Recent conversations on AR this weekend have gotten something that has been circulating in the back of my head to take a more prominent place in my frontal lobe.
I’ll cut to the chase:
There are exceedingly few “white nationalists,” properly understanding the term.
What seems to be white nationalism is really nothing more than the visceral reaction of whites against the antics of blacks and/or Hispanics and/or Muslims and/or some Jews, depending on the time, place and circumstance. In Mississippi, “white nationalism” will be anti-black. In The Netherlands, “white nationalism” will be anti-Muslim. In Arizona, it will be anti-Hispanic. In New York City, it will be anti-Jewish.
And this is nothing special, nor a great crime.
If you were the only person on Earth, would you think of yourself as narcissistic? Obviously not, because that would be redundant.
If the only people on Earth were Norwegians living in the territory we now call Norway, would anyone be calling for a Norwegian ethnostate or advocate for Norwegian nationalism? Again, redundant.
If the only black people on Earth were in the rain forests of central Africa, and they never had any contact with any other people on Earth, and vice versa, would there ever be any black nationalism? You know the drill by now.
Nationalism cannot exist with ingroup-outgroup conflict. And to the extent that the conflict creates nationalist tendencies in the society, culture and politics of the ingroup, they go away if and when the outgroup is out of sight and out of mind. Even during the golden age of nationalism within the ingroup, almost everyone who is a nationalist is merely reacting to the outgroup, very few nationalists take it as a cerebral pursuit.
Then again, it’s like I said in this space many times, the most people do most things they do for motivations that are depressingly simple, and none too cerebral.