White Nationalism is not inherently racist

I am a little troubled in the focus on the semantics of the definition of "white nationalist." In the PM that we shared prior to actually debating, it appeared that a definition was agreed upon. "an ideaology that supports having a nation be known as a "white" nation. Much like Isreal is known as a Jewish nation (nation and state can be used interchangably), even though it is not 100% Jewish and being non-Jewish is not a crime." Of which you responded, "Sounds good man." This should show that to be a "white" nation, 100% white population is not needed, merely recognition and policies to maintain that recognition (part of which is cultural identity, as has been argued). To clarify, my link to stormfront was because there are so many threads in there which show that many white nationalists are not racist and do focus on their white culture. "The main purpose of these threads is to be educative, to spread a positive outlook on these places and cultures, so effectively countering anti-White bias that often present White cultures in a negative light." [1] There are plenty more threads that provide all the info that you need. [2][3][4] "There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers." [5] The KKK has actually been spending most of its resources on moving past its extremely ugly past and attempt to distance itself from other openly hateful groups [6][7]. And we can find more cases of typical white nationalism that does not espouse white superiority. [8] We can also go to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group which is known worldwide for being anti-racist and anti-hate for pretty much all kinds, to see that in their definition of "white nationalist," that racism is not a requirement. "White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of non-whites...These groups range from those that use racial slurs and issue calls for violence to others that present themselves as serious, non-violent organizations and employ the language of academia." [9] Meaning that white nationalists are often racists, but they do not have to be in order to be white nationalists. Kind of like saying, "men are often attracted to women" (statistically accurate), but you don't have to be in order to be a man, that is not one of the core principles. Of course, you can find plenty of cases of obvious racism from them as well, but the point is, that racism is an option, not a root trait. As for prominent people that are "white nationalists" Lydia Chassaniol from Mississippi is a more recent one (member of the CCC, a white nationalist organization) and Charles Bishop. Both were political leaders in state governments. Moving on from the real world examples and getting back into the philosophical debate that this was meant to be (though is likely too late to correct, now that we are in the final round). "Pro continues to paint a benign image of white nationalism that is at odds with reality, claiming that white nationalists don't want to make anyone leave their proposed white nation, people are merely "free to leave" if they don't follow "the rules". The problem is that the rules of a white nation inherently involve being white, which is of course racist". While limiting the rules to being white is a possible option for white nationalism, it is not needed. White nationalism can support immigration restrictions, which are not racist, but viewed as important restraints to protect the native culture and economy. One of which is to adapt and embrace the new culture rather than to bring their old culture with them (in other words, anti-multiculturalism). This is common with White Separatists that want to have portions of Idaho and eastern Washington (like Spokane) to become an independent nation (after all, are they not being ruled by a federal government, thousands of miles away?). They already have a vast majority of a white population, so no attack on current individuals would be needed (as opposed to something trying to form in New Mexico or somewhere). This completely fits with the "Let me have my house and you can have your house" approach. Of which my opponent has only been able to argue that it is racist if it "evicts" people because of race (though no "eviction" is taking place). Under the culture and race section of my opponent's, he is missing one simple thing in the comparison. He says "the idea that anyone who is white and nationalist is "a white nationalist" is clearly erroneous and mere semantic shenanigans, a white person who is patriotic about their multi-cultural nation clearly doesn't fit into the definition of white nationalism we began the debate with." I never made that claim. Just like someone who is Jewish and a nationalist is not a "jewish nationalist" by default. We are only addressing those that are already prescribing their nationalism to their culture and/or race. So still, if jewish can count as "white" (which it doesn't in the sense of culture, but can in the sense of white race and jewish religion), than jewish nationalism can count as white nationalism. Going back to the superiority and exclusion section, that doesn't really apply under the definitions. The claim that they want, at their core, to live in a purely white nation is unfounded. If anything, it could be claimed as "culturist" (that some cultures are better than others), however, that still doesn't apply due to the "my house, your house" argument. White separatists have no problem with other nations having whatever culture they want. But, even those that do, the resolution is about racism, not culturalism. For Culture and Race, my opponent say, ""White" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race." However, just like "Asian" and "Mexican" it is actually both. "White" can refer to either a culture or a race, it is not just limited to race. The last point is Independence. Where my opponent says the acceptance of immigrants who adapt to the new culture is in stark contrast to the opening definition. But if we look at the opening definition again, or if we look at the definition that my opponent and I agreed on in the PM before starting this debate, it does not go against either or them at all. All in all, given the definitions that were first provided and agreed upon before the debate. It has only been shown that racism is very common in white nationalism, but it has also been shown that it is not an inherent to white nationalism. I'd like voters to remember that inherent =/= common or the majority. Now I'm out of space, sorry if anything didn't get fully answered. [1] http://www.stormfront.org... [2] http://www.stormfront.org... [3] http://www.stormfront.org... [4] http://www.stormfront.org... [5] http://www.kkk.com... [6] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com... [7] http://i.imgur.com... [8] http://www.whitenationalism.com... [9] http://www.splcenter.org...