America First Revisited

When Trump unveiled his America First doctrine a few months back, it marked a welcome shift from the (((neoconservative))) foreign policy that’s dominated the Republican party since the Reagan administration. Though his America First embodies the all-important duty of the state to place its citizens and their interests before those of the outside world, I expressed some skepticism at the the decidedly (((neocon))) tendencies—defend Israel, war with the Middle East, and antagonizing Iran—of what was otherwise a muscular Americentrism.

In a recent interview, Trump elaborated on his foreign policy views, particularly on NATO, US forces in East Asia, the failed Turkish coup, Mexico and NAFTA, and the war in Syria and Iraq. I have much more confidence now that there will be substance behind America First. Trump stuck to his guns on demanding the United States get better deals from foreign countries regardless of (dated) treaty obligations, and was much more articulate about foreign policy than I feel he has been in the past. The overarching themes of what he envisions—reciprocity of obligations and flexibility—have been absent from our current imperial-managerial foreign policy, and bringing them back will benefit us.


Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.

Trump views NATO’s supposed role as international peace-keeper and the implicit guarantor of the openness of global trade routes as a waste of money since we pay for most of NATO and have a trade deficit to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In practice, NATO spreads Islamist chaos throughout the Middle East by toppling secular-ish or nationalist authoritarian governments in the name of “democracy” and acts as an aggressively anti-Russian alliance, but Trump isn’t there yet. What Trump wants is a NATO where members pay their “fair share” or “reimburse” the United States for protection, rather than one where the United States unconditionally guarantees the integrity of each member country’s borders. This blatant mafiazation of NATO would be, in my opinion, an improvement over unconditionally defending the European Union, which is second only to the United States in being anti-White. I have no doubt the next war in Europe will be between nationalists and globalists, and the United States has a very bad history of intervening against nationalist countries on behalf of globalists. A materialistic and amoral NATO would actually do more to protect Europeans in the long-run than a robustly-led one. Europe doesn’t need new Kosovos carved out of it.

Another thing to be on the lookout for in the press is the hysteric response to the idea of not wanting to destroy Russia, which is the implication of Trump saying he might refuse to automatically go to war over the Baltic countries. The (((neoconservatives))) who dominate foreign policy have an ethnic interest in war with the Russians, one that goes back over a century. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) was concluded in favor of Japan, a nation which would have run out of money had they not gotten a loan from New York banker (((Jacob Schiff))), who explicitly made anti-Russian financial decisions as revenge for pogroms. And of course, there was the ((communist revolution))) in Russia a decade later—though under Stalin the goyim managed to wrest back control, albeit severely addled with universalist marxism.

East Asia

So we are protecting them, and you say to yourself, “Well, what are we getting out of this?”

Trump views stationing troops in South Korea unfavorably and thinks a unified Korea might exist if not for it. Worse still, he notes the North Koreans have been developing nuclear capabilities and working on missile delivery systems during the “peace” enforced by the United States—”We’ve got our soldiers sitting there watching missiles go up”. He also thinks the missile defense system in Japan is obsolete and criticized Clinton for stating she would never leave Japan. This is where Trump’s trademark deal-making gets applied to America First:

In a deal, you always have to be prepared to walk. Hillary Clinton has said, “We will never, ever walk.” That’s a wonderful phrase, but unfortunately, if I were on Saudi Arabia’s side, Germany, Japan, South Korea and others, I would say, “Oh, they’re never leaving, so what do we have to pay them for?” Does that make sense to you, David?

In other words, defending Japan and South Korea is becoming increasingly expensive and does nothing to stop North Korea from enhancing their own offensive capabilities. American ground forces in South Korea are costly and don’t make either country safer. Trump would have the South Koreans field more of their own personnel or pay us for keeping ours there. The free ride is over.

Japan seems to ready to take on a greater share of militarization, given their recent legal efforts to scrap the constitutional ban on a standing army, and I imagine a Trump administration would have good relations with the Japanese prime minister, Shinzō Abe. Abe’s “Liberal Democratic Party” is widely described as being right-wing nationalist, and its coalition has a two-thirds majority in Japan’s lower house. In addition, Abe and many members of the LDP, including 15 of his 17 cabinet members, are part of a Japanese nationalist-revisionist organization called Nippon Kaigi. Their stated goals include:

  • "A beautiful traditional sovereignty for Japan's future”: Fostering a sense of Japanese unity and social stability, based around the Imperial Household and shared history, culture and traditions of the Japanese people.
  • "A new constitution appropriate for the new era”: Restoring national defense rights, rectifying the unbalance of rights and obligations, strengthening the emphasis on the family system, and loosening the separation of religion and state.
  • "Politics that protect the country's reputation and the people's lives”: Addressing the loss of public interest in politics and government by taking a more aggressive stance in historical debates and crisis management.
  • "Creating education that fosters a sense of Japanese-ness": Addressing various problems arising in the Japanese educational system (bullying, prostitution, etc.) by instituting respect for the national flag and anthem, respect for national history, culture and traditions (in the process abandoning "gender-free" education and critical views of Japanese history).
  • "Contributing to world peace by strengthening national security”: Strengthening Japanese defense power in order to counterbalance China, North Korea and other hostile powers, and remembering Japan's war dead.

Sounds good—like something of a Japanese alt-right even, except these people are literally running Japan so the “alt” is superfluous. Either way, I think Trump’s Asia ideas will definitely have support from the Japanese government.


The people came out of their homes, and they were not in favor of what the military was doing. So that was quite impressive from the standpoint of existing government.

Trump didn’t seem to get entirely what had happened in Turkey, but ultimately it is a peripheral issue. He basically congratulated Erdogan on stopping the military from ousting him from power, and on him taking illiberal measures to suppress elements of society that supported the coup. This is just part of Trump's style as an authoritarian conservative, but unfortunately in the case of Turkey it would have been better for them to have military rule. The Turkish military officer corps is generally more Byzantine, shall we say, than the general mongrel population, and more committed to the secularism championed by the country’s founding father, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Erdogan meanwhile is committed to re-Islamicizing Turkey and suppressing the Kurdish minority. Turkish Kurds, while unfortunately very marxist, are also like the Turkish officer corps in that they are the “Whiter” element of the country. In Iraq too the Kurdish majority are less Islamist and more Aryan than than the majority. These aren’t people we should support the destruction of; they are our only reliable partners in the region. On the other hand, an Islamist Turkey that suppresses “human rights” is never going to be integrated into Europe. And if something is bad for the Turks but good for us, we really have no choice but to take our own side.

Going back to the interview, Trump’s most important response to Erdogan’s actions was saying he would not pressure foreign countries to apply the rule of law or uphold civil liberties because “it’s very hard for us to get involved in other countries when we don’t know what we are doing and we can’t see straight in our own country.” Asked if he would revive Bushist democracy crusading, he said “there may be a time when we can get much more aggressive on that subject, and it will be a wonderful thing to be more aggressive. We’re not in a position to be more aggressive. We have to fix our own mess.” So in the short-term for Trump, spreading neoliberalism is not a goal. Hopefully the former half of the quote is lip service to patriotards, and not something he actually wants the United States to do. On the other hand, Trump has a strategy of appearing to keep as many options open as possible, so there’s the threat-value angle as well. Regardless, the end of squandering resources overseas while America burns may finally be at hand.


Right now, it’s a massive, Mexico is a massive loss. A massive loss for us.

In Trump’s typical framing speech pattern he described the relationship with Mexico as one where “we are losing on the border and we are losing on trade. We have billions of dollars of trade deficits with Mexico. Drugs are pouring in across the border. And they are beating us both on the border and with trade.” He also spoke out against the destructive impact NAFTA has had on American manufacturing, a key issue for Trump's supporters in the Rust Belt. Here Trump makes it clear that his trade and migration policies are nationalist. Immigration and trade must serve the needs of the nation, not the interests of outsourcing employers, or worse, those that employ cheap immigrant labor. Mexico is a salient example of a country that needs protectionist policies in place against it, because it has both taken American factory jobs and exported people to the United States.

Syria and the Islamic State

We have to get ISIS first, and you don’t want to fight them both at the same time when they are fighting each other.

Trump considers the current Syrian policy to be garbage and would prefer we work with the Russians to fight the Islamic State. On the other hand, he seems to imply we would go after Assad after defeating the Islamic State, which the Russians and Iranians would not be too happy about. Allying with the Russians and the legitimate Syrian government would be the best course of action from a nationalist perspective, because all three of us are at war with Islamists. And solving the mess in Syria and keeping a friendly Assad in power opens the door to a potential Qaddafi-style arrangement where the local strongman helps keep Afro-Islamic colonizers off Europe's doorstep.


America First has the potential to be what it says it is. If Trump can lay the foundations for a foreign policy that actively weighs national priorities and the cost of action to ourselves in overseas engagements rather than blindly following lobbies and outdated paper arrangements, it will be a massive improvement. And of course, nothing is more satisfying than the absolute terror that the implications of America First strike in our (((dual citizen))) community.

Also published at Atlantic Centurion

Author image
Another voice on the Alt-Right and a White nationalist. Macroaggression Consultant at Bagelbaum & Associates LLC. Like my effortposting? Gib e-shekels: 14HZJbFs3YL5oXVnxFpduXv5G3uqP85xoC
Amerikaner Free State Website