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.


“Angry mob justice” is no justice at all

shoreditch mob

Now what do you suppose that’s going to solve?

Last night, an angry mob of 200 people descended upon an East London cereal cafe, the much-maligned Cereal Killer Cafe, splashing paint and daubing the word “scum” on the shop windows and setting fire to an effigy of a police officer. The mob consisted of people wearing pig masks and carrying flaming torches. They claimed that the shop represented gentrification and inequality in the local area, while the self-declared “protesters” did little more than terrify the customers inside the shop. Ladies and gentlemen, the angry mob has struck once more.

Of course, anyone with even half a brain can tell that angry mobs have never done anything good. The Shoreditch mob was simply the latest in a long line of angry mobs flailing mindlessly in their vain attempt to dispense a hopeless interpretation of justice. They say they oppose gentrification and inequality, but if that were true, why attack a small cereal shop? You may as well be attacking a specialist cake shop, and it would be equally ineffectual. Furthermore, if they really believed in their case, then wouldn’t even be hiding behind their masks. Of course, only real reason you’d ever hide behind a mask is if you were committing a crime, and that’s all angry mobs really are – a band of petty thugs without cause.

Let’s take a moment to examine the kind of people who started the attack. They claim that their community is being ripped apart by foreign businessmen, using xenophobic language to point the finger at businessmen from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Texas, all while failing to clarify what they have to do with a small cereal shop. In fact, none of the rioters would clarify where they came from, so the East End mob comes across as little more than a gathering of angry morons who, rather than targeting large conglomerates, have elected to scapegoat a small business that does nothing more than sell cereal at an unusual price. The rioters probably thought of themselves as brave, but they weren’t. And by the way, setting up an Indiegogo page just to fund a “banging sound system” has nothing to do with fighting gentrification, and everything to do with shameless self-promotion, and the very kind of money-grabbing they claim to oppose.

If you ask me, so-called mob justice is a dangerous relic of the Dark Ages. It’s basically what happens when fear and impassioned hatred overcome the masses, and the end result is nothing more than pointless violence for its own sake, fuelled of course by demagoguery and self-righteous furor. I recognize that gentrification is an open-ended problem, but attacking a small business and terrifying the customers and staff inside can only do more harm than good. That’s the only thing that happens in an angry mob, and in this day and age, there’s no chance of it doing anything but spread fear and panic wherever the mob goes.

Why Britain needs the right to self-defence

Let’s compare two English-speaking nations together side-by-side. In America, they have “the right to keep and bear arms”, an amendment to their constitution which guarantees citizens the right to gun ownership, and thus allowing Americans the right to self-defence. In the UK, however, guns are totally banned, and we hear about murders in the news almost all the time.

I hope the government realizes that banning guns doesn’t do anything. When you make anything illegal, criminals will always find a way around them, because what the law seems to forget is that criminals don’t obey the law. That’s why we call them criminals in the first place.

Besides, private gun ownership has been banned in the UK for a very long time, and the right to self-defence has been denied since 1968, and look what happened in that time. We’ve had numerous firearm-related incidents, and not to mention the odd shooting. More recently, there was the Cumbria shootings in 2010, which happened not long after David Cameron became Prime Minister.

If you’re an American, you’d think this is a good reason to let Britons have their guns, but no. Apparently David Cameron disagrees with common sense. He was taking the moral high ground the whole way through, and I believe he actually wanted gun regulations to be even tighter. They’re already very tightly regulated, and violence still happens.

Also, lets imagine what would happen if Britons were allowed to have guns. Would we be more crime-ridden? No. We would be able to defend ourselves from violent criminals, and thus the crime rate would actually drop. Yes, criminals would still try and attack you, but you’d be able to fight back at least. This is also very important in big cities like London or Birmingham. If the news media is to be believed, big British cities are riddled with crime. Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow people in those cities to own guns for self-defence?

Then again, Britain is one of the wimpiest nations on Earth, and it’s been turning this way since the empire collapsed in the late 40’s. Nowadays, it’s gotten so bad that police officers can’t use guns anymore, and yet in America, police officers do have guns, and from what I’ve heard, they’re capable of actually catching violent criminals. Apparently British lawmakers are focused on making sure everyone’s polite and nice all the time like in a Disney movie. What they don’t appear to realize is that the real world doesn’t work that way, certainly not for criminals.

Besides, our culture is slowly morphing into something more like America’s, so the way I see it, gun rights being okayed in the UK is inevitable anyway. One day, crime will get so bad that Britons may flee to America because there’s simply no other option. If you want crime to go down, then letting Britons use guns for self-defence is a good idea, because banning guns does nothing to stop violent crime.

Our overblown obsession with sex comes from centuries of repression

obsession with sexuality

Since the beginnings of the Sexual Revolution, our obsession with sex has exploded to unnatural levels. As a species, we are now lusting after increasingly more hardcore images in a society where sexual imagery has become all too common. Worse still, sexual imagery is also being delivered subliminally via the mainstream media, and it’s spreading to our children.

But don’t let the Christians, feminists, and politicians convince you into believing this is the porn industry’s fault. It’s a lie they use to deny people responsibility, and their sense of self-control. If you want the real reason for this happening, you simply have to remember the classic psychological quirk, that repression leads to obsession. In this case, centuries of sexual repression will inevitably blow up into a hyper-obsession.

What exactly am I talking about? I’m talking about the centuries in which religion has repressed our healthy sexual urges. In particular, repression that was administered by Christianity.

I want to make one thing clear. I do not hate Christians themselves. In fact, I’m pretty sure that most Christians may actually be nice people. Whenever I criticize Christianity, or any religion, as I am doing now, I criticize it as an institutionalized faith, not as a spiritual belief system.

Anyhow, in ancient times, sex and sexuality was seen as a normal part of life. In some societies, fertile women were exalted (though virgins were also prized in some societies). However, the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) were sexually repressive, advocated celibacy, forbade homosexuality, and were patriarchal. Other religions had a similar philosophy, but Christianity actively sought to supplant the religions of other countries.

When the Catholic Church took over Europe, all the sexual freedom they had was vanquished in favour of an authoritarian system, where sexuality has become a taboo, where women no longer held any power or value. Truly, it was a sad, sad time.


Thanks a lot, Charlemagne.

What I’m trying to say is that the reason we have such an overblown obsession with sex is because the Church has been repressing it for over a thousand years.

It’s not exactly hard to come to that conclusion. The priests carry out their duties whilst enslaved to the doctrine of celibacy, where priests cannot marry a woman. Recent history has shown that this was a fatal mistake. Whenever a man is deprived of sex, he either turns to pornography, or worse, develops a depraved lust for young boys.

Because of this, the “rise of the pedophiles” is the result of sexual repression, which led to a bottled up obsession, and secret feelings of guilt and anxiety, which led to isolation from society. People turn into weird, depraved freaks when isolated from the rest of society, and this exact same psychology was prevalent within the priests accused of child abuse over the past decade.

Ever wondered why girls are now slowly trying to get the upper hand over men, trying to tie them down? The answer is simple. The sexual repression of the Dark Ages also brought with it a patriarchal society. Sexual repression also has the effect of subjugating women, due to the men in charge of patriarchal societies fearing the sexual power of women. In this case, the men think lowly of women who elicit sexual responses from them that would make them feel guilty. In the viewpoint of those men, they are defending themselves from perceived psychological attacks.

The women you see in the media are trying to be just like men because women were repressed by powerful men who feared the power of their sexuality. However, as a consequence, women in the media are often portrayed as just as insecure, self-absorbed, and controlling as the patriarchs of the old days.

I would also like to turn your attention to the efforts of American Christians to keep teens from having premarital sex.

purity ring

What a bunch of crap!

Some Christian groups in America have, in the past, tried to suppress the growing trend of premarital sex (which is perfectly natural considering the fact that marriage isn’t), and they are still trying to this day. I should say this right now, stopping premarital sex is a bad idea, because societies that prohibit premarital sex tend to have higher rates of violent crime, and any form of sexual repression in general is likely to increase the rates of rape, incest, child abuse, homicide, and even suicide.

In conclusion, if you want to figure out why we’re so overly obsessed with sex nowadays, you should blame the Church for constantly repressing our natural sexual urges for a thousand years. If we want to stop pedophilia, and if we want to stop sexual abuse, and if we want to end misogyny, we should end the sexual taboo. We should end the sexual repression, and finally loosen up. After that, our obsession with sex should go back down to its natural level.

Hell, if we end the sexual repression, maybe crime will go down, rape rates will go down, and if priests can marry women, then that will put an end to all the abuse in church. It’s the 21st Century, so now is the perfect time to end the repression.

Of guns and men

man with a gun

It’s been over a month since that whole horrible incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and the quarreling over guns rights just will not stop. Liberals are being incredibly divisive and manipulative so they can get assault weapons banned, while conservatives are fighting with vitriolic fervor, and a sea of blame games just to defend their constitutional right to bear arms.

I honestly don’t see why guns should be banned. We love guns, because as soon as you have a gun, you can kick ass and look cool doing it. Plus, if you have a gun, you’ll be able to defend yourself from thugs, cops, soldiers, and government oppression. Without a gun, you’re completely defenceless when danger comes at your door.

So when Hollywood liberals advocate that Americans relinquish their age-old gun rights, they’re fighting to make every last one of them defenceless. The worst part of all is that most Hollywood celebrities advocate gun control (even Jamie Foxx from the new Django Unchained), and any advocate of gun control believes that it will stop violent crimes. The reality is that it won’t. When will those liberals learn that criminals don’t care what the law saws, that’s why they’re criminals. If gun control was put in place, then criminals will be able to bust into your house, and take all your valued possessions, or possibly rape your loved ones, while you’re totally defenceless.

I’m sorry, but I can’t support something that allows a complete mockery of fairness and justice to take place. Do gun control supporters actually believe that they are more moral than those who don’t? Well, if giving criminals what they want is moral to them, then they must be some of the most immoral folk on the planet.

For you, it sounds like I’m actually supporting gun rights. If you’ve come to that conclusion already, then congratulations, you’re quite perceptive. I suppose I should tell you why I would support gun rights. Let me start by telling you about someone who doesn’t: Piers Morgan.

piers morgan

a.k.a. The biggest git in the universe!

Who is he? Well, he’s one of the biggest whores in all journalism. He worked for tabloids like the Daily Mirror, had close ties with the billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch, and for all I know he’s liberal.

Yes, this is about that whole rotten business on CNN. Let’s compare the two sides.

  1. Piers Morgan, a liberal Brit who has no business interfering with American politics, who took paychecks from tabloids who got neck deep in illegal phone hacking.
  2. Alex Jones, a libertarian talk radio host who talks a lot about “the new world order”, who is generally perceived as a nut job who believes in conspiracy theories.

As insane as it sounds, I actually think that in that entire interview, the only one with a point is Alex Jones. Sure, he destroyed most of his credibility, but he’s actually angry at the fact that a Brit would just waltz into American culture, and tell an American that his/her beliefs are somehow wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t even like Alex Jones, but if one of the big supporters of gun control is such an insufferable git, then I think I’d rather support gun rights.

Besides, the Nazis implemented gun control, and look where that took them. And it wasn’t just them. Every dictatorship ever known has outlawed the use of guns by civilians. Why? Because a defenceless population is easier to control than an armed population. If the US institutes gun control laws, they are effectively ripping up a part of the US constitution, and taking a step towards becoming a dictatorship.

In conclusion, we have guns because we need them to defend ourselves from the forces of totalitarianism, and the thugs and rapists from the streets. But in the UK, gun ownership is illegal, and through all the years we’ve seen innocent women and children getting killed on the street, because the thugs know they can get firearms, while the rest of us law-abiding citizens can’t.

This is proof that gun control doesn’t stop violent crime, rather it makes violent crime worse.