How Not to Name Your Child

Posted on July 31, 2016 by Luke Ford

My parents had no idea I would convert to Orthodox Judaism when they named me “Luke Carey Ford.” They feared the other kids at school would call me “Elsie” (LC), but that never happened.

I think Luke Ford is an awesome name. I could not have come up with a better one. I had to move to LA and become a blogger with that name.

A name shapes your life.

I would have had a different life with a different name, perhaps stayed a Seventh-Day Adventist and become a pastor.

“Melvin Ford” does not inspire.

Would Donald Trump be just as Trumpian with a different name?

When I converted to Judaism, I chose “Levi Ben Avraham” because “Levi” is close to “Luke” and “Ben Avraham” means child of Abraham. I quickly learned that “Luke” marked you out in Orthodox Jewish life so I quickly adopted “Levi,” but whenever my rabbi was mad at me, he would call me “Luke.” When Orthodox Jews like me, they usually call me “Levi,” but when they don’t accept my conversion as real, they call me “Luke.”

According to the Talmud, “Luke” is one of the names that marks someone as a goy.

I never correct anyone between “Luke” and “Levi.” If Orthodox Jews push me, I say I have a preference for “Levi,” but with my goyisha punim (gentile face) and goyisha mannerisms, I’m obviously a ger (convert).

by Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad

How not to name your child – five golden rules

Thinking of giving your baby an unusual name? Think about the effect it will have on their life, says Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad

My name is Phoenicia Hebebe Dobson-Mouawad. No, I’m not kidding. This is the name my parents chose for me 19 years ago and it is the reason I don’t go to Starbucks. Choosing a name for your baby can seem like a way to determine what type of parents you will become – many aim for trendy rather than traditional. However, faced with the resentment of your grownup offspring, who have endured a childhood of being embarrassed by their unusual name, you may wish you could turn back time.

My experience of living with an unusual name has been, to put it lightly, difficult. There has not been one occasion when making a new acquaintance has not resulted in a remark about it, or some degree of confusion.

… Have you heard the name before? If not, no one else will have.

Can you pronounce it without having to look it up? Because if you need to look it up, I can tell you firsthand that you will be the only person your child ever meets who has taken the time to do so.

Avoid hyphens unless both names are easily pronounceable. Dobson – that’s fine. Mouawad – more than enough effort on its own. Dobson-Mouawad – no comment.

Can a child of primary school age say it? If they look confused and say, “What?”, take that as a strong no.

Remember that your child’s name is for their happiness alone and not to prove to the world how cool and creative you are. That’s what Instagram is for. Take it from someone who knows or in 19 years’ time your child will be as fed up as I am.

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* I use Steve Sailer mostly because it’s easier for other people to spell than Steven Sailer.

There are other writers with almost identical names: I co-wrote a National Review article in 1997 with an academic named Stephen Seiler. And there’s a novelist named Steven Saylor who writes detective stories starring a gay detective in Ancient Rome.

* According to David Hackett Fischer, onomastic creativity in America comes from the (real) Scots-Irish, the blacks learned it from them.

* Another consideration that is increasingly relevant in the Internet age is making your name unique enough that you can track it on the Internet.

This is especially important if your surname is common.

I know a journalist who changed the spelling of his first name because one of the most famous journalists in his country already shared both his name and surname, so “making a name” for himself with that name would have been very hard to impossible.

Do not however be overly autistic and/or ideological about it. That gender-denying SJW with whom Sailer engaged with on that question reminds one, in his attitudes, of the 1920s Bolshevik freaks who gave their children names like “Iskra” and “Barrikada.” Won’t do his child any good under the Trumpenreich! 😉

If I had to summarize, keep it: Short, simple, unusual, timeless.

* If someone is named Hiram, dad was probably a Mason and hoped the son would be too.

The best research tool for this is Wolfram Alpha. It will give a graph of popularity of most any male or female given name.

It’s also worth mentioning that adults have no excuse for being too upset with a given name because they can change it. Or use a middle name. Or, if Catholic, their confirmation name. On and on.

* I’m actually happy that there are a number of people called exactly the same as I am, so that it’s a little bit more difficult to track me down. Not that it makes a big difference to intelligence services etc., but it might protect me somewhat from some lone nuts.

* Working with large numbers of Black people as I do, I have encountered some real creativity in first names: Sitting Bull (for a black Hispanic man), two Geronimos, and Lexis…my absolute favorite was Twatia (pronounced “Twasha”).

* Parents don’t name their daughters with male names to be feminist or push “gender equality” or whatever. They do it because it sounds hot. A beautiful woman with a man’s name is like a beautiful woman in a man’s shirt; the contrast of femininity is amplified. The problem is these parents who are secretly trying to create a gorgeous popular girl with their word choices, have far less influence than biology. Nobody ever leaves room for the possibility that their daughter won’t be a beauty.

So James King, when she still went by that name, was extra hot with that name. But if someone who looked like Rosie O’Donnell was named James, it would be extra pathetic. Once James King started going by Jamie King, everyone began to notice she was actually kind of average looking and had pound puppy fangs.

People should be careful trying to pick the name which they think at the time sounds most like a head cheerleader, because you can overshoot it. A hot name won’t fix ugly, but if you are pretty it might give you that extra psychological push to choose a life of stripping. I knew a very beautiful stripper named Honey. I did not believe that was her real name until I saw her license. Her parents overshot the mark on that one.

One simple rule: picture your kid as the fattest loser in high school. Is their name a source of added torment? Then pick something else. Pick something that works equally well for a jock as a nerd, because you don’t get to choose what your kid is.

* Is saying “Christian name” common in Germany? In the US we say “first name” with “given name” a distant second. Virtually no one would understand “Christian name” especially given how much Christianity has disappeared, although occasionally people say “christening” to mean “naming a child”.

* What this all really signifies is the rapid decomposition of the highly connotated, form-rich world of organic society, and the consequent loss of understanding of what a name actually is.

A name is fundamentally a spacial designation that marks the “place” of an individual within society. Thus, our a priori notions about how the world is ordered are mirrored in our conception of the individual and are expressed in our naming conventions. Social order supervenes on individual identity, therefore there can be no change in the social order without a parallel change in the role of the name.

A glance at the past (and at foreign cultures) reveals an adequate sampling of how names are applied in traditional societies. One commonly recurring feature is the family or clan name, the most basic marker of identity. Often this family name (corresponding to our “last” name) is expressed first, as in Chinese or Japanese. The name Sakai Hiroyuki, spoken proudly, conveys the sentiment, “I am the clan Sakai personified in the man Hiroyuki.” In cultures where the family honor is paramount, there is really no other way to identify oneself. The individual is a sort of bud or flower on the family tree. To suffer the family name to be disgraced or lost is a fate worse than death. It is the obliteration of one’s entire identity.

Closely associated with clan names is the idea of patronymic or matronymic names, which describe lineal descent. It is significantly more insular and “nuclear” than the clan name, though, and serves rather to aggrandize the parent than the entire tribe. Essentially it denotes a time horizon delimited by two generations. Johann considers himself to have discharged his duty to posterity when he sires “Johann’s son,” and little Sven Johansson is constantly admonished by his very moniker to live up to the deeds and righteousness of the mighty Johann. For this reason, patronymics are almost always used in either an affectionate or authoritative tones of voice. Their purpose is that of chain wherewith to bind another in either love or servitude, especially among the Nordics and the Slavs. Among the Semitic peoples they serve almost exclusively as parental adornments. Abdul bin Mohammed, one of a sprawling horde of sons by multiple wives, is just another jewel in Sultan Mohammad’s tiara.

From the feudal order and settled village life of the traditional West there emerged two immensely significant themes: the place-name and the trade-name, the former predominating among the aristocracy and the latter among the peasantry. We cannot overstate the symbolic importance of these developments, for an entire world is expressed thereby. It is impossible to understand a name like Comte d’Orleans if one considers it to be a mere job title; in fact it is a contemplated vision of the social order which contains several important characteristics. First, there is a place called Orleans. This is taken to be a metaphysical fact that needs no further explanation. It has perdurance, it has boundaries, it has a quality and flavor all its own; and intrinsic in the conception of such places, of which Orleans is one, is the idea that there be a man to rule and protect it, the Count. So necessary is the man to this place that he cannot be thought of without it, nor the place without him. Out of this vision grew the medieval maxim “no land without a lord,” and it is from this that we are able to truly understand King Louis XIV’s famous “L’etat, c’est moi.” Modern people take that phrase to be the very height of arrogant absurdity, but it is actually a profound and pithy expression of the metaphysical basis of all political power.

And down in the village there are the Millers, the Smiths, the Weavers, the Coopers, toiling away at their assorted tasks, perhaps presided over by a Burgermeister, while in the manor house the Count is attended by the Chancellors, Chamberlains, and Reeves. A whole organic society springs into being and is girded by these identities, which are all connected by the Great Chain of Being to the King and the Emperor, to the priest and the Pope, and to God Himself. Even the lowliest Porter or Carter has a role to play. The organic society, like the Ptolemaic universe, is driven by wheels within wheels, from the highest to the lowest. In such a world even the secular order is suffused by sacred rays. Work is a blessing, a vocation, and dishonest trade an offense against the whole civitas, to be punished harshly with the approval of onlookers. Added to this of course is the person’s “Christian name,” the name of some saint or apostle that the child receives at christening, which grafts him into Holy Church and the society formed in its image.

At the present time this world no longer exists. In the modern age, the metaphysical basis for societal order is undergoing constant assault. There are today no more lords, no more priests, no more families, no more clans, no more titles—only atomized individuals and their “jobs.” The modern American space-concept is at best boringly and tritely Cartesian, our “first” and “last” names being merely the x and y coordinates that locate us, however transiently, in a boundless Euclidean plain. Nowadays “James Fowler” is just a point in the American phase-space. He does web analytics for the local hospital association. He doesn’t know a thing about raising chickens and he has no idea whether he is the son of Zebedee or the brother of Jude. The burning void that is his identity is temporarily tranquilized by Comicon and fantasy sports, but deep down inside he is forever nobody.

The “creative names” spoken of in this post represent the final stage of irony. It is the ultimate recidive of a form-filled world into arbitrariness and chaos. Throughout the Cartesian plain there are weeds growing up through the cracks. Deshawn and Shaniqua are aberrations, colorful monsters, overfed carrion birds feeding off our detritus—a bit of African animism blown off course by civilizational gales, now living as exotic interlopers in our poorly-tended parks. The process has its parallel everywhere you look these days. Nihilism and ennui are the defining characteristics of our time, from the girl with the pink dreadlocks to the guy with anime tattoos. Open borders, globalism, and political correctness are the same phenomena on a vast scale. Nobody has any identity except the freaks.

Upon all who aspire to a better future it is incumbent to change our identity by changing how we view the world, and to beseech Heaven for a superior vision. He who can believe in himself literally has a nation inside him waiting to be born. To those who find their true names belong the future.

Posted in America, Personal | Comments Off on How Not to Name Your Child

DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics

Posted on July 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Everything good depends upon discrimination to survive, but for those who don’t think, “discrimination” is a dirty word.

Every living thing should be expected to seek their self-interest and to try to preserve their world from invasive species. Why would birds want to allow cats in their habitat to kill them? Why would deer want to allow lions in? Why would dolphins welcome killer sharks? Why would non-Muslims want to allow Muslims in? Why would Europeans welcome a migration of Africans?

New York Times:

The aim of a state’s immigration policy has to be one that would-be immigrants ought to accept as reasonable (even if in practice they disagree with it). For example, it is legitimate for a state to admit only high-skilled immigrants if this serves its economic goals, despite the fact that this policy may be unpopular with low-skilled migrants. By contrast, it is illegitimate for a state to admit only people of a certain skin color, or to have a “temporary” migrant policy (say, for guest workers) that in actuality creates a semi-permanent two-caste system. An unfortunate policy is O.K. An unfair one is not.

Does that distinction seem as if it might get blurry in practice? The early history of immigration policy in America, as told by the historian Douglas C. Baynton in DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics (University of Chicago, $35), suggests so. Traditionally, scholars have divided that history into two periods: a “selective” phase starting in 1882, which in large part (aside from the Chinese Exclusion Act) involved screening out individuals with any “defect” that would render them “likely to become a public charge”; and a “restrictive phase” starting with the passage of a ­literacy test in 1917, which marked the beginning of a series of proxy measures for keeping out whole nationalities or races. Using Miller’s principles, you might condone much of the first phase but condemn the second.

Yet Baynton, challenging the conventional historiography, argues that the selective phase of American immigration policy, despite its heavy reliance on the ­sensible-sounding “public charge” standard, was no less discriminatory. During those years, he demonstrates, immigration officials could and did customarily invoke this standard to rule out such “defectives” as women unaccompanied by male providers and members of races with supposed “predispositions” to criminality. Even those with “objective” physical impairments (as the Americans with Disabilities Act would underscore many years later) were incapable of work only if you made certain assumptions about how workplaces were to be structured. So beware “reasonable” justifications for immigration policies, Baynton warns.

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off on DEFECTIVES IN THE LAND: Disability and Immigration in the Age of Eugenics

Invasive Species

Posted on July 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

As a convert to Orthodox Judaism, I believe that the Jews are God’s Chosen People, that the Torah is God’s revelation to the world, and that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. These are my faith statements. Without looking through the eyes of faith, however, I see the world as composed of various forms of life competing for scarce resources and seeking to fulfill their genetic imperative to propagate. In other words, life is often war.

Here is an example of brutal reality from Youtube: “Like a cuckoo, the greater honeyguide lays its eggs in the nests of other birds – in this case, a bee-eater. When they hatch, the honeyguide chick mauls its foster siblings to death with a vicious bill-hook.”

American Freedom Party candidate Robert Ransdell ran for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2014 with the slogan “With Jews, you lose.”

I welcome that challenge. My faith tells me that the purpose of Jews is to be a blessing to the world. If Jews aren’t a blessing to their country, then something is wrong. Jews need to look at themselves and ask, “Am I and are my people are blessing to the goyim?” Is it true that with Jews, the goyim lose? If so, then it is in the goyim’s interest to get rid of us. If we are a blessing to the goyim, then it is in the self-interest of the goyim to keep us around.”

I don’t want to make any special pleading on behalf of Jews. If Jews are an asset to their gentile country of residence, they will be blessed by that country. They will be popular and revered. If Jews are a curse, they will be cursed. Just as the normal Orthodox Jew asks, “What is good for the Jews?,” I want and expect gentiles to ask the same question. “What is good for the Germans?” “What is good for the Americans?” “What is good for the Japanese?”

Wouldn’t it be great if unpopular groups in America asked themselves if there was anything they were doing that was hurting their popularity? I suspect most Americans would prefer to live without many minority groups around them.

Every minority group should ask themselves if they are behaving themselves in a way that is a blessing to the majority population. If not, then there is no self-interested reason for the majority to keep them around.

I don’t believe there is any superior race. Different races evolved in different places. Some people are most fit for certain locations and other people for other places. Some races are great at living at high altitude, other races are great at living in the tropics, and other races thrive in the high latitudes.

I think the animal kingdom is a great analogy for how the different human sub-species relate. The introduction of cats in some places has been devastating for birds. Cats and birds usually have different interests.

Going back to the slogan, “With Jews, you lose,” I think it depends on what kind of society you want. For certain types of societies, such as a Nazi society, Jews are not a benefit. If you want a multicultural society that values excellence, then Jews are awesome.

It would be self-interested for birds to have the slogan, “With cats, birds lose.” It would be self-interested for the Japanese to not allow in much non-Japanese immigration, particularly very little Muslim and black immigration. For the Japanese and probably for Europeans as well, with blacks and Muslims you lose. You could make an argument that any gentile country that wants unity and cohesion around strong racial, national and religious identity, with multi-culti Jews you lose.

From Wikipedia:

Wild rabbits are a serious mammalian pest and invasive species in Australia causing millions of dollars of damage to crops. Rabbits in Australia are European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in the Lagomorph family.

They were introduced to Australia in the 18th century with the First Fleet and became widespread after an outbreak caused by an 1859 release. Various methods in the 20th century have been attempted to control the population. Conventional methods include shooting rabbits and destroying their warrens, but these had only limited success. In 1907, a rabbit-proof fence was built in Western Australia in an unsuccessful attempt to contain the rabbits. The myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis, was introduced into the rabbit population in the 1950s and had the effect of severely reducing the rabbit population.

It does not make sense that the introduction of a species or sub-species into a particular environment will only have benign results. Every species will have a differing effect. The introduction of a lion into a group of deer is going to result in a lot of dead deer.

In reaction to an invasive pest, Australia mounted a rabbit holocaust but it was not successful. So they turned to chemical warfare instead and it was more effective. I wonder if there are chemical weapons that affect different groups of people differently.

I think the concept of invasive species is a good analogy for immigration. Immigrants always affect the native population, and often negatively.

Wikipedia:

An invasive species is a plant, fungus, or animal species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and which has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.[1][dubious – discuss]

One study pointed out widely divergent perceptions of the criteria for invasive species among researchers (p. 135) and concerns with the subjectivity of the term “invasive” (p. 136).[2] Some of the alternate usages of the term are below:

The term as most often used applies to introduced species (also called “non-indigenous” or “non-native”) that adversely affect the habitats and bioregions they invade economically, environmentally, or ecologically. Such invasive species may be either plants or animals and may disrupt by dominating a region, wilderness areas, particular habitats, or wildland-urban interface land from loss of natural controls (such as predators or herbivores). This includes non-native invasive plant species labeled as exotic pest plants and invasive exotics growing in native plant communities.[3] It has been used in this sense by government organizations[4][5] as well as conservation groups such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the California Native Plant Society.[2] The European Union defines “Invasive Alien Species” as those that are, firstly, outside their natural distribution area, and secondly, threaten biological diversity.[6] It is also used by land managers, botanists, researchers, horticulturalists, conservationists, and the public for noxious weeds.[7] The kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), Andean Pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) are examples.
An alternate usage broadens the term to include indigenous or “native” species along with non-native species, that have colonized natural areas (p. 136).[2] Deer are an example, considered to be overpopulating their native zones and adjacent suburban gardens, by some in the Northeastern and Pacific Coast regions of the United States.[citation needed]
Sometimes the term is used to describe a non-native or introduced species that has become widespread (p. 136).[2] However, not every introduced species has adverse effects on the environment. A nonadverse example is the common goldfish (Carassius auratus), which is found throughout the United States, but rarely achieves high densities (p. 136)

Posted in Evolution, Immigration | Comments Off on Invasive Species

What About Hillary’s Speech?

Posted on July 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

I am currently listening to Hillary’s speech, and whoever predicted she would move to the center doesn’t understand the “coalition of the fringes” (per Sailer) as she is busy throwing meat to each part of the coalition. I don’t think she is winning any new voters tonight. Prediction: big win for Trump. Especially if Russia (or whoever) releases those 33,000 deleted emails.

BTW does anybody know what proportion of the delegates are black? Because the cameras, when they scan the audience, invariably manage to show a preponderance of whites.

* Dull speech. Now it’s up to the CNN panel to drag that lumpen pantsuit over the finish line.

* The only part I remember that sticks out is that she believes in Climate Change and is going to create millions of jobs in Green Energy, which, apparently will solve all our problems.

Strangely unaffecting speech.

She looked pretty good tonight. Has no charisma. Her voice is neither attractive nor authoritative.

Numerous attacks on Trump but they didn’t seem to draw blood.

– Trump’s speech was way better as text, although his delivery involved too much shouting.

This speech was mostly about having more school dances: the usual.

* Adelson vs Soros in a cage match to see which puppet becomes prez.

* Cankles was her usual angry reproachful self tonight. The usual terrible delivery, especially of the punchlines. The speech itself was fairly forgettable, just one of her typical campaign speeches. No one will remember it a day from now. Also a lot of platitudes (“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” Seriously?). The “join us” bit was especially weak and awful. The only thing that surprised me was the lack of pandering to BLM and minorities. It was a fairly “white” speech. Either she figures she has the minorities in the bag or she is desperate to increase her share of the white vote.

That said, she was on stage for over an hour, and looked pretty healthy. I’m not convinced about the health rumors, coughing fits, etc…Also no major gaffes or awkward moments, so I guess by her standards it was a successful speech. But it will be Michelle’s speech that everyone will remember, not hers.

As a side note, Bernie looked really nonplussed when she mentioned him, couldn’t even manage a fake smile. I guess there is only so much humiliation someone can take.

* Maybe failing the DC bar exam the summer she passed the Arkansas bar exam had something to do with her relationship with Bill? Maybe deep down she really wanted to follow Bill to Arkansas, but her feminism told her that was too womanly, so she solved the problem for herself by passing only the bar exam where Bill was headed?

* Didn’t Sarah Silverman almost die recently, needing a week in the hospital? Maybe they shouldn’t have shoved her out on stage so soon?

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on What About Hillary’s Speech?

What’s Hillary Clinton’s Record?

Posted on July 29, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* Here’s a small sample of her demonstrated corruption and incompetence:

(1) Failed DC bar exam;
(2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
(3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas’s first “lady”;
(4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
(5) While Bill was governor of Arkansas he and Hillary made an under-the-table profit selling HIV tainted blood from Arkanasas prisons to Canada. Estimates of the AIDS deaths caused by this homicidal scam range from 4,000 to 10,000. Even for the Clintons this is so appalling – and the MSM coverup so thorough – that I will provide a link for the lazy: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1999/may/15/tainted-plasma-traced-to-arkansas-prison-bill-clintons-blood-trails/
(6) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
(7) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
(8) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
(9) Lost a “sure thing” presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
(10) When Hillary Rodham Clinton became Secretary of State one of her legal obligations was to appoint an Inspector General for the State Department. She never did and for her entire term in office the State Department lacked an IG. This was a gross and utterly unprecedented violation of federal law. It strongly suggests that Clinton was planning illegal conduct in office before she even took her oath and was preparing mechanisms to enable her planned criminal acts.
(11) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long “special relation” between the UK and the USA;
(12) A bit later her incredibly stupid “reset button” gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
(13) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called “Arab Spring” which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
(14) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
(15) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
(16) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint intelligence sources [people may have died as a result;
(17) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her “foundation” had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

Some with a necon bent might argue about the following but they are part of a frightening pattern of foreign interventions having no apparent immediate advantage to the USA and which ultimately unravel in ways that endanger both world order and the USA’s long term interests.

(a) Clinton-inspired and directed interventions in Kosovo which led to the establishment of an anarchic region on the southern flank of Europe engaged in a massive narcotics trade and serving as a reservoir and exporter of Islamofascism and terrorism
(b) While Secretary of State Clinton oversaw an engineered putsch which overthrew the legitimate and elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a corrupt, unstable, and illegitimate successor regime. As a result, and as might have been expected, Russia supported the secession of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine from this state resulting in a simmering civil war.
(c) Perhaps not coincidentally just before this one of the Ukrainian oligarch beneficiaries of this disaster had made a donation of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which is basically a slush fund for Bill and Hill to pillage at will.

* Clinton was valedictorian of her Wellesley College class at a time when Wellesley had very high admissions and academic standards. Part of Clinton’s college success is probably due to her obviously neurotic drive to succeed but still I expect that Clinton’s IQ is somewhere at least a bit north of 130 or so,

However, things like character, judgment, emotional control, political savvy, managerial savvy, accommodation to a wide variety of viewpoints and cognitive styles, and other such attributes and skills are essential for any manager, let alone the President of the USA. Clinton has demonstrated on numerous occasions that she is utterly lacking in any of these. Judging by the outcomes of things in which she becomes involved, she is a singularly and shockingly unlucky person. I wouldn’t want a person with her track record organizing my very limited social calendar let alone managing the nation of which I am a citizen.

* She hasn’t had a press conference in over seven months. I don’t think she is no longer capable of having a free range Q&A session anymore.

Either she can’t handle it emotionally or intellectually. In either case, that makes her unfit for office.

And when her campaign manager was asked when she’d hold a press conference, he burst out laughing.

* The Democratic coalition of the fringes was baked into the election cake long before Trump threw his hat into the ring. The topics and speakers at the Democratic convention would have been approximately the same had Jeb or Marco won. This is not a reaction to Trump. One day was reserved for Hispanics, one day for Blacks and tonight will be all about WOMEN and their vaginas.

* Hillary is not very smart. What she is, and people hate about her, is arrogant and entitled in the way say, Leona Helmsley was. It is not just one thing, but all of them together: trashing Bill Clinton’s mistresses and various sexual harassment victims, possible rape victims. Her involvement in Whitewater. The Cattle Futures insider trading. The Rose Law Firm pay to play corrupt payoffs to her in exchange for Bill Clinton favors. The White House Travel firings to install cronies. The FBI files copied for enemies lists and blackmail. The Health Care fiasco. The lying about Bosnian Snipers. The lack of loyalty to Vince Foster leading to his suicide, echoed by the lack of loyalty to Amb. Stevens and the SEALs and contractors in Libya.

And the email server fiasco and Clinton Foundation shakedowns. Hillary is just not very smart — it is one thing to figure the Press will run air cover for her, and suppress any bad information (true); it is another to make various corrupt deals with Putin (various big donations by Putin-connected oligarchs to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for State Dept. approval of Russian firm Rosaton buying one fifth of US Uranium production).

It is quite another to renege on those deals, prompting predictably massive disclosure of all sorts of embarrassing secrets.

Hillary was stupid and arrogant, a lethal combination. If she wanted to make dirty deals with Putin she should have kept them; and if not kept them made sure he had no way to provide evidence of her duplicity and stupidity — by keeping everything off the record in personal meetings with no recordings possible (walk and talk in corridors and outside).

Hillary has had no success whatsoever — failed at everything she’s ever led. She’s just the Leona Helmsley of US Politics, sheltered by Bill and a fawning, feminist press.

As for Merkel, she’s clearly motivated by tingles for young, dominant, and stupid Muslim men and having made sure she has no parliamentary rivals is secure from any action by her party or voters. Of course she figures most Germans will be compliant sheep, taking her imperious orders as Queen. As attacks only increase exponentially, that’s a poor bet. Surges of protests like those that undid Honecker coupled with military intervention could bounce her out like Honecker.

* Bill Clinton spent an hour detailing how much he loved Hillary. And how awesome she was. When in fact he’s spent his entire married life screwing around with weathergirls, former Miss Arkansas and b-TV actresses, various interns and secretaries, etc.

If he loved her so much and she was so awesome, why did he spend a lifetime screwing other women? The speech was laughable and provided no doubt fodder for more adventurous and hungry comedians on Youtube seeking to get a following.

Then Obama went on and on about how awesome … Obama was and is. With the message constantly drummed in … no White Men need apply.

It looks like Hillary’s strategy is: double and triple down on anti White Male hate; gin up non-White turnout, get the angry feminist vote, and use the media to shame White men into voting for them the way they shamed White men into turning out in droves for the fat lesbian feminist remake of Ghostbusters. Oh wait.

* The juxtaposition of Tim Kaine with Barack Obama last night was a reminder that most politicians are really terrible at the “my story is the nation’s story” shtick that’s been Obama’s bread-and-butter for the last twelve years.

* The treason clause applies to “enemies” of the United States, not to geopolitical rivals. Trump’s statement, even if serious– like, say, an open letter in “The Harvard Crimson”– did not comprise conferring or negotiating with a foreign government. Even if Trump called up Putin, and directly begged him to release the illegally deleted Clinton e-mails, how would that act be contrary to the interests of the United States government, since our government was entitled to those e-mails, and has been reputedly anxious to get copies of them? Again, Donald Trump, unlike the ingenious Harvard Law School professor, Constitutional scholar, and would-be Supreme Court justice, Mr. Tribe, realizes that the server is no longer hackable, since it no longer exists, as such, and the e-mails are no longer extant on the hard drive– which presumably is no longer even housed in the disabled server, which is supposedly now in the possession of the Department of Justice itself.

* Recall how the Republicans crucified Sarah Palin by forcing her on a hostile press ready to draw blood. The lesson learned, the Democrats intentionally keep the Hildebeast from the press to ensure that no one really knows who she is and what she believes. The exposure would be too dangerous. Hillary’s exposure to the public therefore is limit to slogans and press releases vetted through focus groups and gooey encomiums from the MSM.

* I’ve met a lot of German kids over the last few years (mostly fresh out of highschool) who on their way to bright futures in German universities and training apprenticeships. There are a few critically-minded exceptions, but by and large they just don’t think that much of anything. I suspect they do fine with task-based responsibilities and following processes and rules, but they struggle to think for themselves and take a view beyond the programming they’ve been given.

I had one 19 year old male respond to my gentle chit-chat opener about the challenges of the migration crisis (circa Merkel’s boner) to the effect of: “It’s only a crisis if you choose to view it as one – otherwise it’s an opportunity.” I’m not kidding. We didn’t share many conversations after that.

The good German is a good, obedient worker drone raised in worship of German industry and reared up in a system designed to cram the state welfare teat as far down everyone’s throats as possible to keep them dependent on it and defensive of it. They’ll go on flocking to the master until they have a new one.

* I have always found that British Islanders and the Irish in particular are much more generally aware of politics and history than most ethnics groups. It is in our blood, in our ways from the pubs to the social clubs. My in-laws, for example are Eastern European and have no interest in talking politics or current events.

* We’re talking about a person who couldn’t operate a fax machine and thought it only worked with the receiver off the hook. Huma had to bail her out. Hillary also managed multiple smartphones because she thought you could only have one email account per smartphone. She also had no idea what Twitter was in 2009 and when someone was Tweeting in her name, Hillary had no idea what to do. Her underlings were tasked to figure out who it was.

Even allowing for the fact that she’s a 68 year old grandmother, and grew up with rotary phones, this is pretty appalling. I’m actually surprised the Republicans haven’t made a much bigger deal out of this. You could create quite a damaging meme just based on the fax machine alone, if you hammered it home repeatedly.

Reports were that Hillary was more upset by these revelations than anything else that came out of the State Dept. email dump, because it got to the core of her incompetence for any office higher than dog catcher. And it wasn’t something she could pin on the “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on What’s Hillary Clinton’s Record?