I’m a nationalist.
By nationalist, however, I don’t refer to goose-stepping goons parading with red flags emblazoned with swastikas held aloft . Rather, I am a nationalist as opposed to a globalist.
With few exceptions those are the only two choices: If you’re not a globalist, you’re a nationalist and vice versa.
There are, however, some who believe that white people should carve out an exclusive eco-bubble society in which non-whites are forbidden to enter; let alone participate. White nationalists fail to realize they are necessarily creating another eco-bubble comprised of non-whites.
Granted, freedom of association is, in my opinion, the foundation of true civil rights. If white folks wish to hang out with other whites, the government has no moral right or obligation to prevent that association. What is true of white people is true of all people. If black lawyers, for example, wish to form a professional affinity group, that is their right. If black people wish to form their own exclusive nation, they have a moral right to do so as well.
If people named Bob who are left-handed wish to form a professional affinity group or nation, there is no moral ground to prevent them. Likewise if Robert’s Bakery wishes to serve only customers named Robert and Roberta without fear of government intrusion, that is their moral right.
The problem arises when nationalists — white or otherwise — create an ‘us-vs-them’ culture that presumes their members hold a innate inclusivity and, necessarily, exclusivity. To discriminate in favor of one is to discriminate against another.
Oddly, if not hypocritically, it is the predatory left that presumes to segregate us into two distinct groups: Whites and people-of-color. Cultural Marxism presents white people as a privileged class of bourgeois oppressors and people-of-color as the under-privileged proletariat class of the oppressed.
Even as the so-called ‘progressives’ create the racist construct of privileged oppressive whites versus underprivileged oppressed people-of-color, they pretend to staunchly oppose racism. (It’s as hypocritical as ostensibly opposing homophobia while opening our nation’s borders to millions of gay-hating Muslims.)
• Enter the cry-baby movement.
That is my term for the current wave of student protests spreading across our nation’s colleges and universities. The protesters imagine racial discrimination where none exists. They concoct absurd notions of white privilege, trans-generational trauma caused by slavery, critical race theory, micro-aggressions, and other nonsensical astroturf offenses to justify segmenting society between ‘us and them’. They imagine that white people possess some pathological, innate advantage over others which whites exploit to their advantage.
To escape the oppressive white bourgeois, the cry-baby movement creates “safe spaces” where students-of-color may segregate themselves in true Jim Crow fashion. In other words, the prevailing college-campus cry-baby movement is creating a people-of-color nationalism that is effectively validating white nationalism as legitimate.
If students-of-color wish to isolate themselves in campus eco-bubbles where white people are rejected, they have a right to do so. However, they should be mindful that they are necessarily creating another eco-bubble that is exclusively white. That is, their withdrawal marches in tandem with white nationalists who are quite happy to see themselves excluded.
Again, it’s their right. But exercising a right doesn’t make it right.
Similarly, if white people wish to open a bakery that serves only white people, they have the inalienable moral right to do so. And I have the right to shop elsewhere. And I will.