Talk:The Lightning and the Sun

Censorship of The Lightning and the Sun on Wikipedia by Humus sapiens

I added the link to this public book (as far as I know all national socialist books are public domain under fair use law) The Lightening and the Sun, is defacto public domain due to its deep connection to National Socialism. This link was removed on this article and Humus sapiens censored the link. Can anyone else see a pattern here? Are people oblivious to what is going on here in a concerted manner?

This book link is located on...

http://www.solargeneral.com/library/lightningsun.pdf

Humus Sapien in a biased manner removed a valid link.

Lokison 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted some edits made by an editor named Schwalker which amounted to nothing more than censorship. Will be keeping an eye on this page. David H. Goldstein (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What Censorship?

The book is nowhere to be found at solargeneral.com. No one "removed a valid link". Copy-paste of the url provided by Lokison just opens up the homepage of a run-of-the-mill hate site. The only books listed there are the usual uninteresting witches' brew of proto-Nazi, Nazi, and neo-Nazi crap. 69.119.32.105 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of accurate information

Pinecode is attempting to remove mention of the fact that National Vanguard Books is far-right, that Resistance Records is neo-Nazi and white supremacist, and that Counter-Currents Publishing is white supremacist. The user has alleged in an edit summary that "neo-Nazi" is a meaningless label. My response is that the term "neo-Nazi" does mean something, whether Pinecode likes the term or not. Wikipedia has a whole article on the subject of Neo-Nazism precisely because neo-Nazism is a real thing.

In any event, it is obvious that Pinecode is engaged in tendentious editing. It would be one thing if Pinecode had removed the entire paragraph ("An abridged version was published by National Vanguard Books, and Resistance Records has released an audio recording of readings from the book. An unabridged version was also made available online by the Savitri Devi archive. Most recently, an unabridged version was published by Counter-Currents Publishing"), which is uncited, but he chose to remove only the information identifying various groups as far-right. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

and that Counter-Currents Publishing is white supremacist

So I made a mistake in my edit summaries. That's even more ridiculous. Where is there any evidence of Counter-Currents being white supremacist - i.e. where does Counter-Currents state that white people are "superior," as in White Supremacy?

it is obvious that Pinecode is engaged in tendentious editing

Removing tendentious content is the opposite of tendentious.

but he chose to remove only the information identifying various groups as far-right

How is this not the right thing to do? What do left and right matter at all in relation to The Lightning and the Sun? Anyhow, the lede gives a pretty good idea of what the book is about. I will indeed remove the whole paragraph, until we can agree on its form. It really doesn't matter anyway which versions have been published, when the book is easily obtained both online and IRL. Pinecode (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your first question ("Where is there any evidence of Counter-Currents being white supremacist"), Counter-Currents Publishing redirects to Greg Johnson (white nationalist). The article states that Johnson "is known for his role as editor-in-chief of the white nationalist imprint Counter-Currents Publishing", and the information is cited. The citation could easily be added to this article. I am aware that some people would maintain that white supremacism and white nationalism are not necessarily the same thing. The distinction may or may not be an important one. Even if it is, "white supremacist" can easily be changed to "white nationalist". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider the two to be the same thing. In the article you linked, it claims that Greg Johnson believes in an ethnic home for every people. That doesn't sound like "whites are superior" to me. There is also another quote of his in which he claims "...it is not our [white nationalists'] preference to rule over other groups. Although if forced to live under multicultural systems, we are going to take our own side and try to make sure that our values reign supreme." There is a distinction. Still, how is any of this "necessary" information? Pinecode (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not care what you think about the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacism. It is necessary to include information about the political stances of the book's publishers because readers are otherwise not in a position to understand the book's full significance. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"because readers are otherwise not in a position to understand the book's full significance" What is this "significance" you're talking about? There's a pretty good summary of the book's contents in this article, and I fail to see why this would not be sufficient information for someone curious about this book, as opposed to "tHiS BoOK is a NaHtZEE BoOk!!! ThIS bOOk iS ONLy puBLiSHed by NAHTZEES!!!". Even the current lede provides a clue as to what you would call the book's "significance." Pinecode (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your second question ("What do left and right matter at all in relation to The Lightning and the Sun?"), my response is that your question is completely tendentious. The book makes claims about Adolf Hitler, a politician. It is ludicrous to suggest that politics is not relevant to the book. The political affiliations of the book's publishers are obviously relevant and in fact necessary information. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to suggest that politics is not relevant to the book.

That's not what I said. I said (am saying now) that left and right are not relevant to the book. To be more direct, what does the left-right political spectrum have to do with anything? What fundamental meaning lies behind left and right? The terms originated during the French Revolution, where so-called "right-wingers" wanted to preserve the existing order, and "left-wingers" wanted to create a new, more "equal" order... but why must everything be mapped between these two poles? Everything... let alone this book or its author, who would likely consider left-right politics a paradigm entirely "within time." This book (which I have read) does not promote any existing order, nor does it promote "equality," so again, what do left and right have to do with this book? Pinecode (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The only important point is that when one is dealing with a book with obvious relevance to politics the political affiliations of its publishers are obviously relevant. I am not going to debate your rambling comments about the distinction between left and right with you. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph which Pinecode claims to be "contentious". If Pinecode wants to make a material change such as this to the article the onus is on Pinecode to achieve consensus for such a change. We don't remove important content simply because a (very new) editor is having trouble understanding it. Captainllama (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That content is unfortunately uncited and it is potentially subject to removal for that reason. Unfortunately, Pinecode, who claims not to know what the term "neo-Nazi" means, seems to be intent on removing it for completely tendentious reasons. The best thing would be to support the content with proper citations. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"the distinction between left and right" Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. What I am stating is that the left-right paradigm has no place in discussing or describing such a book as The Lightning and the Sun. I was not rambling about the distinction between the two - only stating that it isn't relevant where this book or its publisher lies on the left-right spectrum. Pinecode (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this edit and edit summary ("is this fair?"), no it is not fair, and doubly not. Pinecode is well aware that the onus is on them to gain consensus here for changing the established version before doing so. I have reverted to the established version.

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the descriptions as they are. They not about the book but about the organisations mentioned, whose whole raison d'être self-identifies as the descriptors used. If they are not representative of the descriptors used, who exactly do you think is? Why such difficulty calling a spade "a spade"? Captainllama (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that it serves any purpose to discuss Pinecode's childish comments with him. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Listing of Publishers

Why are multiple publishers being listed for this book with emotional power-words attached to them? If it is necessary to include terms such as "neo-Nazi," "white supremacist," then why should these publishers be listed at all? If these words provide accurate descriptions of the publishers, then they are obviously not worth anyone's attention, otherwise their descriptions would sound less deliberately-offputting, right?

I think that either the emotional words should be discarded and the publishers simply listed, or they should not be listed at all, and if it is true that these are far-right, white supremacist, neo-Nazi publishers, then the second option sounds like the right one. What currently stands doesn't seem right to me. Toppest Account (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, the nature of the publishers (which are far from controversial -- it's not like someone is calling Penguin a "white supremacist publisher", these are publishers with specific political agendas that they do not hide) are informative to the reader, showing that the book, despite being re-published in an abridged edition, for instance, has not entered the mainstream. It remains entirely on the far-right fringe, which is made clear with those descriptors.

It's quite true that we are an enyclopedia and not a WP:PROMOtional medium, but we are an encyclopedia, and we provide information about the subjects of our articles. For articles about books, a publication history, abbreviated if necessery, is absolutely standard, and there's no reason that tis book, vile as it appears to be, should be different. If you think that we shouldn;t have an article about it at all, feel free to nominated for AfD -- it won't be deleted, I can assure you.

In any case, I moved the publication history from the lede, which it did not belong, into a separate section in the body. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)