CNN – Criminal News Network


I’m honestly surprised at how rarely I’ve mentioned CNN on this site before. After all, from the earliest days of this site’s history I’ve spoken out against the corrosive, cultural poison that is the mainstream media, and it just so happens that the one news outlet that represents all aspects of the sickness of the media, and it’s name is CNN. Since 2015, they’ve been waging an unceasing smear campaign against Donald Trump, and have long been cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton. They tried to paint Trump as the next Hitler, and painted all his supporters as uncaring bigots. Then when he won the Presidency, they tried to delegitimise him by spreading the phony Russian collusion conspiracy, which even CNN’s own staff will admit is bullshit.

Then, after it became clear as day that the Russian collusion nonsense was finished, CNN somehow managed to sink even lower than they ever have before. A few days ago, Donald Trump tweeted out a meme showing himself wrestling Vince McMahon with the CNN logo superimposed on his face. Surprisingly it’s one of those memes that you can interpret however you want. I think that it might be symbolic of Trump winning against the media’s smear campaign, especially in light of the Russia narrative’s collapse. How did CNN react? They tried to paint it as an incitement of violence against the media. Yes, in the world of CNN, memes are now officially violence, and journalists are supposedly now in danger of losing their lives because the President shared a meme that, by the way, he didn’t make. This is all quite rich coming from the company that hired Kathy Griffin, and the same media establishment that constantly tells people that under Donald Trump you or your loved ones could die because he’s supposedly an unhinged crazy dictator.

They have been fermenting a climate of political violence against right-wingers since Trump got elected, and yet they have the nerve to proclaim that the President sharing a meme is an incitement of violence. But that’s not the worst. Apparently CNN got so offended by the meme that they had one of their muckrackers track down its creator, one “HanAssholeSolo”, and apparently managed to coerce him into an apology, with the implication that they might doxx him if they think he’s out of line. Forget the term Clinton News Network, they’ve officially become the Criminal News Network. In case they didn’t know, threatening to expose a private citizen’s personal details is a crime, and they may well have broken the law in the state in which they are headquartered.

So there you have it. CNN have officially become the Cosa Nostra of the American media, except the actual mafia would probably be punished. Not even Buzzfeed, the rag that published the so-called “piss dossier”, has stooped this low. As far as I know, no other news outlet in America is willing to operate so far outside the law just to bandage their petty ego because they were offended. CNN has long been a symbol of everything wrong with the mainstream news media, but now it has transcended mere propaganda-pushing, showing that they’re the sort of people who will intimidate critics into silence.

That being said, the professional doxxer CNN hired may as well be cut from the same cloth as Buzzfeed. In fact, he used to work for them. The doxxer, Andrew Kaczynski, has a sordid history of muckraking and yellow journalism. In 2013, Kaczynski shared false information from Reddit regarding the identity of the Boston Marathon bombers, naming Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Tripathi – two innocent men – as the suspected bombers. The actual culprits were Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but before the actual suspects were named, Kaczynski’s false reporting led to Sunil Tripathi’s family being bombarded with calls and messages, leading Tripathi himself to commit suicide.

Later in the same year, he retweeted a stupid tweet from a PR woman named Justine Sacco (in which she made a bad joke about AIDS being white), declaring it to be “the worst tweet of all time”. Soon after that, the media elite went about destroying her reputation, and the incident may well have destroyed her professional career. Kaczynski’s career as a whole is based on digging up old footage (often of politicians) and using it as part of smear campaigns against his targets. He is the very definition of a muckraker, and yet he is rewarded for this behaviour by the journalistic community, to the pointed that he was nominated for the Shorty Awards’ “Best Journalist” award. I’m sure Joseph Pulitzer himself would be proud.

In a way, the whole fiasco shows just how rotten the journalism industry has become, and the core of it all is CNN, a network that has gone a step further than everyone else in the mainstream media, proving that there is nothing they won’t do in order to stay relevant in an era where the mainstream media is dying. If that’s not enough, they’re also completely incompetent at what they do, and I say this mainly because it turns out that “HanAssholeSolo” may not even be the original creator of the meme. It seems to me that everything CNN does in order to try and get at Donald Trump is destined to fail miserably, and that’s because CNN, and indeed the news media at large, simply doesn’t understand what’s going on. They never did, but they can’t just accept their obsolescence peaceably, and I think it’s too late for them.

Given that CNN is willing to associate with some of the scummiest people on Earth, and silence private citizens that offend them, nothing can redeem them now. I can expect a few people to use the “muh freedom of the press” argument to defend CNN, but of course that’s nonsense. The right to freedom of the press only guarantees that you can print whatever you like, as long as it doesn’t constitute slander or personal details. The “free press” defence is wholly inadequate because, and I can’t make this any clearer, CNN broke the law. It’s just like how Gawker broke the law, and yet free press fundamentalists came to their defence because somehow they had “the right” to invade Hulk Hogan’s private life. I ask, does CNN have the right to threaten a private citizen because they are a news agency? No, they don’t, but they did so anyway, and that makes them criminals.


The appalling defence of Gawker and Nick Denton

nick denton

A new documentary has apparently surfaced on Netflix. Entitled Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press, it’s subject matter is ostensibly about the Hulk Hogan lawsuit which brought down Gawker, but judging by its dreadfully pretentious trailer, you’ll find that this an attempt to defend Gawker by framing the lawsuit as an assault on the so-called free press. Yes, Netflix has a documentary defending Gawker – perhaps the scummiest name in mass media – and the most mainstream media outlets that talk about it are all in favour of its pro-Gawker message.

For those who don’t know or have forgotten, Gawker was the cancer of the Internet back before it closed down. Founded in 2003 by Nick Denton, Gawker was a blog that acquired a reputation for its deliberately sensationalist tactics and often sleazy headlines, which it employed strictly to grab headlines. Gawker also had several spin-off blogs that are still active to this day. You may already be familiar with some of them. There’s Kotaku, a corrupt gaming blog that injected social justice ideology in its reporting, while their own journalists were involved in the scandal that eventually lead to #GamerGate. They also had Jezebel, a feminist blog known for its writers’ vile and repulsive hatred towards men, particularly straight white men. Then there’s Gizmodo, an okay tech blog, the very same site through which it was revealed that Facebook was deliberately altering its trending list to block out conservative news sources. The others are i09, Lifehacker, Deadspin and Jalspine.

Gawker was also notorious for reporting rumours that they don’t often fact check, a fact confirmed by Nick Denton himself in an interview on NBC’s Rock Center with Brian Williams. In that regard, it had a reputation that was almost as bad as, if not worse than Britain’s News of the World did before it was shut down in 2011. Gawker was also known for outing gay men behind their backs, usually a vendetta against them. Billionaire philanthropist Peter Thiel was one such man, but they also tried to out actor James Franco, and also outed Condé Nast executive David Giethner in one of their articles. Why exactly did Gawker do this? No reason, other than they had no problem with publishing it.

This and many other rancid tales are how Gawker acquired reputation of sleaze. Former employees would publicly condemn the site, and a few years ago, even the most retarded left-wing rags such as Vice or Salon lined up to condemn Gawker. Of course, all that changed when Hulk Hogan decided to sue Gawker, and when Donald Trump called to tighten US libel laws.

In 2012, Gawker leaked a sex tape featuring WWE star Hulk Hogan (whose real name is Terry Bollea), and when a judge ordered Gawker to remove it following legal action taken by Bollea, they refused, because why wouldn’t they? In response, Bollea filed a $100 million lawsuit against Gawker, and in 2016, Gawker was found liable, and forced to declare bankruptcy. This was of course a major victory for the individual right to privacy. After all, aren’t we all tired of tabloids invading people’s private lives just the sake of easy money? Of course, Gawker’s defence rested on the shaky argument that case could “hurt freedom of speech”. Nobody could really explain how, but the left ate it up, and after Trump called on the expansion of libel laws, Nick Denton suddenly became a hero for the left.

I shouldn’t really be surprised. The left has a nasty habit of making saints out of reprehensible, truly evil people. They revere Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger, a racist eugenicist who wanted to use abortion to control the black population. They revere Che Guevara, a psychopathic mass murderer who helped make Fidel Castro’s reign of terror in Cuba possible. They revere Hillary Clinton, and let’s just say the less said about her the better. But with Nick Denton I find this to be extremely baffling. Not only was Nick Denton an unscrupulous scumbag of the highest order, but he believes that he is thoroughly justified in engaging in the behaviour of such a person. This man justified outing closet homosexuals by claiming that people were happier “living in the truth”.

This is a man truly without morals, so when I see the trailer for Brian Knappenberger’s new documentary seemingly making him seem like the victim of a “war against the free press”, I can’t help but be outraged over this. It seems that people like him really do believe that Gawker was a victim in a war against the free press waged by “shadowy billionaires” who want absolute control over the media. This is a complete falsehood. Gawker does not represent the press. It is a corporation. The press is simply any form of media where you disseminate information. Your own blog is part of the press. By this definition some guy on YouTube can be considered a part of the press, but that’s not the point. What Gawker did was illegal. What worth does the “muh press freedom” argument have when the outlet you’re defending broke the law?

When anyone breaks the law, be they private individuals or corporations, they should expect to be punished. Gawker deserved everything it had coming to them, and yet because they don’t like the people opposing Gawker, the left acts as though we’re deciding what media outlets are permissible and what’s not. The irony is that they do this all the time, deeming anti-establishment news outlets and independent journalists and commentators as “fake news”. This glaring hypocrisy is perhaps the foulest aspect of the left’s pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible. They try to defend Gawker by accusing its enemies of doing something that they themselves are already doing.

To me, this is perhaps the most obvious sign of something that should have been obvious a while ago. Netflix has been compromised by the corporate establishment, and now they offer up trash that serves the liberal elite, effectively becoming a HBO for your laptop. Don’t believe me? They were responsible for the Dear White People TV series, which basically amounted to racist SJW propaganda designed to fellate the progressive ego. They made Amy Schumer’s infamous “leather special”, which ended up getting so many negative reviews from viewers that they changed the ratings system just to placate Schumer and her fans. Netflix was supposed to be an alternative to the crap we had to deal with on mainstream TV, with all its leftist nonsense infected into entertainment. Now Netflix has become part of the mainstream, and inevitably became corrupted by the same establishment ideology that infests the rest of the mainstream media.

The truth about “fake news”

fake news

After Donald Trump got elected President, the mainstream media quickly rushed to figure out how this could have happened. I could tell them how, but it appears that the media are doing everything do dodge the obvious answer, and so they turned to another scapegoat – “fake news”. They’ll tell you that when they say fake news, they mean unofficial news sites that spread deceptive, unsourced stories passed around as journalism, but they’re really referring to anyone who isn’t CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, CBS, RT or NPR. Basically “fake news” refers to anyone not part of the exclusive club known as the mainstream media.

Given the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump, it’s painfully obvious that the mainstream media is devoid of the journalistic integrity they claim to uphold. Only 6% of ordinary people actually trust the mainstream media, with alternative news outlets slowly but surely poised to take their place in terms of relevance. You don’t even need a journalism degree to report the news anymore. Somebody on YouTube, if proper diligence is done, could give far more accurate commentary than the likes of CNN. Alternative Internet voices are making themselves heard, and the established media doesn’t like that, because it means their glory days are over.

When the mainstream media was at the zenith of its influence, there was no internet. Control of the spread of information was concentrated in the hands of the cultural and political elites. Knowledge was controlled at the time, but thanks to the Internet, we now have access to any kind of information and point of view you could possibly imagine. Of course, the elites hate that, and now they want all the non-mainstream media outlets, regardless of journalistic quality, to be stricken down, and it’s been implied that Facebook is joining in on the witch hunt, along with the EU.

Of course, I’m painfully aware of the fact that there are genuinely fake news sites out there that spread false information and yet gain millions of views. Buzzfeed is a good example of one. However, most people can easily tell a fake news site just by looking at it. Also, all the people crying “fake news” ad nauseam generally agree that Breitbart is a “fake news” site, and unless you’re a far-left progressive, you probably know that Breitbart doesn’t even come close to being “fake news”. In fact, I’ve read enough Breitbart articles to come to the conclusion that they are capable of solid journalism, more so I would argue than the likes of CNN.

The fact of the matter is that the mainstream media hates Breitbart solely because of they are a right-wing populist news site that actively promoted Trump (thus they see Breitbart as a key contributing factor in Trump’s victory). In a globalist world heavily marinating in failed lefty ideals, Breitbart represents the counterculture, and thus they are the enemy of the establishment. That’s why they freaked out when Trump appointed Breitbart’s (now-ex) boss Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. Hillary Clinton was once caught proclaiming that Breitbart “has no right to exist”, implying that if she had succeeded in getting elected, she would work to have it shut down. Of course, now that Hillary has lost, her cronies want to do it for her.

To me, the whole “fake news” controversy is just a whingefest carried out by a failing, irrelevant mainstream media hell bent on maintaining its power. The irony here is that they want to punish right-wing news sites for the kind of practices that CNN regularly committed throughout the election. We all know that it’s a useless way of distracting the public, and it’s not working. People are starting to realise what’s actually going on, that the media has been lying to them all this time, and I’m glad. When I first started this site, I was constantly speaking out against the lying mainstream media, and it seems that the MSM never learned their lesson.

“Fake news” didn’t influence the election, unless you count CNN pissing off enough of the public for Trump to win. The reason Trump won was because the people have had enough of living under the Democrats, and they didn’t trust Hillary Clinton at all. All they’re doing by persecuting people and news sites with opposing opinions is proving to everyone that they are a bunch of ivory tower elitists who don’t care about freedom of speech, and by doing so, they will have fully alienated themselves from the public.

Buzzfeed’s privilege quiz (and why it’s dumb)


A few weeks ago, I was introduced by a friend of mine to a famous YouTuber known as The Amazing Atheist, who I now follow (I find him entertaining and brutally honest, and he seems to click with me in some way). One of his most recent videos addresses a new video excreted by those cultural neanderthals at Buzzfeed, which was apparently supposed to promote a “check your privilege” quiz that the same site published two years ago (but apparently is “trending” on their site, and the video for it seems to be doing the rounds online). The whole video was basically a putrid exercise in virtue signalling and blatant racism, and I enjoyed watching the Amazing Atheist rip into it. As for the test itself, it’s absolute nonsense, and in this article, I’m going to go through why.

For starters, it’s not so much a quiz as it is a tick the box form, except instead of giving you actual choices, you’re given a long list of statements that you’re supposed to click on if they apply to you, the problem is that the quiz writers are under the assumption that all of the statements correctly apply to one specific group – young, white, straight men who identify as the gender they were born. Given that I fall right into Buzzfeed’s most hated demographic, let’s see how privileged I could possibly get according to this possibly insane social experiment quiz.

Right off the bat, it starts out by asking if you’re white, and if it does that, you should know what kind of insanity we’re dealing with. In fact, the first bunch of questions address race, probably because race is at the top of the so-called progressive stack. A lot of the questions are completely ridiculous. For example it asks if you’ve been mocked for your accent, or if you’ve been told you “sound white”. Of course I haven’t been asked that, because most people in Britain have the decency not to ask me that.

It then moves on to sexuality, wherein it’s obvious that the writers believe that straight people are privileged because they have been insulted. Of course, it only highlights problems that may be faced by homosexuals in places like the American bible belt (which Buzzfeed assumes is what all of working class America is like). Not once do they consider that straight men may have problems engaging in sexual or romantic relationships with women, as I have had in the past. Of course, even if I were gay, I wouldn’t hide it. What about other gay men or women who don’t hide their sexuality. Are they “privileged” because they didn’t have the same experience as one might have in another country? This the kind of nuance that the writers at Buzzfeed would prefer not to explore, as it would wreck their entire narrative.

The next topic is gender, and along with it the assumption that all men are privileged (especially if you’re white and identify as the gender you were born with). Then again, Buzzfeed is rafter infamous for its SJW politics. None of the questions make any sense from my perspective, and most of the gender-related questions seem like a transparent attempt to shame men into “checking their privilege”. And of course, there’s one question which asks if you make more money than a professional counterpart of a different gender. What difference does it make if I don’t even have a job? I live in the UK, and right now it’s hard enough as it is for people of my age to get a job. Why would I even care if I get paid more or less than a woman doing the same work? Never mind that the whole gender pay gap is pure nonsense. Not only do women not get paid less than men, they’ve been getting paid more than men over the past few years, so Buzzfeed doesn’t have any right to try and convince me otherwise.

Speaking of money, the next section is one I could actually take a bit more lightly, but again, this is an American quiz. Here in the UK, there are a number of people who don’t have a car and thus rely on public transportation to get around. I myself regularly took a bus to college, and I still have to use a bus or a train whenever I go out of my hometown. Suddenly the idea of white male privilege starts to crumble. However, a number of these questions don’t make sense because I don’t live on my own yet (I still have three more months before I move into halls, then I can worry about rent). Then we move on to education. This may astonish some people, but I actually did spend five years in a private school (the Boston Higashi School to be specific), but it wasn’t a sign of privilege. I had to go there because my parents felt it would do the most good for me, and believe me, it was ludicrously expensive. We almost had to sell our house. Does that sound like the position of somebody from a privileged family? Again, this is a website that doesn’t like nuance, and assumes you’re privileged if you don’t know what Sallie Mae is (I’ve heard that it’s an American student loans organisation, but that’s about all I know).

The questions on religion I find to be quite laughable. I’m an atheist in a country that is mostly atheists. I don’t think that necessarily counts as any form of privilege. It just means that people in the UK don’t give a shit if you’re atheist (unless you live in one of those Sharia law zones I’ve been hearing about). And then you have some questions that are just pure nonsense. “I have never lied about my ethnicity as self-defence” for example. I have a few questions for Buzzfeed. Why on Earth would I do that? Why would anyone in Britain or America lie about their ethnicity or religion as self-defence? What time period does Buzzfeed think we live in?

After all that nonsense and more, how “privileged” am I?


I don’t know what I find more amusing – the result of the quiz or the hypocrisy of the analysis. The logic here is that being “quite privileged” is not a bad thing nor something to be ashamed of. And here I thought the raging SJW’s at Buzzfeed despised privilege of all kinds. It’s like original sin to them, though in my case I think it’s just them being pompous. Also, I find the description rather disingenuous. I have had quite a few struggles, and many of them involved being taken seriously as someone with autism. Finally, what “advantages” do I have, why should I “work to help others who don’t have them”? Is there any reason why my life can’t be anything other than a progressive social justice cause?

No answer? I thought not.

There you have it. Buzzfeed has some very warped priorities if it spends its time convincing white boys that they’re awful because of how they’re born. Recently they’ve made a whole heap of stupid videos like this, and they all share the same bigoted premise. They’re in the same camp as the social justice morons who think that being not seeing race at all (sometimes referred to as “colour blindness”) is still somehow racist, and yet people basically just gobble it up without even thinking about it. I can’t help but think Buzzfeed is simply peddling this SJW nonsense to an impressionable young audience simply because it’s trendy, but then who am I to criticise. Aren’t I “privileged” after all?

check your privilege

And here come the SJW’s.

Why the left have lost it

owen jones walks out

In the wake of Sunday’s massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the whole world sent their thoughts and prayers to the victims. Once again, a deranged radical Islamic terrorist sought out to cause chaos and intimidate us into submission, as had previously happened in Paris and Brussels respectively, and in similar fashion, various cities around the world have lit up in rainbow colours to show their solidarity for the victims what has come to be known as the deadliest mass shooting in American history. Of course, there was no shortage of shady characters who sought to politicise the tragedy for their own agendas.

A Sky News conversation involving The Guardian’s Owen Jones quickly comes to mind. On a recent broadcast of Sky News Press Preview, the journalist clashed with the show’s host Mark Longhurst and guest Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Owen threw a hissy fit because they treated the Orlando attack as an act of terror (which it clearly was). Owen attempted to use his TV appearance to politicise the Orlando attack and frame it as an exclusively gay issue (though personally I think he was trying to make the Orlando attack about him), and Mark and Julia saw right through it. Whenever they pointed about the religious motivations behind the attack, he accused them of denying homophobia, which is an assumption he makes purely based on emotion, completely obfuscating the facts. In the end he found himself unable to provide a reasonable counterargument, and was unable to intimidate the two into submission, and so with no other options, walked out off the set in disgrace. On his subsequent article in The Guardian, he attempts to gloss over his lousy performance in a diatribe that’s filled with blatant lies. The problem here is that as a leftist, he simply can’t accept the fact that radical Muslims target homosexuals because it threatens the left-wing narrative of tolerance. He also won’t accept the possibility that the gunman was mentally disturbed, because it threatens his own personal narrative. In fact, using the word “lunatic” to describe the gunman evidently triggers him.

After it was revealed that the gunman, Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, was an Islamic extremist who pledged allegiance to ISIS and was also a registered Democrat, the mainstream media scrambled to look for something else to blame, fearing that addressing radical Islam would make them sound racist (even though Islam is a religion, not a race). To my dismay, this meant that video games were once again the target of opportunistic virtue signallers and self-appointed moral crusaders. In fact, the gaming press seemed to completely turn on the games industry, with news outlets such as The Verge and Polygon condemning shooter games for glorifying gun violence and so-called ” gun culture”. Of course, there’s no evidence that Omar Mateen was influenced by violent video games, but that apparently doesn’t concern the likes of Jonathan McIntosh, Bob Chipman (better known as “MovieBob”) and Jonathan Blow (the has-been creator of Braid), all of whom wish to use the Orlando attack to advance their agenda of injecting the gaming industry with social justice. It probably didn’t occur to them that as video games became more popular the rate of violent crime in America has actually decreased.

Video games weren’t the only thing put on the chopping block to avoid addressing radical Islam. Within hours after Omar Mateen’s death, Twitter was flooded with hashtags pressing for gun control (#GunControlNow springs to mind instantly). Indeed, Democrats in the US senate quickly moved to use the tragedy to push for greater gun control, and nearly every progressive has jumped on the bandwagon, pinning the blame squarely on the National Rifle Association. Let’s clear things up. In Florida, it’s actually illegal to openly carry a gun, but it allows you to carry many concealed weapons, which I guess is where the debate is coming from at least in that state. However, Omar Mateen was known to have carried a semi-automatic rifle, ownership of which is illegal under the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Contrary to what you might have been told, it’s not legal for an American to own an assault weapon, but that doesn’t completely stop people like Omar Mateen from acquiring one. Gun control doesn’t work because criminals don’t obey laws. If anything, increased gun restrictions will do nothing other than disarm law-abiding citizens, making the country less safe. France has some of the harshest gun control laws in all of Europe, and that didn’t stop the massacre in Paris, nor did it stop the Charlie Hebdo massacre several months earlier. Violating America’s second amendment rights, as many suspect Hillary will do, is about as effective at stopping mass shooters as a Jägerbomb is good for treating alcoholism. Once again, all of this is because the leftists in the mainstream media are so scared of inadvertently giving Donald Trump any sort of credibility that they’d rather disarm the country than admit that Islamic extremism is still a major problem that needs to be dealt with now more than ever.

I wish there was a better time for me to talk about this as opposed to while the world is still reeling from a horrific tragedy, but I really feel that the way the leftist media has tried to use the tragedy to advance their own agenda is just disgusting. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but at least he’s willing to address the problem of radical Islam directly, which is more than could be said of America’s current President and his preferred successor. I think that justice could only be served if we openly addressed the extreme ideas that influenced Omar Mateen to commit this atrocity upon humanity in the first place. The left’s ineptitude in this regard is why conservatives like Milo Yiannopoulos are gaining in popularity. It’s gotten to a point where even the LGBT community is willing to support Trump now, and that’s because the left has thrown them under the bus by refusing to address Islamic extremism, and instead trying to blame conservative Christians, despite the growing amount of Christians who are okay with gays. Also, isn’t it a little suspicious that the media criticises Trump for “point scoring”, while they’re perfectly fine with Obama and Hillary doing the same? I swear that this kind of nonsense from the left makes me want to turn to the right, because I can’t support the side that’s so engage in such a flagrant obfuscation of facts in order to advance their collectivist agenda.

The worst part about it is that while we sit here watching the left cannibalise itself over what they should call the Orlando shooting, ISIS is still running roughshod over the Middle East, and if they are directly responsible for the recent killings, then they’re taking advantage of the weakness of Western leaders. I say that we cannot sit in silence for much longer. We know what inspired Omar Mateen to go out and kill innocent people, and we need to be strong in the face of despair. By caving into leftist nihilism and political correctness, we are showing our enemy that we are weak, and will be intimidated by terror, and as long as that’s happening, the terrorists have already won.

Can you trust The Guardian?


“Can you believe this shit?”

In high school, I was apparently very interested in the topic of media bias, but I never addressed my own biases. I was mainly grilling the obviously right-wing news outlets, and while I mentioned the left-wing outlets (thinking MSNBC might be too biased to the left), there was always one news outlet that I apparently trusted, seemingly with blind faith – The Guardian. They seemed like the a rational, reasonable news outlet. I knew they were left-wing, but I didn’t think they were extreme. But something’s been troubling me lately – their latest patronising campaign freedom of speech.

All week long, the Guardian website has been running a series of articles which, they claim are about the growing phenomenon of online harassment. In reality, it’s their excuse to wag their fingers at everyone on the web. One example of such articles is “the dark side of Guardian comments”, which basically comprises of a bunch of privileged London-centric writers reading over some of the “vile and abusive” comments they’ve received, and the article only shows you the point of view of the writers who were offended. It also contains a quiz in which you are given the opportunity to moderate a selection of comments. Whatever you answer, you’ll find that the Guardian is very keen on blocking any comments that they find ideologically unappetising (they will block any comments critical of feminism without question).

While we’re on that subject, The Guardian’s statistics on the matter are very shaky. They claim that “of the 10 most abused writers eight are women, and the two men are black”. To me, that just screams of not just sexism, but also racism and ideological cherrypicking. Of course they would make this up, because that would fit the left-wing narrative that anyone who isn’t a white male is a victim needing our protection. If you ask me, that narrative sounds a bit unsettling, mainly because it now seems like the Guardian is now pushing internet censorship, almost in Orwellian fashion. More worryingly though, their mentality on this reeks of leftist self-flagellation for ancestral sins. For them, all the world’s woes are caused by “privileged” white people, and they never corroborate this notion with any real facts.

For a paper that claims to love democracy, it seems to have completely turned its back on freedom of speech. One article, written by a clearly oversensitive writer named Owen Jones, wrote an article about trolls, but used it to proclaim that freedom of speech could “poison the very bloodstream of democracy”. If anything’s poisoning our democracy, it’s obviously people like him, and all those like him who wish to use fear to turn the public against freedom, and this is not an isolated case. For The Guardian, freedom of speech is “elitist”, and yet they never explain how, as if everyone who reads it is supposed to know. Then again, this is the exact same news outlet that claimed that banning porn on campus gave students more freedom of choice. Not only is it lunacy, but it’s also poorly justified.

Most of The Guardian’s editorials are concerned with the safety of women. Why? Don’t we live in a safe country? If they wanted to worry about women’s safety, what about those poorer countries where young girls are impregnated and forced to marry older men at a young age? I don’t hear their concern about that. Their only concern appears to be privileged middle class women, especially if they happen to be female journalists. They’ve basically become a sounding board for the worst brand of highly processed neofeminism under the guise of journalism. If you don’t believe me, then it’s worth noting that whenever the men’s rights movement ever comes up in one of their articles, they always patronise the idea, as if men are too privileged for their concern. That patronising tone only masks the obvious sexism of the writers. For them, women are always the victims, and when you associate women with a perpetual state of victimhood, then you’re a sexist pretending not to be, and by my books, there’s absolutely no difference.

Worst of all is The Guardian’s insistence that the Internet is a dangerous place. Those privileged, London-centric writers apparently can’t stand the idea of there being a place with no rules. Oh wait, there’s already such a place. It’s called life. All those rules we have, we’ve literally just made them up from paper. Tear all that away, and life here on Earth would be just as lawless as the Internet, but I digress. The Guardian writers insist that the Internet needs more regulation in order to protect women from online harassment, which is fine until they run an article which explicitly states that writers “shouldn’t have to put up with abuse and insults”. To be fair, they don’t. They could just quit, or better yet, stop reading the comment section! If you want my opinion, the possibility of being harassed by virulent trolls is simply a part of having your opinions out in the open. I certainly didn’t care about that when I started this site, and I was 18 years old. Considering that the average Guardian writer must be over 30, I’d say that, even in my early days, I’m definitely more mature than a bunch of writers who complain about harassment.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I don’t condone harassment or rape threats anymore than the next man, but this is not the way to handle it. I was once harassed by a swathe of Welsh nationalists over a post I had written in 2013 (the post was since deleted, which I’ll admit was a bad move on my part). In that post, I tried to make the argument that we shouldn’t be forced to learn the Welsh language, but I accused the Welsh nationalists of fascism (which, again, was a bad move on my part). Even after being bombarded with annoying and ideologically unpalatable comments, I didn’t clamour for increased regulation. I moved on, like I feel we should all be doing, and I’m not alone. Stephen Fry, in an interview with Dave Rubin, expressed worry about the climate of censorious self-pity currently dominating our society, and, perhaps because of how he phrased it more than anything else, most of the media turned on him, especially social media and, surprise surprise, The Guardian, who claimed that nobody would be listening to him if he were poor. Does that sound like the standard bearer of quality journalism, or the wailing throngs of the failed excuse for a journalist, drowning in his own biases, presumably while locked away in his safe space.

They keep screeching about how we have to stop online harassment, but they have no intention of explaining how they think we should do so, and neither have they attempted to reconcile that with the need to preserve free speech. What they fail to realise is that you can’t stop online harassment. You can’t stop any form of expression that goes on in the Internet, at least not without punishing the innocent first, because inevitably the innocent are always prosecuted before the guilty when pandering to mass hysteria. Of course, The Guardian doesn’t care. They’re only interested in stirring up moral panic. Ladies and gentlemen, they’ve become Mary Whitehouse, but this time, the target of their witch hunt seems to be anyone on the Internet who dares disagree with them, because they’ve been lumped into the same group as the genuine abusers, who are the ones that should be punished in the first place.

To me, all this sounds like The Guardian never really got over Gamergate, because the rhetoric of The Guardian is largely indifferent to the rhetoric of the social justice warriors, except for the fact that The Guardian’s writers go through contortions to sound cultured, purely for the purpose of making its readers feel like idiots (or smarter for having read them, which they’re not). At least with “The Web We Want”, the mask has finally crumbled, and we can now see The Guardian for what it really is – an illiberally leftist mouthpiece for those who wish to advance their authoritarian narrative. At this point, you can’t trust them anymore than you can trust such skeezy tabloids as The Sun or The Daily Star. If you see a copy of the paper in your local newspaper, don’t pick it up. Buying their papers only supports their agenda, as the writers and editors carefully count their money,  while presumably locked away in their safe spaces as they write the next post about how we’re apparently evil for using the Internet, ignorant of the fact that most Internet users probably aren’t as bad as they think. Maybe if they took their heads out of their asses for just a minute, they’d probably see that.

Buzzfeed and the romance of news and advertising

Journalism itself seems to be falling on hard times. The traditional news mediums (newspapers, TV news, magazines, etc.) are having trouble making as much money as they used to, seeing as we can get our news for free on the Internet, and without the self-righteous TV personalities. Unfortunately, the vast majority of news outlets, whether online or offline, are highly dependent on advertising for revenue, and in the digital age, this means that nearly all news sites are bombarded by ads, and thanks to a phenomenon called native advertising, you can find articles that are often blatantly written for the purpose of promoting for a company.


I’m looking at you, Buzzfeed.

Buzzfeed is guilty of what is perhaps the most blatant example of pandering in the whole world wide web. On top of its predilection for sensationalism, grade-school writing and lowest-common-denominator language, Buzzfeed’s primary source of income is producing ads that pretend to be content, and they don’t even try to hide it. I found two “uni advice” articles from them. One of them with a blatant advertisement for HSBC student accounts, and the other was a blatant advertisement for Sky student broadband package. It turns out that Buzzfeed literally does this almost all the time. You can pretty much walk into the site and see an article like “10 Apps All Parents Wish They Had”, and it’ll be extremely obvious that it’s an ad for Google Play (the site doesn’t even hide the company logo).

Then again, this should be very obvious. Buzzfeed is essentially the online equivalent of The Sun newspaper. It uses almost the same kind of language that tabloid newspapers do, but it takes a step lower than that. The vast majority of Buzzfeed’s articles are simply lists that are made up of random images plucked from Reddit and Tumblr, and it has a vast media empire based on populating the internet with idiotic nostalgia articles designed to appeal to readers who grew up in the 1990’s (a decade plagued with so many embarrassments to mankind I won’t even speak of them). If it’s not 90’s nostalgia, then it’s anything else that doesn’t even constitute as news, such as lists about pop culture icons, and very often posts about celebrities (as if we don’t hear enough about them already).

As painfully dumb as Buzzfeed is, they’re not the only ones doing it. They’re just the most egregious and unscrupulous example. The Atlantic once ran a sponsored article about David Mascavige, an obvious advertisement for the Church of Scientology. The Atlantic later pulled the article, but it was saved by Gawker, and has since been roundly mocked by pretty much every news website out there. Gawker, meanwhile, is guilty of its own native advertising crimes. It once published an article entitled “How to Transform Into a Total Nerd Babe”. Aside from it already being a bafflingly sexist article in principal, it also turns out to be an ad for a TV show called “King of the Nerds” (a short-lived reality TV series whose purpose was to shamelessly promote outdated “nerd” stereotypes).

Of course, all of this represents a problem in online journalism. Just like print and TV journalism before it, online journalism is dependent on advertising to make money, and the current model of advertising, as demonstrated by the likes of Buzzfeed, appears to be continuing unabated. This means that as long as native advertising remains highly profitable, then news websites will continue to employ it, and that means that we will continue to see skeezy websites like Buzzfeed churning out articles that are essentially blatant ads, undermining the content they wish to cloak their advertising in to begin with.