There's a phrase that gets a lot of people worked up. Venomous hatred is spat all over social media about the ugly people said to despise, disaparage, damage and even kill others who were so foolish as not to be born white, like Dylan Roof and the accused mass killer in New Zealand, Brenton Tarrant - though his mind was twisted with religious considerations as well. So what's it all about?
The two words are hard to define even separately.
"White" is a color, reflecting light evenly across the visible spectrum; it may refer to skin. Yet I've never met someone with white skin. My own is a pale pink, often seen in these Northern parts. Further, pink or whitish people can have black hair, so I don't think that any fully white people exist. Albinos, anyone?
"Nation" is almost equally vague. It may refer to some collection of humans living in a common area (though Greenland is part of Denmark while being a long way away, and Hawaii part of the US, while even further distant) but always, I think, having a single system of rule. Therefore, I object to nations, because for one human being to rule another (or for a group to rule another group) is repugnant to human nature, regardless of skin color.
So, while coloring is pretty and adds variety to life, any "nation" per se is to me a repulsive idea, for it seems involve the governing of some by others. In reality, we each have the right to govern only ourselves, individually. Self-ownership is axiomatic.
If we try to glue the two words back together, presumably a "white nationalist" is a person who believes that only white people should live in (or certainly, rule) their nation. That is doubly ridiculous, first because there are no white people, and secondly because all rule is antithetical to human nature. In other words, "white nationalists" don't truly exist, and if they did, they shouldn't.
Now that we've cleared that up, it seems that a wrong name has been coined for those real people - men, often - who sometimes wear white hoods and burn crosses on the lawns of neighbors with black skins, and who otherwise insist that only pale-pink persons have any business ruling America. What ought they to be called?
"Pink archists" fits them quite well, I suggest, and if that makes them feel too feminine, tough luck. "Pink" because that's their color, and "archists" because that's their benighted belief - they want to rule others, even though Nature has endowed us all with the right to rule only ourselves. That descriptor also has the virtue of including all with pink skins who think they should be in the ruling class, whether they wear pointy white hats or not and even if they say nasty things about those who do; they all belong together; Democrats, Republicans, voters, the lot of 'em.
They belong also in the same room (eg, the Congressional chamber) as archists with other colors of skin - yellow, olive, and various shades of brown. It's all very chromatic but the distinctive and uniting feature is the arrogance with which they presume the right to make laws for anyone other than themselves. They may squabble with each other over which color should dominate in that chamber, but as long as the doors are locked the fight need not spill over into the rest of society. With any luck, when the conflict ends none of them will be left standing.
How many pink archists are there? Hard to tell; but about 20 million Americans (out of 320 million, or 1 in 16, or 6.25%) work directly for government, and so form the hard core archist segment. (Yes, 16 of us are being ruled by 1 - see the ZGBlog Minority Rule!) But we must also count voters, who endorse and try to validate that ruling class, altogether 139 million or 43% of us. I've no data that splits up that 139 million by skin color; but if the percentage applying to the population as a whole also applies to that voting subset, the number of pink archists is 72.4% or 100.6 million.
Only a few of them wear pointy white hoods and salute each other like the kiddies in this 1941 government-school photo, but the others are just as dangerous.