily apparent. There is no network of black supremacist institutions capable of denying significant numbers of whites: access to equal education, employment, housing, healthcare; capable of segregating or otherwise oppressing whites.

3. White supremacy is and has been, indeed, far more widespread. And the fact that it "historically has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political and military power" is not debatable. It is not an opinion of black supremacists as the rather clumsy rewrite suggests; it is simple historical fact: the conquest of the New World and the subjugation of Native Americans in North and South America by European powers, the trans-Atlantic slave trade & slavery, Manifest Destiny, European colonialism and neocolonialism around the world -- in Africa, Asia, India, Australia, the Americas (including the Caribbean), etc. These were not simply military conquests with economic motives; there was an assumption of white superiority and a systematic disenfranchisement and oppression of subject peoples amplified and in many cases justified by the notion of white supremacy and enforced by European/neo-European political, economic and military might.

4. The lower casing of bell hooks' name is not an oversight; it's the way she writes it. deeceevoice 19:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Deeceevoice. She seems to be talking sense to me, --SqueakBox 21:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I see some subtle issues w point 3, but she is overall correct. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Panthers and other purportedly black supremacist groups

I've deleted the New Black Panther Party from the list of black supremacist organizations. I may be mistaken, but despite my earlier request, there has been no documentation provided to justify its inclusion. Did I miss something? deeceevoice 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To the unnamed contributor who reinserted the NBPP on the list of black supremacist organizations: please provide proof that the NBPP belongs on the list. For the umpteenth time, being a "hate group" is not the same as being a black supremacist organization. It has been deleted -- again -- until someone provides evidence. deeceevoice 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In light of this business about the NBPP, I've googled a few of the other organizations on the list. Based on what I've found, I've temporarily removed the following organizations from the list of black supremacist organizations:

• New Black Panther Party
• Black African Holocaust Council
• Black Hebrew Israelites
• United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors
• Yahweh ben Yahweh
• KMWR Scientific Consortium

So far as I have been able to determine, these groups do not fit the profile of a black supremacist organization. They are separatist, some may be classified as hate groups; but so far, I've seen no concrete documentation that any of them are black supremacist in nature. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it here before moving them back to the list. The last name on the list is curious. The only real mention of it on the web I've been able to turn up is the CSIOP article, which somewhat misrepresents Melanin Theory. According to the article, the "consortium" is a group of "melanin scholars" who come together for melanin conferences to present information which bolsters "afrocentrism." It doesn't sound like much of an organization. There's no web presence. There's no mention of it as an organization elsewhere. Can anyone provide further information? And lest there be any misunderstanding of my motives, this is an invitation -- not a challenge. deeceevoice 07:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the Panther Party. Again. It was reinserted with no justification provided. deeceevoice 19:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You deleted them in light of some random web search, with no references? That's nonsense, and it violates our verifiability policy. In any case, some of these groups, openly preach that black people are superior to white people. End of story. Our goal hereon Wikipedia is to describe groups. We may not lie about their beliefs in order to make black America feel comfortbale that no blacks are racist, and that only "White people" have such racist groups. In fact, your apologetics for black supremacist hatespeech are now reaching the level of racism towards non-Black people. Your modus operandi seems to be based on the idea that if a white group preaches that whites are superior to blacks, then they are racist, but if a black group preaches the same thing, they somehow are not racist. That's irrational and false. RK 12:14, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes -- which is precisely what Pharlap did! They were included with, IMO, insufficient evidence and reinserted on the same basis. Besides, it's my approach that one must satisfactorily prove something belongs on the list, rather than that it doesn't. I removed the NBPP because there was no hard evidence -- and I still haven't seen any -- that the NBPP is itself a supremacist organization. Muhammad, who is deceased, who founded the party, was a fruitcake full of hatred. Shabazz, who is his heir, has been classified as a "black supremacist," but I've seen no hard evidence of that fact -- not in any literature, not in statements, not in the group's activities here locally (though they've kept a rather low profile in the last several months; are they still around?) What I've seen of Muhammad is that he is highly intelligent, concerned at least nominally about the plight of African-Americans -- and that he's got serious ego issues that have impeded the success of the organization and driven people away locally. While reading up on the NBPP, I could find no succinct statement of its purpose and no overtly supremacist statements attributed to Shabazz. (Perhaps someone has something to contribute in that regard. It was what I had hoped for from Pharlap or other contributors. Not even the sites that refer to the organization as supremacist have offered any proof/evidence that I saw -- simply that he is outspoken, black nationalist in orientation and a successor to Muhammad. Still, no doctrinal evidence, no quotes.

Of course, some possibly could rightly classify Muhammad as a supremacist; he was certainly a hatemonger. But it does not necessarily follow that the organization which he headed had/has a supremacist agenda. After all, someone can be a rabid neocon, but still establish a broader-based organization to accomplish broader societal goals; to coalition build for purely strategic purposes. Again, the group is purported to be headquartered here in D.C., and I've seen absolutely no evidence to support the supremacist assessment -- and I am speaking here, again, of the organization, its guiding philosophy and goals -- not the personal philosophy of those who are its figural heads.

As in removing the NBPP from the list and in my related arguments herein -- as with the earlier discussion re: the NOI -- I have been pressing for something definitive and substantive in this regard. So far, I've seen little that is truly convincing for me. Frankly, as someone whose friends and associates (and I, myself) were targets of the COINTELPRO efforts back in the day, I know how off-the-wall internal FBI documents can be. So, I look for strong corroboration elsewhere -- especially when, in this case, the single document referred to appears to have internal contradictions and broad generalizations which leave important questions unanswered. J. Edgar Hoover was, after all, convinced that Martin Luther King was a communist and that certain leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were part of a broader communist conspiracy.

My approach to such information, therefore -- and I daresay the approach of many of my generation and general political bent -- is to approach such "information" with a healthy skepticism and an inquiring mind. Further, given this nation's recent experience with government "intelligence" and the blatant disinformation campaign with regard to the present military conflict in Iraq and the circumstances surrounding the president's ill-advised decision to go to war, it is an approach, I believe, that has considerable merit and which has growing favor among the American public. It is also, incidentally, the general approach taken by many educated and well-informed African Americans in this nation because of our historical experience in this country. While, I think, nonblacks are generally inclined to trust authority -- the police and the government -- we (blacks) are considerably less inclined to do so. It does not surprise me, therefore, that my reaction to the "information" presented herein would be generally more skeptical and, perhaps, even more analytical (yes, my opinion) than, say, that of others in this discussion.

So, no, my goal is not "lying" (a rather rude presumption on your part, RK) about the true intent/philosophical bent of such groups. But neither is it to fall prey to the over generalizations of those whose ignorance of and biases regarding such matters may lead to unsubstantiated, if not wholly incorrect, conclusions -- in effect, federal agencies and adversarial religious organizations which incorrectly may have placed a bunch of "niggers in a black supremacist woodpile" either out of ignorance, vested interests or historical institutional bias. deeceevoice 12:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• Apologetics Research Resources on Religious Cults, Sects, Religions, Doctrines [2]

Black Supremacy: A racist world view that considers black or colored people to be better than white people. (E.g. Black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam , Yahweh Ben Yahweh )

• Racism Web Intelligence [3]

Race And Racism Black Supremacy And Separatism

5 Percenters -- Article on the black supremacist group that split from the Nation of Islam in 1964 and is actively recruiting with in the US prison system.

The Nation of Gods and Earths -- Information on the supremacist Black Hebrew Israelite (BHI) movement.

Black Hebrew -- Information on the supremacist Black Hebrew Israelite (BHI) movement

• University of Mississippi [4]

Most of the hate groups monitored by the Intelligence Project are white supremacist, neo-confederate or Aryan Nation groups. However, they track the activities of some black-supremacist groups like the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam

• Pravda [5]

New Black Panther Party, a hard core black supremacist organization, took over the National Press Club

• Southern Poverty Law Center [6]

40 to Watch: Malik Zulu Shabazz (leader of the New Black Panther Party), Black supremacist and anti-Semite

• MensNewsDaily[7]

Many rappers have been supportive variously of the black supremacist groups the Nation of Islam, New Black Panther party, and the Five Percenters.

• U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation [8]

Black Hebrew Israelites, a black supremacist group, typify the use of numerology from the Book of Revelation

• Southern Poverty Law Center

Last year, officials began investigating a group of alleged Black Hebrew Israelites, a black supremacist religion, in New Mexico. The group's headquarters are said to be decorated with a mural depicting sword-bearing blacks standing heroically over bloodied white bodies [9]

United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors -- 'Savior' in a Strange Land. A black supremacist cult leader meets his match in rural Georgia [10]

• Washington Times [11]

After moving to the middle of Georgia in 1993, the people who called themselves Nuwaubians caused a stir in rural Putnam County. The black supremacist sect known as the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors built two 40- foot-tall pyramids on their 473-acre property and talked about a spaceship that would take them away in 2003

• Associated Press via The Daily Kent Stater[12]

Yahweh ben Yahweh - Black supremacist charged with killing

• Meta-religion [13]

Yahweh Ben Yahweh - The black supremacist cult was accused of a reign of terror that includes the beheading of an ex member, the fire bombing of a Delray Beach neighborhood and many other acts of violence.

• Institute for the study of destructive cults [14]

Yahweh Ben Yahweh, the Miami cult leader and black supremacist convicted in 1992 of running a cold-blooded murder and arson conspiracy

• National Black United Front [15]

Dr. Leonard Jeffries —his Achievements & Service to Humanity Scholar Activities: National Melanin Consortium (KW-WR) Pharlap 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but the majority of them lead to inactive links where no information is available. I doubt that you even tried to follow the information trail and just read a reference to these groups as being "black supremacist" in nature and copied the links. I've googled these groups, as well as followed a number of the links you've provided; yet I've found nothing authoritative. Before deleting organizations from the article's black supremacist list, I visited the websites of the applicable "organizations" (those that had them), and read the information they presented. When I could find a group website, there was nothing in their stated beliefs or principles that indicated a black supremacist doctrine. In one particular case, I recall finding information that seemed antithetical a black supremacist agenda. So, rather than going by secondhand information, for the purposes of this article, I think it best that we find -- as was done in the instance of the NOI -- concrete examples of black supremacist tenets of these groups. Statements made without documentation mean nothing, and inactive web links are not helpful. We need concrete documentation of doctrinal/ideological precepts that state that these groups are, indeed, black supremacist in nature. And, once again, please note that a hate group is not the same as a supremacist group. The same names have been deleted from the list again -- pending appropriate documentation. I invite you to try again, this time with something useful, on-point and authoritative. deeceevoice 16:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites Missed the FBI link: [16] . Here's what I found -- a catchall document related to "millennialist groups," among them the Black Hebrew Israelites. Of them, the document says: "Violent BHI followers can generally be described as proponents of an extreme form of black supremacy. Read critically, such language raises a couple of questions. Violent BHI followers -- is that a qualifier of certain group members, or is it a general adjective? Frankly, the language reads to me like a qualifier of certain members of the group. And if that is the case, to what percentage of BHI adherents does that statement apply? Are they a lunatic fringe?

Further reading reveals my initial impression to be correct. The article addresses the BHI in the U.S. and says of them, "While the overwhelming majority of BHI followers are unlikely to engage in violence, there are elements of this movement with both the motivation and the capability to engage in millennial violence." It goes on to say, "BHI in Israel are generally peaceful, if somewhat controversial."

These violent members "...can generally be described as a supremacist group." The question is how "generally"? It seems to me the author of this report is taking unusual license with such a "general" characterization. As evidence of the group's "supremacist" doctrine, the report cites the group's claim that blacks/brown people are the true and original Semites and that Ashkenazi Jews are more recent converts to Judaism. [Actually, there is some truth to this statement; but be that as it may, their contention that, as a result, blacks are "God's (true) chosen people" makes the BHI no more black supremacist than, say, the identical claim of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews makes them a Jewish supremacist cabal.]

""Such beliefs bear a striking resemblance to the Christian Identity theology practiced by many white supremacists," says the report. The BHI is apparently hostile toward these two groups, calling them "evil" and usurpers of their rightful heritage. But hostility, even possibly hatred, does not a supremacist organization make. Further, it raises the question: how does the report's assessment square with a group some whose members live alongside Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel? The answer is: it doesn't. Parallel responses to Jewish claims of being "God's chosen" clearly do not mean parallel ideologies. The evidence for the BHI as a supremacist group appears flimsy, at best.

Of this small minority of violent adherents, this lunatic fringe, the document does state, "...militant BHI followers tend to see themselves as divinely endowed by God with superior status." Yet, there is no evidence of such a contention on the group website, further indicating this is not the, if you will, "party line." As if to bolster this fact, the report continues, again attesting to the group's peaceful nature: "In reality, the origins of the BHI movement are non-violent...." So, the BHI is a religious group with peaceful origins, the "vast majority" of whose members are nonviolent -- which also means the "vast majority" do not belong to the "militant," violence-prone group the FBI report tenuously, and rather speciously, IMO, compares to white supremacist groups.

Keep in mind, the purpose of this report was to gauge the threat of millennialist violence by a variety of groups -- a report which mentions "White Supremacy" as a separate category, but does not mention "Black Supremacy" as a separate category. Instead, it lists the BHI as a separate group, rather than placing it firmly under that nonexistent (in the report) category. Apparently "generally describ[ing]" the BHI as supremacist didn't rise to the level of official classification of the group as such for the purposes of the FBI's own report.

So, again, unless there is clear doctrinal evidence of supremacist doctrine of the BHI, I'd have to say it doesn't fit the classification. The clearest statement that I could find of what the BHI believes is found here: [17]

Yahweh ben Yahweh

Now, this organization is an offshoot of the BHI. Labeled the most extreme of the BHI splinter organizations, the FBI's characterization of it as violent and presuming some sort of privilege based on a belief in black supremacy may be correct. I don't have time at the moment to investigate; but, perhaps, someone else will. I've found a few links for those with an interest to follow up and report what they find.

1. The peace-and-love website of the organization. From what I read, there's a lot of stuff about who they believe themselves to be and love and love and more love of the righteous: [18]
2. This is the html for the results of a search on the Southern Poverty Law Center's website: [19]

At least these links are active. Let's see what we come up with. Peace. deeceevoice 06:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Yahweh ben Yahweh

As we have already documented, the only name of God is Yahweh. Therefore, the Father's name is Yahweh, subsequently, the Son's name is Yahweh ben Yahweh, which means Yahweh, the Son of Yahweh. (Page 5) Yahweh ben Yahweh is the son of Yahwehm and his name is not jesus! Yahweh ben Yahweh is the true christ. (Page 5) From these facts, Yahweh ben Yahweh is the son of Yahweh, is the christ, the messiah, who is the expected or awaited king and deliverer of the tribe of Judah (Page 6) We, The Nation of Yahweh, own just title, as sons and daughters of Yaweh to inherit, through Yahweh ben Yahweh, the land wherein we are strangers, as well as all the land of Canaan, and the whole earth for an everlasting possession (Page 11) Given that we are the family of Yahweh, we are qualified to lay just claim or title to our inheritance as the children of Yahweh becuse it is our "legal" right by law. (Page 11) [20]

Preparing For Rulership [21]

As always, our nightly classes on “Preparing for Rulership” were bursting with the knowledge we need to make us independent and self-sufficient rulers of the planet earth--the land that belongs to us.

THE FINAL BATTLE: A SUMMATION OF JUDGMENT SHALL SIT [22]

We were taken on a “literary” journey through the summation of Daniel 7:7-8. On our exploratory venture, we found out that the “ten horns” described in this Scripture are actually ten rulers of extraordinary power and authority, and the “little” horn that came up among them is the President of the United States, George W. Bush. It was determined that his official purpose is to defeat three leaders in war, remove them from office, take them from their usual surroundings, even compelling them to leave their countries and, subsequently, supplant a totally different government in their place. Substantive information was presented to show that he used the guise of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to go to war with Iraq that he might seize control of their oil resources and to fulfill a vow he made, which was to return oil resources to the men who “appointed” him to office. A flashing red light signaled that his end shall come when he stands up against the Prince of princes, Yawhweh ben Yahweh, who shall destroy him without any active participation or cooperation of any outside sources, forces, or individuals.

THE APOCALYPSE: FROM THE FIRST HORSEMAN TO THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE [23]

We had to put on our seat belts for the breaking open of these seals. When the “first seal” was broken, it revealed the white horse to be the United States of America, and he that sat upon this horse was none other than President George W. Bush who was given the charge to attend the ministration of the Pope and to spy on Yahweh ben Yahweh -- the Messiah, who has come to expose all the false teachings of Jesus as Christ. The red horse discloses that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is the guiding force behind the universal overthrow of the existing social and political order. The black horse makes it known that the U.S. government shall launch a full-scale media campaign to stop us from publishing the word of Yahweh, saying that our Bible interpretations are a threat to national security. The pale horse foretells of a mole that has infiltrated and assimilated himself into our Nation. His purpose is to level “false” allegations against The Nation of Yahweh. The fifth seal revealed some souls under the altar that were slain for publishing the word of Yahweh. However, those who shall be slain will be given “white” robes, signifying victory and superiority.

Yahweh ben Yahweh Bookstore

Preparing For Rulership, Pt. 1- 99 $ 5.00 / Each [24] (type in rulership)

The Ingathering

Nevertheless, Yahweh has sent His Son, Yahweh ben Yawhweh, to gather and to reunite us all. Study how Yahweh will gather Israel and make us a holy, righteous, upright, and honest people--thus, a great nation. Learn how Yahweh will gather us and establish a brand new world. The ingathering of Israel points to the end of 6,000 years of wicked rulership. $27.95[25]

United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors

We call ourself Moors because of the historical records worldwide where you find the latin word morena, which means "black". But in the sense of Supreme Balancement, not to be mistaken with "negra" which is stricly the color black. [26]

THE DEROS [27]

This group of insane cave dwellers, were called sumuwnean, meaning "the Obese Ones" or saamiym and ABANDONDEROS or as they are called today , "DEROS" which is a combination of the word "DETRIMENTAL" and "ROBOTS". These Sumuwneans or deros really exist.

The Dero who live in the caves are degenerated so mutch That they dont have mutch intelligence.

There eyes are Silver grey and they glow in the dark. They have blond eyebrows and Pinkish Grey Color Skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion, And a pig having not being exposed to the inner or outer sun. Other than their eyebrows, they have no hair on their bodies because of a disease called Trichotillomania, and are responsible for the disease Trichinosis and Trichiniasis. they have no teeth. their mouth appears to be full of a gummy ,slimy substance. they are Nocturnal and hear extermely well. they are not very peaceful and have a long dislike for human beings.

And the point of this is? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE TEROS [28]

The Teros, which is short from integrative or constructive, are a subface race that usually keep the dero's in check.

The teros chromosome structure is so different from earthlings, that when mixed with certain humans, caused a defect of 47 chromosomes which toady is called "down's syndrome". Down's syndrome can be foudn in all races of the planet earth, for every eight hundred children out of a thousand children are being born on earth has this trait.

The teros that have an abundance of pigmentation in the skin are descendants of the shuyukh. Those whoo are of lacking in pigmentation are descendants of the halaabeans, flugelrods or hulub.

Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM [29]

The ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM are those beings who were sent down to the planet QI (EARTH ) known to you as angles the word ANUNNAQI means "those who are ANU sent from heaven to earth " they are called NETERU, meaning " guardians" by the Egyptians. The ANUNNAQI ELOHEEM ' the mighty ones in a ashuric/syriac (Arabic) the "mighty one " are referred as JABBARYANS in aramic (Hebrew ) "mighty one " are referred to as GIBBOREEM. The very elite among the ANUNNAQI are called the DINNEER, or the DINGIR, meaning "the righteous, or divine one of the rocket ship", or ILU, meaning "the lofty one " in Akkadian.

The ANUNNAQI'S descriptions are dark-greenish brown skinned olive toned beings, with supreme 9 ether hair texture of what you'd call "kinky" or "kingly" hair. They look like humans with a few exceptions, such as their eyes, Some of the ANUNNAQI'S eyes are exceptionally larger than that of humans . They are such an advanced state that if you confronted one to them with a weapon they would let you shoot them rather than hurts you.

Yes, more nonsense -- but what does it say about black supremacy? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who is Dr. Malachi Z. York? [30]

He tells us he is here to break the evil hypnotic spell of ignorance and elevate us to our once supreme state of being.

From a book entitled "Man From Planet Rizq" Study Book One: Supreme Mathematics Class A For The Students Of The Holy Tabernacle Page 23(in part):

Ques: You have been teaching undisputable facts for over 25 years how did you manage to learn and teach so much information for the amount of years you have?

Ans: "I am a being from the 19th galaxy called ILLYUWN. We have been coming to this planet before it had your life form on it. I manifest into this body to speak through this body. I am a Entity an Etheric being.

Then in 1970 A.D., was my time to come in the flesh to start my work of breaking the spell of sleep also called the SPELL OF LEVIATHAN or KINGU, the moon spell or lunatic state of mind with the power as the "Sun Of Righteousness" (Malachi 4:2 ).

I, YAANUWN am an ANUNNAQI or what you would called an Extra-Terrestrial; Extra Terra-Astral ; look at this EXTRA -meaning in addition to; TERRA - Of the Earth; ASTRAL - Of or from the stars. I am what you call an angelic being, An Eloheem from the 8th planet called RIZQ which has 1 moon SHESHQI of it’s own. This galaxy, the nineteenth galaxy called "ILLYUWN" originally referred to as heaven known as Elysium in Greek , has 3 suns 1) SHAMASH 2) UTU 3) APSU which means a tri-solar system with 38 moons and 19 planets. Each with it’s own number of moons. I have incarnated here in this form to act as a human being for the sole purpose of saving The Children Of The ELOHEEM (ANNUNAQI), The Banaat , which is the same word as Bennett , the chosen 144,000. Just as Mary of 2,000 years ago was chosen by the MOST HIGH ,ANU, called an ALIEN which is ‘ALI’ and ‘EN’ (AN), both of which are names for ANU to breed the holy thing called Yashu’a or Jesus, Real Name Tammuz called Horus. So too The Banaat will breed the Savior of this day and time

Just another lunatic cult leader claiming to be God incarnate, but it's not supremacist. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Yisraelites (NOT Ben Ammi's African Hebrew Israelites) [31]

There are many to dispute the fact that GOD has a "special People" and prefer to believe that all the people of the World are GOD's Chosen People. This couldn't be further from the truth, and these people obviously know nothing about the Scriptures of the "Old Testament" and don't want to know, either. The Most High GOD of Hosts not only has a Chosen People, but HE says HE will dwell in the midst of Israel forever (Ezekiel 43:9) if this Nation will put away their whoredom (false gods and worship only HIM). Israel's GOD also prepared very unique Laws, Statutes, Judgments, Precepts, and Ordinances especially for them to do and to observe in Righteousness. And HE gave them HIS Prophets to lead and guide them in HIS Paths of Righteousness.

Although many Nations adopt certain parts of the "Old Testament," people choose not to accept GOD's Laws, Statutes, and Judgments as they are written. They use the Bible as a base, but change GOD's Ordinances to suit the theologies that they prefer and that appeal to them, and all because they, too, want to feel "special." Therefore, they have established a "New Testament" Book that puts the spotlight on Gentiles and exalts their own personal and invented "Saviour of the World.."

So, did GOD change HIS Ordinances or even HIS Chosen People and give HIS Glory to another? And can mere man take the place of GOD? Can Christianity and the "New Testament" be a substitute for GOD's Book of the Law? And did GOD really give HIS Glory to another? The answer to all of these questions is an emphatic NO! GOD's Laws and HIS Covenant with Israel, HIS Chosen People, will last forever! And this Great, All-Mighty GOD will reign in Jerusalem where all Nations will go to see HIS Glory. [32]

This speaks simply to the notion of a "chosen people" -- not to "supremacist" notions. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The wise will realize that the Most High GOD of Israel focuses on HIMSELF, HIS Everlasting LAW, HIS Chosen People, HIS Covenant that HE made with them, and the Land of Israel!!! And no one but no one can change this – not in a million years. Even though the Nation of Israel has sinned against this Merciful GOD, HE yet remembers HIS Promises to HIS Chosen People and that HE is our GOD regardless of our many, many evil doings against HIM. [33]

Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that after the Holy ONE gave the Nation of Israel HIS Laws, Statutes, and Judgments, HE sent HIS angels, prophets, and other servants to promote this very same Law which had been given in the Wilderness as indicated throughout the “Old Testament.” The Holy ONE changed nothing and advised the Nation of Israel not to add to or diminish ought from this Master Plan. We must follow this Law and not add spiritualites to GOD’s Word no matter how sweet the sound. The Law of our GOD is “Perfect” and was designed to make us a Perfect and a Holy People, if we keep it - as it is written. [34]

Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But what most Whites do not know and realize is that some of GOD's Chosen People are finally awakening to HIS Truth, i.e., to serve and worship HIM and Keep HIS Law in Righteousness. They don't know that their time is up, and that GOD is in the process of turning the tide against those who have made the Nation of Israel to tremble because of their fury. [35]

Ditto. This is the usual notion of God avenging His people/the "righteous." deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't speak to the notion of supremacy. deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For hundreds and better than 2,000 years, GOD’s Chosen People have been in the hands of cruel, barbaric, and merciless rulers since the days of the Babylonian Empire. And the rulers of this present World system have proven themselves to be worse than the ancient powers that held the Nation of Israel under their control. These Gentile Nations, today, have had no desire to acknowledge the True GOD and HIS Ways, but rather they choose to serve gods that they either molded from clay and/or fabricated from the imaginations of their corrupt and malicious hearts.

This is so much extraneous stuff to wade through and still does not attest to supremacist dogma beyond the usual religious stuff. Turn this rhetoric around, and Christians claim that Judgment Day will bring justice, and the 'unrighteous shall be laid low.' Jews also believe that their enemies will be made to suffer. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Be aware: unless the Gentile Nations, including European so-called Jews, are using GOD’s “Perfect Law” without adding to it or taking from it, their doctrine is built on deception, dishonesty, and falsehood, and “Judaism,” the most deceptive of all, is the epitome of fraud. And from this deception we all know stems “Christianity.” White Europeans, at the time of the Roman era, also saw fit to fabricate a religion and theology - a “virgin birth” - that would bring about a White-blue-eyed Saviour – one that would be accepted by all the World, and one that needed to especially be embraced by the Children of Israel who were scattered throughout the four corners of the Earth. These Children of GOD, above all Peoples, had to be encouraged to accept this religion if the White World was to maintain power and their superiority over all others in particular GOD’s cursed, albeit, Chosen People Israel.

But what we are not told is that these people were not the Covenant People but rather Jacob/Israel’s twin brother, Esau/Edomites, posing as GOD’s Chosen People!

That which is very important to realize is that those Europeans who now falsely hold the identity of “Israel” are doing everything possible to hold on to what they’ve got – and by any means necessary! And that which is so alarming is that European, so-called Jews have even resorted to encouraging Blacks to embrace the Late Dr. Martin L. King’s “Baptist religion” in an effort to keep the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in darkness. What the European “Jews” are saying is, “To hell with Civil Rights; focus on King’s spirituality!” Their hope is that the increasing numbers of Blacks returning to the GOD of Israel will decrease, and will thus enable them to keep control of the land of Israel and maintain their scam a little longer if not forever. True descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who fear the Holy ONE of Israel are going to encourage people to Worship and Exalt The GOD of Abraham and Moses and do and live HIS Law and denounce all other forms of religious doctrines

Anti-Zionist rhetoric is just that; it's not supremacist. Also, note that they refer to "those Europeans" -- not "all" Europeans. This is a waste of time to wade through. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Most High GOD of Israel is calling HIS Chosen People home and taking back HIS Holy Land. And no manner of conversion process or your Talmudic theology can disannul GOD’s Law and/or HIS Covenant and Promises to HIS Chosen People! [36]

Ditto. deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Five Percenters

The Five Percent began as an offshoot of the NOI (Nation of Islam) back in 1964 by Clarence 13X who was a minister in Mosque no. 7 under the tutelege of Malcolm X. The movement was started because Clarence 13X rejected the notion that Wallace Fard was God Incarnate. He began teaching that the black man himself was god.

They do refer to "knowledging 120" (120 refers to their lessons which are virtually identical to the Supreme Wisdom originated by Elijah Muhammed and W.D. Fard). [37]

"Virtually identical" in what way, and on what authority is this statement made? deeceevoice 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What We Teach

That the blackman is god and his proper name is ALLAH. Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head. [38]

Pharlap 13:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like screwy theology, no doubt. What is the context of this? From what I've read, they don't seem to believe that every black man is God. Otherwise, why all the rhetoric about how the black man has been oppressed throughout the millennia? Clearly, something isn't explained here. Got any context that would help us connect this statement contextually to their belief system? In reading the other infomration you have provided, it seems to me that they believe that black men are Gods in the same sense that Christians believe that Christ is humanity perfected; that God/Christ consciousness is what individuals should strive toward. When the BHI speak of the "destiny" of the black man, it reads to me that they are speaking of the destiny of a people to be "righteous" (whatever that means to them) and, as Christians say, "godly." In that way, they are, indeed, supreme. All the language seems to be couched in this kind of Old Testament, "chosen people" language, which is, at root, quite similar to the Jewish notion -- though, granted, twinned with some very screwy stuff and in a "liberation theology" kind of context. But so far, I see nothing overtly black supremacist about any of this.

I'm dealing with some deadlines at the moment, but will check into the above website when I have some time. Thanks. deeceevoice 15:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition Black supremacy:

The belief that blacks are racially superior to members of other races.

If you believe in another definition of black supremacy, please post it here.

All organizations mentioned here believe in the racial superiority of blacks. The United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors who substitute "white" with "DERO", "mixed and/or other races" with "TERO", and "black" with "ANUNNAQI", the Five Percenters and Yahweh's who see themselves as "black Gods" and rulers of planet earth, the Black Hebrew Yisraelites who claim that only blacks, and blacks only, are "special People" the "Chosen People", appointed by God to subjugate and rule over the "cruel, barbaric, and merciless" "fraudulent" "White World", as well as the National Melanin Consortium, who claim that whites are less human because they don't have an Essential Melanic System.

That supremacist organizations in general use contradictory, illogical, irrational and fabricated arguments doesn't negate their existence, but explains why less educated and less intelligent individuals are most receptive to supremacist ideologies and why supremacist organizations recruit largely from ill-educated sections of the population. Pharlap 07:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm reading your last post, which seems rife with unsubstantiated generalities. First, I read the stuff about the "Dero":

The Dero who live in the caves are degenerated so mutch That they dont have mutch intelligence. There eyes are Silver grey and they glow in the dark. They have blond eyebrows and Pinkish Grey Color Skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion, And a pig having not being exposed to the inner or outer sun. Other than their eyebrows, they have no hair on their bodies."

My deletion of the so-called "National Melanin Consortium" was because I could find no evidence of it as an official organization. Further, the one or two articles I could find were from the same source and read very generally. It referred to a group of "melanin scholars" who held conferences, but failed to distinguish between such pop "scientists" as Welsing, who make outrageous claims, and those who may be involved in legitimate research. Or, is every, single one of them off-the-wall? Exactly who comprises this "organization"? Who founded it? Does it meet regularly? Does it have a structure? Who are its officers? What are its stated organizational goals? Is there a web presence? (I couldn't find any.) Is there at least a P.O. Box for them? Other contact info? No such information was presented in the information I saw. In fact, I couldn't find anything that identified the "National Melanin Consortium" as an organization at all. If you have information in this regard, please present it. deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further, your assumptions about "less intelligent individuals" being most receptive to supremacist ideologies is flawed. Gee, I haven't heard anyone suggest that Hitler was a mental cretin. Have you? :p deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the business of "black Gods" -- I don't buy that as evidence in and of itself of a supremacist agenda. Such over-the-top rhetoric doesn't seem to be meant to be taken literally -- any more than black people calling one another "kings" and "queens." You write that the BHI and its spin-off believe that blacks have been "appointed by God to subjugate and rule over the 'cruel, barbaric, and merciless' 'fraudulent' 'White World'. Please cite specific references -- in context -- in the organizations' own literature. deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the so-called "Dero": it doesn't read that to me that they're describing white people. They're describing some outlandish myth of prehistoric, hominid, cave-dwelling creatures with:

pinkish grey color skin mutch like the corpse of a Caucasion ... no hair on their bodies. ...they have no teeth. their mouth appears to be full of a gummy ,slimy substance. they are Nocturnal and hear extermely well. they are not very peaceful and have a long dislike for human beings.

If they were describing "Caucasians," why would they use such terminology? The description certainly doesn't fit any white people with whom I've come into contact. Besides, Caucasians are, overall, the hairiest of all three racial groups -- a fact emphasized in a lot of anti-white language, with the conclusion drawn that whites are the closest to apes/animals of any human subgroup. So, it seems odd here if the intention was to equate whites with the Dero. So the term "Dero," it seems to me, are not represented as being synonymous with white people -- or any actual human. Do you have additional information that would clear this up? deeceevoice 08:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since we obviously cannot reach consensus, I listed this article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Pharlap 09:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, so quick to give up! I couldn't find anything convincing on the Net, but I was hoping you would. It appears you couldn't come up with sources that definitively would show these groups to be supremacist in nature. Remember, hate groups are not the same thing as supremacist groups -- a fact which a few of your sources appear to have been unaware of, forgotten, or simply disregarded. And successive posts of this or that screwyball idea about Daros, aliens, etc., adds nothing to this discussion. deeceevoice 14:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hate Group" is a generic term. It includes supremacist groups. The Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan Resistance, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Socialist Skinheads, etc etc, are ALL called "hate groups", all "hate groups" have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people and nobody in his/her right mind would ever deny their beliefs in supremacist doctrines.

By the by: My wkipedia membership serves only one purpose: to contribute valid informations. If you see wikipedia as a power game (shout one down, one gives up, one wins) then you have to look for someone else to battle with. I rather ask for comment right away (and welcome any comments even if they might prove me wrong) than to engage in one of your edit wars. Sorry. Pharlap 00:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saw the request for comment, thought I'd swing by and take a look. Without wading through all of the links, I have a few suggestions:

• Reading groups' websites and deciding on our own if they qualify as "black supremacist groups" constitutes original research, and is therefore not appropriate on Wikipedia (see no original research);
• In light of that, I would only list groups reported by a secondary source (newspaper, book, FBI documents, etc) as black supremacy groups -- inspecific language such as "some sections of X group are black supremacists" can be noted on the list so as to not mislead readers one way or another;
• Groups that have not been reported on by any secondary source are probably non-notable anyway and liable for exclusion form the list on those grounds;
• Careful referencing matching each list item to at least one source is crucial;
• I would recommend adding a note to the list saying something to the effect of, "Some black supremacist groups are by their nature secretive and conceal their existence or true purpose from the public; therefore, this list must be considered to be incomplete." to keep people from thinking the list is definitive one way or the other.

Good luck with the article! - Bantman 17:37, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. And, as my comments from 16:14, 7 Apr 2005 show, all mentioned organizations are defined as "black supremacist" organizations by several sources. Pharlap 00:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed -- generally. On the Apologetics Index and objectivity

I was hoping Pharlap would be able to produce something more authoritative -- as was done with the NOI -- than what was presented earlier, and something more persuasive than what I was able to find on my own. (What I've read just isn't convincing.) I am in general agreement. I'd been thinking about how to insert qualified information about groups with a range of ideological bents or splinter groups, and to mention the considerable grey areas in this matter, and it seems to me that an annotated list is the answer. A good deal of the information Pharlap has provided speaks to the quirkiness/outright (to borrow a phrase from someone else) "bat-shit insaneness" of the theology of one or two of these groups, but, IMO, has no bearing on whether the group is or is not supremacist in nature. But it is useful insofar as it can be the start of new articles on these various groups, with links back to Black supremacy, where applicable.

I must say I think there are profound problems with the objectivity of the Apologetics website, which is a source Pharlap quotes. I was immediately suspicious of the objectivity of the information it provided and checked into it. It is a hardline, doctrinaire, Evangelical Christian website which is profoundly judgmental about certain religious persuasions. It also provides little or no justification for some judgments.

Apologetics Index website on Islam

On Mainstream Islam:

Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God? The Quran states that Muslims, Jews and Christians worship the same God (Sura 29:46)....

When compared with the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the teachings of Quran show that Allah is not the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

In November, 2003, evangelical Christian leaders took George Bush - who indentifies himself as a Christian - to task for his assertion that "Muslims worship the same Almighty" that he does....

The entry then goes on to list a number of references for articles where Evangelicals excoriate Bush for having the temerity to suggest that the god of Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions (alongside Judaism and Christianity) is the same god recognized by its sister faiths.

On the Bahai faith:

According to the critics, the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA), which oversees the American Baha'i movement, is dominated by a tight-knit group of authoritarian officials who keep the lid on free expression by threatening dissidents with excommunication and by manipulating the process by which NSA members are elected.

On Roman Catholicism:

Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two. ....Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation.... The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ. ...the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a nonbiblical fashion.

The source for such judgments on Catholicism is a book co-authored by John Ankerberg, of the Ankerberg Theological Institute.[39] A visit to the website reveals Ankerberg to be a classic, right-wing Christian evangelist. The site features such things as "HOW DO POPULAR ANGELS SUPPORT THE WORLD OF THE OCCULT?" a segment on the John Ankerberg Radio Show titled "Former Muslims Testify about Islam; a link titled "Would you consider making a gift to the ministry at this time?" and a link to the ATRI, the Ankerberg Theological Research Center, which, among other things, features a book questioning evolution and advancing Creationism. This is hardly an objective source of information. Of the book, Apologetics says: "Apologetics Index highly recommends this book. It can be purchased at Amazon.com," and provides a direct link for those wishing to purchase the book.

Yes, research is critical when seeking to provide authoritative information; but it is also important to consider the source and that source's motivations, inherent biases. A web presence does not automatically confer credibility. And speaking of inherent biases, keep in mind the explicit and implicit qualifications in the information provided in the single FBI report cited. It was a threat assessment of possible violence by millennialist groups as 2000 approached. Again, it did not formally classify BHI as a "black supremacist" organization, but spoke of it as being "generally" supremacist in nature -- possibly, again, because of the apparently difficulty in pinning down just who believes precisely what. But such vagueness is an important thing to note -- as well, the repeated claim in the FBI document that the "violent" fringe that it believes to be "generally" supremacist in nature is not the "vast majority" of BHI adherents.

For anyone wishing to do research into Yahweh ben Yahweh and other black religious cults, here's a promising-looking title: "Bring Me The Head," subtitled "Bloodsucking, headhunting, and other racial myths about New York's reputed black separatist cults," Village Voice (Feb. 3, 1999). It may provide a more objective perspective, or at least a counterbalancing view, on the subject under discussion. deeceevoice 09:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hate group" does not equal "supremacist group"

Pharlap writes: "'Hate Group' is a generic term. It includes supremacist groups. The Aryan Nations, the Ku Klux Klan, the White Aryan Resistance, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the National Socialist Skinheads, etc etc, are ALL called 'hate groups', all 'hate groups' have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people and nobody in his/her right mind would ever deny their beliefs in supremacist doctrines."

If this is the basis upon which he has contributed the names of the organizations, then I must again dissent. "Hate group" and "supremacist group" are not synonymous terms. I've tried repeatedly to explain this simple concept repeatedly. Would someone else care to try? deeceevoice 16:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your reminding me of the guy on Talk:White supremacist who won't allow stormfront or national vanguard to be among the external links. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 21:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, there are millions of African Americans who are not black supremacists. In fact, they represent the overwhelming majority of African Americans. I thus find it unfathomable as to why you spend hour after hour trying to prove that these particular black supremacist groups are somehow not black supremacists, despite their teachings that black people are superior to non-black people. (They often use much harsher langauge!) You write as if these small supremacist groups are in some way representative of black people in general, and that an open admission that these groups happen to be black supremacists is somehow an attack on the black community. That is just not so. Nor, for that matter, is their any implication that most blacks agree with such groups. I suspect, in fact, that most African Americans don't know about most of these groups! In a similar fashion, we have many detailed articles on white supremacist groups, yet this is not being interpreted as a critique of white people. RK

In any case, in accord with our NPOV policy we should say something like "these groups are considered by organizations A, B and C to be black supremacist groups." RK

RK, you assume/presume too much and are attributing motives I do not have. I'm simply seeking accurate information. And I've already said the list should be carefully annotated, which would satisfy my concerns about the entries. However, I would not cite the Apologetics website as a source. I think it's way too subjective. The problem, however, is that Spade has added the names without any such accompanying information. That is unacceptable and contrary to the consensus so far (Bantman, Pharlap and I) reached in this discussion. Accuracy of information is important, so any qualifying information and identification of credible sources is important. deeceevoice 09:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cited not one, but 13 different sources, out of countless links found on the web, and all of them define the mentioned organizations as black supremacist organizations.

Furthermore, I think a website which offers oppositional comments and links (e.g. a link to the "Bring Me The Head" article in Village Voice you yourself described as "promising" "a more objective perspective, or at least a counterbalancing view" [40]), and cites its sources, is more balanced and less "subjective" than someone who states - after reading, for instance, the Yahweh website and citations copied from their official webpage - that this organization just talks about "love and love and more love".

The website buried that bit of information at the end of the piece among several other references that support the stated view. There certainly was no countervailing viewpoint presented in the text -- and still absolutely nothing concrete about the group's purportedly supremacist doctrine. deeceevoice 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the NBPP, you obviously equate the NBPP with the original Black Panther Party. Here is what the Huey Newton Foundation has to say about that. [41]

"I would only list groups reported by a secondary source (newspaper, book, FBI documents, etc) as black supremacy groups" and "Careful referencing matching each list item to at least one source is crucial" (Bantman 17:37, Apr 9, 2005) According to this consensus, it's perfectly okay to reinsert the names. If you are missing accompanying informations, add them, but don't remove the list.Pharlap 22:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black supremacy vs. white supremacy

4 different people NPOV-edited your version 7 times, everytime you reverted the edits. Please point out who agreed (and when) with your version. Pharlap 14:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A response

I want to repeat that the list should be annotated. Each entry should be followed by a short paragraph about the group and its specific supremacist views. This is a grey enough area that more information should be provided, particularly with regard to groups with splinter organizations such as the BHI (as the FBI memo makes clear). Further, the listing of single individuals is absolutely meaningless, unless there is some kind of accompanying information.

Bantman, apparently drawn here by the RfC, suggested that the entries be accompanied by an explanatory note, to which Pharlap agreed -- but so far I've seen nothing but a simple reinstatement of the list. I agreed in principle, stating I thought the note should be a fully annotated one. Rather than inserting some general sentence that automatically assumes any absence of explicitly supremacist rhetoric means obfuscation or secrecy, the more objective approach would be to state briefly what "evidence" does exist -- who considers them to be supremacist and why. I think there should be a clear distinction made between hate groups and supremacist groups. Clearly, there is ignorance on this particular matter, Pharlap wrong-headedly has asserted that there is no difference between the two, when there most assuredly is! Such a fundamental misapprehension regarding the nature of the subject underdiscussion should be dealt with analytically and dispassionately. This has not been done in this case -- not (apparently) by the sources cited (though at least the FBI report makes an effort to discern among certain factions of the BHI), which is certainly neither scholarly nor encyclopedic. The insertion of names of relatively little-known individuals, such as Dwight York or Robert Brock also makes no sense without some sort of accompanying information. Someone could just as easily include "Joe Schmoe" and leave it at that. deeceevoice 14:43, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the NBPP, I'm aware of what the BPP for Self-Defense says about the NBPP. Still, I've not seen any information whatsoever on the organization that speaks of black supremacy. Even the sites I've visited that charge the NBPP is black supremacist speak only about individuals (Muhammad and Shabazz). So far, I still haven't seen anything about the organizations as institutions that is supremacist. deeceevoice 17:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As it stands now

The whole "it's not as bad as white supremacy because it's a liberation viewpoint" doesn't really take into account that actual white supremacy, as it stands, is basically lunatic-fringe. Yeah, the people in power are still generally whites, but they're not in power AS whites. No white politician in the US or in Canada could have any sort of real success on a platform of white supremacy. They'd be destroyed. They might get a sizeable minority of the votes in Butt Crack County though, but they'd get nowhere.

I mean, it's quite easy to explain why black supremacy exists: Claiming a right to power is hardly uncommon among those without it. But what evidence, exactly, does any of it stand on? The whole "Black Egypt" thing is full of wholes, melanin theory is basically groundless and relies on appealing emotionally to people who want to believe it, and all of this sort of thing actually holds people back, by spending time and money and effort talking about how great things used to be, or how great things should be, instead of making an effort to change how things are now. --Edward Wakelin 23:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And the whole "it's only supremacy/racism/hate if there's power behind it" thing is a cop-out. They're weasel words, trying to redefine the English language to fit a certain viewpoint. Hate is hate, it doesn't matter how much power it has: The KKK is pathetically weak, does this mean that it is less of a hate group than it was back when they could lynch any black they wanted, pretty much (and some sources say that occasionally whites were killd by the Klan) does it make them less of a hate group? --Edward Wakelin 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A response

I disagree completely. In my own personal experience, white supremacy is the rule, rather than the exception. There is a common presumption of black inferiority among whites. The bias toward white supremacy and black inferiority is often so deep-seated, it goes unnoticed by those who hold it. A case in point. I go into an art framing shop, and the owner and I, as is our habit, become engaged in casual conversation. He's about 40, "liberal" -- and white. I, of course, am African-American and a collector of African-American art. We talk about his children, his mother-in-law coming to visit, him getting a video camera to start keeping a family videographic archive, etc., etc.

He: I'm thinking of making some additions to the store. Thinking about maybe getting some black, but good, art in -- just to (blah, blah, blah; I don't recall much past this point).

I: Well, I would hope the art you would carry would be "black, but good art." After all, you're carrying white, but good" art. Are you listening to yourself? Do you realize how racist what you just said is?

(He stares at me, embarrassed and kind of blank.)

I: You said "black, but good" -- as though "black" needed a qualifying phrase to differentiate it from other "black" stuff which, by implication, is "bad" or of inferior quality. You wouldn't think of speaking about "white, but good, art" -- would you? You'd better check yourself, G***. Don't pass that racism on to your children.

White supremacy is pervasive. One needn't have a sheet and hood in one's closet to be one.

Ancient dynastic Egypt was a black civilization, as is recognized by many white scholars -- and that fact has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Further, you mischaracterize what the article actually says. There is no black corollary of white supremacy in terms of its power and pervasiveness/destructiveness in the real world. It is in predominant part an intellectual construct. And that's a fact. deeceevoice 12:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, white countries have generally dominated in the economic/military realm, because they had better factors of production. However, let's say that the tables turned, and blacks were in charge. Would you, DCV, denounce black supremacy as harshly as you denounce white supremacy today?--Urthogie 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Diffrence

The diffrence between black supremacy and white supremacy is a real diffrence,not just the color of the people,its a fact that the white culture and its succeses historically is through the oppression and minipulation of people of color,the entire culture of whites worldwide is to raise themselves above others in their minds and then consequestially socioeconomically,it is the basic core of and behind all european endevors,supposedly bringing "civilization" to "savages". However there is no people on earth more violent or savage and with more of a track record of violence than the european culture,And actually most innovations of european culture is a result of the desire to oppress and do violence to other people,i.e.world war 1 world war 2 and the internal european strife predating euopean colonialism.Of course their is more to european culture than this and many advances are attributed to many brilliant european descents,the general population however of whites falsly assume that the accomplishments of the few are a result of their skin color as opposed to the reality that all cultures produce genius and innovation.Now all peoples possess the capacity for violence however europeans culture generally associates the color of their skin as a pass to export their penchant for violence to people that dont look like them,this is the heritage of the european.Black supremacy is actually a defensive tactic developed to protect its population from european exploitation an actual and nescessary posture adopted to protect oneself against a dedicated and belligerent group of people,The crimes against europeans from africans pales in comparison to the crimes perportrated by the european against all other cultures beginning with the greek and roman empires and peaking with the nazi party in the middle of the 20th century,where european culture was forced to face its darkest enemy, ironically it was its own virulent tactic of organized rascism in its purest form that threatend the modern western cultures very existance,Black supremacy is a tactic designed not to oppress the european but to rebuke the false claims of white supremacy ,it is essentially a tool of protection a way to fight the lies of a cultural machine designed to devour other cultures.Black supremacy is tantamount to throwing a wrench in the works. (unsigned post)

Yeah. Like I said. I pretty much agree with that. African Luddites unite! :p deeceevoice 13:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Black supremacy is a tactic." So basically, you give up on rational thought because you're so angry at white supremacists. Basically, you fight lies with more lies. Great idea. If you actually wanted to through a wrench into the logic of white supremacy, you might try doing it through actual thinking, instead of imitating whiteys racism.--Urthogie 21:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

fresh eyes opinion

Hello. Just looked over the article and talk pages and thought I'd chime in with my two cents:

This paragraph is way POV: "In neither its intellectual nor its political context, however, is black supremacy—as many are inclined to believe—mere sophistry; it is a strongly held notion. Even so, black supremacy is little more than an intellectual construct; black supremacy, per se, as a corollary of white supremacy, does not exist. In Killing Rage: Ending Racism, noted author and social commentator bell hooks writes however"

I think this, and the hooks quote that follows, is very good if it is presented as an opinion. I don't think it can be stated that ALL black supremacy is not "mere sophistry." Nor can you state as a bald fact the idea that black supremacy "per se" does not exist. You can present the argument (as the hooks quote does very well), but surely there is an opposing view, and that should be presented in the next paragraph.

In general, there is a lack of refutation or opposing views in the theories section. A lack of opposing views can only mean two things to me: either the arguments are so weak that refutation isn't needed, or the opinions are so weak that people are afraid to even state the other side. (I'm not saying that it is true, but that's my assumption if both sides are not presented).

My other critique, a little more broad-based, is that while the top of the article says that black supremacy places the black race above all other races, the article is very focused on the relationship between blacks and whites. I know that this is the main issue, but I would imagine that there must be race issues between Asians and blacks, Latinos and blacks. There's also the anti-semitism angle.

Anyway, good luck hammering out the controversy. I'll watch with eager eyes. Jordoh 16:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Yahweh

I read up on them and although there are some things in the 60-80's that sugeest black supriecye they as a group have seem to renounce black supremcy and there leaders have denounced racsim. I don't think it is appropriate to further contniue to classify them as a black suprmist group if there leaders and adherants don't agree with it. I'm sure there are some instances recently but none that would suggest these are the mainstreams views of this group.

I also removed the New Black Panther Party. Although they did make comments which were inappropriate this is not black suprmist. The groups that say black are better than whites or whites are the devil should be classified as that. Groups or leaders of parties who make one inaapropriate not even necessarily racist comment should not be consider black suprmist. You would call the whole usa senate racist for that time when that senator said we would be better off with segraegation. The New Black Panther Party said that jews never showed up to work and that israel was behind the wtc bombing. Well a cnn poll said 95% of the arab world believes that israel and not osama was behind the wtc bombings but we don't call them all racist. It would also ignore that there are black jews. If they said all christians or muslims didn't show up to work it wouldn't be considered racist. They maybe not be love to jews but they have not said anything that shows they believe black are better than whites.

I asked repeatedly for definitive info about those individuals/entities included in the list, because I thought it inaccurate. I also wrote that I thought the list should be annotated. I had no luck. I agree with the removal of both groups from the list. Also, note that the article has been vandalized with deliberate mis/disinformation inserted into the paragraph which contrasts black supremacy and white supremacy. I cannot edit the piece to correct it because of a(nother) collateral-damage block. The paragraph should read: "In its simplest form, black supremacy is the racist belief in the inherent superiority of the 'black race.' Unlike many white supremacists, black supremacists generally do not regard their belief in black superiority as equivalent to white supremacy. Historically, white supremacy has been reinforced and sustained worldwide by instruments of Western economic, political, and military power. During the last several centuries, white supremacy has been a motive force in the oppression, subjugation and commission of atrocities against non-whites worldwide; however, what is described as black supremacist ideology has not had a similar impact." deeceevoice 12:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so basically they're talking out of their asses, and if they ever did come to power (which they wouldn't, because they're crazies) they'd be just as bad as the Klan. Being weak because of an oppressive system is no excuse to be a fool.--Urthogie 20:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

Someone explain to me how exactly they are racist. I know there things from way back, but I'm talkig about recent evidence withing say the last 5 years that supports they believe black are superior to whites. (Please refrain from use of involving things such as white devil, demons etc. because the NOI has used this towards blacks as well)

Allow me to simplify this for you. Pros: They make things better for black people in several ways. Cons: They're a crazy cult.--Urthogie 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are the Niggers kidding?

They can't even succeed in Africa at making a stable country, yet they think they're better than us?JonyReb 21:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)