I think you're still operating with something far too close to a rational choice model here. My hot take: most people, most of the time, do not actually have propositional attitudes about anything more than five feet away. They do not and cannot hate real flesh-and-blood foreigners because they lack those sorts of abstract reasoning skills. They're children, basically. What they hate is an undifferentiated "parasite": the welfare-queen-recidivist-student-loan-forgiveness-recipient-NGO-executive-asylum-fraudster living rent free in their heads.
How that plays out in policy depends entirely on which particular clique of sociopaths is currently best at stoking their paranoia. Transport these people back 50 years and they'd be rabid anticommunists instead. Small comfort for whichever scapegoat happens to be in season, of course.
Sociologically, the distinction between hating foreigners and loving one's own tribe, altruistically, can be categorized as extroverted and introverted ethnocentrism. The introverts keep to themselves and build up their sovereign wealth fund (Mormons). My model of extroverted ethnocentrism is that it is contagious. BLM wasn't really about black people getting together to love each other, but an expression of hostility and resentment toward white police. White people saw that, and reactively increased their own hostility. Of course racism didn't start with BLM, but these events form a feedback loop. It's a bit silly that whites react to BLM by hating Mexicans, but it's also a bit silly that Islamophobia in the aughts brought black riots to a standstill.
The internal logic in your article is pretty convincing, but two important further considerations
1. DEI (how immigration/multiculturalism has created anti-White policies and institutions, which have made immigration/multiculturalism less popular)
2. Consent to mass migration (if politicians don't let people have the option to reduce immigration, then their rhetoric will naturally escalate as they become increasingly frustrated)
"But it doesn’t have anything to do with restrictions on free trade and immigration, which are the overriding priorities of the right-wing nationalist movement. In fact, we could say that because you typically wouldn’t go out of your way to hurt strangers by obstructing their freedom of movement and their right to form work contracts unless you hated them for some reason"
Supporting boundaries does not require hate. Now, to someone with a defective commieweasel brain, they might think otherwise. And that leads to this train of thought:
"Why would people support not having their money taken from them and given to the less fortunate? The only reason they would practically have to go out of their way not to give their money to less fortunate strangers is because they hate them, and want to hurt them by keeping them poor."
I think the right wing nationalist typically hates characteristics of foreigners, especially the ones they have to deal with when living with them.
This does not mean they spend all day hating foreigners. They might appreciate watching a documentary about a foreign country, or even visiting one as tourists. But they do not want to live with foreigners and watch foreigners transform the place and people who have different characteristics to them.
That is an interesting point. The white nationalist rhetoric here in Britain is always about immigrants changing communities for the worse. It's mostly about crime but also people not speaking English, having a different religion, having different customs. If you're not drawn to this rhetoric, I guess you view the crime as just individual criminality (not intrinsic to the character of a whole group of non-white people) and you have a high tolerance for strangers and variety in society. That's me, I have lived in an urban area for years, my neighbours are from the whole world, many are Muslim, and I just see people - people working, people doing the shit jobs we white Brits don't do anymore, people being neighbourly, or not. Also I grew up in an all-white town with plenty of crime and antisocial behaviour, so I am not fooled by the idea that there was a golden age before the immigrants arrived! But I don't underestimate the anger and fear of "the other" which some people have, which attracts them to racist policies. It's also important not to patronise people who are genuinely fearful in the face of rising crime and terrorism, by pretending it isn't happening.
There is also the fact that people usually prefer their own kind. A homogeneous homeland is a kind of highly-valued consumer good. Of course, there are secondary issues like crime, grooming gangs, etc. (e.g., Third World mentalities).
I think people divide into two groups, those who value "sameness" and those who like variety. The concept of homeland is quite recent, in terms of human history, but we certainly began with high-trust small groups that feared "the other". I think my ancestors were the "get up and walk to the next valley" sort, see what the other tribes have to share with us! Certainly I celebrate my British culture (literature, history, sport) but also like the mingling of other cultures with mine. It's never diminished my feelings of patriotism, but my family are from all over the British Commonwealth anyway. But I see the threat of those who live here, but don't share core values with me.
You get tremendous variety within every racial group. Those who denounce racism (as Hanania does) argue that phenotype is “superficial”—so that it is not really the variety that matters to them unless it’s cultural. But phenotype is clearly not superficial as looks matter to most people. However, it’s true that racial phenotype matters less to some than others.
I think you're still operating with something far too close to a rational choice model here. My hot take: most people, most of the time, do not actually have propositional attitudes about anything more than five feet away. They do not and cannot hate real flesh-and-blood foreigners because they lack those sorts of abstract reasoning skills. They're children, basically. What they hate is an undifferentiated "parasite": the welfare-queen-recidivist-student-loan-forgiveness-recipient-NGO-executive-asylum-fraudster living rent free in their heads.
How that plays out in policy depends entirely on which particular clique of sociopaths is currently best at stoking their paranoia. Transport these people back 50 years and they'd be rabid anticommunists instead. Small comfort for whichever scapegoat happens to be in season, of course.
Sociologically, the distinction between hating foreigners and loving one's own tribe, altruistically, can be categorized as extroverted and introverted ethnocentrism. The introverts keep to themselves and build up their sovereign wealth fund (Mormons). My model of extroverted ethnocentrism is that it is contagious. BLM wasn't really about black people getting together to love each other, but an expression of hostility and resentment toward white police. White people saw that, and reactively increased their own hostility. Of course racism didn't start with BLM, but these events form a feedback loop. It's a bit silly that whites react to BLM by hating Mexicans, but it's also a bit silly that Islamophobia in the aughts brought black riots to a standstill.
The internal logic in your article is pretty convincing, but two important further considerations
1. DEI (how immigration/multiculturalism has created anti-White policies and institutions, which have made immigration/multiculturalism less popular)
2. Consent to mass migration (if politicians don't let people have the option to reduce immigration, then their rhetoric will naturally escalate as they become increasingly frustrated)
"But it doesn’t have anything to do with restrictions on free trade and immigration, which are the overriding priorities of the right-wing nationalist movement. In fact, we could say that because you typically wouldn’t go out of your way to hurt strangers by obstructing their freedom of movement and their right to form work contracts unless you hated them for some reason"
Supporting boundaries does not require hate. Now, to someone with a defective commieweasel brain, they might think otherwise. And that leads to this train of thought:
"Why would people support not having their money taken from them and given to the less fortunate? The only reason they would practically have to go out of their way not to give their money to less fortunate strangers is because they hate them, and want to hurt them by keeping them poor."
Do you actually have a reason you think my analogy is wrong or are you just going to get autistically mad at something I didn't say and don't believe?
I think the right wing nationalist typically hates characteristics of foreigners, especially the ones they have to deal with when living with them.
This does not mean they spend all day hating foreigners. They might appreciate watching a documentary about a foreign country, or even visiting one as tourists. But they do not want to live with foreigners and watch foreigners transform the place and people who have different characteristics to them.
That is an interesting point. The white nationalist rhetoric here in Britain is always about immigrants changing communities for the worse. It's mostly about crime but also people not speaking English, having a different religion, having different customs. If you're not drawn to this rhetoric, I guess you view the crime as just individual criminality (not intrinsic to the character of a whole group of non-white people) and you have a high tolerance for strangers and variety in society. That's me, I have lived in an urban area for years, my neighbours are from the whole world, many are Muslim, and I just see people - people working, people doing the shit jobs we white Brits don't do anymore, people being neighbourly, or not. Also I grew up in an all-white town with plenty of crime and antisocial behaviour, so I am not fooled by the idea that there was a golden age before the immigrants arrived! But I don't underestimate the anger and fear of "the other" which some people have, which attracts them to racist policies. It's also important not to patronise people who are genuinely fearful in the face of rising crime and terrorism, by pretending it isn't happening.
There is also the fact that people usually prefer their own kind. A homogeneous homeland is a kind of highly-valued consumer good. Of course, there are secondary issues like crime, grooming gangs, etc. (e.g., Third World mentalities).
I think people divide into two groups, those who value "sameness" and those who like variety. The concept of homeland is quite recent, in terms of human history, but we certainly began with high-trust small groups that feared "the other". I think my ancestors were the "get up and walk to the next valley" sort, see what the other tribes have to share with us! Certainly I celebrate my British culture (literature, history, sport) but also like the mingling of other cultures with mine. It's never diminished my feelings of patriotism, but my family are from all over the British Commonwealth anyway. But I see the threat of those who live here, but don't share core values with me.
You get tremendous variety within every racial group. Those who denounce racism (as Hanania does) argue that phenotype is “superficial”—so that it is not really the variety that matters to them unless it’s cultural. But phenotype is clearly not superficial as looks matter to most people. However, it’s true that racial phenotype matters less to some than others.