White is not static. White is shifting and was itself redefined to whatever people needed. To treat it as a simple matter of skin colour does the terms history injustice. "White" always had wiggle room to exclude people that, by sheer skin tone alone, would be white without a doubt. I mean, the irish were not considered white at one point as they are as lightly skinned as it gets.

I agree, I've also heard that the concept of race is a very new thing and didn't really exist for much of history. I'm not really denying any of that. I used that as an argument for how Nazism and white nationalist, at their core, are actually quite different. Nazis only cared about a subset of whites, whereas white nationalists care about all whites.

But I think it comes down to what you want the term "Nazi" to be. His believes consist of believing his "own people", defined as necessary, to be superior, he has no problems arguing for domination by "his people" over other people and he has strong anti-sematic and racist views. I mean, what would you need to see for someone to be a Nazi anyway? His ideology is in many ways the same as that of the Nazis, it isn't "branded" around Germany like those of the Nazis, but the structure is pretty much the same.

Now, I'm not super knowledgeable on history, but based on what I've been taught, a Nazi is someone who believes in Aryan superiority, who wants to actively dominate and eradicate Jews, LGBT people, Slavic people, etc, etc, and wants to establish a grand empire by taking control over other countries.

Richard Spencer believes that all whites are superior, and since he's a white nationalist I don't think he has any desire to rule over anyone. White nationalist want to be separated from non-whites. Also, he doesn't seem to have the desire to rule over other countries. I hope that makes sense.