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.


Does sin exist?

seven deadly sins

“The Seven Deadly Sins and The Four Last Things” by Hieronymous Bosch (c. 1500)

We as humans like to extoll our concepts of right and wrong, but our understanding of right and wrong has been greatly distorted following the dominion of Christianity. Thus, the abstract concepts of sin and virtue became solid in the eyes of many. For most people, all they need is “sin is bad, and virtue is good”, but for those looking for answers beyond the pale, the ultimate question is this – does sin even object objectively?

From the moment we can walk and talk, we are taught of the notion of sin, and also that sin is the same as evil. We’re still taught a very one-sided view of right and wrong, and expected to obey it to the letter. Sin (or perhaps the guilt associated with its modern equivalent), therefore, is the mechanism by which society trains people to be ashamed of transgressing the rules of society. By contrast, virtue becomes a character that is expected of anyone seeking to avoid eternal damnation. This is why the Catholic Church created the Seven Heavenly Virtues (chastity, temperance, diligence, etc.) in contrast to their previous invention, the Seven Deadly Sins.

The chief problem with the concept of sin is that everything that’s called a sin happens to be linked with basic natural drives. For example, it’s somehow a sin to have sex outside of marriage, and marriage doesn’t even exist outside the walls of human civilization. By contrast, the virtues touted by society contradict our natural drives. For example, society expects us to give to poor, but this moral virtue is negated both by the natural desire to survive, and by the fact that society tends to glamorize wealth, greed and power far more than charity. Besides, poverty is an economic problem maintained by the current economic and class systems. It has almost nothing to do with whether or not you’ve sinned.

Since sin, virtue, and the boundaries of right and wrong are ultimately concepts written by humans, they can only be upheld by humans, and yet we act like they’re a quintessential part of the universe, without which we cannot exist. In my opinion, we can exist without the notions of morality. As far as I’m aware, pre-modern man did not have a concept of morals or ethics, and nor did they operate a concept of guilt and shame. These were all concepts invented by mankind during the dawn of civilization for the purpose of social cohesion, and they have only existed in human civilization.

Even though I believe that we can live without the concepts of sin, virtue, right, and wrong, I don’t believe that many us can do it so easily. This is because society has trained humans to abide by an artificial moral code, and we have convinced ourselves that without society, or indeed its morals and ethics, we will descend into savages who would just kill, pillage, and violate each other in a senseless orgy of self-destruction. If true, then that would be the psychosomatic response that has been programmed into mankind by a society that has spent all its energies convincing us that we are nothing more than virulent beasts that need to be tamed.

In summation, sin does not exist objectively. It does not exist in nature, and even if it does, it only exists on the planet Earth. The notion of sin, and indeed the concepts of virtue, morality and ethics, are all mere fabrications of mankind. That does not erase the value that they have for people. In fact, such things only have value, meaning or ramifications that humans give them. Even if sin did exist, it could only exist with humans to reinforce the concept, and all the social programming associated with it. If we all perish, then all our rules and moral concepts would die with us.

Do we really respect our elders?

retirement home

Oh god, it looks like a hellhole.

When we’re young, we’re often told to “respect our elders”, often by bitter adults who just want to sound self-important. Of course, we’re happy say “respect your elders”, while simultaneously sticking old people into retirement homes where they wither and die, all while slowly succumbing to the idea that they’re old.

I may be one of the young generation, but that doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion on the way we treat the older generation, or more specifically, the way we hypocritically claim to respect the elderly while use retirement homes to get revenge on them.

That’s right, I firmly believe that the concept of a retirement home is based on two things.

  1. The dominance of youth in our culture
  2. Revenge

I can’t help but think that a lot of old people who are in retirement are sent their by their spiteful offspring, who do this as a symbolic act of revenge on the people who used to tell them what to do all the time. If that’s true, evidently those people have no idea of how to put things into perspective. Yes, I was p*ssed off every time the adults told me what to do when I was a kid, and I didn’t like my parents deciding things for me, but that doesn’t mean I would put them in a retirement home.

Think about it. In a retirement home, the old people have everything done for them. This may sound comforting, but think about for a moment. If you have everything done for you, then you invariably have no reason to do anything yourself, and you lose the ability to do anything yourself, because now you depend on someone else, both mentally and physically. When you get old, and you get stuck in a retirement home, all that will eventually happen is that you’ll degenerate fairly quickly, and all you’ll have left to do is to wait until you eventually arrive at death’s door.

The idea of a retirement home is based on the outdated notion that old people are useless, as is the very idea of a mandated age of retirement. Why should people be forced to retire just because they’re old? What if old people still want to work past 65? Does that simply not matter?

Besides, not every old person needs or wants to be in a retirement home, and not every old person needs a social worker to look after them. My grandmother, for instance, is eighty years old, and is living independently.

Overall, if we really respected our elders, why would we even think of them as useless? If we really respected our elders, why would we just toss them into retirement homes where they degenerate faster than if they aren’t in retirement homes? I think it’s time we thought about the way we see old people, especially if we still have the outdated notion that old people have had their fun.

What happened to journalism?

howard beale

This is mass MADNESS!

Journalism used to be about analyzing and questioning the world around us. Journalists used to expose racist incidents, even in a time when racism was the norm. They used to question the reasons for war, even in the midst of the Vietnam war. They used to expose abuse of power committed by politicians, ultimately leading up to the Watergate scandal.

In other words, journalists used to be noble, up until the point where corporations decided to take control.

The Reagan government saw many media outlets get taken over by right-wing corporations like Capital City Communications, which famously took over ABC in 1985. Later on, in 1987, the American media’s obligation to be fair and balanced, the Fairness Doctrine, was repealed by Ronald Reagan, allowing outright propaganda to roam the American airwaves, and political discourse over there has devolved since then.

In the British media, journalism has decayed since the tabloids became popular, and we’ve let society become corrupted by the influence of the red top tabloids. We placed our trust in those sleazy tabloids as they corrupted journalism with the slime of populist tripe, and their still making money even after they’ve been found guilty of the most immoral conduct.

My point is, journalism and big business are now locked into a horrid relationship. Now, the news media won’t report the truth at all unless it sells. News outlets won’t even report anything that threatens the interests of their corporate owners. And nowadays, it’s more about exploiting stupidity, rather than opening our eyes.

You can’t help but think that something’s wrong if journalism is in the sorry state that’s in. I suppose we’re getting stupider as the years go by. Because of that, we let the influence of big media corporations cloud our judgment, and now we don’t give a damn about truth or bravery in the media, to the point that the most popular news stories are next big celebrity sex scandals.

This post is shorter than usual because I really couldn’t come up with much to write about, as this was supposed to be a rant.

Santa Claus is just a tool to keep kids in line

the church of santa claus

“Ho, ho, ho kids! It’s your lovable dictator, Santa Claus!”

It’s 15 days to Christmas, and by now every parent has fed their kids the same myth, “Santa Claus is coming to town. But it shouldn’t take a genius to figure out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Not only that, but parents literally lie to their kids about the existence of Saint Nick. Don’t believe me? Here are the most basic parts of the Santa myth:

  1. Santa lives up in the North Pole
  2. He can deliver presents to every child in the world in one night by stopping time
  3. He can see you when you’re sleeping
  4. He knows when you’re awake
  5. He has a list which he checks twice to see who’s “naughty or nice”.
  6. He gives coal to the naughty
  7. He rests for every day up until December 24

There’s no conceivable evidence for the existence of Mr. Claus, and yet not only does NORAD have a “Santa Tracker”, but parents have continued to perpetuate the lie that he does exist – to children. Why? Because it’s useful for them to get kids to be obedient little scamps for one whole month in the year, because it isn’t “Santa” who delivers the presents, it’s the parents, which means they have to get additional presents for their kids in order to perpetuate the lie.

Parents use the myth to get kids to behave, that’s the use of a lie to get kids to do what you want, which is highly unethical. For your sake, let’s call it “The Santa Trap”. Here’s how the Santa trap works. When Christmas season starts coming in, the parents tell them the story of Santa Claus, and tell them that “he will be bringing presents for him” if they conform to the parents’ expectations. To do this, they create the illusion that he is watching them, and will put them on the naughty list for only a few “bad acts”. The extreme version of this, which fundamentalists might enforce, would be some kind of vengeful, old testament Santa Claus.

An exact visualization of what I just said. Also, he is the Christmas Pope.

This means that the parents are creating the illusion of some almighty, god-like spirit who can freeze time so that they can control them, something I find morally unacceptable, and I think it’s irredeemably bad parenting. Not only that, but for me, it’s a dead giveaway that “Santa” is actually the parents.

It should be obvious by now that the myth of Santa Claus benefits the parents rather than the children. But, it’s also been encouraging and justifying the mass-brainwashing our children at the hands of advertising by big, greedy, heartless corporations.

Santa Claus, discouraging healthy skepticism since 1863.