American politics has probably never changed so radically in its history as it has in these last ten years. After decades of mass migration, the unraveling of social cohesion, and the uncontested hegemony of leftist institutions, every point of what was once sacral and untouchable policy is now under ruthless criticism: all is up for liquidation.

The spearhead of this transformation is the return of a once-expunged form of American conservatism. This worldview of nationalism, isolationism, protectionist trade, and unilateral action against global institutions goes under many names, but most today would recognize it as America First. Originally derived from the same slate of policy in the interwar period of American politics, it experienced a rejuvenation first at the helm of Pat Buchanan, and later enshrined as the dominant political ideology of the country by President Trump. As much as the president is owed for this act of necromancy, this worldview had been bubbling in the currents of American society for quite some time as the inclinations of a global neoliberal consensus drained the interior of the nation. The two fangs of mass migration and globalism destroyed the economic and social wellbeing of the common American, particularly for younger generations, and he searched endlessly for an alternative.

The issue of foreign influence is central to this rejuvenated conception of America First politics. Nationalism, isolationism, and protectionism are diminished by the presence of foreign influence: one cannot be nationalist if he puts the interests of other nations above and before his own, he cannot be isolationist if he is constantly dragged into wars on behalf of foreign powers, and he will struggle to maintain his economic and diplomatic freedom if he is intertwined with the sanctions and deals of other nations. The opposition to foreign influence is clearly necessary and vital to the aims and identity of this movement.

This inevitably brought forth a fissure within the new Republican coalition over nationalist principles and obligations to longstanding allies and diplomatic pacts. Realignments and reforms within the diplomatic landscape has remained a key focus for the first and second Trump administration, and one only has to look at NATO’s evolution within the last decade as evidence. Yet as it pertains to foreign nations which reciprocate influence back into our own, few countries can claim to exert a level of influence over America’s foreign policy at a level accomplished by Israel, and certainly none relative to their size. Israel and Israeli-affiliated lobbying, fundraising, and media efforts has remained a perennial force within the US’s domestic political landscape, something which can be said of few other nations.

Our country developed an early consciousness of this in 2007, following the publishing of Mearsheimer and Walt’s still-controversial The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book which argues that “No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical". It correctly identifies the American presence in various Middle Eastern proxy wars—particularly in Lebanon, Iran, and Syria—as part of a Gordian knot of relationships that Israel intended to cut apart in order to diminish Hezbollah’s influence in Palestine. The authors also note that at the onset of America’s involvement in the Middle East following 9/11, Bush intended to end the Israeli matter with a Two-State Solution and undercut Islamic radicalism across the region. The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, immediately called a fifth column of several Jewish-American leaders in the country, asking for their advocacy to curate an understanding that America’s War on Terror was identical with Israel’s. By the end of it, the Bush Administration was entirely aligned with Israel on matters in the Middle East. Two decades of wars followed.

We as Americans have over time become accustomed and in a way immunized to this bizarre level of foreign influence over our affairs. No other country has been allowed to deliver an address to Congress than Israel: nine times since 1976, four of whom were delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, another record. Americans may wonder what is so special about this alliance that demands such a continued level of attention, far and above what was given to the Queen of the British Commonwealth or Pontifex of the Catholic Church. Each year Americans see yet another ignition of arms in the region, with another plea for assistance and funding packages. Every election cycle we are forced to answer donors which of the candidates are more zealously in love with this tiny strip of arid Democracy. Billions of dollars are injected into nearly all of our domestic affairs in service to this effort.

In turn, fatigue has set in, and a slogan of sorts has been adopted by many in the America First movement: “Israel First is America Last”. Certainly, as a country which places the demands of a foreign lobby above the interests of its own people is no country at all. America First cannot be properly understood without this generation’s reaction to foreign wars, of which many current administration members (including the Vice President) personally served in. But as it was in the 2024 election cycle, the concerns did not know where to smartly apply its strategic brakes, and where to orient themselves within a now-complicated political picture. The correct identification that Israel First equates to America Last has rendered into a perversion that Israel Last therefore equates to America First. The conclusion is that if America First is ever to be a reality, then Israel and its various sources of influence must be “dealt with” in severe terms.

Such a stance turns out to be a snake that eats its own tail, abandoning the very principles it set out to protect in the first place in a number of ways. Firstly, this approach entangles us in foreign relationships just as much as the other side of the coin had before. Just as reckless as the decision to take on a favored nation (such as Israel) is the decision to take on a disfavored nation, where opposition to this enemy is conflated with patriotism for the homeland. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminds us of this fact that post-war consensus diplomacy has seemingly never recognized:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

—Washington's Farewell Address, pp. 20-21, September 1796

In an Israel Last context, decisions in which poor policy or political deafness are advocated are happily excused—so long as they are wrapped up in an appropriate amount of antipathy towards Israel. Exemplifying this are a number of, safe to say, questionable ideological alliances curated entirely upon the basis of anti-Israeli sentiments. Immediately, followers of this doctrine seek out the enemies of the disfavored nation for common cause. Given that Israel has long entrenched itself in Western alliances, its enemies are naturally found in the former Soviet blocs and various Islamic states throughout the Middle East. Soon enough, alliances and associations with communist and Islamic parties are discussed as an opportunity to achieve the one sought after goal of serving as an inconvenience to Israeli interests. The end result is the aptly-criticized label of Third Worldism: an allegiance to various peoples and worldviews alien to the West procured out of a frustration that similar allegiances could not be found organically within the West. In previous generations, such a continued effort would be met with accusations of treason, and I see no reason to exclude the possibility here.

In search of a clear example we can point directly to the ongoing campaign for New York City's mayor, where avowed Muslim, socialist, and immigrant Zohran Mamdani has a serious chance to secure rulership over our nation's largest city. His proposed policies—such as active resistance to deportation operations, offices and funding for transgender mental health, city-owned grocery stores, and the gutting of a “racist, anti-queer” NYPD—completely cement his platform as that of an archetypal “gay race communist”. Handing over New York City to such a platform is unthinkable to any on the right. That is, until he began to speak out against Israel:

“As mayor, New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a city where our values are in line with international law.”

—Interview with Medhi Hasan on Zeteo, Dec 5, 2024

Despite all of the hell that would be unleashed on NYC, despite what legitimizing this worldview on the altar of this city would do to Western politics at large, the fact that Mamdani could pose as the slightest inconvenience to Israel and Israeli interests is worth any price. As a consequence, we have seen several people come out in support of Mamdani precisely upon this singular, anti-Israeli premise. In doing so, Israel-Last proponents either consciously or subconsciously form alliances with explicitly anti-American and anti-White elements from around the world.

It is a little easier to see something as absurdly treasonous as this proposed sacrifice when you learn that these elements on “the right” have already made their bed with several anti-American elements, specifically Muslim foreigners, specifically on this gamble that legitimizing and enfranchising them in American politics would necessarily lead to the deterioration of Israeli influences. Many of them are themselves Islamists and foreigners, and indeed much of the phenomenon is explained by this. But for the ostensibly White “Christian Nationalist” type, for years they have entertained the possibility of a “Muslim-Christian alliance”, where the two team up politically with the specific goal of anti-Israeli action in mind.

It is good political wisdom in a general sense to understand that even the most pragmatic of coalitions come with costs, and to embark on an effort to fully understand the intentions of prospective allies before forming them in the first place. The America First objection to foreign influence should begin internally, with uniquely American objections to the relationship, which do not rely upon a paradoxical “alliance” with leftist and anti-American forces. It must be understood that a large sum of the global reaction to Israel’s actions is interpreted in an anti-colonial lense, where it exists merely as another tentacle of US and British imperialism. Indeed, it was not “the groypers” or Thomas Massie who formed the Reject AIPAC coalition to combat their influence in Congress, but a number of the largest and most prominent progressive organizations in the country—the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), IfNotNow, Working Families Party, and Justice Democrats to name a few.

The end result is obvious, as it is currently being manifested in the election of Mamdani: the enshrinement of explicitly anti-American ideologies within American society, helmed by a new class of affluent foreigners. With the “based!” (that is, performative) promise to imprison Benjamin Netanyahu and “get money out of politics” comes the rest of the anti-colonial project of which foreigners see anti-Israeli sentiments as but a tiny portion of: the complete dissolution of the West as it has historically existed, and the disenfranchisement of White Americans from their own nation and heritage.

This is the proverbial act of inviting a Vandal comites to deal with a pretender, with little plan for how to pay them or deal with their continued presence after the fact.

As it was foretold in older article:

Enter the final stage of festering rot: the total necrosis of one’s worldview. Individuals who amicably started off wanting to rid the West of (Jewish-promoted!) Marxism, remigrate (Jewish-imported!) invaders, and rid their homelands of (Jewish-funded!) foreign interests, have suddenly found themselves adopting Marxism, allying with invaders, and inviting foreign worldviews to replace the native liberalism of the West.

Pedestrian Antisemitism

Gildhelm

·

November 10, 2024

Read full story

This is but a short list of examples of how the Israel Last worldview operates and suffers as a form of ideological cancer. It sets out with noble intentions, growth for the assumed benefits of growth. But without measures to direct and control this intention, it quickly develops into a tumor—harmful to the very body it set out to proliferate. Israel Last can never be confused for a genuine America First, however blurred the lines between them may appear.

America First operates on the principle that whatever generates the most long-term benefit to the American people is to be pursued as official policy. To what extent a foreign power benefits is irrelevant, so long as it understands the difference between a remora and a tick. Yet, for many, this is insufficient. As Washington had predicted, it soon becomes an indictment on one's patriotism if he does not take an aggressive enough stance against the foe. Indeed, we can be sure to receive some of these allegations in response to this article particularly.

The Israel Lobby is absolutely a problem—any foreign lobby that matter. The idea that we should tolerate a 5th Column of dual-citizens running the halls of Congress to direct our nation towards the ends of a foreign nation is completely antithetical to the principles of America First. But the agreement between these two worldviews ends here. There are far worse fates than the status quo, and an overemphasis towards a worldview that metastasizes into Israel Last threatens to bring many of them into existence, all to be in service to a narrow-minded ideological ambition.

We have good options for medication on the table. We should at least entertain the idea of using them effectively before ingesting gallons of rat poison to rid the parasite, and along with it the entire body. America First is not Israel Last.

Leave a comment