The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIlana Mercer Archive
Trump’s America First Policy: Remarkably Sophisticated
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Unsophisticated rambling,” “simplistic,” “reckless.”

The verdict about Donald J. Trump’s foreign policy, unveiled after his five-for-five victory in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut, was handed down by vested interests: members of the military-media-think tank complex.

People like Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. People Dwight Eisenhower counseled against, in his farewell address to the nation:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Naturally, Albright wants U.S. foreign policy to remain complex, convoluted; based not on bedrock American principles, but on bureaucratically friendly talking points, imbibed in the “best” schools of government, put to practice by the likes of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Like so many D.C. insiders who move seamlessly between government and the flush-with-funds think-tank industry, Albright has worked for CFR. (Yearly revenue: $61.0 million. Mission: Not America First.)

Neo-Wilsonian foreign policy is big business.

Wait for the Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation and the Center for American Progress to pile on Trump’s “unsophisticated,” America-centric foreign policy—especially now that the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee has signaled his intention to get the U.S. “out of the nation-building business.”

Like an invasive Kudzu, these anti-American forces are everywhere. What Trump’s advocating translates into a reduced profile for them: less demand for their neo-Wilsonian schemes, promulgated in focused blindness by think tank types and by most tele-tarts.

Reduced demand for American agitation abroad will mean fewer “media references per year,” less “monthly traffic” to monetize on websites, less influence in the halls of power and, ultimately, reduced revenues.

We might even see fewer color-coded revolutions around the world.

Trump’s promised change to American foreign policy can’t sit well with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Freedom House. These have been described by the press as “Washington-based group[s] that promote democracy and open elections.”

More like Alinskyite agitators.

The IRI and the NDI are excrescences of the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively. As Trump supporters know, on the foreign-policy front, not much distinguishes America’s duopoly. Republicans and Democrats work in tandem, Saul-Alinsky style, to bring about volcanic transformation in societies that desperately need stability. Or as Trump put it, “We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed.”

CNN is right to fret that the Trump foreign policy address delivers “little in the way of a recognizable foreign strategy.”

Fear not, CNN. Trump’s promise to pursue “peace and prosperity, not war”—the candidate’s commitment that, “unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be [his] first instinct”—is recognizable to those whose loved ones have returned in body bags, from the blighted and benighted territories into which Trump adversaries want to keep tunneling.

Evidently, victims of liberal interventionism and neoconservative global democratic crusades think putting Americans first is a wildly sophisticated idea.

Ordinary, patriotic Americans have been hoodwinked by these sophisticates into sacrificing their children to Madeleine Albright’s Moloch.

It would appear these Trump supporters and America’s soldiers no longer wish to throw beautiful young lives to the think-tank industry’s God of War.

“Trump’s foreign policy platform would dismantle the post-World War II architecture so lovingly built up by the War Party and its congressional Myrmidons,” posits Justin Raimondo, editor at “This is why he’s made all the right enemies … Trump’s triumph would mark the end of the neocons as a viable political force on the Right.”

Amen Selah.

It’s by no means axiomatic, moreover, that “defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests,” confessed policy analyst Rosa Brooks.

As with any bureaucracy, NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is good for those it employs; bad for The People who must pay for it and tolerate its self-perpetuating policies and sinecured politicians forever after.

NATO, conceded the Washington Post, was “formed to fight the Soviet Union. … The USSR evaporated a quarter-century ago.” Like a zombie, this segment of the international superstate “has lurched along, taking on new roles. “

The establishment, Left and Right, equates what governments do with what the people need.

Take CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. In ways intellectual, the anchor is impoverished. She is, however, never poor. Amanpour’s net worth is $12.5 Million. She’s lived, loved and worked among the upper echelons her entire life, including in her birth place of Iran. Terribly privileged, Amanpour is more authentically “Shahs of Sunset” than an ordinary American.

The CNN personality has ridiculed Trump’s “poor me America” routine. She disputes his tack about a weakened America whose exploiters should “pony up.” Simply put, said Trump, “Our allies are not paying their fair share.” “We have spent trillions over time … provid[ing] a strong defense for Europe and Asia”:

The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.

When Trump challenged America’s continued membership in NATO, shysters like Amanpour, Ted Cruz too, cupped hands to claim the charity of the gullible American people. They “argued” that we need to continue to give over two percent of GDP to keep this welfare-warfare elephantiasis going.

Their error—Amanpour’s error—is to collapse the distinction between America (overall, relatively wealthy) and individual Americans, legions of whom are dirt poor and desperate.

But businessman Trump makes no such mistake. He can’t help but put Americans first.

The Donald’s foreign policy coup de grâce: “Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.”


“Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests,” he asserted, as he “pledged to … focus on stability in the [Middle East and the region], not on nation-building.” Recognizing the differences America has with China and Russia, he also vowed to ‘seek common ground based on shared interests.’”

“My goal is to establish a foreign policy that will endure for several generations centered on prioritizing America first.”

Remarkably, our foreign-policy maze-bright rats see this Trump stance as unsophisticated.

To the contrary: Trump’s foreign policy evinces a sophisticated understanding of the role of government in the lives of a free people.

The duty of the “night-watchman state of classical-liberal theory” is primarily to its own. The classical liberal government’s duty is to its own citizens, first.

As Americans, we have a solemn, negative, leave-them-alone duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty and property.

We have no duty to uphold their rights. Why so? Because (ostensibly) upholding the negative rights of the world’s citizens involves compromising the negative liberties of Americans—inalienable American lives, liberties and livelihoods.

By promising to “never send our finest into battle, unless necessary,” Trump demonstrates a visceral, critical understanding that an American president is obligated to defend—he dare not squander!—the lives of Americans. He thus comes closest to fulfilling the executive duties of an American leader.

Hide 65 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s hard to keep up. Is Israel part of NATO now, too?

    • Replies: @Karl
  2. Foreign intervention is a huge business. Trump would break the rice bowl of legions of war-mogering consultants, bureaucrats, contractors et al. It will be amusing to watch Hillary and her acolytes defend the last 20 years of NAFTA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya……

  3. mtn cur says:

    It needs no genius to see that keeping your hands off of others is much easier than fending off an infuriated world that rejects our devine right to assault others . The core concept of the great philosophies is that it is easier to change ourselves than to persuade seven billion lunatics to change what they are doing. Its’ an economy of force issue which even military officers understand, so Trump may have learned this in military school. Taking on the world at seven billion to one is probably arrested development more often than antisocial psychosis.

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Make no mistake. Trump puts Trump first.

    • Agree: RaceRealist88
    • Replies: @stickman
    , @boogerbently
  5. I do not, of course, trust Mr. Trump, who talks out of both (well, several, maybe) sides of his mouth. Obviously, I like all the non-interventionist words, but they come oddly from someone who jumped right in there with the rest of the GOP field in promising to destroy our Islamist subsidiary, ISIS; who proclaims an intention to build up the military to all-time-biggest scale; and who professes to love torture. Worst of all, he went to AIPAC and didn’t just kiss Bibi’s ring, he got down on his knees and gave it a thorough and lascivious tongue bath. On the other hand, he certainly has brought out amazing levels of psychotic hatred from all the usual suspects. It could be that they know something I don’t … not to say that knowing something I don’t is so great an accomplishment. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is faulty logic, so I can’t sign up on that basis. Fortunately, I don’t have to make any decisions, since I don’t vote. But I do watch the unfolding train wreck, with a queasy fascination, and I think I’ll root for the ‘Pubbies to deny their nomination to Trump by the sleaziest possible convention machinations, awarding it to … oh, let’s say Jebbie, instead. Then going on to lose the presidential election by historically lopsided numbers, and maybe every single contested congressional seat, and all state and local races too. That would actually be a good thing, and an entertaining thing, too.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  6. Svigor says:

    Remarkably, our foreign-policy maze-bright rats see this Trump stance as unsophisticated.

    Meaning, it’s not a Rube Goldberg contraption complicated enough to hide the globalist first, Americans last agenda.

    Make no mistake. Trump puts Trump first.

    Trump first it is then.

  7. And now, back to our scheduled program. War, war, and more war!

  8. Truth says:

    Hey guys, speaking of D.C.; Barry had his 8th and final White Houde Correspondents dinner last night. He starts laying into you heroes at 13:00 if you want the quick version.

    But hey, you have to admit, you’re going to miss the sneering condescension, the withering insults, the subtle mockery, the haughty holier than thou attitude that make you feel like mere untermenschen …

    It’ll be like pre-2008, you’ll just have to start waiting for me to post again.

    • Replies: @woodNfish
  9. Sean says:

    A right is something that a citizen of a particular state can have enforced. Without reference to a specified society in which the state will use its power when the right is claimed, the concept of rights is meaningless. The universal rights of human beings in abstract do not exist, except as a call for the overthrow of every government.

  10. Sophisticated? Remarkably!

  11. “In ways intellectual, the anchor is impoverished. She is, however, never poor.”

    What a nice turn of phrase.

    It strikes me as a bit odd to call what we have now foreign policy, since the assumption is that American jurisdiction and responsibility is global, so what is foreign? Kind of reminds me of the old joke about a 19th Century Brit, when asked where in the world he was, stuck his toe in the water and responded, “I’m in the British Empire.”

  12. Mark Green says: • Website

    Ilana Mercer’s eloquent support of candidate Trump’s (declared) departure from Washington’s status quo policies is–on its face–commendable. But there’s more here than meets the eye. And less, too.

    Mercer properly fingers NATO (3 times), Neo-cons (twice) and even the shadowy influence of the Council on Foreign Relations (3 times) for their elastic ideologies and commitments which ultimately permit the continuation of Zio-Washington’s revolving door policies of regime-change and war.

    Mercer identifies some of the familiar tricks used by “liberal interventionists” and their DC underlings. Just beneath the surface of many of their proclaimed objectives (such as ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’) are cynical plans for violent preemption and cultural sabotage. The pernicious influence of these operatives and NGOs is unceasing. Mercer properly calls out the “unwarranted influence [in Washington]” by neocons. Now we’re getting somewhere!

    But Ilana Mercer does not call out AIPAC or even mention Washington’s foremost sacred cow.

    Mercer strikes again. Her strategic omissions are mind-numbing.

    Are we to believe, Ms. Mercer, that the Israel Lobby is not Front and Center in war-happy Official Washington?

    Are we to believe that the omnipresent Israel Lobby is only incidental to Zio-Washington’s wars and embargoes that have harmed or decimated Iraq, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria for the past 15 years or more?

    Yes or no?

    When will Mercer examine the ethno-Zionist pedigree of so many billionaire ‘donors’ to both major political parties? Does this not indicate undue Zionist influence? People want to know.

    Zio-libertarian Ilana Mercer just can’t bring herself to identify the elephant in Washington’s bedroom. This persistent pattern undermines her credibility. As it should.

    Mercer’s a perceptive writer but she pulls her punches.

    In familiar form, Mercer tags CNN correspondent (and ex-Iranian) Christiane Amanpour for derision, but not CNN heavyweight (and AIPAC operative) Wolf Blitzer.

    What about neocon war-boosters and crypto-Israelis Judith Miller, David Brooks or Charles Krauthammer?

    And there are countless others. Many Israel-Firsters manage US news bureaus. Others own entire networks! That’s news.

    Surely Ms. Mercer has noticed that ‘America First’ Trump has pledged unconditional fealty to the Zionist sacred cow.

    Trump (speaking to says, “The only [candidate] that will give true support to Israel is me. All the rest are politicians.” Trump has also repudiated the reasonable deal that Obama struck with Iran. Why? Let’s just say that the Israelis are not satisfied with the deal. Israel wants Iran isolated and economically damaged indefinitely. This policy may harm millions of innocent Iranians, but it empowers nuclear Israel and Jews everywhere. Case closed.

    ‘America First’?

    Meanwhile, Israel is still committed to expansion, settlement-building, and ethnic cleansing.

    Does this not spell inevitable trouble regarding Trump’s alleged ‘America First’ Doctrine?

    How can Mercer not see this coming?

    When Trump becomes president, America is headed for another Emergency Room visit the moment Israel sneezes. It’s been this way since 1967. And this ironclad, one-way, and unconditional ‘friendship’ is no accident–as every astute Zionist knows.

    Putting Israeli interests on par (if not ahead) of US interests is what US presidents do. It’s an occupational necessity. Is Mercer unaware?

    But here is where Ms. Mercer really shows her hand:

    She (along with Trump) eschews “nation-building” but she highlights Trumps stealthy commitment to “[focusing on] stabilizing” the Middle East.

    “Stabilizing” the Middle East, Ms. Mercer?

    I had a feeling that elastic word would resonate with you.

    Translation: Let’s not make any changes going forward (other than perhaps going after ISIS and cleaning up the neocon-engineered mess in Iraq and Libya) that might upset the Mideast status quo. This is good news for Israel.

    Even the Israel Lobby is willing to put aside regime change (for now) as long as certain policies and ‘special friendships’ are ‘stabilized’. It’s clearly time to let the dust settle. Bury the dead.

    ‘Stability’ going forward protects Israel’s unique status in Zio-Washington. The next hot war will just have to wait. As will Palestinian freedom.

    So keep on building, Bibi! America First!

    Unfortunately, Trump (or Hillary) can be counted on to ‘stabilize’ (keep in place) the usual and deplorable policies that have benefited the Zionist entity since LBJ.

    Conclusion: Candidate Trump has already been compromised by the usual suspects. And these suspects are the people that Mercer sleeps with.

    • Agree: geokat62
  13. Truth says:

    Conclusion: Candidate Trump has already been compromised by the usual suspects. And these suspects are the people that Mercer sleeps with.

    Hillary? Amanpour? Judith Miller?

    I hate to say it Ilana, but I think this young man is implying that you’re a lesbian.

    • Replies: @Sean
  14. Realist says:
    @Mark Green

    I am interested in Ilana’s reply.

    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Karl
  15. Sean says:
    @Mark Green

    Barak stated during an American television interview that he would “probably” strive for nuclear weapons if he were in Iran’s position, adding “I don’t delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel”.

    Both former PM (and military man) Ehud Barak and commentator Martin Van Creveld say Iran, even with nukes, is not going to attack threat to Israel. Syria is a military weaking for genaration or more. The Neocons in the US media and government like to talk as if theses countries are threats to Israel because it makes them lok good in the US (where they live) and feel important. No, the crucial threat to Israelis is the Arabs within and the Neocons don’t ever dare acknowledge it.

    Israel first would be the expulsion policies of the he Kach Movement, which was was banned in Israel. Moreover even pundit Louis René Beres was excluded from access to policymakers for being too Hawkish. The price that Israel pays for the support of the US (including US subsidies to Egypt) is going along with official US policy for a West Bank Palestinian state.

    The Barak government resumed peace negotiations with the PLO, stating that “Every attempt [by the State of Israel] to keep hold of this area [the West Bank and Gaza] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state.”(

    The backing of the US is conditional on Israel pursuing a course that means it will cease to be a Jewish state. If the US media are Israel firsters, which Jewish commentator in the US advocates forcing the West Bank Arabs across the river into the existing Palestinian state of Jordan?

    The problems of Europe are due to Germany, which has engineered a crisis and then solved it by giving 70 million Turks the right to come to Europe.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  16. Sean says:

    He’s no judge, and neither are you I suspect.

  17. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hey, wait your turn! She still needs to come clean on who submitted for publication here the hubba-hubba picture atop the article she wrote about being ignored.

    Ms. Mercer, we feel your pain — please reply!

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @woodNfish
  18. Jefferson says:

    Even though Ilana is to the political right of most Americans, she still gets a lot of hate from commentators here on The Unz. The only conclusion is that hatred for her here is entirely related to her ethnic background and has nothing to do with political ideology. If Ilana was a Gentile with the same political views that she holds now, she would get mad love from people who post on The Unz. The Unz most likely attracts a lot of the Stormfront crowd. To the Stormfront crowd, being a Gentile trumps political ideology. They would rather have a Liberal heroin and meth junky Gentile like Courtney Love as a next door neighbor, than have a Right Wing Jew like Ilana Mercer as a next door neighbor.

  19. Realist says:

    To me the most important human assets are intelligence and integrity which Ilana appears to have plenty. For either a man or woman physical appear is frosting on the cake. Ilana is a beautiful woman, but her greatest allure is her personal attributes.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Truth
  20. Realist says:


    should read appearance.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  21. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If she was dissembling about submitting the pic, doesn’t that go to her integrity?

  22. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    This issue of body bags coming home affects me personally. It is very real for my Irish Catholic Family.

    Noam Chomsky will be voting for the WAR CRIMINAL Hillary Clinton…for one reason and one reason only:to rapidly accelerate the race-replacement of The Historic Native Born White American Christian Majority.

  23. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It takes a lot of cliché name calling to duck Mark Green’s substantial questions, above, doesn’t it?

    Speaking only for myself, I find Ms. Mercer’s articles tiresome in their overdone alliteration and other stylistic contrivances when she has relatively little of insight to offer. She has been pumping for Trump, but refuses to respond to the readership’s pointed questions and criticisms, despite having time to remind everyone that she is physically attractive. When addressing the admittedly inconsequential issue of her vanity, she appears (her direct reply remains pending) to have dissembled about sending in to UR yet another fresh, glamorous photo of herself.

    Is that “hate”?

    • Replies: @Karl
  24. Boris says:

    As Americans, we have a solemn, negative, leave-them-alone duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty and property.

    Did you forget that Trump has promised to kill the relatives of terrorists?

    Yes, Trump has a coherent foreign policy–as long as you ignore the parts that contradict the other parts.

  25. Truth says:

    OK, you can stop sucking up now. She’s not going to date you, Alan Alda.

  26. stickman says:

    If Trump puts the better interests of the American people a strong second it might not be a bad thing.

  27. stickman says:
    @Mark Green

    The unmentioned pachyderm in the room is the reality that the American Zionist movement is nothing more than probably the primary tentacle of the “Federal” Reserve Bank owning Rothschild crime family. “Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets” (Damn Yankees).

  28. @Anonymous

    Putting Americans first WILL put him first.

  29. @Jefferson

    Last sentence is not true of my family. But we’d rather have NEITHER in our neighborhood or country.

  30. Rehmat says:

    Donald Trump’s “America First Policy” has a much credibility as Dubya George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” rant over Iraq War in January 2004.

    Remember Sen. Chuck Hagel or Samantha Power who were hated by the Organized Jewry for believing in “America First”. Both of them changed their tunes once they joined Barack Obama administration.

    In November 2014, Helene Cooper at ‘The Jew York Times’ reported that US Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has submitted his resignation which was immediately accepted by president Barack Obama. Chuck Hagel was confirmed in February 2013 after a disastrous opposition from the Jewish Lobby (here and here). The paper claimed Hagel resigned under pressure without mentioning the “pressure”.

    She claimed that “Barack Obama decided to replace Chuck Hagel after coming to the conclusion during the last few weeks that the current defense chief was not the right person to lead fight against ISIS.”

  31. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    George Orwell:
    He [donkey] would say that God had given him a tail to keep the flies off, but that he would sooner have had no tail and no flies.
    I have read this long ago, and that donkey is somewhat confused in my mind with the one from “Shrek”.

  32. woodNfish says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    I don’t vote.

    Then why should we care what you think about Trump? You are wrong, btw.

  33. woodNfish says:

    I really don’t want to watch a bunch of dick-suckers fawning over the head dick.

  34. DaveE says:

    The one almost-comforting thing about Trump’s AIPAC pandering was its complete lack of substantive promises.

    Pull out of the JCPOA? So what……? That deal was negotiated by Lavrov and Russia, with Kerry, Merkel and the so-called P5+1 looking on with their thumbs up their personal dark places. The deal is STILL in Russia’s courtyard and there’s precious little the US can do, now, to derail it.

    Move the capital of Israel to Jerusalem? How ya’ gonna do that, Trump? And even if you turn a blind eye while Israel moves all its offices there, how does that change ANYTHING other than making a nightmare for the Israeli Postal Authorities? (I mean “Postal” as in government office, not a psychological evaluation.)

    So what I’m saying is, a certain level of pandering is to be expected. In fact, it is required. Trump has openly stated several times that his primary goal it to win, as it should be. The only way that can happen is for Trump (or anyone else) to mollify enough groups with just enough happy-talk to get them to vote for him.

    Same with the “bathroom privileges for sexually disoriented psychotic deviants” routine. I mean, who cares, once you get past the power-vomitting part? Trannies in the Men’s Room is an “enter at your own risk” proposition. Probably even MORE dangerous in the Ladies Room. A self-correcting problem, IMHO.

    On the other hand, Trump’s America First policy proposals have the neocons, bolsheviks, Israelites or whatever-they-are in near hysteria and represents a different moral universe from the Clinton / Bush / Obama school of Whatever War Israel Wants This Week, Israel Shall Have mandate.

    Caution is still demanded, but I’m cautiously optimistic that Trump is not going to be pushed around by the usual thugs. He hasn’t shown himself to be coward, yet and there is no more important quality in a leader than a little courage.

  35. woodNfish says:

    She replied on her blog. Go there if you want to read it.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  36. @DaveE

    Agree with much of your comment, but not as to the sickness of letting men into women’s bathrooms and fitting rooms because the men claim to believe that they are themselves women. Such men are either lying or mentally ill.

    If we ever find a man in the bathroom or dressing room with my wife and daughters, all the unnatural “laws” in the world won’t help him. But I shouldn’t have to risk physical combat to get a perverted fuck away from the women in my family in a private setting like that.

    The “law” enacted by our governments does matter, and it should be on the side of normal people and their privacy, safety, and peace of mind.

  37. The problem is clear and indisputable. There can be no doubt whatever. Trump simply must not be allowed to occupy the Oval Office.

    By promising to “never send our finest into battle, unless necessary ordered by Israel,” Trump demonstrates a visceral, critical understanding that an American president is obligated to defend—he dare not squander!—the lives of Americans Israelis. He thus comes closest to fulfilling the executive duties of an American leader Israeli puppet.

    Only by making the corrections above can a candidate be considered to possess even the minimum qualifications for any elective Federal office let alone the Presidency. Given Trump’s reticence for admitting error or reversing himself, it becomes plain as day what must be done. All goodwhites must stand in unison and demand Rafael Eduardo Cruz be reinstated and subsequently nominated as he was anointed to be so Americans can have the correct choice between two qualified candidates for the Offal Office in November.

  38. DaveE says:

    True, but I just don’t see any realistic government getting away with it. It would have to be done by Congress and I just don’t see it happening, since 99.995 percent find the concept to be utterly repugnant.

    To me, Trump’s comment was a polite way of saying STFU to whatever bolshevik interviewer tried to paint him into a corner.

    • Replies: @DaveE
  39. DaveE says:

    Meant as a reply to RadicalCenter, above. Sorry…..

  40. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    She has been asked here about what she wrote here. And here is where she should reply.

    Or maybe you could copy and furnish all of us here with her reply. You are trying to be helpful, aren’t you?

  41. @Mark Green

    have to remember Ms mercer is jewish and all the people she is protecting are members of her tribe. What she leaves out is her father in south Africa was in with joe slovo and the rest of the Bolshevik jews that brought down south Africa and installed the senile simpleton nelson mandela. after destroying that place I was sure they went to Israel. But now she is in USA? are we the next target?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  42. While Donald Trump would not have been my first choice for the endorsement he won it fair and square. The likes of some of the phony politicians with their self righteous bull that criticize him now are really the ones that made his victory possible. I received a lot of personal satisfaction today when I donated $100 to Paul Nehlen, a candidate opposing Paul Ryan for the Republican endorsement in Ryan’s district in Wisconsin. In fact it felt so good I think I will do it again. You can get that same good buzz by googling Paul Nehlen and going to his site and making a donation. Just maybe idiots like Ryan might wake up.

  43. Jefferson says:
    @mr. meener

    “have to remember Ms mercer is jewish and all the people she is protecting are members of her tribe. What she leaves out is her father in south Africa was in with joe slovo and the rest of the Bolshevik jews that brought down south Africa and installed the senile simpleton nelson mandela. after destroying that place I was sure they went to Israel. But now she is in USA? are we the next target?”

    You should be afraid of Ilana Mercer because she and bunch of armed to the teeth Mossad agents might be paying you a visit real soon. You know what they are capable of, you saw what they did to Prince, he is no longer breathing.

    • Replies: @mr. meener
  44. Realist says:

    “So what I’m saying is, a certain level of pandering is to be expected. In fact, it is required. Trump has openly stated several times that his primary goal it to win, as it should be. The only way that can happen is for Trump (or anyone else) to mollify enough groups with just enough happy-talk to get them to vote for him.”

    That is exactly why democracy is the most corrupt form of government. When you allow idiots to vote bad things happen.

    • Replies: @DaveE
  45. @Jefferson

    they will have to do it while I am sleeping. she can go back to hell with the mossad which is where they came from. what did prince do that you think they killed him

  46. @DaveE

    He hasn’t shown himself to be coward

    In fact, he has shown himself to be quite fearless. No one brings attention to this aspect of the campaign spectacle: at a primitive level, behavior — ie charisma or lack of it — is everything.(On that note: Hillary Clinton has none). Nothing fazes Trump. At the podium in the debates, he never winced or flinched once. Never back on his heels. He took every shot like it was nothing. Just brushed it off, if he even noticed. This is one reason he has the leadership appeal that he has. He doesn’t ***act***, he ***IS*** the big dog. and people looking for that strength in a leader, recognize it instantly. While I have a bit more difficulty understanding the rage of the anti-Trump people, I suspect they are infuriated by the self-evident fact that he cannot be beaten down. When they try, he just, well… he sheds their anger like it is nothing, he’s untouchable. This makes the PC fascists crazy. Conclusion: the Trump phenomenon is about demeanor, not the intellectualized irrelevance of “issues”. (That said, ***AFTER THE CAMPAIGN***, after the spectacle, policies and effective performance become ***EVERYTHING***.)

    Worth noting for inclusion in any speculation regarding the underlying personality factors is the “father vs father-less” upbringing. Obama the spineless, brought up by mama and granny, had no father to teach him manliness, to cultivate the fighter in his personality. He’s all feminine talky-talky-ness. Bill Clinton was also raised by mommy, and had little fight in him as well. His approach was talky-talky “tell ’em what they want to hear”, “I feel your pain” manipulation by insincerity. Trump in contrast was taught at his father’s knee when young, military school in the middle years, and back at his father’s side for his business apprenticeship. His father’s love and devoted guidance built confidence, boldness, and fearlessness.


    • Replies: @DaveE
  47. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @Herman Stottman

    Thank you, Mr. Stottman, for suggestion.
    I just did the same for Paul Nehlen, $50.oo, at

    Your F. r.

  48. @Jefferson

    Don’t know about the “Stormfront crowd,” but the rest is likely true. Thanks.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  49. DaveE says:
    @Jeff Davis

    Very well put.

    I found his speech on the flexible nature of “debt”, that maybe it wouldn’t have to be repaid, at least not in full, to be EXTREMELY courageous.

    It didn’t take the NYT ten minutes to come out saying Trump would be the “worst President EVER” after openly defying the usual suspects so brazenly.

    Say what you will, the guy’s got guts and he’s going to need them all if he really intends to fight this inbred Mob.

  50. DaveE says:

    Well, effective immediately, I propose that I, DaveE, am The One who gets to decide who the idiots are. Problem solved. That was easy…..

  51. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @ilana mercer

    Ms. Mercer,

    Speaking only for myself, I find your articles tiresome in their overdone alliteration and other stylistic contrivances when you have relatively little of insight to offer. You have been pumping for Trump, but refuse to respond to the readership’s pointed questions and criticisms, despite having time to remind everyone that you are physically attractive. When addressing the admittedly inconsequential issue of your vanity, you appear (your direct reply remains pending) to have dissembled about sending in to UR yet another fresh, glamorous photo of yourself.

    Is that “hate”?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
  52. Art says:

    Paul Ryan flies a false flag! He says he is conservative.

    How is passing a budget that adds two trillion to the national debt – conservative?

    What legislation has he passed that Obama has vetoed? NOTHING!

    What legislation has he passed that protects religion from the state? NOTHING!

    Paul Ryan is a lying big government Washington apparatchik – PERIOD!

  53. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    Let us help Paul Nehlen,
    competitor of Paul Ryan in Wisconsin primaries for congressional seat,
    to oust Ryan, see comments # 43 and # 48 at this thread.

  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    What Trump is telling us is the same thing Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barack Obama, told us all along just to get to the presidency. When they got the white House they all started working for the Zionist full time, waging wars for Israel and getting the American people in unprecedented debt. 20 trillion dollars and counting, thousands of our soldiers dead, more than 10 million people murdered around the world for the Zionist cabal, for Greater Israel.

  55. Jefferson says:

    “You have been pumping for Trump”

    Plenty of Goys here on The Unz are also pumping for Trump. Are you giving them a hard time as well?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  56. Joe Mack says:

    If the Balkans were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier, what part of the Middle East is worth the bones of any American?
    Italy, Germany, Japan, we free you from our bondage. South Korea, let your electronics protect you.
    America first? Hell yeah!

  57. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    You have ignored my question to you in #23, but I’ll address yours, hopeful that you and others may rethink your assumptions about those of us not smitten with Ms. Mercer’s every word.

    This is my favorite site in part because it hosts a wide range of columnists and attracts, relative to others, much more worthwhile commenters. I’ve taken issue with, questioned, and commented favorably about the assertions of several columnists, as well as the commenters, on various topics. (Threads can go “OT.”) Some of my comments, but by no means all, concerned Mr. Trump, including under Mr. Sailer’s pieces, and I would guess under other columnists. I have commented critically when someone was, in my view, ignoring or glossing over Mr. Trump’s flaws. This started early on, before Ms. Mercer, at least to my knowledge, began to address his candidacy; I was at one point accused by other commenters of being a secret supporter of Jeb Bush, if that helps with the timeline.

    I don’t know who among these other columnists and commenters I’ve engaged concerning Mr. Trump is a “Goy,” nor do I care. But if you can specify any of the “Plenty” you have in mind, I may have more to say in response to your question.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  58. Karl says:

    >>> Is Israel part of NATO now, too?

    No….. just more valuable to have on your side, than all of Denmark/Sweden/Norway/Netherland forces PUT TOGETHER.

  59. Karl says:

    Realist >>> I am interested in Ilana’s reply

    The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on.

  60. Karl says:

    anonymous >>> Speaking only for myself, I find Ms. Mercer’s articles tiresome in their overdone alliteration and other stylistic contrivances

    And yet, you never fail to read them

  61. anonymous • Disclaimer says:


    I remembered this morning that I started here as a “guest,” under the mistaken belief that this was equivalent to being anonymous. (Another “guest” at the same time was submitting very well written comments with which I tended to agree.) But this has allowed me to quickly find some exchanges I had concerning Mr. Trump in several threads:

    July 13, Jack Kerwick

    July 15, Steve Sailer

    July 16, Dan E. Phillips

    August 28, Ms. Mercer.

    You’ll have to tell me who among the first three is what you consider a “Goy.”

  62. On Friday, the Hebrew-language print edition featured an interview with Trump — translated into English online — in which he assured Israelis that, far from being “neutral” on the Middle East, his election would be “tremendous news for Israel.”

    And we know what “tremendous news for Israel” means.

    If anyone believes that Trump will do even half of the things he says, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Trump is like Obama was in 08 except for right-wingers. He will not do what he says.

    And we have this as well:

    Donald Trump: “I think President Obama is one of the worst things that’s ever happened to Israel. I think he’s set back [Israeli] relations with the United States terribly, and for people and friends of mine who are Jewish, I don’t know how they can support President Obama. He has been very bad for Israel.”

    “I know so many people from Israel. I have so many friends in Israel. First of all, the Israelis are great businesspeople. They have a natural instinct for business and their start-ups are fantastic. I deal with the Israelis all the time, and I deal with people who are Jewish all the time, whether they are Israeli or not.”

    He will not put us Americans first, he will put the Jews first, seeing as both his son and daughter converted to Judaism, and his daughter even birthed a Jew!

  63. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    I stopped reading National Review after defenestration of Derbyshire.
    However, I was interested during 2016 Presidential campaign, what are they saying now. Victor Davis Hanson published at NRO on 2016_05_09 this:

    Citation, the end of the article:

    Amid that dilemma, my suggestion is to curb the hysteria about “Never Trump,” while watching him closely over the rest of the spring and early summer, in the context of assessing, not whether he is a humane and principled conservative, but whether he is, as alleged by some conservatives, really less conservative and less humane than Hillary Clinton.
    The Reagan horse left the 2016 conservative barn many months ago, and it is coming to be time to pause and assess whether we are really left with only two bad choices — or with a bad Trump and a far, far worse Clinton.
    If it is the latter, then it is an easy choice in November.

    I am not very much surprised that Hanson wrote this rather peace-making article.
    I liked his book “Mexifornia”.
    What I did not expect is that NRO would publish article of that content.

  64. tbraton says:

    “If the US media are Israel firsters, which Jewish commentator in the US advocates forcing the West Bank Arabs across the river into the existing Palestinian state of Jordan?”

    There is no need to as long as they have people like George Will, who has been arguing that for many, many years. “The Palestinians already have a homeland; it’s called Jordan” are the words I have heard Will utter many times over the years. Even the late Bill Buckley expressed puzzlement over Will’s unshakeable attachment to Israel.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ilana Mercer Comments via RSS