Harvesting the crop of stupidity.
Given this essential agreement with those he is criticizing, what exactly are Mr. Williamson’s objections to “white nationalism?”
1. Firstly, he devotes a lot of space to a silly remark by some unnamed internet troll that “the Italians are not really a white people” — without, alas, explaining why this should be taken as an authoritative expression of “white nationalism.”
2. Similarly beside the point is his allegation that “white nationalists begin by defining as ‘white’ people who look like themselves and work backward from there to determine who is, and who isn’t, ‘white.’” This appears to be a variant of the charge that racialists are interested in skin color or other physical traits rather than in the people for whom those traits are a (rough) marker. Clyde Wilson has not found this line of argument beneath himself either. Relax, Chronicles — if “white nationalists” are that stupid, you need not worry yourself about them.
A while back, some of us criticized the “movement,” asserting that the ethnic fetishism, obsessions, subjective evaluations of phenotype, and intra-White hostilities would and do delegitimize racial nationalism to people who otherwise could become useful adherents to the worldview. That criticism was met essentially with the counter-view that the criticism was all just “ethnic” special pleading. But, Williamson is not a dumb swart Med or a debonair Slavic brute:
To my knowledge, I haven’t a drop of non-British blood—English, Scottish, Irish, probably Welsh—in my veins.
Williamson’s arguments are breathtakingly stupid, and his understanding of European ethnicity and history is abysmal. But the point remains that Williamson’s stupidities were and are provoked and enabled by the equal stupidity of the “movement.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” as they say; the fact that Williamson is ignorant and illogical doesn’t make the “movement” any less ignorant and illogical. Indeed, it is the opposite: each feeds off the other.