[@Dynamo Frokane]

Considering you did not want to participate in actually breaking down who or what Generation Identity is or is not, consider me deeply amused you have now performed a heel-turn on the matter, but I digress. To the topic at hand I did listen to your link and assessed it as an outsider, which I am.

Here are the following notes I derive from it, of which might vary in length or response, but that is not the point. 

[hider=Extensive Notes on the Link]
The first three and a half minutes establish the idea of "preserving cultures, identity, and ethnicity" while not "hating or disrespecting others", which is something I can get behind. That is a respectable opinion, even if I disagree that how they perceive that it [i]must[/i] be an either a melding of culture [i]or[/i] secular identities of them. No less, they do a wonderful point to note that it is natural to love one's own family and nation before others and that it has been made into evil if you are less than fond of outsiders. Again, I disagree it should be priority over real concerns - such as crime or threats to national security - but I can sympathize with the fact that people, in this case, must choose if it is the "United States or an outpost of the third world".

They themselves state the goal of their movement is to make it as its own thing completely unrelated to any other political movement, at least in the United States. They spend nearly a minute harping on how they only want to ask the aforementioned question and how they are, by and large, linked to a great number of things that have nothing to do with that and that they are indeed labeled that way, right or wrong. The "simplicity" of it is their harping song. 

Carrying on, we have two very profound statements at over seven minutes, "It is about love for your culture, love for your identity." and "It should be born out of love for your people - and not hating other people. You respect their right to exist and then your own, that is how it should be." I see absolutely zero issue with this philosophy at all, in that it recognizes others have a right to their life and identity; it leaves to question, as I write this, if one can [i]become[/i] a part of that identity, but hence why I am watching this and writing as I go.

Continued, as the man in the center goes off about a "civil rights movement" he speaks about a right to exist as an identity and not be forced to become an arm of the globalism element. Again, no issue there, but the only suspicious thing he does mention is how he wishes to be a "cohesive nation", though I would say that might be me reading into it too much. They then go on to transitioning to their points and demographics and "three basic tenants".

As someone who does not understand the idea of focusing primarily on a identity culture, the "incentivizing birthrates" is just strange to hear let alone think about. The second, regarding closed boarders and halting immigration I largely agree with; I have stated before only the best candidates or immigrants should be allowed in. Remigration is, essentially, deporting people who do not belong or immigrated to the nation without providing for it, which as I understand it, hearing them speak, is anyone who isn't an asset; if true, that too I support. Returning to the first, they are correct, it is always "hire someone else, usually outside the United States" and at the same time, "stop having kids, it is bad for all of these reasons", coming from the same sources. Do I consider it an issue? Not so much, the population isn't in some sort of dire straights, but we as a nation should be using our own assets and not importing others.

At eleven minutes on they go on to rambling about identity for a while, no real surprise there given their stated objective and purpose. They handwave economics and other actual issues, as health care by their own words, but then again they apparently are totally uninterested in the Left-Right divide. The only comment they refer to on it is that those who voted for Donald Trump and the movement to restore the country to its tradition are, obviously, more favorable to them in rolling the metaphorical border. The only point they lose me is when they speak ill of civic nationalists, but again, coming from their perspective and motive, they are not interested in negotiation, either a "Yes" or a "No" for multiculturalism versus cultural identity.

However, at roughly fourteen minutes on, they do hit a nail on the head that somehow it has been made evil and terrible to fight for, believe in, or support your own country, especially for young men. Absolutely a statement I believe is true, that somehow people have been lost to the reality of it. The individual on the far left camera, after that bit, takes over to note something true about Europe that it does appear to be a strong taboo to follow this, especially because of its history and how it has gone awry more recently and that they need a new mechanism to specifically state what they are looking into, doing, and feeling.

Toward the end the center speaker starts about how white Americans are blamed for essentially every bad thing, granted this is almost memeing and not entirely dishonest, it is blown greatly out of proportion in a number of cases and is very much true that it is held over their head; "reverse racism", rather racism towards white Americans is now socially acceptable to an extent, but not so much so as I believe he thinks it is.

Final assessment? Not to my taste or interest, but they are certainly not striking me how you are attempting to portray them unless you are willingly withholding that information.
[/hider]
What do I believe white nationalism is? If you took everything just described, militarized it, removed the protection and acknowledgement of other peoples and races right to identities and life, a sense of superiority and supremacy, and then went on the offense of it. That is the shortest, most summed way I can describe to you when, where, and how you would see my opinion shift on the examples you gave. Mind you I am utterly far from being invested in their message or movement, but I do share some agreements with them and to be perfectly frank, found nothing they said ideologically offensive or alarming.