Saturday, August 27, 2016

Why Trump Will Beat the Hildebeast Like a Rug

In the minds of the Mainstream Media Trump has already lost. But they claimed the same thing about Reagan before he massacred the inept Jimmy Carter.

I don’t trust the polls at all. They’re anti-Trump and pro-Hildebeast. They’re done by liberals, and liberals always lie.

There are probably tens of millions of voters who have never voted before but now will vote for Trump. And included in these people are those like me who haven’t voted for 20 years because there wasn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between any of the candidates.

Then you have to take in account all those unenthusiastic Hildebeast voters who aren’t going out on Election Day.

I remember the howls about how Reagan was senile and a warmonger. I was just a little kid but I remember the TV commercials during the Johnson/Goldwater election how Goldwater was going to start a nuclear war!!!!! Does that sound familiar today?

Trump has bypassed the Mainstream Media and I’m loving it. Not that I take the Talking Heads/Chattering Classes seriously. I never have.

The Hildebeast keeps shooting herself in the foot. She was dumb enough to mention the Alt Right, apparently not realizing there is no such thing as bad publicity. There are now a bunch of people now Googling it and saying, “Hey, that doesn’t sound bad at all.”

It’d be funny if the alcoholic, brain-damaged, epileptic Hildebeast did become President and had to have her handlers roll her around in a wheelchair, praying she doesn’t crap her Depends in public.

And what are they going to do if she kicks the bucket in office? Prop up her corpse and have a ventriloquist imitate her? That’d remind me of the “Family Guy” episode where Stewie was unconscious for three days due to brain damage and his brother and sister were using him as a puppet to try to fool their parents.

Win or lose Trump has changed the Republic Party – and there is no going back. Now we need to someone to destroy the Democrats.

Oh, I forgot – that’s what Hillary Clinton is busy doing.

Infinite Frontiers

When I was about 21 years old I read a book by Walter Prescott Webb called The Great Frontier. In it he pointed out that when Europeans moved to North America they found an incredibly rich continent barely peopled. It was a Great Frontier and it had a profound effect on the people who moved here to get away from the crushing burden of Europe. In many ways it was what created the American character.

Unfortunately those kinds of Great Frontiers are gone, until we invent Stargates and people the Galaxy. Too bad Warp Drive doesn’t exist, because the original “Star Trek” was about those Great Frontiers of the future (and I think that’s why it was so popular. Along with having sex with beautiful green-skinned women).

When I was 12 I desperately wanted to live on the Enterprise.

There are still frontiers, although no one is going to be moving to the bottom of the sea or Antarctica. There are still frontiers of the intellect and imagination, but those are only for certain people, and those people are not the average ones.

I suppose someday we might be able to terraform Mars. Who knows? But if we could some people would be there like a shot. Bye bye Earth! See ya! (the writer Peter Beagle once said that if Middle Earth existed he, too, would be there “like a shot”).

This comes from all that science fiction I read in my early teens. If you’re susceptible to it (and I was) it expands your mind and it never goes back to the original shape.

When I was about 12 or 13 I read a novel by the late Poul Anderson called Brain Wave. In it he postulated that the Earth had been in an IQ-suppressing field for a few hundred thousand years, and then one day it pops out.

Everyone’s IQ shoots up to about 400. Of course he spends the rest of the novel imaging what the effect would be on the entire population. But what he wrote about it is that allofasudden there were all these new frontiers opening up because of our super-duper brains. Interstellar travel, for one.

Anderson was notorious about writing such stories. What if we had wings and hollow bones and could fly? What if we could live in the sea like dolphins? What he wrote was always about being More than Human.

Sooner or later we’re going to take control of our evolution. So what are we going to do with it? Create people who can fly? Or live in the sea? They’d be new frontiers.

Some people are always seeking new frontiers. Again, mostly these days they are of intellect and imagination. That’s why I’ve always been so intrigued by people such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both of whom mostly lived in their imaginations (honestly, what else can Hawking do?). Both were seeking new frontiers.

There is something – curiosity, seeking a better life, the intellect and imagination I mentioned – that in some people is always seeking these new frontiers. And it’s a good thing, too, because otherwise we’d be permanently stuck in about 20,000 BC. Which would make us Less than Human.

Friday, August 26, 2016

The Historical Ignoramuses of the Manosphere

“Meanwhile history assures us that civilizations decay quite leisurely.” – Will Durant, The Lessons of History

I have many times gotten comments how “things have changed since you were younger.”

Guess what? They haven’t.

When I was in high school I found girls were having sex at 13, 14, 15. And I graduated in 1974. My 5’6” father told me the same thing when he was in high school – and that was about 1950. He told me about things he did that I never did. Like hanging out in whorehouses when he was 13, getting a tattoo while drunk when 14, three and four of his friends having sex with one girl when he was 16 (which happened in my high school), pulling a faggot out of a canal at 17 while his friends were trying to beat him to death (and finally did, and the three served seven years for it while my father walked), and waking up in the hospital at 17 after a bus hit him and finding his best friend dead and that he was addicted to morphine when he woke up after being in a coma for two weeks (he also ended up with metal plates in his head, an arm and a leg).

Then after all this, things returned to “normal” – and if my father had died (as did three of his eight siblings – of cancer, drowning, and rheumatic heart disease) I would have never been born.

None of these girls were having sex with “alphas,” which, as I have pointed out before, don’t exist (all the men I know who devote their lives to seducing women have been liars and cowards and ruined their lives through becoming degraded). That’s why I refer to Vox Day, Roosh and Roissy as con men and liars. And none of them can tell me anything that I don’t already know.

Women have sex with guys they find attractive and since most women are pretty irrational, there is no telling who they like and for what reason (and women’s clothes don’t fall off because of “Game).

I know a woman who was attracted to a man in a bar who was wearing a ridiculous stovepipe hat – and she ended up marrying him and having three kids. I also know another woman who was attracted to a man because she liked the way he danced. She also married him, found out he was an alcoholic, and once found him drunk and pissing in their bedroom closet. “Alphas,” indeed.

By the way, when I was 20 I met a dim-bulb 17-year-old who was joining the Army because he had gotten three girls pregnant – two of them sisters and the other their cousin. His IQ appeared to be about 93 and before I talked to him I thought he was retarded because of how he looked. This was about 1976.

When I got older and started reading history, I wasn’t surprised to find things go in cycles. As I have mentioned, societies are born in Stoicism and die in Epicureanism. But even in Stoicism there are sex and drugs sex and rock-roll – and this goes back to the beginnings of recorded history. Which is Sumeria.

The entire history of humanity has been people destroying themselves through hedonism (very much a vice of the “elites”) versus those who oppose it – religion and most philosophers. And it goes in cycles.

I have found if you want to understand people just about all you need to know is the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Heavenly Virtues. That takes care of understanding about 99% of what people do.

Not “Alpha Fux and Beta Bux,” not “hypergamy,” not “the Dark Triad” (which is actually vainglory) not Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta/Omega. And not Evolutionary Psychology, which isn’t a science, certainly not a theory and not even a hypothesis because none of it can be tested in the slightest (ideas about feminism, atheism, materialism and evolution have been around for thousands of years).

These are people who have never read the Bible (the Old Testament is not for children), or Marcus Aurelius, or St. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, or My Secret Life, or Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure - the latter two of which are nonstop orgies.

Or the insane Marquis de Sade, who was probably the founder of Leftism (and who gave his name to sadism, as in sexual sadism).

It’s amusing how those who really believe in the concepts of the Manosphere try to shove everything in their tiny non-existent boxes. And ignore it when life pops right out of them. And then double down.

When I was in high school all we did on weekends is party, drink, smoke dope, and end up in the backseat with various girls. I saw cocaine just one time. Heroin, never (that was a black thing). But hashish with opium, LSD and mescaline? All over the place.

By the way, in Robin Buss’ translation of The Count of Monte Cristo Edmond Dantes would pass the time on long coach rides by eating a ball of opium and hashish. And criminals were executed by bashing them in the head with a mallet, then cutting their throats and having their abdomen stepped on so the blood spurted out of their cut throats. History has always been about things like this.

Now heroin can be found everywhere and addicts are dropping like flies. So, obviously, society is becoming more hedonistic. Which is doubleplusungood.

I actually got the tail end of the Sixties – and I assume everyone knows what that was like.

So don’t pretend that things have changed and that I haven’t been around a lot. Because things haven’t changed because human nature doesn’t change and I have been around a lot.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

"Why Everything You Know About Wolf Packs is Wrong"

I think I'll run this again.

Ever heard the phrases "A house built on sand" and "By your fruits you will know them"?

I run across some truly bizarre stuff in the Manosphere, like Alpha/Beta, which has nothing to do with humans, yet some people have spun this nonsense into huge tangled webs that gets further and further away from reality the more complex they get.

And if you want to talk about primate Alphas, just remember they murder infants and are cannibals.

The only time "Alphas" exist as "top dog" is in prison (zoos) and among tame, neotized dogs - human-bred dogs that never grow up and in some ways are always puppies.

This is from the site io9 and was written by Lauren David.


Why everything you know about wolf packs is wrong.

"The alpha wolf is a figure that looms large in our imagination. The notion of a supreme pack leader who fought his way to dominance and reigns superior to the other wolves in his pack informs both our fiction and is how many people understand wolf behavior. But the alpha wolf doesn't exist—at least not in the wild.

"Although the notions of 'alpha wolf' and 'alpha dog' seem thoroughly ingrained in our language, the idea of the alpha comes from Rudolph Schenkel, an animal behaviorist who, in 1947, published the then-groundbreaking paper 'Expressions Studies on Wolves.' During the 1930s and 1940s, Schenkel studied captive wolves in Switzerland's Zoo Basel, attempting to identify a 'sociology of the wolf.'

"In his research, Schenkel identified two primary wolves in a pack: a male 'lead wolf' and a female 'bitch.' He described them as 'first in the pack group.' He also noted 'violent rivalries' between individual members of the packs:

A bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank, even though small fictions of another type (jealousy) are not uncommon. By incessant control and repression of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these 'α animals' defend their social position.

"Thus, the alpha wolf was born. Throughout his paper, Schenkel also draws frequent parallels between wolves and domestic dogs, often following his conclusions with anecdotes about our household canines. The implication is clear: wolves live in packs in which individual members vie for dominance and dogs, their domestic brethren, must be very similar indeed.

"A key problem with Schenkel's wolf studies is that, while they represented the first close study of wolves, they didn't involve any study of wolves in the wild. Schenkel studied two packs of wolves living in captivity, but his studies remained the primary resource on wolf behavior for decades. Later researchers, would perform their own studies on captive wolves, and published similar findings on dominance-subordinant and leader-follower relationships within captive wolf packs. And the notion of the 'alpha wolf' was reinforced, in large part, by wildlife biologist L. David Mech's 1970 book The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species.

"Mech spent several years during the 1960s studying wolves in Michigan's Isle Royale National Park as part of his PhD thesis work. Mech's book echoed Schenkel's notions of 'alpha wolves' and competition-based pack hierarchies. Readers of Mech's book were led to believe that dominance played a key role in the lupine social order, and that wolves were naturally inclined to dominate one another. And Mech's book became a hit; it was republished in paperback in 1981 and remains in print (much to Mech's chagrin) to this day. It popularized a lot of our modern ideas about wolves, including competition-based hierarchies. Although Mech has since renounced the notion of the 'alpha wolf,' he admits that if you've heard the term, it's likely thanks to his book.

"In more recent years, animal behaviorists, including Mech, have spent more and more time studying wolves in the wild, and the behaviors they have observed has been different from those observed by Schenkel and other watchers of zoo-bound wolves. In 1999, Mech's paper 'Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs' was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. The paper is considered by many to be a turning point in understanding the structure of wolf packs.

"'The concept of the alpha wolf as a 'top dog' ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots,' Mech writes in the 1999 paper, 'is particularly misleading.' Mech notes that earlier papers, such as M.W. Fox's 'Socio-ecological implications of individual differences in wolf litters: a developmental and evolutionary perspective,' published in Behaviour in 1971, examined the potential of individual cubs to become alphas, implying that the wolves would someday live in packs in which some would become alphas and others would be subordinate pack members. However, Mech explains, his studies of wild wolves have found that wolves live in families: two parents along with their younger cubs. Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The 'alphas' are simply what we would call in any other social group 'parents.' The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has 'won' a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents.

"While the captive wolf studies saw unrelated adults living together in captivity, related, rather than unrelated, wolves travel together in the wild. Younger wolves do not overthrow the 'alpha' to become the leader of the pack; as wolf pups grow older, they are dispersed from their parents' packs, pair off with other dispersed wolves, have pups, and thus form packs of their owns.

"This doesn't mean that wolves don't display social dominance, however. When a recent piece purporting to dispel the 'myth' of canine dominance appeared on Psychology Today, ethologist Marc Bekoff quickly stepped in. Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure. In response to the same piece, Mech pointed to a 2010 article he published detailing his observance of an adult gray wolf repeatedly pinning and straddling a male pack mate over the course of six and a half minutes. 'We interpreted this behavior as an extreme example of an adult wolf harassing a maturing offspring, perhaps in prelude to the offspring's dispersal.'

"As research on wolves, both captive and wild, continues, we develop a more complex, nuanced picture of wolf behavior. But the easy notion of the 'alpha wolf' still persists. Certainly in entertainment it has made for some nice stories; plenty of books and movies center around the notion of wolf—and werewolf—ranks. However, the outmoded idea of the 'alpha wolf' still has some legs in a real-world area: dog training.

"Just as, more than six decades ago, Schenkel extrapolated his wolf studies and applied them to domestic dogs, so too have many carried the notion of the 'alpha wolf' over to dog training. Certainly, just as parent wolves hold dominance over their cubs and human parents hold dominance over their children, owners hold dominance over their dogs. Until my pup gets himself a credit card and a pair of opposable thumbs (and stops dissolving into delighted wiggles every time I tell him what a good little man he is), I'm pretty much the boss in our relationship. But some trainers take the idea of pack rank to the extreme; dog owners are given a laundry list of rules of how to maintain alpha status in all aspects of their relationship: Don't let your dog walk through the door before you do. Don't let her win a game of tug. Don't let him eat before you do. Some (famous) trainers even encourage acts of physical dominance that can be dangerous for lay people to execute. Much of this is a legacy of those old wolf studies, suggesting that we're in constant competition with our dogs for that pack leader position.

"But, you might ask, mightn't domestic dogs behave much like wolves in captivity? Despite being members of the same species, wolves (even human-reared wolves) are behaviorally distinct from domestic dogs, especially when it comes to human beings. Take the famous experiment in which human-socialized wolves and domestic dogs are both presented with a cage with food inside. The food is placed inside a cage in a way that makes it impossible for either wolf or dog to retrieve it. The wolves will inevitably keep working at the cage, trying to puzzle out a way to remove the food. The dogs, after a few seconds of struggle, will look to a human as if to say, 'Hey, buddy, a little help here?' Even if the hierarchical ranks were some innate part of lupine psychology, dogs have behaviors all their own.

"Canine ethology is actually a very rich area of study. Researchers like Karen B. London and Alexandra Horowitz constantly contribute to our understanding of the domestic dog, and researchers like Mech (who has an updated book, Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation) continue to expand our knowledge of wild wolves. And perhaps someday, our popular culture will more closely resemble our modern behavioral science rather than the results of outdated research."

The Rise of Trump is Nothing New and Instead is Something Very Old

"You fight and die to give wealth and luxury to others…” - Tiberius Gracchus

Tiberius Gracchus was a Roman who was around before Jesus was even born. He was speaking to those oppressed by their government (Rome, which rose because Greece destroyed itself).

By the way, Gracchus took land from the thieving wealthy and gave it to homeless, impoverished Roman soldiers.

Trump is just a symptom of a pretty bad societal disease that has gone on since the dawn of recorded history and I’m sure before then (so was Jesus, for that matter, not that I’m comparing Trump to Jesus), although the idiotic Talking Heads think Trump is the disease itself. You know – because Hitler!!!!!!! (I’m sure if Jesus was around today he’d also be Hitler!!!!!!!!)

I am an amateur historian, which means I have read a lot of professional historians far more knowledgeable than I am (the study of history can make you cynical, although, fortunately, it’s hasn’t exactly worked in my case).

What anyone who studies history has found is that history repeats. It’s the same story over and over. The kakistocracy gathers all the wealth to itself though gaining control of the government and then crushes everyone. It’s the oldest con game there is. And then…

“So the services [rendered by the] aristocracy did not save it when it monopolized privilege and power too narrowly, when it oppressed the people with selfish and myopic exploitation, when it retarded the growth of the nation by a blind addiction to ancestral ways, when it consumed the men and resources of the state in the lordly sport of dynastic or territorial wars. Then the excluded banded together in wild revolt; the new rich combined with the poor against obstruction and stagnation; the guillotine cut off a thousand noble heads; and democracy took its turn in the misgovernment of mankind.”

Will Durant wrote that a long time ago.

That has been the history of the world without exception. Every historian, ever, has written the exact same thing about his culture. And since the Founding Fathers knew their history they tried to found a totally new country that avoided those old problems. It worked for a while and in some ways still does.

This oppression-of-everyone-by-the-degraded-elites is a huge problem with the U.S. today. Wars that never stop and have accomplished nothing except consume men and wealth, degraded exploiting political “aristocracies,” high-paying jobs and the middle class disappearing and becoming impoverished, all to enrich the politically connected even more…all of these things have happened over and over and over through all of recorded history.

We are repeating the mistakes of Greece and Rome and every civilization that has fallen!

And what has then happened is that the excluded rise up and overthrows their oppressors. Usually this has included baking them alive in ovens, chopping off their heads, dismembering them, shooting them and their children or hanging them from lamp posts by their ankles. Revenge is a bitch.

Fortunately we don’t do those things. We just elect new people. And thank God for that because otherwise we’d have civil war.

I’ve had people tell me the sooner it collapses the better. Nope, unless they want violence in the streets, massive shortages of food and power, and like some of the countries in South America, even no toilet paper!

“We conclude that the concentration of wealth is…periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution. In this view all economic history is the slow heartbeat of the social organism, a vast systole and diastole of concentrating wealth and compulsive recirculation.” – Will Durant

"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." - Richard K. Morgan

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Stoics Always End Up Ruling the Epicureans

“From Zeno of Tarsus to Paul of Tarsus was but a step.” – Will Durant

The farther you look back into history, the farther you can see into the future.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and about the only things I remember are a class in Buddhism and a class in Greek philosophy, which also meant Greek history. And pretty much all our intellectual ideas came out of Greece – about 2500 years ago.

The Greeks discussed everything and they figured out solutions for every problem people have. Even our country was founded on what some of the Greeks thought – and some of their intellectual Roman descendants, such as Cicero.

Epicurus was not an Epicurean, not in the degraded modern sense as someone who devotes his life to pleasure. But much of the Manosphere, as it stands today, is Epicurean in the degraded sense. One only needs to read the sites of the foul Roissy and Roosh. Both of whom are degraded (I suspect Roissy is a Jew, and there is a good reason Christianity overwhelmed Judaism, just the way Stoicism always beats Epicureanism).

Epicurus thought the purpose of philosophy was to free men from fear, although the modern degraded ones think its purpose is to free men from all responsibility.

I recently pointed out that the more ridiculous ideas in the Manosphere will never last and will be transformed by the Alt Right, which is in many ways Stoic (and what most people perceive as “Stoic” is not what it originally was). Although “Alt Right” is its current name or sooner or later it might get another one.

This is one of the reasons I think Trump will win. In some ways he comes across as a Stoic (at least compared to the brain-damaged, drug-addled, alcoholic, degraded Bush and Clinton crime clans). He certainly uses some Stoic ideas (“making America great again” is the same thing as freeing the people from fear), which resonates with the American people.

For that matter, “conservatives” (the real ones) are far more Stoic than liberals, all of whom are Epicureans. That’s the real divide between them, although today I hear discussions about the modern equivalents of K and r reproductive strategies.

What we’re dealing with here, ultimately, is ethics – what is the good life? (Not surprisingly, the Stoics influenced early Christianity). And not surprisingly, our degraded “elites” barely have any ethics, unless one wants to consider love of money and political power ethical.

The good life certainly isn’t devoting your life to sex and women as “plates” (the ancient Greeks – and Christianity even today – realizes that those who devote their lives to physical pleasure always become degraded. This I have seen more than once).

The ancient Stoics clearly saw the basic problem of their age – the collapse of the theological basis of morality. They tried to fix it by bridging the gap between philosophy and religion. It sort of worked, for a while. Then, ultimately, Christianity showed up and transformed everything.

Our degraded Epicurean “elites” – all of who have money, drug and sex problems – no longer believe in religion. That’s for the unwashed masses. Hence Brak Yomama’s comment about people in Flyover Land clinging to “their guns and religion.”

Possibly the oldest problem in the world is class warfare – when the greedy and power-mad grain control of the government and crush everyone else. This never lasts and sooner or later this kakistocracy is always overthrown. Sometimes they lose their heads or end up hanging upside down by their heels from a lamp post.

As that modern saying tells us, history may not repeat but it does rhyme. And no great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself. We’re not anywhere near there yet but our “elites” are doing their best to bring it on.

Monday, August 22, 2016

"Is Hillary Clinton a Brain-Damaged Invalid?"

This was written by by Jim Goad and is from Takimag.


If you dare to question whether Hillary Clinton is physically ill, her dutiful media maidservants will smear you as mentally ill.

It matters not how many times she falls, how many speeches she interrupts with uncontrolled coughing, how many memory lapses she has in mid-sentence, how many times she cackles loudly and inappropriately, or how many apparent seizures she has while cameras roll and fawning reporters flinch. She’s not sick; you’re sick for even noticing.

“The right-wing smear machine is working at warp speed to convince the nation that Hillary Clinton has brain damage,” ululates Heather Digby Parton over at left-wing remote-controlled Clinton mouthpiece Salon.com. Sounding curiously more hysterical than the people she’s trying to depict as hysterical, she mentions “mudslinging” and “rumor mongering” emerging from the subhuman slime of right-wing “fever swamps.” Parton singles out the Alt-Right as having “gone completely over the edge with this craziness” in trying to misrepresent the former Madame Secretary as “a brain-damaged invalid.”

At the eternally punishable Wonkette, Evan Hurst casts his righteous thunderbolts of disapproval down upon “the fever swamps of the wingnut internet” where deluded Neanderthals fixate upon the discredited and debunked conspiracy theories generated solely by “Trump’s obsession with his opponent’s energy and health.”

“I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.” US News bemoans “a slew of conservative or conspiracy-theory themed sites” crammed with “Hillary-phobes” whose sick minds lead them to suspect without any solid evidence that Hillary Clinton may be sick.

Not to be done by her fawning minions in the realm of egregious gaslighting, HillaryClinton.com screams that “Trump Pushes Deranged Conspiracy About Clinton’s Health To Distract From Tax Return Questions.” Desperately changing the subject, it accuses Trump of “desperately changing the subject” away from the issue of his tax returns.

But that’s a separate subject. The subject at hand is whether Hillary is likely to croak anytime soon…or poop her diapers during a White House press conference…or suffer a temporary stroke and accidentally launch a nuclear war.

Clinton’s site mentions “fabricated documents” and “lies” and a “baseless narrative” and “tin foil hats” and “conspiracy peddlers” and “absurd and debunked claims” in a transparent attempt to make anyone besides Hillary Clinton look like the craziest person on Earth.

As far as I can tell, there are far more questions being asked about Clinton’s health than there are “claims” being made. One notable exception involves a series of documents purportedly from Clinton’s personal physician claiming that she suffered from “memory loss” and “blacking out” and “uncontrollable twitching.” These documents were apparently forged.

Otherwise, here are some unanswered questions about Clinton’s potential illnesses that will get you labeled mentally ill merely for asking them:

WHY DOES SHE FALL SO MUCH?

She fell in 2009 and broke her elbow. She fell while boarding a plane in 2011. In 2012, she fainted, fell, and suffered a concussion that left a blood clot on her brain. Earlier this year, either she fell and was helped to her feet by bodyguards, or Ol’ Muffin Ass had trouble scaling a small flight of wooden stairs by herself. Last week she appeared to stumble after introducing Joseph Biden in that Basset Hound bark she has while giving campaign speeches.

WHY DOES SHE COUGH SO MUCH?

It makes her look unhealthy. Extremely unhealthy. It’s as if she’s ready to hock out her esophagus like a big bloody loogie. All that cringeworthy hacking and gagging and throat-clearing and water-sipping and choking leads a curious mind to wander through cognitive meadows that allow the possibility that Hillary Clinton has a lung tumor the size of a football.

WHAT’S WITH THAT PSYCHOTIC CACKLE OF HERS?

The woman whose cold womb Bill Clinton once saw fit to impregnate has perhaps the most sadistic and inappropriate witch-like laugh mine ears hath ever heard. If that’s not a sign of severe neurological damage, I will have to presume she is possessed by Satan.

WHY SHOULDN’T WE BE CONCERNED THAT A 2011 CONCUSSION LEFT HER WITH A BLOOD CLOT ON HER BRAIN?

And it wasn’t her first blood clot, either—she had deep vein thrombosis in her leg in 1998. But after she fainted and fell in 2012, her philandering hubby Bill says his one-time sex partner suffered “a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over.” Hillary was diagnosed with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis—a blood clot in a vein between her skull and brain. She took blood thinners to dissolve the clot and still apparently takes them.

Although her campaign is now trying to dismiss the brain clot as no big whoop, back in 2012 ABC News said it was potentially life threatening. It quoted a physician who specialized in head injuries:

Imagine this vein, where all the cerebral spinal fluid inside the head and spine no longer flows through this area. You get a big back up and that itself could cause a stroke. In the long-term…the venous system can’t get the blood out of the brain. It’s like a Lincoln Tunnel back up.

IF THE BLOOD CLOT DIDN’T GIVE HER BRAIN DAMAGE, WHY DOES SHE ACT SO BRAIN-DAMAGED?

Why does she make such weird faces and space out in mid-sentence and refer to Donald Trump as her husband? If this isn’t a seizure, isn’t it at least evidence that she’s nuts? Why did Huma Abedin, her own personal Sapphic Sancho Panza, send an email to a colleague claiming that Hillary is “often confused”? If Clinton’s not brain-damaged, give that lady an Oscar!

WHAT THE HELL IS WITH THE HOLE IN HER TONGUE?

Why is there a recessed hole on her tongue the width of a dime? Is it where her Council on Foreign Relations robot chip was implanted? Or is it where an especially severe oral herpes sore was removed? What about a cancer biopsy? Or an excised tumor? Or syphilitic glossitis? Or even the dreaded speckled erythroplakia? Whatever it is, I wish she’d keep her mouth shut.

MY DIAGNOSIS

I am not a doctor, but this I know: Hillary Clinton is one sick bitch.