> So... I mean... did you read the article?

I did. The snide comment is unnecessary.

That's the question I'm asking: if we accept that these beliefs are on a spectrum and that white separatism (or more generally pro-white politics) slide inevitably into violent white nationalism, who's to say the same doesn't apply to orthodox Islam? Specifically the above poster referenced Christchurch as an example outcome of the former, I argue you can't do so without considering the many examples of the latter.

White nationalism, white separatism, white supremacy, and hate groups are not a spectrum; they are the same thing. There's no difference.

There is a difference between orthodox Islam and extremist violence: just because some violent extremists are Muslim doesn't mean all orthodox Muslims are violent extremists.

You believe it's literally impossible for someone to advocate for separatism, pan-Europeanism, or protection of white culture without being a violent hate group?

Yes indeed! Those views inherently advocate for the genocide of non-white people (and even some people who are white but are "degenerate," like gay people, trans people, Jews, or whatever ethnicity they believe isn't sufficiently "white"). I do believe that some people don't understand what they've gotten themselves in to, but all white nationalism is essentially advocating for the broad extermination of many people.