1. This speaker denies fitting that description, and of those that read his work, some agree that he isn't, while some disagree, and some aren't sure. Perhaps not surprising, since he wrote a lot, and it's fairly complex. This is therefore not a clear-cut case.

2. Worse, what racial supremacy means depends on who is talking. For example, Black Lives Matters protestors have claimed that a public library, which by federal law cannot exclude people based on race, is white supremacist for that very reason: http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-accuses-public-li...

There is no simple way or simple solution here. These are hard questions, with no clear answers.

Don't allow heretics (Galileo, Spinoza)

Don't allow homosexuals (Turing)

Don't allow Communists (Hollywood Ten)

You're basically assuming that your moral code (that you happen to share with the majority at this moment in history) is the correct one, and you should be able to wield power to silence anyone who thinks differently. Now maybe you are right about his views, maybe I even agree with you, but that isn't the point. The whole point of the enlightenment is that people are allowed to think/write/muse about ideas that the majority might not approve of.