POLITICAL SHORTHAND
Part Two: America First!
This article is part of the “Political Shorthand” series.
I was at a Republican event in Manhattan a few years ago, where some 70-year-old guy stumbled over to me, sour pinot grigio on his breath. I asked him something or other about where he grew up (my go-to when talking to boomers at parties) and he started to wax fantastic about his childhood in Westchester. All good, and then he began to ramble on into some weirdness.
“It’s way different now. It used to be almost all white people back then, but now it looks totally different! I don’t know what the hell’s going on there, know what I mean?”
No, I didn’t feel “triggered” or threatened or unsafe. I didn’t feel like this guy was going to vote for segregation or anything, but I did know that this was becoming a more common conversation on the right, specifically with Tucker Carlson and other online presences. It wasn’t the political incorrectness that bothered me. In fact, there was an element of truth, but only in that a vast difference in cultures—not ethnicities themselves—had led to problems with crime and socioeconomic disparities in certain neighborhoods. What bothered me instead was that, whether due to ignorance or linguistic laziness, this guy was grossly oversimplifying the issue into something I don’t equate with MAGA. I felt mildly like that D-Fens dude for those couple of minutes.
There was another event I was invited to recently, also in NYC, to listen to a delegation from South Africa’s Orania region. It’s completely true that there is a crisis of security for a population of white Afrikaners in the country, also that the socialist ANC party has enacted racist policies as retaliation decades after the end of Apartheid. And that’s without getting into the backwards foreign and economic policy from their government. For this reason, I was interested in learning more from people who have beeeen in the middle of it all.
Instead, I heard a brief summary of the situation, followed by an almost evangelical sermon with the theme “Demographics is destiny.” While the lecture was surely meant as a compliment to the U.S., this speech dismissed the notion that America was founded upon an idea, and inadvertently reduced our country’s purpose by defining it as “a land with a people.” It was as rhetorically close as anyone in the speaker’s shoes could have gotten without flatly saying they’re a racist. Even some of my fellow attendees were turning to me to ask, “What the hell is he talking about?” Apparently, some people would rather live under totalitarianism—or at least democratic socialism—with European descendents in North America, than on an island in the Indian Ocean or something with all of the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. That’s what happens when you value the superficial over something as unifying and strong as ideas.
No more Indian engineers who want to create tech job opportunities for Americans and protect the free market. Brits and Germans who want to tax carbon emissions and imprison you for social media posts are cool, though!
The entire concept of nationalism is becoming bastardized, and a number of predators are seeing an opportunity to take advantage.
It’s no revelation that there’s been a lot of infighting on the right, so much so that it could lead to slowed momentum in the MAGA movement and eventually cede ground to the left—should they ever get any of their act together. The general public does have a short memory span and will forget all of that “woke” and “Covid” stuff after a while. Probably not a good idea to start divvying up the already fragile majority that won this past November. Some of the more egregious examples include Mike Cernovich starting a feud with Jordan Peterson, and Catturd engaging in voter intimidation toward Kyle Rittenhouse.
It’s possibly a natural cycle that most groups experience after a major victory. Where President Trump’s first term entailed urgency to disprove any accusation of white supremacism or any other “-ism,” for that matter, his second victory has seen much of MAGA grow tired of having to explain to the media what doesn’t need explaining. Where most of these supporters have learned to dismiss the hysterics from the libtards, others have given in to post-2024 cockiness, emulating the left through conservative purity tests. These disgusting mouthpieces have the absolute balls to suggest they’ve done more to guide misguided men than Peterson, or more to protect the civil liberties of Americans than Rittenhouse—all from the comfort of their laptops. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
It’s perceived by this group that there is some kind of Absolute MAGA that can be achieved, if only there’s enough of a PR push on social media, if only enough people vote, if only enough money is sent to WinRed, if only more kids are taught civics in school. It’s eerily similar to the mindset of socialists, who believe we can achieve net zero, social justice or an end to bullying by similar means. Still, it’s been used lately to shame and pressure anyone who doesn’t fully support every intersectional battle on the right. Absent from this demand are any specifics on who should be the one choosing said battles and why.
For the left, the overarching excuse for such authoritarian behavior has been “our democracy.” For too much of the activist right, the excuse is “America First.” The further down the rabbit hole you go, however, it becomes clear that America comes second or third for many of these people, after ethnicity and/or race. No, not because I took a quick look at their demographics and did the math, but through process of elimination, and by noticing some suspiciously convenient double standards. There’s also receipts in the form of direct quotes and video footage if that isn’t enough.
Tucker Carlson once had a hardline stance on Iran in 2012, when he said “Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they’re lunatics. I think they’re evil.” Even most devout Zionists would disagree with this statement, as they’ve seen a desire for peace from much of the Iranian population.
Of course, Tucker would likely make the excuse that he was forced to say this by Fox News producers, or by Rupert himself, or claim that he’s “woken up” since then.
Perhaps it’s more likely that Carlson was extremely humiliated when Jon Stewart mocked his bowtie back in 2004. Since that episode of Crossfire, Tucker’s been doing everything in his power to gain street cred with the populist right. He probably thinks this is synonymous with the blue-collar crowd and, like a lunatic, he’s gone as far as venturing to man-made Central Park for fishing trips—tackle box and everything. Here he was wearing his brand new hunting jacket over a designer sweater so he can blend in at a shooting range as well as David Muir in a wildfire.
Where most average Americans just want to chill, enjoying lower prices at the grocery store and the gas pump (and get back to their car in the parking lot without getting shot), Tucker will overcompensate for his erudite upbringing—when nobody on the right ever asked him to—pretending that he doesn’t care about no numbers n’ such. This would explain why he feels distrust in institutions means putting full trust into chronic contrarians. Suddenly, Tucker mocks the idea that Iran is even a sponsor of terror.
See? You can make yourself look smart just by dismissing the “dead-eyed” messengers and moving the goalposts. Now, you can develop nukes and threaten to attack America as much as you want. Tucker’s adopted the approach of a Soros-appointed DA, and only believes in taking action after an attack has already occurred, and only if those Americans are killed on U.S. soil. At that point, I’m sure Tucker would have no criticism whatsoever for anyone who ignored the warning signs.
And if you thought that was Based…
This is the X account of Darryl Cooper, the guy Tucker recently called, “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.”
As happens with many cases of resentment, the sufferer is still attached to an unhealthily blind belief system, just in the opposite direction. Only some of these people eventually grow to course-correct into an outlook that takes the strongest parts of various ideologies. For instance, believing men can become women is pretty bonkers, but so is believing that Hitler had to kill all those Jews because his hands were tied.
I started noticing something was a bit off with Tucker when his Fox News monologues contained absolute statements, like “Whenever there’s a bipartisan consensus on something in Washington, it’s a bad idea.” See what he did there? He took something that’s true a lot of times, and turned it into Gospel. I guess that means the No Tax on Tips Act is a mistake, then. If you think that’s focusing too much on the exception to the rule, then try explaining the amount of falsehoods from others in this political sect backed up by such absolute claims, like “follow the money,” “there are no coincidences” or “every terrorist attack is a false flag.”
Maybe it’s important to exercise caution before relying on such lazy mantras. Maybe understanding nuance is what really separates truth-seekers from the sheeple.
From there, Tucker became quick to adopt any narrative that portrays him as the altruistic contrarian force against the powers that be. He must know the real story better than anyone else, because he makes his claims with such authority. Nevermind that he said about Douglas Murray in 2021 what he now says about Darryl Cooper. Tucker would never steer us wrong.
That’s the most generous explanation behind Carlson’s newfound blame-America-first thought process (copied from Obama) mixed with Bill O’Reilly’s “who’s lookin’ out for you” delivery. Another possible explanation is that Tucker has been giving an awfully large amount of praise to Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other not-America countries since going solo from Fox. And some say there’s compensation that comes with this praise. See what I did there? “Some say.” Now you can’t accuse me of lying about Tucker’s relationship with Qatar. I did it again there. I never said Tucker actually has a relationship with Qatar. Is this journalism?
And then there’s the inconsistency regarding persecution.
I agree that there are horrible things happening to South African farmers, as well as Syrian Christians and other groups. To be truly America First is to be against bringing these endangered individuals into the U.S. on the taxpayer dime until our country solves some of its own problems beforehand—the same way that I’ve felt about Afghan refugees, or Ukrainians or Israelis. Too many people on the right are calling out the left’s flip-flopping on immigration, but then advocating for their own brand of refugees instead of sticking to any principles.
I don’t see anything from Tucker criticizing this expenditure on importing Afrikaner non-citizens. In fact, many supposed America-Firsters are acting as if South Africa has become our 51st state.
And yes, South Africa has received USAID funds for many years, so this topic is fair game.
Also…
Tucker has yet to mention the front-page story of a shooting at the Capital Jewish Museum in D.C. (a place in America), despite one of the victims having been a Kansas native (also in America). Why the double standard?
If that seems at all pedantic or harsh, remember that Tucker accused Ben Shapiro of disloyalty to the U.S. just for mentioning that another country, Israel, was going through some shit and has the right to self-defense. Though there are indeed too many politicians who spend more time worrying about foreign conflicts than average Americans, such as Mike Pence, there are others who are chastised just for accepting a souvenir from a visiting foreign dignitary.
But if merely having a gifted foreign flag somewhere in one’s office is a form of treason, then why are these so-called patriots staying silent about Irish influence in American law enforcement agencies—a nationwide infiltration funded by more tax dollars than reciprocal intelligence arrangements with Israel?
Is this New York City, or Kilcarney? When was the last time this police force contributed to your security from other subway riders, let alone Islamic terrorists? Why hasn’t Ireland apologized for the Westies?
Tucker Carlson once upon a time presented calm rebuttals to absolute monsters, while still having the balls to make cogent points unapologetically. Now, he laughs nervously when confronted on allegations of foreign influence.
There’s a strange belief in some circles on the right that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” which is taken to the extreme when certain conservatives find out that religious fundamentalists or conspiracy enthusiasts are at least anti-Establishment. They hate Joooos as well? Welp, looks like we have to hate Joooos with them, then.
No matter that Jews are more likely to marry Christians than to hate them. Some parasites in the MAGA movement even take a liking to Islamic fundamentalists who support the killing of Christian infidels, because the narrative is that at least Islam mentions Jesus somewhere in the Koran. In my experience, things that happen later in history are often omitted from religious texts that were written centuries earlier.
The Noticers often claim to be America First, but then become just as preoccupied with their own international religious brethren as they claim the Joooos are. Maybe this is why they seem to be more about identity politics than any kind of national pride. Seems pretty leftist to me. And government officials from China to Qatar are cheering it on.
Maybe it’s okay to be against foreign entanglement, but also acknowledge that another country is under threat, and has the right to defend itself. Maybe it’s okay to be against funding other governments, but also not make excuses for terrorist atrocities or engage in historical revisionism. If these people are sincerely America First, then there is no reason for them to repost any propaganda from Hamas (which has also received U.S. aid) that’s being regurgitated by the BBC, Al Jazeera or the New York Times. There’s also no reason for them to spread one-sided reports of Ukrainian Nazis or Putin’s fear of NATO expansion if the only gripe they have is American involvement. If they “don’t care about anyone outside of America,” then why are they spending any time caring about anyone outside of America? Make it make sense.
The irony is, rightly or wrongly, even the Founding Fathers didn’t believe in an isolationist version of America First. The Revolutionary War itself was funded, in part, by France, Spain, Netherlands, Germany and Poland. Haym Solomon, a Jewish merchant from Poland, financed the Continental Army. And in Solomon’s case, it was the borrower who ended up fucking over the Jewish lender (he died in poverty, due to lack of repayment). The U.S. was already involved with foreign governments as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others periodically visited Versailles to negotiate alliances and trade. Even issues between America and the Islamic world are as old as our country, as the Barbary Wars saw Jefferson and Adams trying to broker peace with the Ottomans. In 1786, when asked why his pirates were attacking American ships, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman paid no mind to the fact that the U.S. had never caused Muslim nations any harm (we hadn’t even ratified our Constitution yet!). Instead, the Ottoman ambassador replied that:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”*
That is, dating back to America’s founding, there have been issues in the Middle East which have affected U.S. merchants and trade routes, the U.S. military, and therefore U.S. interests. I hate the idea of global diplomacy and world policing as much as the next guy, and I’d be the first to advise Israel to strive for complete military autonomy (current U.S. aid only accounts for 1-2% of Israel’s GDP anyway), but having even one ally in the Middle East is hard to argue against when dealing with the likes of the Ayatollah and his proxies. Keep in mind, as well, that President Trump has long been pushing the Abraham Accords, building more normalized Mideast relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and hopefully Saudi Arabia in the future—not just Israel. These are all countries which generally stand against the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, and also form a buffer against other regional snakes, like Turkey.
So far, the only counter-argument I’ve seen from the Tucker and Fuentes crowds is along the lines of “they’re lying about Iran” or “I’m more concerned about the rabbis in Crown Heights.” Imagine how much thought you’d need to put into reaching either of those conclusions.
It would be great to go back in time and tell the signers of the Constitution to disengage from the Eastern Hemisphere after paying back the European allies, and rely entirely on America’s landmass and natural resources to become isolated and self-sufficient. However, not only are we stuck with the history we’ve been given, but there is also no removing the U.S. from conflicts with Canada (we invaded them during the War of 1812) or Mexico (Manifest Destiny caused some friction with them).
This does not mean subscribing to the neocon fantasy of nation-building and lobbying deals. It does mean that sometimes America’s best interest includes containing foreign enemies, as well as domestic ones. For that reason, one can conclude that too many in the “America First” crowd are only adhering to these principles when it suits their personal, usually ethnically-focused, ideology. Sure, there’s room for debate over which entities constitute a threat or an ally, but the influencers in Podcastistan will still often choose their sides like all the typical globalists, while claiming to be apathetic.
Maybe America First, if taken literally, simply means helping American veterans and homeless populations before considering additional migration. It means making sure qualified Americans are employed and enrolled in universities before considering outsourcing talent overseas. It could mean prioritizing domestic investment in farmland and academic institutions, with any foreign involvement being thoroughly vetted on its benefit to the U.S. It could mean encouraging a sense of national strength, instead of government schools implementing curriculums that blame the very thought of development or ingenuity. It could also mean not making Americans unnecessarily poorer.
On what planet does any of that include pretending countries on the other side of the planet don’t have nuclear weapons, hacking skills, fighter jets or a craving for a Western caliphate? Is it America First to ignore all of that, and rather go after James Lindsay?
It seems like many of the false prophets on the right take the phrase “America First” to mean “America Only.” At the very least, it would be nice if people could mean what they say. If America First means not giving a shit about other countries, then don’t give a shit about other countries. If it means you can still talk about things happening around the globe, then don’t question an American’s loyalties when he does just that. If it actually means America First, and not Certain Americans First, then you shouldn’t be excluding anyone who was born here or became a legal citizen through the proper channels. Look what happened when democrats began muddling the English language and bossing people around.
I’ve got a better idea for the political right: Can we just limit the membership criteria to shrinking government and crime rates, please? That’s already enough to be accused of white supremacy.
*Editor’s Note: There exist several citations of this passage, each with slight variations on the wording. The provided hyperlink leads to the full original 1832 documentation from the U.S. Department of State.
