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.

Don’t trust the Democrats


With Hillary Clinton definitely the Democrat nominee to contest Donald Trump, the Democrat party has never seemed more like an establishment party than it has now, but as degenerate and corrupt as Hillary is, she is the least of my concerns right now. On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, a number of leaked emails were released by WikiLeaks, and the content of the leaked emails indicated that the DNC intentionally rigged the Democrat primaries in favour of Hillary Clinton, with more leaks on her expected to be released soon.

The amount of corruption and collusion revealed by the leaks was so great that it led to Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as chair of the DNC, only to become a part of Hillary’s campaign. Of course, if you were a Bernie supporter, you’re probably furious right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole scandal spawned a new wave of Never Hillary voters, which it absolutely should because Hillary is such a fundamentally unlikable politician. The thing to be remembered, however, is that Hillary is the creature of the Democrat establishment, and this isn’t the first time that the Democrats have dabbled in corruption. In fact, some would argue that the Democrats have always been corrupt. Now I don’t personally feel that the Democrats have always been corrupt, but I think they are definitely the shadiest of all political parties, and believe me, corruption is just one aspect of why the Democrats are untrustworthy.

I’ll start by talking about an issue that Democrats just love to exploit – race. Back in the 19th century, it was the Democrats who wanted to keep black people in chains. What progressives tend to forget is that slavery was abolished in 1865, by a Republican named Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the Republican Party was founded primarily as an abolitionist party back in 1854. The 13th Amendment, which effectively made slavery unconstitutional, was universally supported by Republicans in congress, but curiously, only 23% of Democrats in congress supported it. So why did the Democrats want to maintain slavery in America? Some would say this is because the Democrats in those days were simply the more conservative party back in the day (much like today’s Republicans). However, I personally think that for them to want to preserve slavery obviously meant that they profited in some way from it, as that was certainly the case for most of the world until Britain abolished slavery. The main reason the Democrats supported slavery seems to have been to maintain support from the Southern factions, including the wealthy slaveholders who may or may not have been backing the party.

Even after the abolition of slavery, the Democrats still held deeply racist attitudes that would make the modern Democrat party look very hypocritical. The Democrats supported Jim Crow laws that were in effect from the Reconstruction era up until 1965, and despite what the left may have told you, it was actually the Democrats who established the KKK. In the mid-1860’s, the fact that many black people identified with the Republican Party made it difficult for Southern Democrats to attain power, so they created the KKK with the sole purpose of controlling the electorate by intimidating Republicans (both black and white by the way). The Democrats were the party that opposed anti-lynching laws, and even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is considered one of the best Presidents to ever run the union, held back anti-lynching laws. People didn’t start thinking that the Republicans were racist until Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Right Act of 1964 (which inevitably attracted the support of racist Democrats), giving leftists the opportunity to smear all Republicans as vile racists for the next five decades, this despite the fact that it was the Republicans who were pushing the Civil Rights Act through. Since then, the left has now been able to shame gullible voters onto their side by smearing white Republicans as racists, and black Republicans as “Uncle Toms”. The Democrats and Republicans never switched positions. The Democrats simply adopted a different strategy for dealing with black voters – namely by becoming the party of the welfare state, which brings us to our next topic.

Since the days of the civil rights struggle, the Democrats had essentially become the party of the left, and that meant big government, and a pushing of the welfare state. Democrats will constantly proclaim that they care about the working class, but if you ask me, there’s nothing kind about keeping poor people dependant on government money. In fact, I feel that the only purpose for expanding the welfare state is to keep lazy people dependant on it, who will in term vote for bigger government, which is exactly what the Democrats want. What they won’t tell you is that Democrat policies, implemented without restraint, ruin local communities. A good example would be the city of Detroit, Michigan, a city that used to be famous for being the centre of the automotive industry in America, but after being consistently run by incompetent Democrat mayors for the past five decades, the city gradually became one of the sorriest, most run-down cities in America, to the point that it declared bankruptcy in 2013.

It’s also rich to hear Democrat supporters claim that they’re the party for the working class, when this is the same party that nominated one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory. As I mentioned in my post three weeks ago, Hillary is backed by large corporations and hedge funds who probably don’t give a damn about the working class, and it’s their interests that Hillary will be answering to in the end. If they cared about the working class, they would probably nominate the candidate who actually gave a damn (Bernie was a socialist, but at least he gave air to the concerns of the poor), but they’re main goal this year is to ensure Hillary’s coronation.

Finally, it’s important to note that the Democrats claim to be the liberal opposition to the Republicans, but a cursory glance tells me that the only truly liberal party is the Libertarian Party. It makes no sense that a party that actively seeks to empower the state could honestly be called liberal. In fact, the Democrats are actively trying to take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms, under the guise of common sense. The true liberals would support your right to self-defence. What we’re seeing from the Democrats, meanwhile, is cold statism in the making, and yet the Republicans are the bad guys.

I’m no Republican, but I certainly don’t trust the Democrats, especially not with Hillary as their nominee. What’s even sadder is that the presidential race has essentially come down to two of the worst candidates either party has had in history. As bad as Donald Trump might sound, I think Hillary will do more harm to the country by depriving it of the change it so desperately craves because it is suffocating under the Democrat status quo. If America elects Hillary, then the only person who wins is Hillary.

Why Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted

hillary clinton

For most people, the US election has come down to two candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Personally I would rather that people consider Gary Johnson instead, but it looks like most people are only concerned with Trump vs. Clinton. However, if I was forced to choose between just Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, as so many Americans feel compelled to, something tells me that I would rather see Donald Trump be elected president. Trump isn’t my candidate of choice, but I like that he is actually capable of appealing to the average man, and he does so often entertainingly. Besides, out of all the candidates, the one I hate the most is Hillary Clinton.

Before anyone gets rubbed the wrong way, hear me out. Ever since I heard about Hillary, I mainly knew her as the wife of Bill Clinton, and for a while, that’s all she was to me. Even when she was Secretary of State, I never got what I was supposed to see in her, or why she was even in that position (though I later found out that the Secretary of State is appointed by the President). I personally believe that people only support Hillary for the following reasons.

  1. She is a woman, and that means electing the first female President (given that I come from a country that elected the Iron Lady, that distinction is completely meaningless to me).
  2. She is apparently very experienced (never mind that her negligence led to an attack on the American embassy in Benghazi, in which four Americans were killed).
  3. Voting for her means voting against Trump (probably one of the stupidest reasons to vote for a candidate).

The problem with American politics is that many Americans tend to be very tribal and simplistic when it comes to politics. If you’re not a Republican, then you must be a Democrat, and vice versa. In this case, that also means that if you’re a liberal, you must support Hillary Clinton, and if you’re a conservative, you must support Donald Trump. Neither assumption is true, giving the number of liberals who denounce Hillary, and the number of Republicans who want Trump gone.

Back to my point. What really irks me is when people say that “you’re gonna vote Hillary rather than Trump”, assuming that voting Hillary is the sane option. It’s very odd that young people, the people who should be diametrically opposed to the establishment, would rather support a candidate who represents the establishment more than any other candidate. It also bothers me that the establishment media outlets give Hillary unwavering praise, and that the Democratic Party is so willing to hand the nomination to her. That’s one reason why I don’t trust her. The other reason is that she will say literally say anything for public approval. In the past, she used to be opposed to gay marriage, but by the time of last year’s Supreme Court ruling, she appears to be fully in favour of it. Don’t even bother trusting her on the Iraq War, because she voted on favour of it. She also frequently avoids answering questions addressed to her, such as on the ABC interview where Hillary refused to clarify whether she was in favour of the Second Amendment, despite saying in 2008 that she supported gun rights. You literally can’t trust her on any position at all.

She’s also a pathological liar. Aside from all the times she’s flip-flopped on various positions, she once claimed that she landed under sniper fire during her visit to Bosnia in 1996, but even CBS could prove that was an utter lie. In reality, she was greeted peacefully, and there was no sniper fire at any of the army outposts she visited. Say what you will about Donald Trump lying, but Hillary always knows that she’s lying, and she lies more than anyone else in politics. Some role model she must be for young girls.

As bad as Donald Trump might be, he’s certainly no worse than Hillary, one of the most corrupt politicians in recent history. Besides the email server scandal, there’s a wealth of evidence that points to Hillary’s brazen corruption. Hillary used to be a strong advocate of socialised healthcare (I don’t know if I agree with the idea, but it’s nice that she once stood by that), but in 2006, she became the second-most highly paid recipient of donations from the healthcare industry, and since then she has never spoken about the matter again. Hillary is also known to have taken money from a number of multi-national corporations, including Citigroup, Time Warner, Dreamworks and Goldman Sachs (the company whose support I suspect is what gets people elected, since Obama had their support and he won), and shady investors such as Haim Saban and George Soros (who some suspect is paying people to disrupt Donald Trump’s rallies). She also takes in millions of dollars from regressive nations in the Middle East where being gay is punishable by death, with the biggest contributions coming from Saudi Arabia, who donated up to $50 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Speaking of Bill, Hillary also has a history of covering up her husbands affairs, as evidenced by the numerous former mistresses and rape victims who have come out and revealed the extent to which Hillary has been an enabler for Bill’s rampant sexual assaults. Juanita Broaddrick, a woman Bill Clinton allegedly raped in 1978, recalled that in a meeting with Hillary, she implied that Juanita should remain silent about the incident. It seems laughable that Hillary can campaign on women’s issues when she practically allowed Bill to abuse women.

And then of course there’s the recent scandal surrounding leaked emails from her private server. This was being covered up by her, her husband, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, with the latter being accused of taking bribes from Hillary. If you need final proof of Hillary’s corruption, yesterday’s verdict should suffice. The Justice Department decided not to press charges against Hillary, this coming after FBI director James Comey decided that there was “no basis for a criminal case”, despite the mounds of evidence for a criminal case in the form of the leaked emails.

What’s really telling is that David Petraeus can be charged for mishandling classified information while Hillary Clinton can walk away a free woman shows how corrupt she is. She is so entrenched within the political establishment that she can literally avoid punishment. It’s gotten so bad that open the revelation that she wouldn’t be charged, the people took to the Internet to express their disgust through memes.

laws are for poor people

At this rate, I fail to see how Donald Trump isn’t going to be elected. In my mind, Hillary represents everything that is so disgustingly corrupt about the American political establishment. She is a symbol of the status quo, and I’m not surprised why the elites want Hillary for president. However, we can’t trust Hillary. Her Machiavellian scheming has contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS, and if elected president, she will basically continue the status quo of the Obama administration, and she will do this because the elites benefit from this.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a damn about ordinary Americans. If she did, she would address the issues that Donald Trump has taken on board as part of his platform. I believe that she won’t because she is incapable of effectively challenging Trump on the issues that matter, and she would rather that ordinary people shut up and do what she tells them to do. She’s the American equivalent of Britain’s Theresa May, but she’s a thousand times worse. One of my biggest worries about 2016 is that America could do something completely insane – electing the most corrupt politician the world has ever seen. I fear this will happen because the mainstream media will most likely shame them into voting against their self-interest by guilt-tripping them into electing her because of her gender. So to my American readers, I would strongly reject Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for corruption, a vote for the globalist elites, and a vote for the cancerous old politics of yesteryear.

The UK government’s secret war on the disabled

There’s a burning issue out there that it seems a lot of people are ignoring. Three weeks ago, Conservative MP David Willetts announced changes to the Disabled Students Allowance. This basically involves awarding support only to those defined as having “complex needs”.

This might just be the most recent offence, but I think this is part of something bigger. In my opinion, the coalition government is attempting to reduce costs for themselves by cutting the support that countless disabled people across Britain.

david willetts

Just that this man is fanning the flames of hatred.

At present, the government has a disablist attitude, perhaps because it wants to avoid hurting their real masters – the rich and powerful. If that’s not enough, the government still has contracts with Atos, a multinational French IT company that receives contracts for public services that were outsourced from various governments.

Atos is currently responsible for carrying out Work Capability Assessments on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions. Their handling of the WCAs is notorious for being skewed against the claimant. To qualify for full sickness benefits, one must get a certain number of points, which are deducted for any area in which you are healthy.

Naturally, many disabled people and disability rights activists are extremely offended, mainly because these assessments wind up deeming patients suffering from brain damage, multiple sclerosis, and various other terminal illnesses as “fit for work”. Atos’ criminal incompetence was usually followed by slow, painful deaths within days or even weeks of benefits being cuts.

There’s another twisted side to this story. Last year, the courts have found that the WCAs weren’t fit for their purpose, and that they disadvantage the mentally handicapped, and yet Atos is still doing this. It would appear that Atos had completely ignored the judgement of the courts.

With this in mind, it’s no wonder that many people view Atos as a force of pure evil.

atos kills

Atos may play a big role in all this, but they too are just another tool of the government, and therefore are just another part of their war against the disabled.

In the wake of the economic crisis, the disabled, the sick, and the poor became victims of scapegoating at the hands of the right-wing media, and the Conservatives, who would later seize power in 2010 by seducing the Liberal Democrats.

Throughout the 2010’s, a new wave of disablist rhetoric has caused hate crimes against the disabled to rise to an all-time high. It’s really sad and pathetic that disabled people are still treated and second-class citizens, and even killed. Some disabled people have even been falsely accused of sexual crimes, and these accusations have contributed to numerous deaths.

The worst part about this is that none of this has been stopped. We’re living in the 21st century, and yet, somewhere out there, disabled people are still the victims of scapegoating and hate crime because they don’t fit into a box that doesn’t exist.

Thankfully, there are people out there who are willing to fight back, whether it’s against cuts to the Disability Student Allowance, or against hate crimes against the disabled. Their campaigns are more important now than they ever were in the past, for as long as they stand in the way, the government will not be able to go unopposed for long.

Perhaps the most important thing to do is to change society’s view of disabled people in general, to reverse the tidal wave of toxic “scrounger” rhetoric.

Why pop stars and boy bands are bad for society


“Stay away from my children you freaks!”

Throughout the 2000’s, we have seen a rise in the talentless hacks known as boy bands. They’ve been around since the 80’s, but since then they’ve spread like cancer all over the earth. We’ve also been seeing the rise of those talentless pop stars (usually girls).

I’ve already talked about how the pop industry is trying to sexualise our children, and how we’re fully aware of it, we’re not doing anything about it, and we somehow consider it acceptable. For this post, I think I should consider the wider effects of the influence of this trashy, mainstream culture that is single-handedly dumbing down our culture, and the next generation of kids and teens.

In order to truly understand why they’re so bad, one must consider that whenever a young person sees something popular, he/she will invariably try to imitate it. Boy bands like 1Direction come out with this clean, shiny, and almost gay look, and if they’re popular, boys will try to copy that look in order to get laid. Whether or not that actually works is not important.

Pop stars, assuming they’re all girls, usually wear make-up, or tan their skin because they assume we’ll like it. Unfortunately, this leads to them getting the whole “Jersey Shore look”, complete with fake tan, and an overdose of makeup. It’s horrifying, and yet everywhere I go, I see at least one girl imitating that style, and there’s plenty of them!

The popularity of tanning is actually quite worrying, considering that in order to get said tan, one must go to a tanning bed. This is a bad thing as said tanning beds have been known to cause a type of skin cancer called melanoma, a dark, malignant tumour that is the cause for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Teen girls are risking death by skin cancer, all because celebrities have subliminally implanted them with an insidious sense of insecurity, that leads them to think that tanning themselves will make them look beautiful, when it’s actually making them look uglier.

Another worrying part of the whole craze is, as I previously mentioned, the fact that they are out to sell sex to young kids and teens. Consider also that we have seen a rise in teen pregnancy recently. How would that be possible? Part of it is teenagers listening to popular pop song with overtly sexual lyrics, and later having unprotected sex, which then leads to either disease or pregnancy. It’s a known fact that teenagers are far too irresponsible and immature to be ready to look after a baby, so when the teen mom abandons the baby, then unless someone finds the baby and takes care of it, he or she will grow up into a life of crime as a result of poor upbringing (or no upbringing at all).

For one final point, I imagine that these pop stars undergo cosmetic surgery (presumably for fake boobs) so they can appear to look better. As if we don’t already have the fashion and cosmetics industries to make women feel insecure about their looks, and all of a sudden, cosmetic surgeries have been going on the rise over the past decade. I imagine that young women and girls are being pressured by their peers and the media to go under the knife at their own expense to make themselves look “prettier”.

I hope those boy bands, pop stars, and other talentless celebrities are proud of themselves. They’re not only dumbing down our culture, they’re also corrupting our young with feelings of insecurity, and therefore slowing down the progress of mankind.

The war on drugs is just a moral scam


No thanks man, I’m fine.

The war on drugs has been going on for over 40 years, and it has done nothing good for society. In fact, for a few years now, I’ve been doing some research, and I’ve found that drugs aren’t bad (or at least not all of them). In fact, a genuine drugs researcher named David Nutt once said that alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than many of these illegal drugs.

So what is the war on drugs about? That’s easy. It’s the government’s campaign to tell us what we can and can’t do. They can’t stand that there’s a way to be happy without religion or commercialism, and when it comes to drug law, the US and UK are still stuck in the ’70s.

Our view of drugs seems to be warped as well, seeing as many of the drugs that have been criminalized are actually harmless. For example, the drug mephedrone was once a legal high before it was criminalized in 2010. How many mephedrone-related deaths were there before the ban? Only 2! Yes, only those two people were killed, reportedly as a result of overdose of the drug, yet the tabloids made such a big deal out of it, that the government felt they had to ban it, even though there’s a world of evidence to show that it’s not nearly as harmful as tobacco ever could be.

To be frank, there’s a whole world of evidence to show that the war on drugs has nothing to do with preventing crime, and everything to do with social control.

I’m of course talking about the anti-drug culture of the ’80s. In America, the whole sorry mess began in 1984, when then-First Lady Nancy Reagan launched her didactic “Just Say No” campaign, which was initially designed to “discourage children from illegal drug use”. It was a way of feeding outdated, Christian moral values to children, which was proven when it expanded to also discouraging violence and premarital sex. Soon after the Just Say No campaign started, every kid’s favourite cartoons became riddled with insidious moral messages (does anyone remember G. I. Joe?).

Then, in April 1990, Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue, an exploitative, preachy pile of cartoon tripe designed to drill government propaganda into innocent children, was released to the American public. You can definitely tell it’s propaganda because the VHS release opens with an introduction from then-President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara Bush (the intro is edited to feature other world leaders in overseas releases). It’s also nothing more than cheap exploitation of the power of cartoon mascots to deliver a cheesy moral message.

Call me crazy, but doesn’t this whole fiasco remind anyone of the Prohibition?


For those of you who are too young to remember (which I’ll admit that I am), the Prohibition was the dreaded era in American history between 1920 and 1933, when alcohol was banned. The prohibition era is well remembered because it saw the rise of the mafia, and many law officers and politicians became corrupt. Rather than reducing crime, outright prohibition of alcohol was actually a godsend for violent criminal organizations (which were later glamourized by Hollywood). Even back then, the prohibition was considered an intrusion of puritanical moral values on a more “modern” society.

Does this sound familiar? Many drugs are illegal based solely on conservative Christian moral values, and the old drug laws haven’t reduced crime at all. In fact, it’s been leading to the rise of drug cartels in Mexico and other parts of Central America, and all over the world, all of whom got rich off illegal drug smuggling while many innocent people died.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are looking at history repeating itself.

Do we really want a repeat of the prohibition era, let alone all over the world? If we want the killing to stop, and crime to go down, then the only right thing to do is to stop the war on drugs, and legalize the least harmful recreational drugs (like marijuana). Besides, the old drug laws are clearly failing. Politicians in the UK and the US know it, the people know it, and it’s only a matter of time before the war on drugs fails on its own.

Let’s remember that after the prohibition era, alcohol became as socially acceptable as it is today. In fact, it’s now a big, regulated industry that profits off misery. If history really is repeating itself, then the aftermath of decriminalization will be exactly the same. Recreational drugs will become socially acceptable, to the point that there will be a major industry based around it. It would probably cripple the alcohol industry, but I don’t think that’s too bad. If it means the end of puritanical moralism, then I couldn’t be happier.