Mainstream Media Is a Circus

As we enter a zenith of ignorance and incuriosity, it has become apparent that mainstream media has devolved into a complete circus. This phenomenon is also frequently referred to as “clown world” by right-leaning online trolls. However, the alt-left has already redefined “clown world” to be an alt-right propaganda meme. So, I’m just going to lay low here and custom the euphemism of circus.    

Since President Trump’s election in 2016, we have witnessed a distinct shift in many mainstream news networks. Whereas once the role of a news network was to report non-partisan news, they are now being clearly repurposed by adopting the “watchdog role”.

The “watchdog role” is the obligation for a journalist to inform the public of matters that may cause them harm. It is plain to see how this role is quick to cause more harm than good. By advocating a watchdog role, journalists and news networks are inclined to warn the public of matters that are bound to cause harm to – wait for it – their personal political agendas.

So instead of news networks publishing non-partisan reports, we now have reports that are agenda-setting; seeking to influence the public for political gain. Their preferred mode: fear.  

The reality about contemporary mainstream media is that the majority of what is reported is trivial, due the fashion in which it is presented. If there is a matter worthy of reporting to the public, like a shooting or a natural disaster, it quickly becomes diluted by the baroque nature of the reporting.

A mass shooting quickly turns into a two-part interview with a liberal arts professor, discussing why white nationalism and the 2nd Amendment are to blame for the death of innocent civilians. A natural disaster becomes a campaign against climate change. A public service announcement from the President devolves into a quote taken out of context and repurposed to present Trump as a racist.

Speaking of President Trump. Here is a quote from the President, following the 2017 conflict that arose in Charlottesville over the controversial decision to remove the statue of General Robert E. Lee.

“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.”

Despite the President’s punctual responses to every incidence of violence that has occurred since his inauguration, and the countless times that he has spoken out against racism and hate, mainstream media incessantly reports him to be the exact opposite of what he claims to be.

To name a few perpetrators, CNN did it here, The New York Times did it here, The Atlantic here, Vox here, HuffPost here, USA Today here, and former President Obama even did it here, courtesy of CNN.

I just served you a list of news sites to abstain from on a silver platter, and since we’re on the topic of mainstream media being a circus, I will throw Fox News into the mix, despite my conservative views.

Media, specifically newsroom media, has become entertainment. Entertainment, as we know, is reliant upon evoking emotions; drama is unnaturally added to the narrative by forging stereotypes, structuring caricatures, and raising tension.

So, Leftist media is assuming the watchdog role by claiming that the half of America who voted for Trump is a Nazi, and Rightist media is assuming their watchdog role by rebuking and debunking every claim from the left. The latter only being natural for a party who elected the first President to ever publicly lambaste mainstream media and essentially coin the term “fake news”.

Fake news indeed.

There is an abundance of dishonest reporting, and American citizens are fed up.

All in all, mainstream media is failing the public. The media is a public service and they are currently triumphing at providing an onslaught of disservice.

What is the solution?

The solution starts with you and I.

The resolution to this “clown world”, both republican and democratic, is to deliberately choose what you consume.

This logic is the same with dieting. If you want to be healthy, eat healthy food. If you want to be an unhealthy, overweight, depressed pig, then eat garbage.

If you want good news, find non-partisan news.

It exists.

A new site that I recommend is They report brief, non-partisan news. They will also give you links to other websites from the left, the center, and the right, so you can check for yourself. If you’re interested in a story, check multiple reports and corroborate.

In the meanwhile, abstain from Vox, The Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, The Atlantic, CNN, Fox News, and Breitbart. They’ve all become TMZ. If you would voluntarily watch TMZ, you’re incurable, go crazy. If that’s not you, then steer clear.

Another Reason Why Women Are Incompatible with the Marine Corps

As if there weren’t already an adequate amount of subject matter to conclude that women are incompatible with the military, politicians have presented one more token of incongruity. They’re calling it the MOMS Leave Act. It’s a hypothetical bill that, if passed, would grant military mothers an entire year of paid maternity leave.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger has commented on the bill saying, “We should never ask our Marines to choose between being the best parent possible and the best Marine possible.”

My only comment would be “If being the best parent is more important than being the best Marine, then why don’t you give the father a year of paid paternity leave, considering he is also a parent, and considering this bill is undergirded by the premise of equality?”

However, I don’t really mean that. Giving a year of paid maternity leave already depletes the lethality and readiness of the military enough. Handing out that same privilege to men would only cause more unnecessary damage.

I may be wrong about all of this entirely. However, after serving five years in the Marine Corps myself, I’ve witnessed firsthand the abhorrent level of inequality that exists in the Marine Corps. I’m not talking about the inequality that is directed at women. I’m talking about the uncanny amount of inequality that is dealt to men.

As the record stands, of the 26,000 Marines deployed during the war with Iraq, 0 women died compared to the 195 men who died. Just an unassuming inequality statistic. Moreover, women are required to pass a physical fitness test (PFT) and a combat fitness test (CFT) at a standard that is lower than that of a man, for the same score.

Want proof? Click here

If you evaluate the charts, you will find this: Males ages 21-25 are required to perform 23 pull ups, 115 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 18 minutes in order to receive a 100 on their PFT. On the contrary, women of the same age demographic are required to do 11 pull ups, 110 crunches in 2 minutes, and run 3 miles in 21 minutes in order to also receive a perfect score. In other words, women are required to perform 75.6% of the male’s standard in order to receive the same score. If you calculate the comparison for the CFT, you will find that number to be 69.7%.

What does this mean? Well it certainly means that women can feel comfortable enjoying a low risk of death and a high chance of promotion compared to their male counterparts. Female Marines also report having worse shooting scores and higher rates of injury than male Marines.

This is an attack on men for its inequality. I digress. This is an attack on women. It’s an attack on women because it does nothing to prepare them for the legitimate threat that is out there. The Marine Corps has created a standard for the sake of combat effectiveness and survival. By lowering that standard for women, you set them up for failure.

This is also an assault on the military itself by producing Marines that are less combat effective. However, if that were not already enough, now women are going to be incentivized to take a hiatus from active duty to have children. Why? Because an entire year of paid off time is certainly more preferable than preparing for war.

Once again, maybe I’m wrong about all of this. Perhaps I’m a misogynist and I just won’t admit it; a bigot who shouldn’t be allowed to spew such hatred.

Or maybe I’m a former Marine who is concerned about the lethality and effectiveness of our military.

Currently women are permitted a standardized 42-day period of paid maternity leave. I’m an advocate of the current standard. However, if there is a job willing to give women an entire year of absenteeism, it shouldn’t be a job that is dependent upon an actively engaged and lethal fighting force, ready to defend the American people from a foreign threat.

Last I checked, the military was not about individuals receiving special privileges. It was about a body of men possessing the lethality to effectively neutralize a threat.

If you’re really concerned about equality, then make the physical standards the same. If you’re really concerned about equality, then regard a “parent” as both the mother and the father. If you’re really concerned about equality, then stop setting the bar low for women. You’re doing them a disservice.

Bottom line: Politicians claim to fight for equality. Yet, their actions towards women in the military are unequal than that of their actions towards men, proving that they don’t really believe in equality. Men and women are an entirely different breed, and all human history is aware of it.

Assimilating Native Americans Is Genocide

It has been impossible to ignore the trending, refashioning of American history that is incessantly circulating in the media. One article I was unfortunate enough to stumble upon left me completely inundated at the audacious display of partiality and ignorance that the author willfully espoused, during their retelling of American history.

The article can be found here, ranked among a list of genocidal atrocities that have taken place in human history.

I really hate to bash this article since supports a good cause, however a one-sided history of the North American conquest doesn’t quite appertain to a website aimed at ending genocide.

Hell, I was so confused when I found ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans’ on a website titled ‘End Genocide’, that I thought I was reading satire. The article is simply out of place; it would be suiting to be published on The Onion, because this article is a stunt.

Anyhow, after reading I couldn’t help but criticize the author’s blatant attempt at delivering a message construing American history to be abounding with racist white men, committing deliberate acts of genocide on docile, peaceful, kumbaya-singing Native Americans.

Here are some of the outlandish, partial, and ignorant remarks:

  • “Even today, Native Americans face … ongoing cases of discrimination.”
  • “Several wars broke out between tribes and American settlers which led to large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism.”
  • “Ultimately, while Columbus is remembered as a daring adventurer, he was also a perpetrator of atrocities and his legacy is viewed as the starting point that sparked hundreds of years of exploration and exploitation of the Americas.”
  • “By the time Christopher Columbus reached the Caribbean in 1492, historians estimate that there were 10 million indigenous peoples living in U.S. territory. But by 1900, the number had reduced to less than 300,000.”
  • The author cites that early settlers distributed smallpox blankets to the natives and proclamations for “redskins” (scalps) were given, which is a “a major indicator of genocidal acts.”
  • This publisher also couldn’t help but refer to the Hoover Commission’s urge to assimilate the Native Americans as a “modern atrocity.”

Okay, now I’m required to chime in on these claims.

My first question is “what form of discrimination are Native Americans currently facing and where is this taking place?” I’ve been unsuccessful at locating systematic cases of discrimination against Native Americans in the 21st century. Could it be that there aren’t any?

To mention that war resulted in “large death tolls, land dispossession, oppression and blatant racism” is to simply speak of war. In the context of war, land dispossession is a common goal, oppression of the enemy is necessary, and racism is unfortunately a customary occurrence in the context of war. Just read any memoir on any war where the opposing forces were of different ethnicities. It wasn’t a racist, systematic form of genocide. It was the hatred of the enemy that resulted in hatred of the race (on both sides), not vice versa.

Also, why must Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas be so quickly discredited due to the wars that were inevitably to come? Are we really signaled to believe that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 in search of an undiscovered, underdeveloped civilization that he intended to commit acts of genocide on? Or was he sent out in search of a trade route to India?

Also, the author’s claim to 10 million Native Americans is a frequently debated numerical claim, however 10 million is quite eccentric. Anthropologists have estimated a mere 800,000.

In regards to the distribution of smallpox blankets, this atrocity happened on maybe three occurrences, only one of which can be confirmed. And once again, the settlers were engaged in war.

In regards to incidents of scalping, this strategy was utilized by both sides. To suggest that it was merely settlers who engaged in scalping is obtuse. Where do you think they adopted this idea from? Yeah, the Native Americans. This practice was common well before any settlers landed at Jamestown, and it was recurrent among many Native American tribes, who by the way, were commonly engaged in civil wars with one another. If scalping is supposedly considered a “major indicator of genocide”, then you ought to paint the entire picture.

Also, can someone explain to me how President Truman’s urge to assimilate should be considered a “modern atrocity”?

This article, ‘Atrocities Against Native Americans‘, is found among a listing of genocidal atrocities throughout human history, to include the Holocaust, the Armenian extermination, and Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide. Are we really hellbent on listing Columbus and Truman alongside Pol Pot? Are individuals earnestly willing to rewrite the conquest of North America as an act of systematic genocide?

The founding of America was simply that, a conquest.

The motivation wasn’t racism, and the reduction of the Native American population wasn’t a deliberate act of genocide.

Just pause for a moment and ponder what the world would look like had America never been founded by Europeans with Judeo-Christian values. The technologically underdeveloped communities that once roamed this land were bound to be conquered. Would the world be a better place if the Soviet Union owned this land? How about Imperial Japan? The Third Reich? We mustn’t dare to assume this that land would still be occupied by indigenous people.

If the proponents of identity politics are truly convinced that American History is riddled with angry white men committing acts of genocide on Native Americans, and that these acts merit reparations, then once again, you must use that paint brush of yours to paint the entire picture.

Essentially every square mile of currently owned land on Earth was previously owned by someone else. So, in regard to reparations, where do we even begin?


How to Destroy Any Pro-Life Argument

Are you curious about learning to enhance your ability to delude and overwhelm all those disgusting, altruistic proponents of the pro-life movement in an argument?

By following these three rules correctly, you can be sure to triumph over the next radical, right-wing dullard foolish enough to square off with your newly established, pro-choice, rhetoric repertoire.

Rule #1: Deny biology.

The first tool you’re going to want to add to your double-dealing toolbox of chicanery is the art of denying biological facts.

Every citizen in America who has at least the cognitive capacity of Burn After Reading’s Chad Feldheimer is able to grasp a rudimentary understanding of reproductive biology.

In other words, if someone is 9 or older, they’re likely aware of the biological composition of a human zygote.

Biology is simply not going to help you in this argument.

So, you’re going to have to be crafty about it. Don’t say it outright that you don’t believe in the facts of biological discoveries.

Your pro-life opponent is going to want to allude to the “fact” that the random cluster of cells is human. Prevent them from doing this at all costs. If they’re unyielding, then you’re going to want to use some duplicity once they begin coursing down that path.

For instance, instead of the word “fetus”, a word the pro-lifers love to pound out like a drumbeat, use the word “parasite”.

Biology will tell you a parasite is “an organism that lives on or in a host organism and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.” However, your adversary will argue the parameters defining a parasite are that it must be of a different species. Nevertheless, be adamant about sticking to your definition. In doing so, you may just wear them out by barraging their patience.

If this fails, I recommend keeping it sophisticated by using shifty euphemisms when speaking about the unborn.

Speaking of euphemisms, here’s an exceptional one to add to your political jargon.

Rule #2: Use the word “viable”.

This word is your rhetoric bread and butter when debating against the sanctimonious, pro-life milksops.

The heroes over at Planned Parenthood are more Janus-faced than the supervillain Loki himself, and they’ve managed to reserve an ambiguous, legal term to utilize when speaking about these trivial parasites.

According to the Herculean Planned Parenthood, viability means “being capable of sustained survival outside the woman’s body with or without artificial aid.”

As we know, killing a human is murder. However, the termination of something that isn’t viable” is simply practicing a human right, handed to us by the fallacious Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, it is the interpretation of viability that holds the verdict of the legality of abortion. Therefore, it is your mandate to treasure this word like pure gold.

Remember, the goal of this debate is for you to dehumanize the unborn and justify the convenient termination of the unplanned. Never use the word “fetus” or “zygote” or “human”.

Always use the word viable or nonviable whenever viable.

By utilizing this word correctly, you will be able to quickly turn any debate for human life into a debate for human rights, thus refashioning your adversary’s attempt at preserving human life into an assault on women’s rights. Nobody is fond of a bigot.

And this brings me to my next point.

Wow, the segues are falling right into place today.

Rule #3: Substitute the term “human life” with “reproductive rights”.

Don’t be foolish enough to believe that the cunningly devised euphemism of pro-choice is enough to coax the pro-lifers into believing that we’re not anti-life.

We use the label, pro-choice, because we’re resolute about abstaining from the debate for human life.

This isn’t about human life. It’s about human rights, and women have the right to choose.

Therefore, when utilizing this rule, you must remember to handle it with finesse. Show some passion.

Assuming you’ve already attempted Rules #1 and #2, turn the tides at this point in the argument by cooking up some red hot fervor.

Make the debate personal.

Bring up the fact that you’re related to a single mother, and that she would’ve been better off without that nagging inconvenience.

If you don’t know any single mothers, then just get creative with it. Bring up the fact that less than 1% of abortions are the byproduct of rape and incest, and that those anomalies warrant the right for all women to terminate any unplanned pregnancy due to raw convenience.

Women have reproductive rights. If they don’t want to share their body with an unviable parasite, then they have the right to terminate it.

See what I did there? I just used all three rules in a brief comment. Like I said, get creative.

So, ensure to publicly lambaste the next pretentious wrangler seeking to subvert the freedom a woman has over her body.

Also, this rule is especially potent when used against men. In fact, when debating men, I recommend jumping straight to this rule. By arguing over reproductive rights, you shrink their credibility by turning them into a sexist and an oppressor.

Remember, “iron sharpens iron” and Planned Parenthood murders babies. If we keep up our fight against the bigoted, misogynist, right-wing, pro-life radicals, then we can be confident in being one step closer to the complete dehumanization and degeneration of racist, sexist America.

Keep up the fight, you brave warriors!

inspired by C.S. Lewis’ screwtape letters.