White Nationalism is not inherently racist

I'd like to apologise to OreEle if he believes I've attempted to shift the goalposts regarding the definition of white nationalism. It's true that he presented a definition that seemed reasonable in PM. However obviously one can't just invent a definition without evidence. If I was to debate that apples = oranges, the fact that the consensus of definitions contradict this would mean I'd need some pretty strong evidence to support it. Once again it was OreEle himself who provided the link to a definition of white nationalism that emphasised the requirement of an all white state, contrary to his interpretation. I think it was entirely reasonable of me to ask for some kind of evidence for his assertion. I did this in round 1 and the logical place for OreEle to provide it was round 2. Since he chose not to do so, that seemed to concede the issue that wanting an all white state was an inherent component of white nationalism. It's also worth noting that the definitions discussed in PM were entirely different to the definitions OreEle posted in the debate anyway. For example, in PM he defined "inherently" as "naturally, at its roots" but when it came to the debate he presented the definition of "existing as an essential constituent or characteristic". Obviously the other definition would have been easier for me to argue, but since OreEle provided a solid reference for the definition he chose in round 1, I had no problem accepting it. In this final round Pro has attempted to show some evidence for his claim, but on examination it makes a very poor job of supporting his argument. All the sources I reference here are those posted by OreEle this round. As I noted previously, many racist individuals and organisations may try to present themselves as not racist while they promote an implicitly racist agenda. OreEle has not commented on the video of Nick Griffin coaching American white supremacists on "selling" fascism. The marketing blurb from Stormfront [1] saying they exist to counter anti-white prejudice establishes nothing, nor does having official rules against racial epithets [3]. A Stormfront member sums it up perfectly in OreEle's [3] "This site is for those of us who want to make a impact politically and take a serious professional approach to White Nationalism. However there is a time and a place for everything but that time isn't now and the place isn't Stormfront." In other words, the user will use racist slurs in private or in other settings but use alternative language to express their racist ideas on stormfront. I don't know what the purpose of [2] is intended to be, it is a glossary of terms often used on Stormfront and while I can't see anything anti-racist about it, a few interesting points are worth noting from it. Firstly it defines white nationalism as "The political doctrine demanding White only living space administrated solely by a White people only government" which contradicts OreEle's interpretation and supports the official definition given. They also make it quite clear that some white people aren't white enough: "if the individual practices non-white culture/religion of any form, as a way of life/form of code/practice of procedure they have forfeit their claim to the title of White, and thus simply known as Non-White. These same individuals are known also as "Race traitors". This also forfeits their right to a place in a White people only nation that White Nationalists work towards." All in all the Stormfront links clearly provide more evidence for my arguments than for those of my opponent. I don't really see the significance of the fact that the KKK have recently toned down the violent aspects of their racist agenda, or that they claim to be defending white Christian people from perceived persecution. As OreEle's [6] points out this is historically a terrorist organisation that has somehow been allowed to continue existing and the fact that they no longer behead and lynch black people does not make them any less racist. [8] is a link that while it denies that white nationalism is about superiority or inferiority, clearly confirms it as seeking an all white state (although Asian-Americans may be permitted). How can this not be racist? OreEle has still not provided any evidence of white nationalists who want racially inclusive white nations. The definition of white nationalism provided by SPLC, [9] omits the detail of an all white state but does not contradict it. It specifically. It mentions "inferiority of non-whites" which is racism, and pointing out that some "use the language of academia" doesn't disqualify them from racism either. ___________ "White nationalism can support immigration restrictions" that doesn't mean white nationalism = merely supporting immigration restrictions. That is a common feature of most conservative ideologies. OreEle claims that by making certain portions of the US with "vast majority of a white population" into independent white nations "no attack on current individuals would be needed" So these areas really have no non-whites at all? No Jews even? This seems unlikely unless the nations really did just consist of individual houses, which clearly isn't the case. "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." Jewish doesn't "count as white" at all but some Jews are white. Jewish nationalism is Zionism focussed around Israel so it is very different from white nationalism which almost universally condemns Jews. "The claim that they want, at their core, to live in a purely white nation is unfounded" It's not unfounded, it is founded on reality and is confirmed by most of OreEle's own sources. Culturism is not a word and culturalism does not mean what Pro implies. As I said before "white" is not a cultural term, it is a complexion denoting an unscientific classification of race. "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 difference between terms like white and black and terms like Asian and Mexican should be obvious. Asia and Mexico are places, a continent and a nation respectively. European nationalism or American nationalism are not inherently racist but white nationalism is. White and black are clearly racial terms that apply regardless of culture. Eminem is still white although he is immersed in a culture that is mostly associated with black people. "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." The definition Pro posted in the debate was accompanied by a link, which clearly states "White nationalism is a political ideology which advocates a racial definition of national identity for white people, and a separate all-white nation state" http://www.google.co.uk... Pro used different definitions than those discussed in PM anyway. I'd like to thank OreEle for the debate and I hope I've given him the opportunity to consider the inherent racism of nationalist movements that focus on racial differences. I'm pretty sure he's not a white nationalist himself but he seems to have got the idea that there is a cute, cuddly form of white nationalism out there. I think it's obvious that once you scratch the surface of such facades, the same familiar racist agenda lies beneath. Thank you.