When it comes to im­mi­gra­tion and Free Trade, I am a White Na­tion­al­ist

South Florida Times - - OPINION - RAYNARD JACK­SON

A few years ago, I wrote one of the most dif­fi­cult, most per­sonal col­umns I have ever writ­ten. I was to­tally ter­ri­fied about go­ing public with that par­tic­u­lar col­umn, be­cause I didn’t know how strangers, my fam­ily, or my friends would re­spond to it.

In 2013, I came out of the closet and out of the shad­ows. I pub­licly ad­mit­ted that I was het­ero­sex­ual.Wow. I tell you, once I came out of the closet, I felt like the weight of the world had been lifted off my shoul­ders. The out­pour­ing of sup­port was mas­sive, though I never re­ceived a call from Pres­i­dent Obama or a tweet from Kobe Bryant; none­the­less, it felt good to be out of the closet.

I find my­self in that same predica­ment years later.

Dur­ing the past few months it has come to my at­ten­tion that I, like most Trump sup­port­ers, am a White na­tion­al­ist. This is not to be con­fused with a White su­prem­a­cist. White su­prem­a­cists be­lieve that Whites are su­pe­rior to other races or groups of peo­ple, sim­ply be­cause of their skin color, noth­ing more. That’s all I will say on that is­sue for now.

But,White na­tion­al­ists or na­tion­al­ists of any color and back­ground sim­ply be­lieve that our politi­cians and other lead­ers should put the in­ter­est of Amer­ica and Amer­i­cans first. End of story.

Lib­er­als and lib­eral me­dia out­lets of­ten call Trump sup­port­ers White na­tion­al­ists. But what about Blacks who be­lieve in putting Amer­ica and Amer­i­cans first? Are we, by ex­ten­sion,White na­tion­al­ists, too?

Let me be clear: if you are in this coun­try il­le­gally, you gotta go. I don’t want Amer­ica’s sovereignty to be sub­ju­gated to in­ter­na­tional or­ga­ni­za­tions like the United Na­tions. I don’t want our econ­omy to be dic­tated to by global or­ga­ni­za­tions, the Euro­pean Union or by oner­ous trade deals that would dev­as­tate our econ­omy like the Trans-Pa­cific Part­ner­ship (TPP).

Amer­ica can’t con­tinue to be the dump­ing ground for all refugees flee­ing all man­ner of con­flicts and other hu­man tragedy through­out the world. We have mil­i­tary vet­er­ans com­ing back from wars and sleeping un­der bridges.We have American cit­i­zens who are home­less and have men­tal health is­sues. I can’t find it in me to be overly con­cerned with non-cit­i­zens and refugees, when my own fam­ily is hurt­ing.

At many uni­ver­si­ties, if you’re an American cit­i­zen and you don’t live in the state where you want to at­tend col­lege, in most cases, you have to pay out-of-state tuition.Yet, if you are in the coun­try il­le­gally, you can pay in-state tuition in more than a dozen states.

Can any­one ex­plain to me how can there be even one in­stance of an il­le­gal qual­i­fy­ing for a ben­e­fit an American cit­i­zen is not el­i­gi­ble for?

My grad­u­ate the­sis from George Ma­son Univer­sity was on the North American Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA). I wrote that I was a huge pro­po­nent of NAFTA’s pas­sage. Now, when I re­flect back on that agree­ment, some twenty years later, I would be op­posed to it, be­cause I can now see how the agree­ment de­pressed the wages of American work­ers, among other things.

My ide­o­log­i­cal de­fault has al­ways been free trade, but in my eco­nomic ma­tu­rity I have come to un­der­stand that there is no such thing as free trade; only fair trade. Let me ask a ques­tion. What par­ent would sac­ri­fice the well-be­ing of his fam­ily to help an­other fam­ily in need, who they have no re­la­tion­ship with? Who would crit­i­cize this par­ent for feed­ing his chil­dren, even though he sees news footage of fam­i­lies starv­ing in In­dia? The an­swer is ab­so­lutely no one.

One of the ma­jor omis­sions in our public dis­course is that jour­nal­ists never, ever make their guests de­fine their terms. If jour­nal­ists are go­ing to la­bel some­one a White na­tion­al­ist, they should at least de­fine what that word means.

If a White na­tion­al­ist is some­one who puts his own coun­try and its cit­i­zens be­fore an­other coun­try and their cit­i­zens, then, by that def­i­ni­tion, I am a White na­tion­al­ist, too.

What is at once sad and dumb but in­creas­ingly dan­ger­ous for strat­i­fied black com­mu­ni­ties of Amer­ica, is the man­ner in which black politi­cians re­late to their con­stituen­cies. After elec­tion po­lit­i­cal lead­ers tend to go un­der cover, pop­ping up here and there to speak at var­i­ous church and other or­ga­ni­za­tional af­fairs, while much en­ergy is spent on is­sues out­side of their po­lit­i­cal dis­tricts.

Pres­sure to con­stantly pro­vide votes along po­lit­i­cal party lines amid meet­ings with devel­op­ers and lob­by­ists while hav­ing to wade through mounds of re­lated doc­u­ments, dom­i­nates black po­lit­i­cal re­al­ity. It is money from down­town in­ter­ests that black politi­cians raise to cam­paign for the mostly black votes that elect and re­elect them; that money tells politi­cians what to do, not black votes!

It is not within the in­ter­ests of down­town power­bro­kers (mem­bers of the "white supremacy sys­tem/cul­ture”) for black peo­ple to ac­tu­ally de­velop strat­i­fied black com­mu­ni­ties, be­cause white money is al­ready land bank­ing these ar­eas for gen­tri­fi­ca­tion, mean­ing re­de­vel­op­ment in­clud­ing sig­nif­i­cant black re­moval through eco­nomics.

What black elected of­fi­cials and other politi­cos worked with down­town in­ter­ests to pro­duce in Har­lem, Wash­ing­ton, DC and the Over­town com­mu­nity of Mi­ami, are ex­am­ples of what is to come through­out strat­i­fied black Amer­ica. It has be­come in­creas­ingly dif­fi­cult for blacks to af­ford ren­tals and mort­gages in these once all black com­mu­ni­ties that are be­ing gen­tri­fied,

In ev­ery in­stance, so far, black politi­cos and preach­ers have gone for the same okey­doke: “re­de­vel­op­ment will bring jobs to the com­mu­nity.” Wall Street sent “Slick Wil­lie” to bam­boo­zle then long­time Har­lem Con­gress­man, Charles Ran­gel who went ec­static that Bill Clin­ton, anointed “the first black Pres­i­dent of the USA,” would open of­fices on Har­lem’s famed 125th Street.

The Clin­ton move brought in­vest­ment bankers and ev­ery kind of fi­nan­cial in­sti­tu­tion to Har­lem. There would be no worry about red lin­ing – deny­ing loans to a ge­o­graph­i­cal area be­cause of race or other fac­tors. No, Har­lem would now be about green lin­ing! Years have passed

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.