White Nationalism is not inherently racist

OreEle has a significant burden of proof in this debate as he is contradicting a dictionary definition that he provided himself. He claims that white nationalists don't all seek an all white nation and that the ideology is based on culture rather than race, the weight of evidence including the definition contradicts this entirely. Nationalism "White Nationalism has been, at it's core, mis-represented, mis-understood, and mis-labeled. The Dictionary's only further propagate that mis-labeling, so using one mis-labeling to justify the mis-labeling is nothing more than circular reasoning." I haven't used circular reasoning, I've merely challenged a lack of evidence. In r1, OreEle stated that white nationalists don't necessarily seek an all white state, but the only definition he provided directly contradicted this, I suggested he find evidence to back up his own interpretation but it is not til round three that he attempts to do so. I don't know what the link to the home page of stormfront is meant to establish, so again I'm asking for proof of this and until we have it, I think it is only reasonable to go with the dictionary definition OreEle himself provided. Pro continues trying to equate racially motivated separatism with Irish republicanism and American independence. In the case of Ireland, it was an independent nation long before British rule, in the case of America, thousands of miles of ocean separated them from their rulers. In both cases the claim for independence was an entirely valid and just one. Wanting to write your own borders onto a map for racial reasons is very different. Once again, there are no white nationalists in the world "under foreign domination". OreEle states that white separatists "want to create a new nation, rather than morph an existing nation". Pretty much every part of the world is subject to some claim of national ownership so I don't see how it's possible to create a nation without morphing an existing one. Pro has already acknowledged that "there is no "White" region in the world", and I've never heard of white nationalists wanting to take over an uninhabited region although maybe he has some evidence for this. Exclusion and superiority OreEle has dropped these arguments I made last round. Until he can provide evidence that justifies disregarding the dictionary definition he provided, these points appear to be conceded and I believe they completely negate the resolution. Culture and race "It was already argued, that just like other forms of Nationalism, the focus is around culture, not race" A list of nationalists defined by their nation hardly proves white nationalism is focused on culture. "White" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race. Any kind of nationalism defined by race is inherently racist. For a genuine example of circular reasoning within this debate, one need look no further than OreEle's contention that "if we are going to label Jewish people as "white" than any Jewish Nationalism would, by default, be a part of "White Nationalism," and so, also by default, not all white nationalists would feel that way towards jews." Jewish nationalism or Zionism is self-defined in terms of culture and religion, not all Jewish people are white as I stated previously and a Jewish state already exists so Zionism is obviously not part of white nationalism. 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. White nationalism is self-defined in terms of race and excludes Jews and others. I find the implication that white nationalists represent the culture and interests of all white people preposterous and somewhat insulting. I have a mixed race child so obviously I don't find the idea of an all white nation appealing on a personal level, even if I am happy and even (sometimes) proud to be English. Pro respond to my argument that white nationalism is defined by race rather than culture with an observation about multiculturalism that seems entirely irrelevant to the statement he disputes. He points out himself that "many European nations and America are no longer "white culture" nations" and has provided nothing to indicate that the mythical homogeneous white culture that white nationalists promote has any validity in reality. Independence As covered above, revolutionary Irish and American nationalists did indeed have foreign overloads in a geographical and in a historically accurate sense, not just "in the nationalists' minds" as OreEle quite aptly describes the case of race based nationalism. He then in a seemingly unrelated point attempts to characterise white nationalism as welcoming immigrants who attempt to adapt to the culture and language of their new nation, which once again is in stark contrast to his opening definition. Houses and nations 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. As for many of his other assertions, OreEle's evidence seems to consist of "check out stormfront". He hasn't sited any specific examples but very well, let's consider stormfront and what evidence it could possibly offer to establish the resolution or any of my opponent's points. Set up by former KKK grand wizards David Duke and Don Black, Stormfront has been described by many as the "first hate site" on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org...(website) Stormfront is a forum which anyone can go on to so not everyone who goes on it may necessarily be a white nationalist, indeed a large proportion of the forums consist of members accusing each other of being Jewish, being gay or being a spy. Also it's worth considering that people can portray a benign exterior yet conceal darker motives. Video footage demonstrates BNP leader Nick Griffin at a meeting with US white supremacists discussing new vocabulary guidelines for less overtly racist political sloganeering. http://www.youtube.com... OreEle: " Pointing out some white nationalists that are racist does not make the case true, while pointing out some that are not, does effectively refute it" With this comment Pro seems to be seeking to shift the burden of proof entirely from the terms of the debate. It's also worth considering that we are discussing whether racism is an inherent part of the ideology, not the opinions of a few fringe moderates. Finding a handful of people on stormfront who don't exhibit explicit racism certainly isn't enough to prove the resolution here, as OreEle says: "this debate is about White Nationalism at its core, not just the traits of some of its members". If he could provide evidence of a significant number of self-confessed white nationalists (preferably with connections to relatively mainstream or well known parties or organisations) actively speaking out against racism, not just in public rhetoric and media interviews, but in meaningful terms amongst their peers, perhaps then OreEle would have some evidence to back up the resolution. Until then, we are approaching the last round and still waiting for evidence that the dictionary Pro referenced is wrong, for a rebuttal of how seeking a white nation and excluding people on the basis of race is explicitly racist, and that white nationalism is based on culture rather than race. Thanks.