" January 2015 (UTC) 

 ::::::::In a search of the first twenty (20) pages of Google-search results for 'EURO white supremacist', limited to results dated prior to 12/27/2014 (before the recent artificial controversy), I only found ONE (1) result in which the organization EURO is referred to as being ""white supremacist"". (I will not cite it, in part to force anybody who still think there is a 'consensus' to seek it out himself, and thus find any other such cite.)  I take this as being clear evidence that there is no ""consensus"" for the idea that EURO is ""white supremacist"".  Quite the opposite.  Those who would take the dozens of pages of results dated on or after 12/28/2014 as amounting to being a ""consensus"" are obviously trying to play a trick on WP and its readers.  Some of those people have already shown up at WP, trying to re-edit the article so say that EURO is ""white supremacist"".  These media references are clearly not ""grass roots"", they are purely ""Astroturf"":  They are far more evidence of sloppy MSM (mainstream media) gullibility or even a conspiracy.  Clearly hundreds of separate organizations took their rhetorical cues from one source, the way each musician in an orchestra takes cues from a single conductor.  So if anything, the results after 12/28/2014 should be taken as evidence of a fraud:  Virtually every organization which referred to EURO as being ""white supremacist"" (with the possible exception of organizations which independently justified that label) have demonstrated their participation in and assistance of that fraud. 
 ::::::::But some have advocated using the term ""white nationalist"" as a fallback position, even claiming that this is a ""compromise"".  Problem is, a ""compromise"" with a fraud is still a fraud.  Study the WP article, ""Black Nationism"", and you read:  ""There are different indigenous nationalist philosophies but the principles of all Black nationalist ideologies are unity and self-determination—that is, separation, or independence, from European society.""  I think any definition of ""white nationalism"" that does not contain equivalent wording is clearly evidence of bias, a double-standard which is unfortunately common in today's double-standard world.  A look at WP:  White Nationalism reveals no such equivalent requirement.  This, I suggest, is bias which explains why some people still want to refer to EURO as being ""white nationalist"":  They don't want to condition such a label on the requirements clearly present in the label ""black nationalist"".  A look at the list of positions of EURO already included in this WP article clearly don't include any indications of ""separation"", or ""independence"", from other races.  Therefore, EURO cannot qualify as being ""white nationalist"" based on any even-handed definition of ""white nationalist""; the corollary is that anybody advocating labelling EURO as being ""white nationalist"" must be advocating a biased, stilted definition of ""white nationalist"" different than WP's definition of ""black nationalist"". Therefore, within 48 hours (giving anyone an opportunity to challenge this) I plan to remove the reference to ""white nationalist"" from this article.   22:09, 10"