Using the Wikipedia definition, white nationalism is:

White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which holds the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation. White nationalists seek to ensure the survival of the white race, and the cultures of historically white states.

Relatively benign, though the definition continues to a more malignant form:

They hold that white people should maintain their majority in majority-white countries, maintain their political and economic dominance, and that their cultures should be foremost. Many white nationalists believe that miscegenation, multiculturalism, immigration of nonwhites and low birth rates among whites are threatening the white race, and some argue that it amounts to white genocide.

Viewed analogously passive white nationalism could be compared to the actions and interests of the NAACP, while white supremacy can be compared to the militant strands of the Black Panthers or the Black Power Revolution.

From that, if viewed as a venn diagram, are there any notable white nationalists that aren't white supremacists?

Clarifying the Scope of the question:

White Nationalism is actions or beliefs aligning with the first quote block, while White Supremacy is the first amplified by the second quote block. The goal is to find a notable representation of someone that celebrates being white and the continuation of white people, without a mandate for dominance, racial supremacy, or subjugation of non-whites.

Further, while the existence of one notable representative of white nationalism with out a mandate for supremacy is sufficient to answer the question, any claims that an example doesn't exist will be significantly burdened with the task of proving the existence of a representative is impossible.

Analogy Validation Is the concept of benign white nationalism comparable to the NAACP? In a review of the Wikipedia definition for Black Nationalism, the NAACP is specifically highlighted, citing that:

The NAACP is a civil rights movement inspired organization aimed to fight prejudice, racist, Jim-Crowism related segregation. The organization is intended to benefit all those victims of the above mentioned specifically "Colored people."

From the same reference, Malcolm X could be cited as a notable Black Nationalist, especially after his pilgrimage to Mecca.

Intent Assuming that every white nationalist is a white supremacist/separatist, because of understood colloquialisms, establishes an unsubstantiated tautology. This exasperates the permissive environment in which hatred, animosity, and violence can be justified, once the target has been labeled "Nazi." This question deigns to drive a proof by contradiction, or to invalidate the premise

Proof by Contradiction A = White Nationalist B = White Supremacist/Separatist

Start with the proposition where B is a proper subset of A (the opposite of our expected result), where it is assumed that there exists a value in A that doesn't exist in B. If it can be proven that every value in A is also exists in B, then B is not a proper subset of A, establishing a proof by contradiction; ergo A=B. However, if a value can be identified that exists in A, but doesn't exist in B, then the proposition is proven

closed as primarily opinion-based by user1530, user 1, indigochild, tim, Alexei Aug 15 '17 at 20:32

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    "notable representation of someone that celebrates being white and the continuation of white people" = the catch is is that phrase is inherently racist to begin with. – user1530 Aug 15 '17 at 17:25
  • 2
    -1 Because of your implication that the NAACP could be compared to "passive white nationalism". If you can't ask a question without including an irrelevant and nonsense "the other side" argument, you should add a source or more information; as it stands, the actions of the NAACP do not match your quotes. Your clarification also doesn't represent your source; both quotes are about white nationalists. – tim Aug 15 '17 at 17:29
  • 2
    @tim While a White Supremacist/Separatist is a white nationalist, that doesn't prove that all white nationalists are white supremacists/separatists. – Drunk Cynic Aug 15 '17 at 17:46
  • 3
    @DrunkCynic That may or may not be the case - many notable organizations would disagree - but my point is that you are attributing a distinction to your source that the source is not making. "They" in your second quote refers to white nationalists. – tim Aug 15 '17 at 17:51
  • 2
    @DrunkCynic Yes, I understand that. And while I think that the answer to your title question is "no", I also think that it is a valid question if properly asked. The issue is that you take the definition of white nationalist from wikipedia, and arbitrarily use it to draw a distinction that wikipedia is not making. Asking "Using my personal, unsourced definition of white nationalist - which is in direct opposition to the source I used for the definition, as well as to the definition from expert organizations such as the ADL or the SPLC - are there ..." just doesn't make much sense. – tim Aug 15 '17 at 18:12

The answer is no. In the US, today, the terms have become synonymous to everyone except those that use the terms to describe themselves.

Viewed analogously passive white nationalism could be compared to the actions and interests of the NAACP

It could be compared, but it's another false equivalency.

The NAACP is a civil rights organization. An organization primarily focused on helping people from traditionally oppressed groups conquer said societal oppression.

There is no analogue to white populations. White populations are not under any real threat (despite their false equivalency arguments of their own).

As such, 'white nationalist' is just another way of saying 'white supremacist'. Any semantic nitpicking between the definitions is simply that...semantic nitpicking--and often simply a matter of political maneuvering rather than adhering to any universal definitions.

The Poverty Law Center defines white nationalism as:

White nationalist groups espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites.

Though obviously coming from a particular POV, it's not a terribly unique one...and is one focused primarily on monitoring the political groups that claim these titles.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Aug 16 '17 at 8:20

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.