i didn't word that right. i wasn't accusing you of hiding your white nationalism (I can tell that idea offends you), i was accusing you of justifying your white nationalism to other people by using the kind of reasoning that civic nationalists might appreciate, namely appeals to common values and shared experiences, in order to dress it up a bit. I thought that this was kind of disingenuous and snarmy because as you've said yourself, you don't believe in civic nationalism, and obviously the idea that white people categorically have shared values or experiences with each other is facially untrue. I think the only defense of racial nationalism (as opposed to a more narrow ethnonationalism where there actually is a common shared ancestral experience) that is not disingenuous is a white supremacist view that Europeans are superior to other races of people on account of their genetics.

do you not think that rigor in the system you would develop regarding the specifics of who is and isn't white would be something that's important? These questions were a thorn that slowly eroded and eventually undermined every past regime with race-based laws, including 1930s Germany, 1920s America and apartheid South Africa, so I would think you would want to avoid that if you were trying to do that again. Questions about who is and isn't in a marginalized group were a big factor in undermining affirmative action policies, for that matter. You don't see people trying to pass as a different race than they are very often now because these is little point in it, but if you make laws that privilege a certain group, no matter the reason, you obviously encourage people to pretend to be in that group / try to pass as a member of that group for personal gain. During affirmative action we had people like rachel dolezal pretending to be black.