July 3, 2016 Steve Sailer: Hillary Doesn’t Think She Has a Drinking Problem, She Thinks She Has a Drinking Solution Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Steve Sailer: Hillary Doesn’t Think She Has a Drinking Problem, She Thinks She Has a Drinking Solution

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes: There’s always a lot of interesting news that gets released over a long Fourth of July weekend…

In other words, Hillary may have a sizable drinking problem.

There must have been long delicate conversations in the New York Times headquarters about their institutional responsibility to at least mention to the public that Hillary has what some people might consider a drinking problem, while still burying the news over a long weekend.

Granted, as comic Jake Johannsen says when showing audiences the flask he carries in his pocket on tour, she doesn’t think she has a problem, she thinks she has a solution.

COMMENTS:

* I’m scared (and elated) at what Donald Trump, the proud teetotaler, will do with this… It’s going to be hilarious.

* The puffy face gives it away. Teddy Kennedy and William Shatner are other examples. The three of them together would look like siblings.

* There are several articles describing lesbians being at higher risk of alcoholism if one web-searches it.

* It’s quite an accomplishment for Donald to have banged the number and quality of women he has while teetotaling. Many if not most have an optimal level of intoxication required to lower inhibitions and relax, especially when dealing with ultra high end beauties. Trump was doing so before he was a name and wealthy. His relative lack of a filter when speaking is most likely related to this – a more optimal level of inhibitions generally. Perhaps it goes along with being so quick on his feet – if you can listen, process, formulate excellent replies in real time, that would both eliminate need for a filter and give one a relaxed, confident nature.

* I can’t imagine living with Hillary’s severe personality disorder and NOT turning to the bottle. I’m sure former Politburo members and assorted Soviet apparatchiks would sympathize quite easily with her boozy fight from reality. The vodka martinis probably dissipate the paranoia and homicidal rage. What a seriously disturbed woman she is…

* Wouldn’t surprise me if she is a alky. It would explain her physical deterioration and general morbid obesity.

Here’s the thing, she can afford the best medical care and fitness trainers in the world. Yet she looks like s**t at her age. Extremely bloated and incapable staying on her feet for any length of time. She’s in bad shape, just like the creepy husband of hers.

* In my Washington days I had heard Ms. Clinton likes to drink but never heard anyone say they had seen her out of control. In contrast, the woman who was initially floated as her Senate replacement, Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) was a pathetic drunk who my wife and I would encounter periodically staggering around Capitol Hill late at night when we were walking the dog.

* Furthermore, loading booze on top of her cumadin and thyroid meds is going to take it’s toll sooner, rather than later. I’m amazed the woman is still functional. Her liver must look like an old ballet slipper. Her brain, like an ancient lava lamp.

* Hillary is very wide around the middle and getting wider due to the stress of campaigning. She drapes long long jackets down past her middle in an attempt to hide this. Her trusty K-Mart pantsuits are not up to the job anymore.
Her face does not reflect how damn fat she is getting. Especially with the professional makeup job she gets for all public appearances and the lighting she tries to get. And her team tries to limit photos to head shots.
Good photo of fatso Hillary.

I am hip to the trick of draping over the midsection because my sister was doing it. Then she lost 50 lbs and stopped. And for those who care, Hillary’s big problem is her thyroid.

* It’s pretty obvious by now that Hillary will be finished by the first presidential debate. The moment the cameras zoom in on her hideous face, that’s it. While cameras love Trump, they will show Hillary for what she is: a shrivelled old lesbian, prematurely senile, in poor health, a hideous pathetic creature doped up to the gills to remain semi-functional. The Dem camp is desperate cause they know Trump will just sweep the floor with the old harpy without even trying, just by showing up and being his charismatic self.

* Bill is going to show up with his thoughts.

Bill is going to be the one schmoozing people.

A guy my husband knows describes Bill thus, he was the kind of guy you could get along with. He was pleasant to have beer with and talk to at bar b ques etc., but the wife was a b****.

This is going to be Bill’s third term.

She is a former first lady and totally incompetent Sec. of State. No one respects her. No one wants to have a drink with her! Of course, they wouldn’t mind a beer and some White House snacks and chat with Bill.

She wants folks to come over and talk to Bill. His health is poor and he doesn’t get out as much. They could talk behind closed doors yada yada.

Hillary is Ma Ferguson.

* Bill Clinton seems to have had some brain damage due to his heart surgery. The condition is called “post bypass surgery cognitive dysfunction” or “pump head.”

* What’s the deal with the GOP that keeps foisting these tea-totalers on us? Dubya, Mitt and now Trump.

At least McCain married a beer distributor.

* John Tower was amazingly, over the top corrupt, even by DC standards at the time, to the point where he would have been a serious national security risk as Defense Secretary (of course the same could be said of Clinton). DC likes to come up with personal behavior as an excuse to remove politicians, when the actual reasons can’t be made public. They try to hide how corrupt these guys are. I am old enough to remember the Tower confirmation and it was even pointed out, in mainstream media, at the time that the personal stuff was being used as a cover for the fact that they guy was just too corrupt for the job.

Historically -and I agree with Dr. Kill- politics is one trade where drunks can function quite effectively. Politicians and alcohol run the gamut from Lincoln, who abstained from alcohol, to drunks such as his contemporary the Canadian Prime Minster MacDonald. But the thing is there seems to be no obvious impact to effectiveness/ statesmanship or the lack thereof. It has to get to the point where the politician is likely to keel over dead suddenly for there to be a real problem.

Posted in Alcohol, Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

John Rivers: ‘The main thing that #BlackLivesMatter taught me is that Black Dudes are a lot gayer than I realized.’

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Posted in Blacks, Homosexuality | Comments Off

Ramzpaul: ‘May we honor Weisel’s memory by always fighting for ethnic nationalism for our people as he did for his people.’

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ramzpaul tweets: “They have shown the way to create an ethnic homeland. They also protect their borders. We can learn much from Jews.”

Zionist Federation tweets: “”Even though I don’t live in Israel, Israel lives within me” – Elie Wiesel. May his memory be a blessing.”

Richard Spencer tweets: “This is how an identitarian thinks. Europe lives within us.”

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

Steve Sailer: ‘Is anybody interested in ever learning just how much Hillary drinks? 3 am calls and all that?’

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Johnathan Chait tweets: “So Clinton’s plan as president is to lure Republicans into compromise by getting them drunk?”

New York Times article.

Washington Free Beacon Feb. 24, 2016:

Hillary Clinton can be quite the boozehound, a new SuperCut shows.
The former secretary of state can often be seen fortifying herself with glasses of wine, as well as sterner stuff, at the high-dollar fundraisers, state dinners, receptions, and campaign events that she frequents.
Clinton loves giving toasts, possibly because toasts end with drinking. She seemed particularly taken with the Georgian custom for toasting, which involves lots of drinking, during an official visit to that country.
“The ritual for Georgian toasts is well known. I understand that one toasts everyone,” Clinton told her hosts at a village wine house outside Batumi, Georgia, her heavy tongue placing special emphasis on the last word.
Those close to Clinton confirm that she is a hard drinker.
Patti Solis Doyle, a close confidante, told The Huffington Post that Clinton likes to “hang out and drink and gossip.” Doyle said that Clinton likes to drink wine—which typically has higher alcohol content than beer—and vodka, a neutral spirit favored by Russian communists and club-going Millennials for its deadliness and drinkability.
Clinton told voters last year that her go-to beverage is the vodka martini, a simple cocktail of vodka (40 percent ABV) and vermouth (18 percent ABV) that is served chilled to take the bite off all the alcohol in it.
New York Times reporter Amy Chozick, who follows Clinton closely, told ABC News that she was surprised by the extent of Clinton’s drinking when she began covering her.
“She likes to drink,” Chozick said. “We were on the campaign trail in 2008 and the press thought she was just taking shots to pander to voters in Pennsylvania. Um, no.”
As her 2008 bid for the Democratic nomination fell apart, Clinton began drinking in public more often. Clinton tossed back a shot of Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey, at an April campaign stop at Bronko’s Restaurant and Lounge in Indiana. She also crushed a beer at a press huddle aboard her private jet, gushing that it was her “favorite press avail of all time” and confiding, with maudlin authenticity, that it had “been a long year.”
While Clinton was defeated by Barack Obama in 2008, one enterprising supporter knew just how to buck up her spirits in time for 2016. Phyllis Feder, a long-time Clinton donor and owner of the New York-based Clinton Vineyards, rebottled a Seyval Blanc wine called Victory White in 2013 “to encourage Hillary to run in 2016.”

By contrast, Donald Trump doesn’t drink.

Posted in Alcohol, Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

Larry Elder: ‘Whites are 2x more likely killed by cop vs blacks. Whites=10% of violent crime, but 50% those killed by cop.’

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Washington Times: The real racial bias: Cops more willing to shoot whites than blacks, research finds

It’s widely assumed that white police officers are more likely to shoot black suspects as a result of racial bias, but recent research suggests the opposite is true.

An innovative study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology found that participants in realistic simulations felt more threatened by black suspects yet took longer to pull the trigger on black men than on white or Hispanic men.

“This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group,” said the paper, which went practically unnoticed when it was published online on May 22, but took on new significance in the wake of a series of high-profile police-involved shootings involving black victims over the summer.

The results back up what one of the researchers, University of Missouri-St. Louis professor David Klinger, has found after independently interviewing more than 300 police officers: While they don’t want to shoot anybody, they really don’t want to shoot black suspects.

“Across these 300 interviews, I have multiple officers telling me that they didn’t shoot only because the suspect was black or the suspect was a woman, or something that would not be consistent with this narrative of cops out there running and gunning,” said Mr. Klinger, a former cop and author of “Into the Kill Zone: A Cop’s Eye View of Deadly Force” (2006).

“When it comes to the issue of race, I’ve never had a single officer tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was white.’ I’ve had multiple officers tell me, ‘I didn’t shoot a guy because he was black,’ ” Mr. Klinger said. “And this is 10, even 20 years ago. Officers are alert to the fact that if they shoot a black individual, the odds of social outcry are far greater than if they shoot a white individual.”

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off

A Jew In Germany Can’t Root For Germany

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: A young, fashionable, rootless cosmopolitan from Russia who seems to be the media go-to girl in Berlin when it comes to questions of German identity:

Ioulia Isserlis, in July 2014 telling the Times of Israel why she won’t be rooting for Germany.

“As a Jew, you cannot fully support them,” she says.
Yet, Isserlis is also an avid soccer fan.
“Germany is one of the best teams nowadays, of course if they win, they deserve it. If they win, I won’t have negative feelings.”
And which team would Isserlis support, if not Germany?
“If I were to choose a country to support, it would be Israel. But unfortunately Israeli soccer is not there yet,” says Isserlis.

Ms. Isserlis, quoted in a New York Times October 2015 article about Germany, post-unification:

“On adapting to a New Life” …

We could decide Israel or Germany, and my parents finally decided that for Jews, Germany is the safest place.

“On being German” …

Right now, it’s about being European, not German. I think you can’t really divide being German from being French. I don’t think there is so much difference. Being Jewish I guess is No. 1, then comes Berliner.

The term (((rootless cosmopolitan))) is considered to be dastardly and bigoted, so it’s amusingly revealing when an actual rootless cosmopolitan blithely dismisses the ethnic/racial (self) identity of others, while in the next breath declares one’s own Jewish identity to be of ultimate importance.

To any smarties who would claim she is talking about religion rather than blood… she doesn’t seem to have very Orthodox concerns:

There were no hard parts [to becoming a Berliner]. You just have to know … to go out late.
Most young people hang out in the eastern part of Berlin — it’s more hipsterish and the Western part more posh. Right now there is this wall between being hipster or posh, between no brands, looking cool and skinny, and wearing brands. That’s the war right now.

* The argument, which they cannot state, which is why you never hear it, is that nationalism will be VERY bad for elite pillaging and prestige. They are correct about this. Many people have built whole careers off progressive signaling and narrative enforcement. If a nationalist regime manages to take power, it will have a new narrative, which will not be kind to the constituents of its predecessor, and it won’t be shy about bringing their many crimes to light.

* It is not fashionable to say much nowadays of the advantages of the small community. We are told that we must go in for large empires and large ideas. There is one advantage, however, in the small state, the city, or the village, which only the wilfully blind can overlook. The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world. He knows much more of the fierce varieties and uncompromising divergences of men. The reason is obvious. In a large community we can choose our companions. In a small community our companions are chosen for us.

Thus in all extensive and highly civilized societies groups come into existence founded upon what is called sympathy, and shut out the real world more sharply than the gates of a monastery. There is nothing really narrow about the clan; the thing which is really narrow is the clique. The men of the clan live together because they all wear the same tartan or are all descended from the same sacred cow; but in their souls, by the divine luck of things, there will always be more colours than in any tartan. But the men of the clique live together because they have the same kind of soul, and their narrowness is a narrowness of spiritual coherence and contentment, like that which exists in hell. A big society exists in order to form cliques.

A big society is a society for the promotion of narrowness. It is a machinery for the purpose of guarding the solitary and sensitive individual from all experience of the bitter and bracing human compromises. It is, in the most literal sense of the words, a society for the prevention of Christian knowledge.

Of course, this shrinking from the brutal vivacity and brutal variety of common men is a perfectly reasonable and excusable thing as long as it does not pretend to any point of superiority. It is when it calls itself aristocracy or aestheticism or a superiority to the bourgeoisie that its inherent weakness has in justice to be pointed out. Fastidiousness is the most pardonable of vices; but it is the most unpardonable of virtues.

* Since I was young, I assumed “cosmopolitan” just referred to people who have travelled about the world, with enough money to create a bubble of safety for themselves.
I never thought of nationalism as its opposite, as I considered the former to be a temporal state, while nationalism, with exceptions, rings eternal. Cosmopolitanism last as long as your bank account holds out. You can be a dead broke nationalist, no problem.

* Douthat is spot-on. Cosmopolitan implies weak attachment to any particular view, but today’s elites are very much attached to one view. That view is to destroy all traditional ways of life and sources of authority in order to convert people into American-style consumers. The means: open borders, trade agreements, and stirring up trouble abroad to generate streams of immigrants and refugees (invade/invite). These look like cosmopolitan and progressive ends, but in fact they are merely means to a reactionary end.

* Ross Douthat really nails the pro-nationalist backlash sentiment. He explains it extremely clearly and articulately and he does so from the authority of the New York Times. It is weird that he is so completely against Trump. I don’t recall him ever even trying to explain why he articulates Trump. He just states as assumed that Trump is unfit, etc.

David Frum is similar in that he is a highly respected figure that quite articulately explains reasonable opposition and backlash to mass immigration, yet he also abhors Trump.

I wonder if Douthat and Frum both secretely want Trump to win but want to deflect from his bad sides.

* This was mainly a Soviet thing. Since the Soviet Union was officially atheist and multi-ethnic, it wasn’t possible to directly criticize Jews as Jews, so they had to come up with a new critique and euphemism that fit Soviet ideology. So they came up with “Eskimos”. No, sorry wait, that’s the alt-right. The Soviets came up with “rootless cosmopolitans”. During WWII, Stalin shifted the emphasis of Soviet propaganda from love of Communism to love of country, which more people could unite behind. Jews were said to be insufficiently rooted in, and lacking love for, Russia and its people. To be honest, a lot of the alt-right criticism of the Jews resembles the Stalinist view.

But I would guess that most American Jews have only a vague understanding of the inner workings of Soviet antisemitism and perhaps rightly so because it was just a thin ideological veneer on top of (deeply rooted) Russian antisemitism. “Rootless cosmopolitan ” doesn’t particularly register at all, given how poorly history is taught in America. You can imagine that Soviet anti-Jewish purges are not something that is emphasized heavily in American “liberal” education – if Americans learn anything about the ’50s, it’s more about Emmett Till and McCarthyism. If you were doing a word association test, the first thing cosmopolitan would bring to mind is not a magazine or a Soviet epithet but a cocktail.

Posted in Europe, Germany, Israel, Jews, Nationalism | Comments Off

Hillary Clinton’s Black Accent “I don’t feel no ways tired” – 2007 Selma, AL

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comment: Well Granny may not be moral, ethical, honest, capable, experienced or consistent, but she certainly seems colorful. Sure she has a black heart and a dark soul which may or may not be in her possession, but that’s a good thing to her voting base isn’t it? She’s BAD, which isn’t the same as good, but appeals to who she wants to vote for her. The Low-Info Emo ignorant, imperceptive Anti-White bigots who hate success because its just unfair to losers and lazy bums.
Some people say black isn’t a color, because optical experts who understand the physics involved in the illusion of color to your optic nerves will tell you its imperceptive aspects violate the concept of color of which there are 256 hues, but that’s just racist isn’t it? When you think about it, everything is racist based on the color of your skin or the melanin content of your epidermis. And in this topsy turvy world of newspeak, obfuscation, dogmatic pseudoscientific beliefs and cultural marxism, the Truth is lost on those who find it hurts their feelings.
So, what difference at this point does it make?

* She is doing what she does best: condescend to the minority crowd while simultaneously lining her pocketbook with payoff money from Wall Street.

* He hired himSELF to play Hamilton! He is no dummy, like his countryman, Sonia Sotomayor. Hamilton was not Puerto Rican, BTW. He was also the dreamiest of the Founders. Chicks loved him. This Manuel guy is painfully homely. And, I’d wager,quite gay. I’d also include Jessie Williams in that category. (Gay).

* I recently went to a software conference where Congressman John Lewis spoke (why?). It was EXACTLY like that. The man received a lonnnnnggg standing ovation because nobody in the 90% white (9% Asian/1% other) audience wanted to be the first one to stop clapping. It was hilarious if you knew to notice it.

* I have an allergic reaction to rapping, so the little bits of it that I’ve seen sounded awful to me. But some people seem to like rapping, so that wouldn’t be an obstacle for them. Are all the people who genuinely like rapping stupid? Perhaps. I mean, the guys who review hip hop for the Village Voice or whatever aren’t stupid, but they might be faking their enthusiasm.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off

Pushing The Mexicans Out Of Valley Village

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Valley Village resident Steve Sailer writes: In my neighborhood, the Mexicans tend to get pushed out by taciturn guys named Ivan and Vlad.

Nobody saw that coming.

Posted in Los Angeles | Comments Off

Who Are The Mizrahim?

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ around 110, Sephardim around 97 and Mizrahim around 92.

Comment: The Middle Eastern Jews are better described as Mizrahi, leaving Sephardic to describe the smaller group of Jews descended from the Spanish and Portuguese Jews expelled in the 1490′s or conversos who left the Iberian peninsula later. It is clear from population genetics studies that the narrowly defined Sephardic Jews have a similar genetic background to Ashkenazi Jews. The Mizrahi Jews are somewhat different. A large number of Mizrahi Jews from Yemen appear to be descended primarily from local south Arabian converts to Judaism.

Posted in Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, Sephardim | Comments Off

Talking Trump At A Shabbat Dinner

Posted on July 3, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* At a “shabatt’ dinner i had with the Jewish half of my family, the topic of trump came up. Predictably, everyone at the table (except me, sitting silently) was denouncing him and saying how scary he was, and how scary a time it is that we live in, etc.

I couldn’t hold in my rage any longer, so i broke my silence and asked everyone at the table how trump’s policies for America differed from Israel’s current implemented policies.

“wow just wow are you comparing mexican immigrants to hamas!!!!!”

ugh….

“Israel is to build a fence equipped with advanced surveillance tools along part of its border with Egypt to keep out African migrants and illegal workers.”

They weren’t buying it: “Israel is the most accepting nations of all to refugees”, they said.

ugh…

Don’t try to reason with them. They are acting in their own ethno-nationalist interests. They’re not thinking. They’re feeling.

Posted in Donald Trump, Israel, Jews | Comments Off