What are the main arguments made for White Nationalism?

Question

The Wikipedia definition of the term 'white nationalist' 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."

In light of the recent events in Charlottesville, this ideology is facing a lot of criticism in the media.

What are the main arguments made by notable proponents of White Nationalism for this ideology? Please add a source for each argument you mention in your answers. Primary sources should come from the words of contemporary thought leaders in the movement, not from summations of news articles or websites.

Answer 1

The argument for white nationalism is that it is (supposedly) good for the white race.

It seeks to "secure the existence of our [white] people and a future for white children" (14 words, which is a somewhat common slogan among white nationalists).

We can for example see this in the Charlottesville Statement by Richard Spencer.

It states that "race matters", and "whites alone defined America as a European society".

It is no coincidence that the second point is "Jews", as antisemitism is an important element of white nationalism (we also saw this in the referenced Charlottesville rally). Spencer's statement implies that Jews are a danger as they "[express] hostility towards their hosts". Thus, "Nations must secure their existence" by being transformed into an ethno-state (i.e. a white-only state).

White nationalists have an us-vs-them view regarding race in general. See for example this post by Vincent Law, which states "They [="Foreign tribes"] don’t have your best interests at heart. They have theirs".

We can see that white nationalists believe that they need to fight for the survival of the white race.

Answer 2

Note: not all white nationalist movements will have the same arguments and motivations. Because of their history, nationalists in every country will differ in their beliefs and arguments. I based my answer on French and European nationalists, but it should apply to other countries.

Some assumptions made by white nationalists are necessary to understand their arguments:

1. "White culture" means "Judeo-Christian" and Judaism and Christianity are the source of the modern ethics and moral values.

2. non-White people are somehow assimilated to foreigners, even if they are from a family that have been living in Europe for several generations, have never been to the country of origin of their family, does not speak its language, culture and traditions,...

There are a then few main arguments:

1. Superiority of the white race. Based on obsolete science or religious beliefs, they consider that mankind can be divided in (clearly and naturally defined) races, and that white people are superior to the other "races". This was, among others, the ideology of Hitler's Nazis.

2. Superiority of the "white culture". A modern variant of the previous one, and the dominating ideology of the European extreme right (for example). They reduce people to their culture of origin, and equate European culture to Judeo-Christian culture. They consider that not all cultures are equal, and some - the white one actually - are more moral than other ones. Policies to limit immigration is a way to protect white people from "barbarians".

3. The "great replacement" (not sure of the terminology in English. I translated directly the French expression "le Grand Remplacement"). Immigrants from non-White countries (mostly, black people and Arabs) never fully integrates and assimilates. In particular, they don't adhere to the essentially European Human Rights. Because of a greater rate of birth, they would soon outnumber white people and replace them, changing the institutions to less progressive laws.

4. Historical legacy. The country is historically and culturally white. Priority should be given to the native citizens.

5. Reciprocity. Many countries (including rich and modern ones like Japan) give preferential treatments to their own citizens and restrict rights and possibilities for foreigners. Why would white people be nicer to foreigners?

6. Impossible/Unrealistic/Undesirable charity. Most non-white people are coming from poor countries, and accepting them is a form of charity. The country cannot afford it as they are already many poor white people, and/or foreigners come here to take advantage of our society without contributing to it.

7. Bad strategy. Accepting non-white people is not the right thing to do. We should help their country of origin and/or they should work harder to "fix" their own country instead of coming in ours.

Answer 3

Great question, but you may not get answers because any answer is a downvote magnet. Also, I've seen arguments that would indicate the way you defined it as a caricature - ie: white isn't a race, but is an ethnicity (I don't agree with this view either).

From many Twitter interactions involving Red Ice creations and others in what's called the Red Pill community and alt-right - all of which are considered politically incorrect, I've seen a few of the below views:

View: White Nationalism in the context of ethnicity. Main argument: White is an ethnicity and like the Japanese ethnicity has a monoculture, these people aim to create a culture that is a monoculuture based on what they view as this ethnicity. For instance, if marriage and protestantism is viewed as a part of a national identity, they would like to have a nation that prevents these premises of their culture from being overturned. An outside example of this is China's recent rulings against some entertainment being public as they see it as undermining their "socialistic values" (ie: homosexuality). Since the communist party in China has the power to control their culture, they can prevent depictions of homosexuality and enforce it. These people would like to have this type of culture. A monoculture has more authority to enforce some values. One proponent of this was featured on Red Ice a while back and if I recall.

View: White nationalism in the view that white people are smarter/better than everyone else. Main argument is from the superiority of white people. Vox Day is a big proponent of this if you've ever come across his blog or writing. His view is more of diversity + proximity = war, so his view is that one way or another white people will have their own nation in the long run due to the inevitable conflict of different groups being in the same proximity. For him, it's not enough that diverse people don't get along; he has stated numerous times that some cultures are superior to others - and whites are a superior culture in his view. In his view, even if whites and blacks are both a part of the same religion - like Christianity - he still thinks there will be conflict, though in my experience, people who are deeply religious (not casually religious) are more likely to connect regardless of other factors. He hasn't been able to address this observation, but I have seen quite a few people propose his ideas of white nationalism - "We're better than others so we need our own nation, and even if you don't give us one, we will have it."

View: White nationalism in the context of dominating and (or) kicking every other group out. Heartiste is one of the leaders of this argument. These people sound very similar, if not exactly identical, to Nazis. While the first group wants a nation for what they believe is an ethnicity, this group wants to take wherever they are and kick everyone else out. So if they live in Canada, they want everyone out of Canada, except the people who support their views.

What these groups do not all share in common that the other answer claims:

• Superiority of the white race. Not all groups share this belief, though the latter two do.
• Superiority of the "white culture". Not all groups share this belief. The first group believes that a monoculture is superior to a polyculture. Many of the first group highly respect the Japanese because the Japanese are a monoculture.
• The "great replacement". Feature of a polyculture, disfavored by all groups.
• Historical legacy. This is only true of the latter group I mention above this; the first two are fine with creating a new nation.
• Reciprocity. Feature of a monoculture, favored by all groups.
• Impossible/Unrealistic/Undesirable charity. Feature of a polyculture, disfavored by all groups.
• Bad strategy. Feature of a polyculture (not so much bad strategy as mixed strategy), disfavored by all groups.

I'm only answering the question, not agreeing with any of these views.

Answer 4

I'm basing here ideology on position of Jared Taylor as expressed on website of American Renaissance. In Wikipedia he is referred as "white nationalist, white supremacist, and racist", while he claims that his position is merely "white advocate". As he was pointed out in other answers, I'd consider him as important enough. Moreover ADL calls him as "academic racist" who "has also spoken a number of times at colleges in the U.S., where students who have embraced a white supremacist ideology see him as a spokesperson for their cause", so seems suitable. In consequence this list of arguments should be rather internally consistent, but at expense of neglecting other views within such movements.

1) All ethnic groups have fully legitimate interests and is generally acceptable for other ethnic groups to openly pursue them

Racial loyalty or racial consciousness is normal and healthy. All non-white groups instinctively pursue their own interests, and legitimately so. It is only whites who have been taught that it is immoral to take even the most basic steps to ensure their survival.

source

2) Differences in outcome among ethnic groups are mainly result of genetic differences, which explains why prior attempts to ameliorate them failed

Regression toward the mean explains something that has always baffled the “sociologists:” children of low-income whites (and Asians) get better SAT scores than the children of high-income blacks. If environment controls IQ, the children of wealthy blacks should be enjoying the benefits of good environment. They are, but those benefits are meager and do not make up for the effects of heredity and the lower mean toward which black children regress.

source

There is also much ignorant shrieking about the “bias” of IQ tests designed by white men, but it is an odd bias that permits Asians to outscore whites. As Prof. Levin explains, a real example of bias would be a test of hand-eye coordination that involved only the right hand. Lefties could prove the bias of such a test by demonstrating their ability with their left hands. “If the races are equally intelligent,” he writes, “it should be possible to find a task intuitively requiring intelligence that blacks perform as well as whites.” No such task has ever been found.

source

Yes, I consider as interesting phenomena that person referred as "white supremacist" technically speaking makes an argument that in IQ tests Asians outperform Westeners.

This blindness leads to futile attempts to eliminate “achievement gaps” between the races and leads whites to accept the view that if blacks and Hispanics are less successful than whites, it is because of white “racism.”

source

3) Ethnic groups, including whites, have right to preserve and be proud of their heritage

Black rejection of not only the Confederate but the American heritage is clear in the removal of the name of George Washington from a public school in New Orleans. On Oct. 27, 1997 the Orleans Parish School Board, with a 5-2 black majority, voted to change the name of George Washington Elementary to Dr. Charles Richard Drew Elementary (Drew was a black surgeon who made advances in preserving blood plasma); the school itself is 91 percent black. “Why should African-Americans want their kids to pay respect or pay homage to someone who enslaved their ancestors?” asked New Orleans “civil rights” leader Carl Galmon. “To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke.”

source

4) There are differences in crime rates among ethnic groups and is rational stay away from crime hot spot

There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.

In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

source

5) Some US school admission regulations like "holistic score" seems to be intended to discriminate against whites and they oppose it

Two things saved UT from “resegregation.” The university immediately invented a new, “holistic” way to evaluate applicants, which piously ignored race but gave extra points for growing up without a father, being poor, not speaking English at home, etc. It was a transparent attempt to smuggle race into admissions decisions, but it didn’t work very well; an annoying number of whites were poor and fatherless and therefore got the leg up UT wanted to reserve for non-whites.

source

6) Already people who officially do not share views of white nationalists, take part in white flight in order to live in good neighbourhood (which somehow turns out to be mostly white), thus inadvertently support their point for ethnic separation

In the 1960s and 1970s, whites were generally fleeing blacks, but the great black migrations have largely come to an end, and whites have reestablished distance between the two races. In recent decades, it is massive, non-white immigration that most often drives whites from their neighborhoods, and continuing immigration only hardens the alien character of these places. No one believes that the arrival of yet more Haitians, Guatemalans, Mexicans, Jamaicans, or Vietnamese will somehow restore the former character of South Central Los Angeles or Miami and induce whites to move back.

The process works the other way. As their numbers increase, non-whites continue to expand into adjacent areas. Whites, many of whom fled their homes in the face of the first incursion, move away once again.

This, then, will be one of the certain effects of demographic change: More and more parts of the United States will become, for whites, essentially uninhabitable. It will be physically possible for whites to live with the Mexicans of Brownsville, Texas or the blacks of Camden, New Jersey but such places will be almost as alien and as uninviting as Oaxaca or Mombasa. They will actually be more uninviting. The people of Oaxaca and Mombasa like and admire white Americans, whereas those of Brownsville and Camden have a strong and sometimes violent dislike for whites.

source

Dreaming about ethnostate seems acceptable (when it's Black Wakanada), being worried about being about demographically dominated by other ethnic group seems acceptable too (when applied to for example Tibet or Kashmir). Thus in their own eyes their position it seems as moderate, rational self-interest, that each ethnic group should be allowed to pursue its own aims and there is nothing wrong in voluntary self-segregation, even if it may lead to splitting of the US.

EDIT: I tried to find something of him that's considered as top inflammatory, hateful and would unquestionably justify all the infamy. Apparently this his video about race and intelligence got took down by Youtube as such, so one may watch "the worst of him" and make their own opinion.