Your first link does not support your argument that the mainstream media claims that there are "millions of white nationalists" in America, although I can see how someone who was eager to be offended might jump to that conclusion. In the article, Hillary Clinton (not the media) is quoted as saying that there are "millions of [white] people who were upset about gains that were made by others". She (again, not the media) then claims that Donald Trump (not millions of white people) gave a speech that "was a cry from the white-nationalist gut", i.e., which gave voice to feelings that white nationalists have, even if Trump himself is not a white nationalist. It does not follow, and I do not believe we are meant to infer, that all of those millions, whom Trump successfully persuaded during the campaign -- persuaded, perhaps, merely that he was the lesser evil, as is so often the case -- necessarily endorsed any ugly viewpoints that may have been in his inauguration speech.
(I'll observe, by the way, that both Clinton and Robert Costa, the author of that article, are white. Would they consider themselves "Caucasian patriots"? One imagines so.)
Your second link does not mention skin color or racial ideologies, so I assume it wasn't intended to support your argument that white nationalists are being blamed for flipping the election, but only that the election was mispredicted -- which it was, by pretty much everybody. I'm no political scientist and won't pretend to know how or why that happened, although I will cheekily observe that they weren't entirely wrong in that Clinton did win the popular vote by quite a bit. I'll also point out that even if white nationalists can be blamed for the unexpected election result, that's not the same as saying that white nationalists voted in sufficient numbers to turn the tide by themselves. It could be instead that they managed to influence the thinking of many other voters.
I too had thought, and still think, that white nationalists are a small portion of the population. I don't believe that you, or Trump supporters, or Trump himself, are white nationalists. I do believe that he, and they, are willing to tell white nationalists what they want to hear, and allow white nationalists to hold positions of power, and work alongside white nationalists, if it helps them achieve their actual policy goals, which in my opinion is a regrettable ethical failure.
But more relevant to our discussion, I also believe that at least some Trump supporters, and some "Caucasian patriots" in general, are allowing white nationalists to make patsies of them. How? The Washington Post article you linked contains a good example: after Clinton said that Trump was "taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party", Trump turned around and told his supporters that Clinton was calling all of them racists, which of course was not the case. But now, when next they hear Clinton (or anybody) disparage racists, some part of them may think, "she's talking about me". This creates a situation where people begin to identify themselves with the word "racist" even though they aren't really. It's a clever rhetorical trick, but a dishonest and insidious one; it pushes people toward the ideological extremes, and thus distracts them from the many interests and beliefs they have in common with their countrymen.
The reason I objected so strongly to your comic above is that it seems to me to promote the same kind of association. A person who was both white and a patriot might, after reading your comic or things like it, come to the erroneous and dangerous conclusion that media reports about "white nationalists" had something to do with them -- or, even if they don't quite embrace that theory, might still involuntarily bristle at such reports all the same. If they feel defensive when they hear condemnation of white nationalists... the only people who will benefit from that are the actual white nationalists.
To be clear, I am NOT accusing you of being a white nationalist propagandist. But I do worry that you have been getting some of your information, directly or indirectly, from someone who is. When you entertain the paranoid idea that established and venerable news institutions are pursuing an agenda against people like you -- even though they are staffed by many people like you! -- then you allow yourself to be played in the same way. I urge you to resist this tendency.
: Of course, even if there were one million of them, it would still only be 0.31% of the US population -- but I don't really mean to defend the "millions" statistic, which we haven't even established that anybody is claiming. The Southern Poverty Law Center has an interesting "Hate Map" which says that there are 100 specifically White Nationalist "groups" in the US -- a count that does not appear to include groups with similar ideologies such as Neo-Nazis and the KKK -- although it doesn't give estimates of membership numbers.
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!