I saw a post on X yesterday that was rather infuriating. Irish Nationalist activist Keith Woods posted that he was denied entry to the United States. This was odd, as Woods had been allowed entry in the past. Here is the post:
As you can see, according to him, he was asked if he was an ethnonationalist or an antisemite, after which he was denied his visa. He went on to reveal that other European nationalists have been denied entry into America as well, though without naming names.
This is suspected to have been done due to the anti-Israeli nature of Woods and other European nationalist activists, which under the new rules set by Marco Rubio, is not allowed if you are trying to enter the country.
This is a big problem. Criticism of a foreign country should not dictate whether or not you are able to enter the United States. The only country that should affect your entry into the United States is your viewpoint of the United States.
It is also important to understand that nationalist criticisms of Israel are radically different than internationalist criticisms of Israel.
The internationalists (socialists, wokeists, liberals, etc.) argue from an anti-White, anti-colonial standpoint where they see Israel and Zionism as a White settler colonial project, and that destruction of Israel is the first step in destroying White civilization as a whole. Of course, to many of my readers, seeing Israel as a vanguard of White civilization in any way is (rightfully) laughably absurd.
They see America in the same way they see Israel, as a White colonial project that needs to be dismantled. Thus, in that sense, I can understand why Rubio would want to deny entry to such people.
Nationalist criticisms of Israel, however, are radically different. Nationalists see Israel as a parasitic entity that sucks away tax dollars and heavily influences Western governments, the United States in particular, with no net benefit for our countries.
Therefore, Israeli and Zionist influence needs to be expelled from these countries in order for true independent decision making to occur. For example, why is America still in the Middle East if not for the benefit and security of Israel?
This is not an anti-American question. In fact, it is pro-American, because it sets the question of whether an action is good for America or good for a foreign entity.
For Rubio to conflate nationalist anti-Zionism and internationalist anti-Zionism is a blatant false equivalency. Of course, there are anti-American nationalists, that is to be expected, and we shouldn’t allow people who genuinely want to undermine this country from entering whether they be from nationalist or internationalist circles.
However, most of the nationalists in Woods’ category, himself as well as the ones who are undertaking activism on the European continent, are not anti-American so far as they are pro-their own country and race.
With the denial of Keith Woods’ visa, the US government is basically saying that criticism of Israel constitutes anti-Semitism and will result in an immediate ban on your entry into the country no matter what.
I also find it really interesting that the government can ban White men from entering the country with no problem but have to go through hoops and ladders to ban other groups from coming in. Where are the federal judges swooping to Woods’ rescue? You know where. They support this.
I also find this very shallow since most of the people who have entered this country illegally have some form of anti-Israel bias which extends to their birthright citizen children who we apparently are unable to deport because reasons. But yes, Keith Woods is the real problem here.
You can’t structure your State Department around being against the West’s managed decline while at the same time putting Israel over actual European nationalists.
American nationalism cannot be achieved if we are to constantly be attached to the hip of a foreign nation. Nationalism requires allegiance to one nation or race; you cannot be a nationalist for two differing factions at once.
This is, of course, my largest criticism of the Trump administration. Israel acts like a shareholder on a corporate board that has some sort of giant stake in this country and thus can enact policies that are favorable to them. They do this with every administration, but Trump is most egregious because he gives lip service to nationalism.
Elon does the same thing on X. Gives lip service to White issues, rightfully talks about how replacement migration is a problem, cites his native South Africa as an example of what can happen when Whites are attacked, yet the moment White people start organizing to stop it or criticizes his employment of H1B Indian labor your reach gets choked or you get outright banned (Patriot Front).
At some point these people are going to have to choose: America, or Israel. Anyone who chooses Israel can be shipped to Tel Aviv. We don’t have time nor the tolerance for double loyalties.