DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Pelley in the early influences section

[edit]

I took out the sentence about Pelley being influenced by British-Israelism. The section is specifically about the early influences on the development of CI. As it was describing Pelley being influenced by BI and is unrelated to CI's early development, it is out of place in a random, shoe-horned in there kind of way. Further, the source was very weak on connecting Pelley to any influence on CI. It makes one statement suggesting that "it could be argued" that his millenarian views were an influence, but leaves it at that - essentially making the off-the-cuff comment based on conjecture with no support. If this is going to be brought back in, it needs to make more sense in the relational context as well as needing stronger sourcing. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That all being said, the source is good for the article on Pelley himself or the Silver Shirts, and undoubtedly, there was crossover with related individuals in CI - but that's more suited to those specific articles where it makes sense to explore those relationships. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eschatology

[edit]

In the eschatology section, it leads with Christian Identity eschatology is dispensational premillennialist, including a physical return of Christ to earth and the final battle of Armageddon. This is cited to the Aho source, which has a copyright date of 1990. Certainly, among the primary teachers of early Identity and the second generation, this would seem to be consistent. However, 35 years hence, this needs to be revised. First, Aho admits in a footnote that some writers suggest a postmillennial theology. Second, in reviewing modern Identity writers like William Finck, who writes "From the correct historicist view of Scripture, the thousand years has already transpired, and now we are in the time that Satan gathers all of the goat nations against the Camp of the Saints"[1] we can see that such an all-encompassing view would appear to no longer be the case. That's either a postmillennial or amillennial view (either could say that), depending on where he goes with it - either way, it's a "realized millennium" theology and would not align with Aho's 1990 statement that "all" Identity is dispensational premillennialist which is inherently futurist (i.e. "hasn't happened yet"). I haven't found any secondary sources that specifically cover Finck's eschatology, but as he is one of the more prominent voices of modern Identity, this subsection may need some revising to account for more than the specifically narrow interpretation it currently presents. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Butlerblog: I saw you had removed some material. While I agree with most of your edits, ie. James Mason's books weren't explicitly called CI, so, good call removing them. But in Sunshine's book it is told that Mason is a certified CI Minister, so I feel he has a place on the page, considering he's a major supporter of nazi terrorism. Any thoughts/feelings concerning this? Thanks.RKT7789 (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two parts to this - Mason and Reynolds. My first concern is Reynolds. There's no indication in Sunshine that he was ordained as an Identity minister, and I don't find that in any other sources, either. What it does say is "In early 1995, Ed Reynolds was ordained as a pastor in two mail-order ministries" (Sunshine, p. 375). It's not clear what those mail-order ministries are, and this appendix section is discussing Masons movement around both Identity and Christianity, not simply Identity alone. Thus, it requires some synthesis here to arrive at Reynolds being an ordained Identity minister. The source doesn't say that, and as I noted, I don't see that in any other sources, either.
The second part is Mason's interest in Identity. The two sentences you have are both true statements when taken individually. However, they draw a connection that is somewhat tenuous and imply to the casual reader a direct connection between them. Mason essentially rejected Identity early on, but maintained connection to the network looking for recruits to his cause. But he had long since moved on from Identity by the time he got to writing Seige, and there's not really a direct link from Identity to Seige to Atomwaffen. I'm not saying there's no influence - there is certainly a lot of crossover between various extremist groups (what Richard Butler sought in partnering Aryan Nations with different groups being but one example). But there is a point where some of that steps outside Identity and simply becomes extremism. There's too much nuance necessary for inclusion of this here. There are plenty of solid examples of Identity groups that have connections to revolutionary violence (which are noted), but this isn't a good one. It is unlike the other examples listed here where there is a very solid direct link to specific Identity groups.
I'm removing the Reynolds part of it since it is not supported by the source. I'd ask you to review the above and consider removing the rest for the reasons noted. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog: Huh, you're completely correct when I re-checked Reynolds, so nice work there. But I'm afraid I don't agree with Mason bit, he has continued publishing CI works to this day (Sunshine p.454), "Out of the Dust" was published in 2022. Edit: Actually the book doesn't say they are CI, although they are, so poor argument on my part. The next part stands though:
And according to Counter Extremism Project, he holds those ideals to this day: "On December 1 [2021], the pastor, radio, and television evangelist Bob Larson debated neo-Nazi James Mason in a live stream on Larson’s YouTube channel. The debate was a sequel to a discussion in 1993 on Bob Larsen’s television/radio program, footage from which has been used in several pro-Mason propaganda videos. During the debate, Mason advocated antisemitic Christian Identity beliefs, denied the Holocaust, and advocated for acts of violence in the name of national socialism."
So, based on this, I don't think the Mason bit should be removed, but I am waiting for your thoughts.RKT7789 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Half info on Identity

[edit]

This article forgot to add the Identity’s perspective of the Two House Theology.

They forgot to add that certain Identitarians follow the view that “Israel AND Judah were driven out of Filastin by Assyria”, which blurs the distinction between Israel and Judah 2605:8D80:520:1477:BD6C:BFDB:255F:9122 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to contribute a citable source for that? ButlerBlog (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in lede

[edit]

The lede currently presents the beliefs of Christian Identity without any comment at all. This is inappropriate - it should also inform the reader of the important fact that these beliefs are considered utter, absurd, ahistorical and ideological nonsense by actual experts, historians and Biblical scholars - on par with Flat Earth Theory. It can't be hard to find reliable sources for that.

The only criticism in the lede right now is the note that Christian Identity is considered 'racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist', but these are categorisations of ideological alignment rather than factual claims - many adherents of Christian Identity would probably see them as a badge of honour - and also, the obviously correct categorisations are presented as the peculiar view of only two organisations, when it should be easy to find five or six reliable sources confirming them. Hardly anyone, with the possible exception of some adherents of Chistian Identity itself, would deny that Christian Identity is 'racist, antisemitic, and white supremacist', so the categorisation should probably be presented simply as fact. Finally, one of the cited organisations for Christian Identity's anti-Semitism being the ADL is, if anything, counterproductive. By now the 'Anti-Defamation League' has, ahem, defamed so many people as anti-Semitic merely for criticising Israel that their categorisation of something as anti-Semitic hardly tells you much about its target - in fact, it may have the opposite effect of discrediting the claim. Appealing to their authority to prove the anti-Semitism of something is more or less like saying 'It's just as anti-Semitic as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein'. Readers should not be presented with the false choice between Christian Identity and the ADL. 62.73.72.101 (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LABEL there are some terms we virtually always attribute. As to the rest, I think that would make the article worse and not substantially improve NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celts

[edit]

@PARAKANYAA Are Celts part of this movement? It’s mostly comprised of Germanics and Celts are not Germanics. Firekong1 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The Celtic element is important. See e.g. George Michael (academic)'s explanation [2]. The traditionalist view is only Anglo-Saxons or Germanics, and Celts. Leaving out one gives a misleading impression. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, may I at least rephrase the sentence to state “and also includes non Germanics like Celts”. Firekong1 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that makes it seem inherently centered on Germanics more than the sources say. It was both. They used a Celtic cross. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it should at least be rephrased differently. Firekong1 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celts are definitely part of CI's view of Christian Israel. What's the objection to the current phrasing? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is one of phrasing, I'm open to suggestions. However, phrasing as Germanic peoples (as well as Celtic peoples) such as Anglo-Saxons, Nordic peoples, and related peoples in this version is not an improvement. Parentheticals should be avoided. What, exactly, is unclear about Celtic and Germanic peoples, such as the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic nations, or the Aryan race and kindred peoples? Your (Firekong1) initial issue seems to be that Celtic should not be included, although that has been shown to be an incorrect assumption. So can you explain what you're trying to accomplish? ButlerBlog (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog Shall we reach a verdict here? Firekong1 (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Butlerblog in that I don't see what the problem is here. You seemed to want to remove "Celts", when RS show that the Celtic element is key. Being specific about what they believed is important and parentheticals confuse matters. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firekong1: I asked above if you could explain what it is you're trying to accomplish, so if you could do that, that's the starting point. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to rephrase the sentence this time, not remove Celts from the article. Since the article states that most of the adherents of this ideology are Germanic peoples (Germans, Britons, Danish, Dutch), I think it would be better to rephrase it to include Celts later in the opening paragraph. Firekong1 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the article says that? And even if it did, I don't see how it's relevant, when the belief is what we are describing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this may be coming from the identification given from Jessup (2006) that lists the tribes of Israel and their supposed descendants. But to clarify, the people groups listed/discussed are not what people group adherents belong to ("most of the adherents of this ideology are..."), but rather it's what they believe in terms of "who are God's chosen people". There are two places other than the lead were it is summed up as Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, and Aryan peoples are the true Israelites or Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples which comes from which comes from Balleck (2018) and Kaplan (2000). To directly quote the Balleck source (rather than our article), "'true Israelites' are Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples'". This is consistent with other sources used in the article, although not specifically cited for this. For example, Barkun (2014) says "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples". Burlein (2002) says "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Germanic-Scandinavian and kindred peoples". Several other sources offer similar results, so I don't see the need to list them all. I believe the current phrasing in the lead represents this in a logical manner. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could distill that down to "we're saying what is stated in cited sources" ButlerBlog (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel we should rephrase it given that it developed from British Israelism, and the British are generally Germanics like the English. In addition, Aryan would not be an accurate term since it more so refers to Indo-Iranians. Nordic would be a much better term for this use. Firekong1 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So regardless of what reliable sources say, we should rephrase based on feeling? I don't mean to sound snarky, but have you looked at any sources - currently cited or otherwise? Go ahead and offer your suggestion here, but you're not likely to move consensus unless it conveys what is in cited reliable sources. Keep in mind that the article is describing a belief system that relies on pseudoscientific and pseudohistorical concepts (like Aryan race, not Aryan the term). ButlerBlog (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not based on feeling, I’m stating that the article should be rephrased in a less confusing way. Most sources I’ve seen generally focus on the Germanic peoples, but we shouldn’t remove Celts. I think it’s better to rephrase it, but I’ll ensure no references are moved (though I don’t see how they can be moved as there were no numbered citations there). Firekong1 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? Most I have seen say their belief is specifically not just Germanic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please pardon my frustration, but in the time since you've brought this up, you've made four responses and not one has offered an example of what you'd propose. I've asked at least twice directly and several times indirectly for what you think would be better. The only thing we have so far is (you) think we should rephrase it, (you) feel we should rephrase it, and (you) think it's better to rephrase it. We get it. So again, suggest what you think would be more clear so we can make some progress.
And to echo @PARAKANYAA, nearly every source indicates Celts are prominently included in the chosen. I noted several above. The most common is to simply say "Anglo-Saxon-Celtic". Barkun (arguably the most prominent source on this subject as he is referenced by nearly every other expert) notes it exactly that way, as do others. Germanic, Nordic, Scandinavian, and Aryan would be the next most common, with Teutonic being referenced less often. So as I previously noted, you're not likely to move consensus unless it conveys what is in reliable sources. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I think we should cease the conversation here since you don’t seem to understand what I’m trying to say. I apologize for your frustration. I won’t be editing this article regarding the Germanic and Celtic elements. Firekong1 (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]