Archive for October 2018
How to become famous on Wattpad
After examining this social media and online book publishing site, I have determined that the overwhelming majority of the site’s users are teenage and college-aged women, and what they want to read is what I would call young adult chick lit, which has a clearly defined format of being written in the first person, featuring a girl protagonist who is average at best, and sometimes downright ugly, who gets involved with a “bad boy.” That’s right, that’s the term that’s used, “bad boy,” and apparently the term is so universally understood by this audience that an author can merely write “John was a bad boy,” without any adequate explanation of why he’s bad, and the audience immediately gets it.
It’s actually a condemnation of the entire female sex that this literature is overwhelming popular. Everything that game bloggers like Roissy have said turns out to be true. You can say, “they are only teenagers, they don’t really know what they want,” but I would say it’s the opposite, they are not sophisticated enough to understand that they are supposed to be more woke about things, and instead they go with their raw emotions regarding what sort of guy gives them what Roissy would vulgarly call “gina tingles.”
The reason why it’s on Wattpad is that mainstream publishers are probably too embarrassed to put this sort of stuff in print, and because girls in that age bracket have very little disposable income (not having jobs and being completely reliant on their parents for money), so reading for free is appealing. And they probably lack the technical expertise to grab free (but illegally so) books from Pirate’s Bay or Library Genesis. Compared to this free young adult chick lit crap, The Hunger Games is like Nobel-Prize-winning literature.
I’m not sure how I, as a middle-aged man, can write convincing young adult chick lit. I suppose by studying the most popular books, and then writing something similar, but with better grammar and a better plot, it’s possible. But reading though this crap is difficult. And putting myself into the mind of a teenage girl with “gina tingles” for a bad boy, that’s even harder. Too bad I’m not gay, that would make it easier to imagine.
On the other hand, last night I reread the first two chapters of Piers Anthony’s book The Apprentice Adept, and I found it quite enjoyable despite it’s horrible dialogue, it’s ridiculousness (a planet where the lower classes aren’t allowed to wear clothes, and where the male protagonist is, therefore, turned on by women who are wearing clothes), and in spite of (or perhaps because of) what modern feminist critics would call “misogyny.” (That Piers Anthony books are “misogynist” but chick lit is never called “misandrist,” that’s proof that we live in a gynocracy.)
Wong Kim Ark and illegal aliens
The lying fakestream media says that U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) says that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional.
They have not bothered to understand the law.
Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled in California at the time of his birth.
Illegal immigrants are not permanently domiciled in the United States, because they are here illegally. Also, they are not living in “obedience” to the United States because if they had been obeying U.S. law they wouldn’t have been here in the first place.
The Court specifically said that children born of foreign occupiers are not entitled to citizenship.
The concept of illegal aliens didn’t exist at the common law of England so was never discussed in old cases. But today’s illegal aliens are like foreign occupiers who are not entitled to citizenship.
* * *
Hans A. von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, agrees with me. Maybe he has been reading my blog?
Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.
The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens.
By the way, just kidding about him reading my blog. It’s just the plain common sense understanding of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions. Anyone with half a brain would conclude the same thing as me or Mr. von Spakovsky.
Can the President end birthright citizenship with an executive order?
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
According to the United States Supreme Court:
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/36/
So I say, yes he can!
But I am sure that liberal judges will interpret the Constitution differently than those Justices who were actually alive when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified.
Censorship and this blog
When I began blogging, I didn’t censor any posts at all. But as time went on, the vileness of the comments increased. Antisemitic comments increased.
Regarding online antisemitism, it has grown so much during the last 15 years. Back in the early 2000s, Steve Sailer’s blog was at the forefront of HBD writing (after all, Steve Sailer coined the term), and I commented there, and the antisemitism we see today wasn’t there back then.
I had an argument with a blog commenter a few months ago, and unfortunately I can’t find the comments, but he claimed I was being a paranoid Jew, and I said look at the guy who shot up the JCC in Kansas City, it’s only a matter of time before another crazy person does something like that again. Jews aren’t paranoid, they just remember history better than most.
But anyway, there’s a difference between being a publisher versus being a platform. I’m a publisher, so it’s in my right to delete comments I don’t like. Twitter, Facebook, WordPress, the higher level internet providers we seldom think about like the companies who maintain all those domain names, they are platforms that publishers use, and they are the ones who should not be allowed to ban publishers for the content of their speech.
I also don’t think that Con Ed should be allowed to turn off your electricity because of what you say on Twitter. Right now, they don’t, but who knows what the future holds?
So no, it’s not hypocritical of me to censor comments and also argue that big corporations which control the internet should allow free speech.
But after this shooting in Pittsburgh, good luck convincing anyone of the importance of free speech. Libertarians will continue to stupidly insist that free speech is only something that the government can restrict, not corporations. And just about everyone else will approve of the coming crackdowns.
And for this blog: I don’t make any money from this. (I used to make a hundred dollars a month before Google cut off my adwords.) If I stopped deleting comments, then the comment section would just become a vile cesspool of antisemitism, and then I’d stop blogging out of disgust. So comment censorship is necessary to keep this blog running. If you happen to be someone whose comments get frequently censored, then maybe you are reading the wrong blog?
Gab is shut down; end of free speech
Huge attack on freedom of speech.
This demonstrates that there’s no way to avoid the censors. Even if you create a new website, the web is controlled by a small oligopoly that can shut it down.
Only government regulation can ensure freedom of speech. Libertarians are wrong. (I’ve been saying this for a long time. Will libertarians finally realize they were wrong?)
Although there is also the problem that any website that truly offers free speech will inevitably become a disgusting cesspool of antisemitism. I think that free speech is more important.
But as things stand, it’s clear that a SWPL-SJW-elite now controls the internet. Only a tiny percentage of people are willing to go onto the “dark web” in order to read and participate in forbidden sites.
The internet, for a brief time, enabled a golden age of free speech in which anyone could get a message out, no matter how unpopular that message was with the elites. But that time is coming to an end.
* * *
I found the following comment left less than three months ago:
Many of my Twitter follows were banned or shadowbanned. So I closed my Twitter and opened up a Gab account. I was excited about this. The very first thing I saw on Gab was an antisemitic post. Then I noticed there were tons of them…to the point where Gab seems like a social network for Jew haters. I posted about this on Gab and got so much intense anger directed towards me. I haven’t gone back since, what a disappointment.
Rather prophetic.
Jews love Donald Trump (if they live in Israel)
In Israel, however, 69 percent of Israelis express confidence in Trump’s leadership. If you assume that hardly any Israeli Arabs (21 percent of the population) share that confidence, that’s a roughly 85 percent approval rating among Israeli Jews.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-tone-deaf-israeli-reactions-to-the-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting
Rich people in Silicon Valley prohibit their children from looking at screens
Must read series of articles in the NY Times.
You know, 20 years ago, when people were claiming that poor kids are “disadvantaged” because they didn’t have access to technology, I said it was a bunch of hogwash.
And now, today, we find out that rich people are going crazy trying to prevent their children from using anything with a screen: smartphone, television, computer, absolutely forbidden.
According to the the article about nannies, nannies sign contracts that they will never use their smartphone or any other screen in front of their charges, and parents spy on each others’ nannies to get them fired.
I had no idea that rich people were doing this. Is it just rich people in Silicon Valley, or is it all over the country?
* * *
Let me add some more thoughts.
“Screens” can potentially be a good thing of children are using them for purposes like learning computer programming, reading and writing. Even social media has its plus sides, you hear about kids who become millionaires from being famous on YouTube or Instagram.
There are some young people (all women) who are now successful, or semi-successful authors because they started posting stuff to Wattpad when they were in middle school.
The teenager who programs an app that makes a lot of money, that wouldn’t happen if he had parents who forbid him from using “screens.”
On the other hand, I have to admit that I don’t see any upside at all to playing Fortnite 40 hours a week. And I’m sure that the vast majority of kids are using their screens for crap purposes like that.
Fight over a parking space
https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sEVFb_1539563990
Lot’s of stupidity and proleness here.
Two women steal the fat guy’s parking spot.
Fat guy gets out of his car to let them know he’s pissed that his spot was stolen. Women ignore him. (He probably should have let bygones be bygones and just went in search of another spot.)
Fat guy, pissed off, fake-kicks at someone else’s car. (Looking at the video, I don’t think he actually made contact with the car.)
The shorter of the two women then runs up to the fat guy and punches him in the face. At this point in the confrontation, the fat guy was walking away. Physically attacking someone who is walking away is a legally unjustified escalation.
He goes a little overboard in defending himself.
But then short woman gets back up and attacks him again while he is trying to walk back to his car.
Fat guy pushes here away again and defuses the situation by getting into his car and driving away.
No one is blameless here, but I think the women, especially the short woman who punched him, have more blame than the fat guy.
Street justice
Layla ran out of the subway car and ran towards the exit. After she was out on the street again, she slowed down, and reflected on what had just happened. What started out as fear turned into a sort of exhilaration. She was strong, and she could kick ass! Those two guys got what they deserved. She dished out some street justice that obviously the New York City criminal justice system had failed at. Maybe now, they learned their lesson and won’t go around sexually assaulting girls who are just trying to take the subway home.
Shooting in Pittsburgh
Stupid anti-Semites. Unless the shooter turns out to be a Muslim terrorist, but I’m not optimistic.
Shooter is Rob Bowers, typical Jew hating white supremacist gun nut.
Lion of the Blogosphere 