Talk:White nationalism

Deletion

I propose this article should be deleted as it is completly unsorsed and its defintion is compleatly different from wikipedia's [1].^{— Unsigned, by: 110.32.133.250 / talk / contribs}

I prupose dis artikul be keppt az it iz survin its pirpus - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It could with sourcing, but other than that it seems fine to me. - π 09:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

One overlooked benefit

“”One often overlooked benefit of racial separatism is that it provides for a state relatively free of racism. White separatists are fond of pointing out that "white privilege," "institutional racism," and supposedly endemic white racism and exploitative behavior would be largely eliminated in a white separatist state.

I suppose that's technically true... Although it's a bit like saying we can prevent all theft by removing the concept of personal property and prevent murder by slaughtering the entire population simultaneously. ^narchist 15:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

"In practice, the term is a code word for "white supremacist" that fools no-one. Most self-described "white nationalist" activists also just happen to take the side of Nazi Germany against Great Britain, the United States, and Russia (all mostly-white nations, supposedly part of their greater Europa), in discussions of World War II."

Based on the way "White nationalist" is defined on here(Probably a majority of the population if opinion polls are to be believed), this is not an accurate statement.

"The fact that white people actually make up SEVERAL nations does not seem to matter to most white nationalists,"

Just as Asians are made up of several nations? ^{— Unsigned, by: Clawclaw / talk / contribs}

Attempted debunking by "identitarian"

[2] I suppose we should note it. Anything worth debunking in the article? - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule, I find that "debating" white nationalists is counter-productive, and contributes nothing to the collective conversation. As to the specific case... i can't read tumblr at work. And a white nationalist tumblr seems like a "please fire me" marker. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a few snippets of his questionable 'debunking':

“”Identarianism is easier to pronounce, and it highlights how whites need to act with their interests in mind as other groups do. We should be allowed to criticize ourselves and our history when necessary, but in the 21st century we can no longer tolerate a fatalistic resignation to our own extinction, or the “elimination” of whiteness. Whites have common political interests.

“”In countries with a majority of white people, “anti-racist” IS a code word for anti-white. While some groups, such as indigenous North Americans, are indeed the recipients of prejudiced laws and other forms of oppression, “anti-racism” is very often used by relatively privileged groups who are not white to assert their interests and attack the expression of whites’ identity, not to mention their political interests.

I haven't read the whole thing, but I'm not seeing many points worth paying attention to. (Also, Ha! at "is easier to pronounce".) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Its always so-called "white" Americans or Canadians spouting this nonsense (and this blogger is Canadian). Its because they are a diverse mix of different ethnic groups from Europe, instead of only one - so they have an identity crisis. In Europe though the idea of "white"/"white nationalism" or "white identitarianism" (whatever this Canadian idiot is posting) is virtually unheard of. Far-right political parties in Europe are ethno-nationalist not "white-nationalist". The BNP for example doesn't want Poles immigrating to Britain (yet to a "white nationalist", Polish people are as "white" as English, Welsh or Scots).Krom (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ehhhhh ... I think you're stretching there. Remember that "white" didn't used to include Mediterraneans. It's the same people with the same ideas - David Gerard (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Racial, ethnic and cultural nationalism are different. Race-based nationalism such as "White" nationalism is a North American ideology, and is virtually unheard in politics in Europe. None of the major far-right parties (e.g. Jobbik, Svoboda) in Europe are "white" nationalist, but their ideology is based around regional ethnic groups. Most these parties hate their next-door country neighbors in Europe, so "white nationalism" is a completely alien concept to them.Krom (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Should “Identitarianism” have its own article?

While I completely agree that “Identitarians” are white nationalists, I think that this particular version might deserve its own page, just like the one for the alt-right (which is also definitely a brand of white nationalism). While the alt-right basically likes to promote itself as a sort of online populists trolling the elitist cucks yaddayaddayadda, the “Identitarians” tend to present themselves as sophisticated and cultured intellectuals in the mould of intellectual conservatism (e.g. William F. Buckley). As far as I’ve seen/heard, “Identitarians” thus tend to frame their arguments as “cultural critique” with a sort of high culture spin, as opposed to the meme-filled, “ironic” dog whistling of the alt-right. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

An illustration of the difference between “Identitarians” and the alt-right could be the 2019 Danish elections, which were contested by two political parties two the right of the Danish People's Party:

• Stram Kurs is basically a Danish version of the alt-right (including a basis in party founder, Rasmus Paludan’s YouTube presence and dog whistling “satirical” flyers outlining a plan for a Danish apartheid on steroids mostly resembling the Nuremberg Laws – apart from targeting Muslims, rather than Jews, of course). However, the party failed to reach the Danish electoral threshold of 2% of the votes cast (it received 1.8%).
• Nye Borgerlige are basically the Danish political branch of “Identitarianism”; upper class, well manicured presentable white nationalists, which couples their “Identitarianism” with a deep love of tax cuts (as opposed to the Danish People’s Party, which likes to present itself as a party that supports the Danish welfare state). In contrast to Stram Kurs, Nye Borgerlige did manage to cross the electoral threshold by garnering 2.4% of the vote.

I would argue that exactly because of the “sophisticated” image presented by “Identitarianism”, it may be a more politically viable version of white nationalism in circumstances where the more “blunt” style of the alt-right has difficulty in gaining traction. Also, the framing as being simply a branch of intellectual conservatism may make “Identitarianism” more difficult to decode as the branch of white nationalism it is, hence as think it probably constitutes a more insidious and dangerous form of that ideology. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I’d also agree that the term “white nationalism” is more useful in a US than in a European context (cf. Krom’s comment in the section above this one). European ethno-nationalism does not tend to follow the current US “white/other” dichotomy, but rather the kind of “hierarchical” othering that the US used to have (e.g. distinguishing between “proper” WASP Americans and for example German-/Irish-/Polish-/Italian-Americans as being various degrees of “lesser” types of American). While the main target of European ethno-nationalism tends to be Muslims, it can easily turn on other Europeans (e.g. anger against social dumping by Central and Eastern European workers/employers, “neo-imperialism” by Germans in the case of the Greek debt crisis or the inverse depiction of the Greeks as lazy and ungrateful sods). ScepticWombat (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: As a first step, I’ve changed the redirect for identitarian from this article to that on Generation Identity. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree identitarianism needs its own treatment. As you say the presentation is different. It is often less direct. Unlike the street gang that is the Nordic Resistance Movement, it is dressed in a respectable romantic picture of an imagined past, but it is potentially just as dangerous. This is often wrapped up in sexism too: German identitarians reference the Kinder, Küche, Kirche that was heavily in Nazi times. Pétain's Vichy regime had a similar version, Travail, famille, patrie -- which French identitarians use. I have seen this a little in the USA too, but unlike in Europe it usually comes with a big show of being religious. See for example anything calling itself "trad" on Reddit or Twitter, or Wife with a purpose. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite interesting that identitarians of the European variety, while very into a particular concept of this kind of romantic/nostalgic past, do not seem to have much time for “traditional religion”. This is doubly curious, considering that the secularisation to the extent seen especially in Northwestern Europe is inextricably linked to the kind of modernity that these identitarians otherwise seem to loathe. My guess is that this rejection of religion as part of such “new traditionalism”, with the distinct “intellectualist” bent beloved by such identitarians, is due to the fact that these kinds of intellectualist circles tend to conceive of religion as the antithesis of intellectualism (an aspect also used when “othering” the US as the home of lowbrow culture). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

White homelands

The reason why the US is considered a white homeland is because it was founded by whites. While it's true that North America was originally inhabited by different peoples, it was ultimately the whites who established the country and turned it into what it is today. A mere landmass is not the same thing as a country.

EDIT: It's no different from calling Japan a "Yamato homeland" even though the Ainus were there first. ^{— Unsigned, by: SomeGuy889 / talk / contribs}

So... If the PRC invaded and held the land for hundreds of years, the US would become a Chinese homeland? Same if some African nation invaded? Because your logic is basically "whoever conquers the land gets to call it their 'homeland'", which is kind of dumb when you extrapolate without the racism. And for the record, the Natives did have their own "countries", ranging from city-states to empires depending on time period and region, so your argument is just special pleading. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)