Are you explicitly focusing on individuals who self-identify as white, but absent that self-identification, has no intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics that would otherwise cause the groups in question to include them in that category by default? In other words, are we playing out a Dave Chapelle sketch here?

@DanBron "Are you explicitly focusing on individuals who self-identify as white" Yes. From perspective here, those are the only "white", "black" or any other fictitious political classification under the umbrella of "race" who exist on this planet. No individual is born politically self-identifying with any "race". There are individuals who do not self-identify with any "race". Not sure what you mean by "playing out" anything. The persons cited at the question are real people; many other people exist who are similarly situated for examples of each case described at the question.

You can’t divorce the protasis from the apodosis. That clause merely conditioned the following one *but absent that self identification ... [groups would not otherwise] include them in that category by default. In other words, your question contrasts two categorizations: people who self-identify as white and groups whose inclusion criteria include those which the group considers white. The degree of overlap or friction here is the crux of your question, if I take it correctly.

My response to your question was to clarify an ambiguity which your later comment also underscores: by definition every member of the group self-identifies as white: the organizing principle of the group is white identity. So without further qualification the question is vacuous and the answer trivial: yes. The question is are you asking about people who the group would already categorize as white without any knowledge of that individual’s self-identification, or about people the group would otherwise not include by default, who may nevertheless be included by the grace of that self-id?

As for “playing out”, here’s the Dave Chapelle sketch I was referencing.

@DanBron Am not privy to how every white nationalist group categorizes people at large or their members. For example there exist SHARP's, Peckerwoods, Skin Heads, groups that involve Christianity in their doctrines, etc. The question squarely pertains to individuals who self-identify as "white" being accepted into the ranks of any self-described white nationalist organization. There are actual examples of individuals being accepted into certain organizations which have specific nationalist or "ethnic" identity policies. Do any white nationalist political groups adopt that policy or practice?

I don’t know if you’re earnestly in confusion about my comments or deliberately misunderstanding me. But if the final sentence of your last comment really distills your question, the the answer is the tautological: yes, by the very definition and charter of white nationalist organizations at large. That is what they are all about. But it’s tautological precisely because it is a necessary condition. But a more productive question is whether it is also a sufficient criterion. You need to clarify if you’re asking whether it’s necessary or sufficient or both.

I think what you actually mean is "people who self-identify as white but would not be considered white by the average member of the organization". I am aware that you consider race a social construct, but a cornerstone of the ideology of most white nationalists is that race is genetic.

@Philipp How do you come to the conclusion "but would not be considered white by the average member of the organization"? "I am aware that you consider race a social construct" For accuracy, a political construct. "but a cornerstone of the ideology of most white nationalists is that race is genetic." If that is the case, how are an individuals' "genetics" determined; and is the prerequisite for membership into the organization a genetic profile?

@DanBron "You need to clarify if you’re asking whether it’s necessary or sufficient or both." From perspective here there is no objective political difference; how an individual actually lives their politics is the only criteria which can be measured; hence this question. The Boule might appear "black" to those who make such superficial judgments though adhere to "Greek" doctrine How is Phi Beta Kappa and Skull and Bones historically connected to Sigma Pi Phi fraternity also known as the Boulé?

Now I am convinced you are feigning ignorance. But I might as well play along then. Many of these groups have recently taken up, en masse, retail genotyping. They pay for these tests and either crow or despair over the results, based on similarity or dissimilarity to a group-determined set of ideal or despised markers. But even before mass market genetic testing was possible, there were other shibboleths. I’ll let you use your imagination for those.

@guest271314 But *you are not asking about objective differences, and I don’t know why you keep bringing up that topic when no one else has even touched upon it in this thread. You are asking about inclusion criteria as determined by a group. If you’re not, you have no question here. If you are, then either the question is vacuous, if you only ask about necessary conditions, or something useful and worth answering if you’re asking about sufficient conditions. You have to decide what you’re asking, and I’d hope that decision be guided by the kind of answers you’re looking to solicit.

@DanBron No, am not feigning ignorance. Given that do not self-identify with any "race" here, would not object to using an individuals' own proclivity to identifying as either "white" or "black" or any other classification the individual decides they want to profess for own political advantage. Am asking a direct question. If you believe that the totality of your comments thus far answers the question, then post an answer. Not sure what you are trying to convey at comments. You appear to firmly gather the question. Perhaps you can formulate an answer cohering your points.

@guest271314 I can’t til you clarify the question. And depending on how you clarify, I may not consider an answer licensed on the SE platform (in other words, if you collapse your question to the vacuous one, I will not think it in the best interests of this site to simply post “yes”, so I won’t).

@DanBron There is a single question posed. The question is clear. Answering the question or not, is of course, your choice.

I've down voted this question, and motioned for it to be closed for the appearance of trying to promote the political narrative that race is merely a political construct.

@DrunkCynic What "race" is or is not is not asked at the question. The links at the question provide opposing views as to each topic. There is no promotion or discrediting of any political group or ideology at the actual text of the question. Your accusation is thereby directly repudiated.

@guest271314 And if every extraneous reference to the "political construct" discussion was removed from the question, it would no longer be promoting that message within a Trojan horse question.

@DrunkCynic That is in your own mind. "race" is to you whatever you decide it is. Each topic at the question includes opposing political perspectives. It is your own myopia that you refuse to see anything other than what your political ideology or criticism of specific content at the question permits. If you believe "race" is not a purely political construct there is content at the question which substantiates that claim as well.

@guest271314 Sounds like you've just answered your own question there. If race is subjective, then white nationalist groups can choose to accept whoever they decide fits their definition of white. Which, according to your very first link, they already do anyway.

@F1Krazy Accept, cannot speak for those groups. No more than can speak for the Nation of Islam, while still refuting the accusation that that group is a "black supremacist" organization. Am asking for an answer by a self-described white nationalist. If no white nationalist is active at this board, or decide not to openly state so or answer this question, then as a secondary source, yes, could post own answer; from the perspective that any political group will use any methods to achieve their goals.