Memo to Macleans: Let's not encourage the naive with university degrees to strive to be minions. It's not cool.

I

II

Macleans has an incredibly naive piece about sacrificial lamb Gerald Butts, who was forced to resign because no one in the Liberal Party knows what the fuck they are doing.

The first piece of nincompoopity comes here:

Until the Globe and Mail’s Bob Fife broke this story, Trudeau looked like he was headed for a fairly easy re-election campaign. With the NDP going nowhere, and Andrew Scheer distracted by Maxime Bernier, things looked pretty good for Trudeau. That is much less certain today, after the resignation of Butts, for two reasons.

Uh, no.

That is not correct. Doug Ford’s majority in left-leaning Ontario is showing an ideological shift. This election was no shoo-in for the last year. We had, for the first time in our history, multiple nations start to target us, and when your nation is a mosaic, those winds blow harder and make a greater impact. The discontent was simmering. The only difference now is that the Middle Class now have a legitimate excuse to use as to why they can not vote for a luxury brand name. Canada has been getting its ass wiped in this global game of Go for a very long time.

But it is this passage that reveals a serious case of childlike innocence:

Secondly, the departure of Butts means that Trudeau will not have him by his side, for the first time in his career.

Opponents and critics liked to mock the relationship, calling Gerald Prime Minister Butts, and suggesting he was the marionette pulling the strings of the empty-headed puppet in the big job. Whatever the truth of their relationship, it has worked pretty well. When they started on this project, Trudeau was the third party critic for amateur sport. He now has a worldwide brand. Everybody knows Butts was a key part of that process, the result of many years of planning and plot hatching. Now he is gone, and he will leave a huge hole.

Are you serious?

Are you really that naive?

Justin Trudeau could have worn a rodeo clown outfit as he advocated public displays of flatulence, and be elected prime minister with no trouble. Canada is a nation run by nepotism, not backroom “operative” drudges. That’s a bullshit story. That’s the bait to lure people into doing the dirty work.

Butts reminds me a lot of Roger Ailes — the Fox News Network’s manservant general who everyone thought was irreplaceable, got replaced, and the FNC runs just fine without him. Butts is a manservant to Trudeau the way Don Hewitt was a manservant to 60 Minutes, and he was easily replaced and the vehicle is still on the air.

People with university degrees have to be bamboozled into doing the dirty work for princes — they are lured, primed, groomed, and broken in as they are talked into running on a hamster wheel until they are thrown under a bus. It is not just university “friends”; many women also get hornswoggled into marrying someone with a name and then doing all the heavy lifting as their “investment” has affairs, and gets to feel cunning when the truth is that all you need is a name with some recognition and people will give you things.

Usually Canada flies under the radar and we can have a collective delusion: a folie en masse, if you will. We vote for little princes and princesses, they recruit their well-educated servants who connive as they run around in circles, getting excited that people know they serve someone whose mommy and daddy opened doors, and then no matter how inept they are or badly they screw up, people will make excuses so they don’t have to put any effort or admit flaw, and we can all pretend we are functional. Yay!

We are like the small town everyone ignores. We can fuck up all we want, no one is going to ask the hard questions.

That was the script and had we not gotten the attention of Donald Trump, Trudeau would have sailed to victory for another two terms.

But the little pantywaist got cocky and tweaked the nose of someone who is a maverick and plays be a different set of rules, and then all bets were off. It was a game of dominos: one tile fell, knocking the others ones, and exposing just what kind of doofuses run this little popsicle stand.

That’s all that happened.

Had Canada not have a PM who made a fool out of himself that many times, no one would have cared about SNC-Lavalin, either.

Oh well, you know how it is. What can you do?

The trouble is the other two candidates are just as clueless. We have no Silver Fox option.

Trudeau represented two things the Zero-Risk Middle Class dig: a luxury brand surname that is a “safe” choice, and the average demeanour and intelligence that doesn’t intimidate and gives people the contradictory hope that maybe one day their kids or grandkids would have what it takes to be a PM, too.

In the US, the person who looks like they would be the most fun at a cocktail party gets to be president.

In Canada, we have different rules. We used to go for the silver foxes, but here came a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to live out a fantasy.

That is turning to be a nightmare.

SNC-Lavalin was the right scandal that came at the perfect time, the way the PM came at the perfect time.

Butts is just collateral damage, and kicking him to the curb isn’t going to change a thing.

It’s the same old game of making people think they are the brightest star in the sky guiding the world to greatness because they are destined to be the secret ones in power in on the joke, when it is just a game of combat with the disposable getting torn to shreds as the joke’s on them…

Fake radio experts? You don't say!

Advertorials are not news. They are advertising made to look like news.

And people still fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Memo to radio listeners: do not invest your money based on a radio program. The “experts” pay to be there, and they are shilling their services. That the last bunch of grifters used fake names shows you just how outlets do not care.

Not doubling checking the company or the people is on you.

I am serious. Do not invest your money in a sham. Anyone who falls for an advertorial in 2019 has no excuse.

Bullshit sham “committees” looking at “fake news” are gunning at social media — but that they are ignoring legacy media’s role just shows you how rigged and worthless those committees happen to be…

Gerald Butts out: A tabloid headline for the low-class spectacle.

Man, oh man, the first sacrificial lamb has been taken to slaughter.

Gerald Butts is no longer on anyone’s “power list.”

At certain universities, the whole point is not to get educated so much as to find your posse to drag you along through life.

butts-and-trudeau.jpg

It is the place where minions meet their masters.

You spend your life making people look smart and competent as you do all of the heavy lifting, and then, when the load gets too big, you get kicked to the curb.

I trust there will be some lovely parting gifts for Mr. Butts for being a contestant on Russian Roulette — Ottawa Edition.

Don’t hit yourself on the way out…

Memo to the Globe and Mail: "What happened to our ‘feminist’ Prime Minister?" We never had one.

Silly, silly questions.

The Globe and Mail has a column that seriously asks this question as a headline:

What happened to our ‘feminist’ Prime Minister?

SIllies, we never had one.

This is what privileged boys say to the gullible girlies to get what they want.

They will whisper all sorts of a sweet nothings in your ear, and then, once they get the goodies, behave the way they really do as they openly disrespect you and blame you for being naive. The second a certain cabinet minister stepped out of his line, she was kicked to the curb and brandished as being “difficult.”

But if you were real feminists yourselves, you would have seen the glaring warning signs a hundred miles away.

Even in the article, the blaring warning sign was there, and the columnist still doesn’t see the significance of the statement I underlined:

In September 2017 I was in the audience at the Women in the World Summit in Toronto, and listened to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talk about his feminist bona fides. Well, first we had to watch a video – many clips set to a pumping rock score – on that subject.

…Then he made a very interesting point about how it was relatively easy to recruit women into politics, compared with keeping them there, which he called “a challenge around retention.” Women would be elected, he said, and after a couple of years wonder if this business was really for them, “because of the nastiness, because of the negativity.”

What? Are the womenfolk so weak and feeble they can’t take the heat and we need a man person to make it all nice and comfy for us? We needed Justy to give us all pats on the head and lollipops and balloons?

And you didn’t call him out right then and there? That’s as misogynistic as it gets.

Y’all are so hopelessly oblivious and naive, it’s too funny…

Toronto Star nincompoopity continues. Children, grow up.

I am still laughing at this stupid article from the knuckle-draggers of the Toronto Star:

Why experts say Canada should follow Australia’s lead on China in wake of Huawei crisis

Yay, experts. They are never wrong, so you can’t question this bullshit. I like this attempt at shutting down debate:

Canada should not be afraid to follow Australia’s lead in standing up to Beijing in policy and practice, say experts who have analyzed foreign relations for decades.

Ottawa has long prioritized economic gain over national security, worrying over the state of its relationship with the global heavyweight rather than voicing and defending its interests, say analysts.

They have analyzed things for decades, so you can’t question the big gaping holes in this article.

Nice try, but there are so many things wrong with this bullshit story that I could write a book on it.

For starters, Canada is not Australia. We cannot just blindly follow someone else’s playbook and expect the same results. If a single “expert” is making that decree, take away their credentials. They are morons.

Australia has its own problems right now, and they stem from their unpopular policies at home and abroad. Canada doesn’t need more luggage.

And the worst of this article is its Middle Class mindset that it is all about tweaking the nose of other nations to “slap back” at them — and that everything will work out in the end.

You don’t know that, and neither do your experts.

For example, you do not know what dirt China has on the Canadian government or its players. You don’t know what China owns here or what the contracts say are penalties. Australia may be in a better position than Canada and can afford to do what they do.

And you do not know what’s actually going on between Australia and China — you do not know what backroom concessions the Aussies had to give in order to save face publicly. That is not something “experts” would know. That is something insiders would, however.

You keep quoting the arm’s lengths people, who cannot tell you anything that is useful — just the façade of it.

Canada has to solve its own problems actively and originally, not crib from other regimes. That requires being creative and not stealing playbooks from other countries and appealing to authority.

If governing were that easy, then we wouldn’t be having the big problems we are having now…

Microsoft's Backdoor Big Brother Censorship Scheme: Newsguard as Meta-Propaganda.

Microsoft wants to get into the propaganda game.

Newsguard is meta-propaganda. That is the only apt term to describe it. What “approves” is based on non-empirical methods; so it is pure garbage.

And now they want to filter the news for you.

I don’t need Big Brother nannying me. It is far better to be media-savvy and see that none of the players left or right have a clue, than let a corporation meddle in your knowledge-base.

It won’t work, of course, because it has the same lockstep ideology as Facebook, and we can see how well they did playing the same propagandist’s game…

A bad deal for content providers? Now news outlets are feeling what their journalists felt all along from them.

Apple wants half the profits from subscriptions and media outlets are howling.

Bwah ha ha!

It is perfectly all right to give your content providers a bad deal. When databases first came out, writers didn’t see a single cent if their work was purchased via a database. You don’t get paid by the number of hits or reprints. It is a flat fee.

And now Apple is doing to media outlets what they did to their content providers.

The middle man is fuming, but shed no tears. Content providers also get the shaft, and this is now spreading higher up the food chain.

Look at Vice Media: this is a property that got Canadian funding, and yet has its overlord worth a pretty penny that he gambles away.

No one ever thinks to take a closer look at what’s going on there.

The structure is corrupt. That’s why nothing is working. Apple won’t save journalism, and Netflix is not a viable platform. Rot upon rot, and all we have to show for it is whining…

First Julie Payette, now Jody Wilson-Raybould: Slag the Female as a political tool.

When Julie Payette was slagged in the pages of the National Post, you knew that she was behaving according to what her overlord thought she should, and then employed journalists to chasten her.

She was difficult! She is in for herself! Really, she is just not a nice person, and poor us for having to put up with the likes of her.

And we see the same playbook used for Jody Wilson-Raybould.

The Canadian Press was employed this time to do the public shaming:

Several Liberals approached Friday said they were confident the story came from Wilson-Raybould herself.

“She’s always sort of been in it for herself,” said one insider who didn’t want to be identified. “It’s never been about the government or the cabinet. Everything is very Jody-centric.”

Not a team player. Not a good girl.

Here she is, just an average schmuck, who got a visit from the political fairy godmother, and gave her a posh cabinet post, and then, she let it all go to her head and gave Prince Charming sass and lip, and she just ruined the Sunny Ways Narrative! How dare she?

Yeah, imagine that. A woman with her own convictions and stands by them.

I thought the hatchet job on Payette was calculated. I have the same thoughts on Wilson-Raybould.

Mind you, I do think there is some misunderstanding of the political process going on: people think a cabinet minister has autonomy: sure, just so long as you do whatever the reigning PM dictates you do. You get marching orders along with your paper crown or plastic tiara, and you march.

It is the reason I don’t get giddy over politics. It has always been about optics. Those optics are there to placate the Middle Class who think fairytales are reality and they can ignore how they are being played because some They is looking after them.

Now that the curtain has been lifted, it is making people very uncomfortable, and the more the PM tries to spin this, the worse it becomes. I seriously doubt this will be the only scandal to smack the Grits before October…

Memo to Macleans: It's not journalism if you tell people when it is too late.

How worthless is Canadian broadcast news?

Every motherfucking newscast on every single motherfucking channel started with the Oh, wow! It is snowing! non-story.

Yeah, asshole, no shit. I can look out the window or go outside and I figure it all by myself. That’s not news.

That the federal Grits have been caught with their pants down didn’t really register at all. There is no excuse for it.

But then comes a long and rambling piece in Macleans that is very instructive to the mindset of Canadian journalism.

It finally gets around to talking about this piece of legislation that has already passed June 21, 2018.

It made no headlines, and now that SNC-Lavalin is in the hot seat, now everything thinks about it.

This should have been news long before it was made into law: as in, who lobbied for it, for starters.

But no one was really paying attention at the time because everyone was too busy tweaking Trump’s nose to see the bigger picture.

They were too busy defending the Prime Minister and helping him along with the optics instead of ignoring the optics and looking at what is actually happening.

Now, the damage is done. Stop telling bedtime stories to the Middle Class because that’s why they think everything will work out in the end by some They who will save the day.

And that’s why we have predatory laws and an entire provincial economies dependent on corrupt companies — and people howling when things implode.

You cannot bank on a House of Cards.

Now, things are out of hand.

But Canadian journalists are too busy giving free publicity to feel-good slacktivism.

Who the hell cares besides their parents? That is a cheap and easy no-brainer. (And memo to CBC: That’s not “news for kids”: this is press releases geared at children to help Corporate America sucker in the next generation of empty-heads. Shame on you for being so willfully deceptive).

Canada has serious problems all simmering and waiting to explode on cue. That’s more than obvious now, but there is one thing in the Maclean’s piece that is true:

Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 10.50.49 PM.png

No, this country doesn’t innovate. It willfully ignores innovators hoping not to rock the boat because everything is so rotten, one innovation can be compared the rest and then it all hits the fan.

Journalism cribs and steals, and then wonders why it implodes.

Stop picking political sides, for starters. They are all the same. Stop pretending being on the Left is more enlightened. The hell it is. People don’t believe in God they way they used to, and now the predators took a new mask to wear.

Radical centrism is the method of seeing the rot on the left and right, above and below, and it is way past time to stop pretending and playing along with those who cannot function unless they do harm to others as they take the spoils all to themselves…

Washington Post discovers asset-squeezer strategy. Regular readers here must be laughing themselves silly.

The Washington Post has a huge conflict-of-interest in this whole Jeff Bezos dick pic escapade, but let’s take a look at this laughable article they spewed:

Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 3.25.41 PM.png

Yes, children, this is something I have been talking about for a long time because this practice has been going on in journalism for a very long time.

I saw when I was a journalist covering the newspaper industry in the late 1990s, early Aughts.

Hedge Funds are doing it now, but this is nothing new. Hollinger did the same thing: buy up newspapers, squeeze the assets as jobs were slashed, but not professional asset-squeezers are doing it.

Why?

Because that is the only way you can make a newspaper profitable. You buy a newspaper. You let go of the staff who aren’t pulling in new sources of revenue. You sell the printing presses. You contract out the printing. You sell the real estate because developers are hungering from prime location. You squeeze the assets until there is nothing more to squeeze at your threshold level.

If there are B-list pickings, sell to another asset-squeezer. If not, you close down the property.

These are professional vultures, and vultures do not bother with living properties. They look for dead ones.

The Post isn’t very hip to the world, my friends, because it’s been mused here for ages…

Here we go again...

More job losses in journalism courtesy of GateHouse Media, but you have to love this fantasy-spin:

Local newspaper giant GateHouse Media has quietly been laying off reporters and photographers across its publications, according to reports, journalists' testimony online, and sources close to the layoffs.

Quietly? All you ever do is scream and announce every job loss you have. There is no “quietly.” It is as if democracy has imploded every time a journalist loses a job in a dead profession.

GateHouse doesn’t need to put a press release out and have touching tributes as they are handing out redundancy papers. You aren’t all that. You can write a thousand articles about this and it will not change reality.

Deal with it…

Reading the melodrama of the immature...

The Toronto Star is a sheltered publication.

How else to explain this bizarre and childish column:

The National Enquirer faces nuclear annihilation and Jeff Bezos is the mushroom cloud

Don’t be a nerd.

What Jeff Bezos did was spin a narrative. What he calls “blackmail” isn’t. Journalists pull similar shit: if you don’t talk to us, we will write the story without your spin. Is that blackmail?

Not the illegal kind. It is not as if the Enquirer has a reputation of being virtuous angels. They deal in dirt and this will not impede them.

They have been sued and lost. Carol Burnett winning her suit still being the most high-profile example — and she is a beloved celebrity. It didn’t bury the Enquirer.

He is trying to save face, and in a world where the news cycles spin at warp speed, in a few days, something else about him or his companies overshadows what went on now he loses momentum.

And in a climate where we have people of questionable motives wanting to tax the rich out of existence, it is not as if sympathy is on his side. The Enquirer is not Gawker: they know what they are doing.

No one expects the dirt mongers to play nice or fair. Bezos has a huge black mark, and one social media entry isn’t going to change the outcome.

A crisis management team will have to school him on not blaming other people, accepting responsibility for his actions, a contrite demeanour, some generous donations to various groups, and then move on with some feel-good gestures that involve having some token gesture to employees.

This is not the end of Jeff Bezos. This is not the end of the Enquirer. No nuclear bombs. No annihilation. Just a spat, and the world spins merrily along…

Actrivism, Part Eight: Armchair experts have no idea what goes down or what's up. It is the reason I became an Actrivist.

I

II

III

IV

Growing up in the 1980s, I was a huge fan of the Eurythmics. I had all of their albums, including remixes, and had to special order In the Garden.

Eurythmics_-_In_the_Garden.jpg

I never got to see them in concert, but concerts were never my thing as a teenager. I did go, but usually, something extra had to compel me. I went to see Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine in Orlando for New Year’s Eve, for example. I have seen rock concerts in Belograde, such as Zdravko Colic’s.

While some kids went to see Madonna, I went to see Alan Ginsberg perform is poetry in Europe.

I had a big LP collection, and a lot of old and obscure nuggets from every era, but The Eurythmics were my favourite musical act.

Except I was the only kid in my neighbourhood who admitted to liking them.

Other kids always made it sound as if I was some sort of oddball for liking the band. I didn’t buy it. They wouldn’t be putting out multiple albums and having tours around the world if I were the only one, and I said it. They were a Top 40 act, and as special as we all like to feel, I don’t think their record label would go through all that trouble and expense just for me.

And I used to say it.

For years, I would have people ask me, “Do you still like The Eurythmics?”

Hell, yeah, I do.

To this day. I can still listen to Annie Lennox sing or Dave Stewart play the guitar and I am in a better mood.

But now, thanks to social media, you can find fans congregate anywhere and anytime. No one needs to feel like an outsider when it comes to pop culture preferences these days.

Yet, that kind of familiarity does have a downside.

You can find groupings of anything, and then a pecking order begins to form, where someone positions themselves as the “expert” of whatever the group believes.

And that’s a problem now.

But armchair experts were always a problem, and that’s why I became an Actrivist.

V

I was a teenager when the civil war in the former Yugoslavia broke out. I didn’t have a lot in terms of experience in adult matters. I was a smart kid. I was an observant kid. I was a kid who studied, and had a gift of researching things and finding obscure sources because I had no trouble picking up a phone or pen and communicating to people in various position of power or access and asking them questions.

Of course, I got shot down a lot of times. I was even called rude because I wanted to know about serious things and went straight to the top. I wasn’t rude. I was curious, and there was no reason to say no to a simple request, or direct me to someone else.

But more times than not, I had big packages mailed to me, filled with all sort of things, and I read it from cover to cover. To me, this was exciting and fun. I couldn’t believe that none of the other kids in school were doing it. Anyone can smoke weed and get hungry and paranoid at the same time. Whoop di do. Not everyone can write to a foreign cabinet minister and get information on their military spending. Go me!

The fun and exciting reasons came grounding to a halt when war broke out and journalists were all parroting propaganda. I found out their source, and I was pissed. They learned nothing from the Gulf War and the babies and incubators hoax.

Maybe there was a reason for it. They didn’t have to learn because their mandate may have been something other than to inform.

But I didn’t know, and I knew I didn’t know.

I could speculate like an armchair expert. That is as easy as smoking weed. No effort, and something else alters your mood for you.

I could also research. That’s how I started.

And I wrote letters, got information, and had banker’s boxes that took up a sizeable chunk of my room — and living room, and dining room, and grandma’s room. These boxes had academic articles, newspaper and magazine articles, UN reports, government documents from around the world, think tanks, responses from reporters and editors, press releases and documents from PR firms, you name it. Every day the mail or courier came to my door. I read everything cover to cover.

I was, at this point, far more informed than an armchair expert. I was also far more informed than any journalist covering the war. I had one anchor from a PBS news program tell me she researched her topic by reading a couple of newspapers, and here I was with boxes piled to the ceiling — and one box alone had cassette tapes of information I got over the telephone.

Yet she got to spew uninformed bullshit, and I couldn’t catch a break.

This was, to say the least, maddening.

But everyday, I would get more information, not just documents, I got video footage of atrocities committed against Serbs. I obtained photographs that also contradicted what media reports were spewing.

If there was an Internet back then, I would have been a teenaged media outlet because in the course of my research about the former Yugoslavia, I stumbled upon other interesting intelligence not about that war or area.

I wasn’t an armchair expert. I was an actual expert.

Yet I was missing a key element all the same.

As much as I read books on journalism, all of it was bullshit. None of it actually aligned with the chasm of what I had and what was being reported. It was like night and day.

When I decided to become a journalist, I had a lot of information already. I knew how to conduct experiments as a psychologist.

But I still needed to know more so I could compare what I had with what the reality of the profession truly was.

VI

Being a journalist gave me insights that put a lot of those banker’s boxes into context. I learned a lot about the MSM, such as the veracity of a lot of their “experts” and pundits. Far from being unbiased and the most qualified, a lot of them were friends with someone in the newsroom — or their parents were friends with each other, but it was schmoozing, not c.v. that determined who got to speak in a public forum.

Insider knowledge helped a lot. These days, you can listen to a radio station and know that some experts pay advertising dollars and basically pay to be quoted. But even when I was a journalist, a lot of articles were just advertorials — another form of the same practice.

Armchair experts are easy to spot: they make guesses, and because they do not know how news is constructed, they make folksy guesses and make assumptions that are wrong and it shows.

The problem with social media is that it gives an illusion that things are all “out there” and all you have to do is point, click, swipe, or tell Siri what you want, and now you are an instant expert.

But you’re not unless you do things inside that system because what you read is created by other outsiders who also don’t know what’s going on. You have no scaffolding or perspective.

And people think it is all obvious and self-evident. It isn’t.

Quiz them to see just how little they know about the basic mechanics of easily accessed information.

Seriously.

And I have parents telling me that their grown children are much smarter than “we were.”

There will always be smart young minds around.

But even the smart ones need context to actually comprehend the significance of what they know.

I have first-hand experience in that department: as much as I knew, there was far more I learned by actively working in the profession I was studying. I didn’t fall for the lures. I wasn’t taken in by cognitive dissonance where I began to explain away and justify things just because I had to do them as a reporter.

I was the subject of my own experiment, and with that, I learned a new way of learning and gathering information.

And learned armchair experts are worth the experience they have — which is none…

Memo to Wired: Journalism is dead, even if the corpse goes back to its partisan, patriarchal, and propagandistic roots.

The idiots at Wired are trying for a cinematic moment with this piece of bullshit wishful thinking:

Journalism Isn't Dying. It's Returning to Its Roots

No, garbage pukers: journalism is dead. Own it, you deluded losers.

Journalism is a zombie moseying about aimlessly, still hoping everyone will give up their social media accounts and come crawling back to them.

Not happening.

The zombie has gone back to its roots, but that means they are returning to:

  1. Partisan reporting

  2. Propaganda spewing

  3. Patriarchal structures.

Oh, like that’s a good thing.

Is this journalism’s MAGA?

Make journalism great again!

Journalism was never great. It always needed discipline, but it got away with it because it was the only communications game in town.

And if you need proof that journalism is dead — Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post and they defended their overlord, and nothing took.

He took to Medium to defend himself — and then people paid attention.

Do you morons understand the reality of your situation?

The man owns The Washington Fucking Post and he went to a social media platform for pretentious nerds — and nobody reads Medium, and yet that took off more than what The Washington Post puked.

He could have written his response there.

He chose a wobbly social media platform.

So, Wired, go fuck yourselves, and stop pretending you matter anymore…

You mean there is no difference between the federal Liberals and the Conservatives? You don't say, Toronto Star! Duh.

I

II

III

I love this oh-so-serious headline from the goobers at The Toronto Star:

Screen Shot 2019-02-10 at 9.06.04 PM.png

No shit, Sherlock.

I can’t see a difference. Do you actually think there is a difference?

Because you have the same kind of people who made it using the same means and vying for the same job telling the same bullshit stories and you are going to try to snow Alexandra Kitty by saying they are, like, totally different?

Jebem li ti sunce zarko.

Give me a break.

It is no different than getting into a slap fight because you use Crest and someone else uses Colgate — and then you have some dumbass who gets plummy and slaps you both because he uses Rembrandt.

It’s fucking toothpaste. They are all the same. They are all owed by big companies, have to go through the same motions, strategies, and standards.

Politicians are just toothpaste.

Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron.

They are all slapping each other the way kids slap each other in musical chairs: they are clawing for power. Why people get excited about them in 2019 is a mystery.

It is the same old trick, people.

That’s why this new generation bitching for socialism are losers of epic proportions.

You motherfuckers haven’t read a single history book?

You are too stupid to see it is the same old confidence trick?

Are you really that worthless as a thinker?

You’d think you would have radical centrists and political atheists who didn’t degrade themselves in public with some garbage tantrum about this old system being better than that old system.

Jebem ti slavski kolac.

It’s fucking toothpaste.

You are willing to destroy people over something you know absolutely nothing about.

And the Toronto Star is no better, playing tattle tale.

Yeah, they are all alike.

They play the same games.

It’s the same old song with them — and the press.

Garbage in and garbage out…

Watching the confirmation bias as a legitimate way of doing the news.

I

II

I was watching my local news station where they were talking about this attack on Beach Boulevard on Friday.

Oh dear. Gracious, how dreadful.

Memo to CHCH: when people in the neighbourhood tell you it is a “good place”, they are trying to salvage the real estate value. That’s not a good barometer. You don’t buy their bullshit stories.

Because how many domestic homicides are met by neighbours by a declaration that the body bags were once “really nice people” and “such a good family.”

They aren’t going to tell you that they saw the husband beat his wife and children senseless because then people will wonder why no one stepped in sooner.

Remember Kitty Genovese? Or Angel Torres?

Their distress was ignored by people around them. Genovese was attacked, raped, and murdered in 1964 and her screams didn’t even compel people to cal the police. She was utterly alone, and the injustice of apathy puts her at Person #34 of People Everyone Should Know. She is the reminder that too many times you can fight, scream, and let the world know that evil has arrived, and everyone around you will blow you off.

Angel Torres was an elderly man who was lying unconscious on the street, and people walked over him.

If you interviewed those people, they would tell you they didn’t see anything, fiddle dee dee.

And then they go and rant on the Twitter about how the world should be to their exact specifications and why isn’t the government doing more for people.

But confirmation bias seems to be a way of presenting the news. Someone gives you a story, and you run with it, not concerned whether they have a reason for spinning a certain angle.

I worked as a journalist, and I have more than once been asked to cover a person whose story did not sit well with me. There were people who claimed to have an illness, and they presented me with a narrative complete with an act. La belle indifference sometimes bothered me. Other times, it was the layout of their house that told me nothing was modified to accommodate their disability and they lived alone and claimed no outside help.

I looked after a severely disable relative who literally could not move and was a prisoner in her own bed. Whenever doctors, nurses, ESM, or PSWs came to our house the first time, they asked if we were a nursing home. We had to modify the house, but even before then, we had to install a stairlift, rails, a ramp, bathroom modifications, and countless other things to give that relative independence. That’s not cheap.

At the time, I didn’t have those issues to think about, but I still knew things were off. I could have just run with the story, but I didn’t. The sad, sickly voice, the doe eyes, limping and the like seemed to confirm the person was ill, but was there evidence that refuted it?

There was one way to find out. I would watch the person after the interview when they didn’t know the audience they solicited still was watching. Sometimes, the off performance was shocking. No walking aids. No limp. I once went as far as asking someone to call the person, and tell them it was a wrong number — no sickly voice, just a strong robust one.

Talking to others who knew the person confirmed they also thought something was off, but they couldn’t put a finger on it.

Most times, stories like that don’t run.

And they should.

In my first book, I recount many stories of people faking illnesses for attention or money. It happens frequently. So did fake hate crimes, robberies, kidnappings, and assaults. When we take someone’s words as the gospel truth and look for only confirming evidence, we are gambling our credibility.

I have interviewed people who were genuinely sick, and while I looked for confirming evidence, I also looked for refuting evidence — and there was none. Everything aligned: from their demeanour, symptoms, and even household modifications.

So when neighbours tell you how everything was just warm and fuzzy, you go to the archives and see what’s what. You call the police and ask questions about the area. You find out about the crime stats of the area — any if they align, then mention the crime was atypical, but even then, you don’t really know. Maybe there is a meth lab. Maybe someone is trafficking weapons or people. Maybe child porn is being produced there. Sometimes one skirmish is a sign that something dangerous is going down there and it is about to explode.

It is not about preserving real estate value or maintaining a folksy image. It is about digging deeper. Sometimes people get dismissed when they shouldn’t be. Other times, there is a mask that needs to be snatched off.

People can see a homeless man spewing obscenities and then think he is some sort of dangerous monster. Others, see a poet, a soldier, and a gentle soul who has something to say and contribute to society despite it all.

You don’t know. You never do. That’s why you dig.

You try different paths and see where they take you. It’s what I did as a journalist. I always learned something new. I am an explorer by nature, not a stenographer, and it is the reason my career was an odyssey and a journey of a thousand revelations, and not some platform to vogue without purpose or meaning…

"Fact-check" is a bullshit term? You don't say!

The New York Post thinks it is revealing something by noting that “fact-check” is just a way for partisan operatives to pretend they are neutral.

Of course “fact-check” is meta-propaganda. It is a sham of epic proportions. Anyone who uses the term “fact-check” is not to be trusted.

Why?

Because there is no empirical methods to it. It is no different in methods than regular journalism, which itself has no empirical methods.

It is like using a sniff-test to determine if water is polluted. It is not an actual way of accurately determining if water is contaminated — and having two people sniffing the water is no better than one.

It’s bullshit.

“Fact-check” is a term of pure doublespeak. There are no standards, and has no value whatsoever…

Big Tech's Bad Boy wants a double standard on privacy? You don't say, The Intercept!

Jeff Bezos bitches about his own privacy being invaded but maintains his superfabulous fortune by invading other people’s privacy?

Say it ain’t so, The Intercept!

I happen to respect Glenn Greenwald. The world must frustrate him no end for its never-ending slumbering nincompoopity.

But that a Titan of Industry is throwing an epic temper tantrum as he is pissed off that someone did to him what he has done to everyone else is par for the course for a tyrant. They know all about their rights as they trample over yours.

What happened to him wasn’t blackmail. It was doing business. It is negotiations, no different than when you are in a civil suit and the two sides play hardball, pulling out what they have to rattle the other side’s cage. Plea negotiations in criminals matters play the same game.

Someone pretends to wear a halo in the press. Someone else knows this is a bullshit story, and gathers dirt exposing that this halo is a lie. They push it for all it is worth. That it happened to Bezos isn’t a tragedy. In the old days, he would have just stoned him to death for adultery because those cootie carriers were bad for the gene pool. Today he can blubber on Medium how the big meanies had his dick pics and dance around the room with them laughing and calling him names. He and Tony Clement ought to start a support group for spoiled white men in power who are total dweebs who don’t get how this whole Internet thing works.

That anyone is entertaining Bezos’s narrative is a bigger dweeb. He cheated and got caught and exposed. He has no expectation of privacy in 2019, and he knows it. He is just trying to deflect attention away from his own stupidity that is going to cost him lots of billions.

Own it, Mr. Bezos, as small as it is.

And good on Mr. Greenwald for keeping sensible in these impossible times…

Federal Liberal regime block probe of their sins. Did you expect transparency from the corrupt?

When Jody Wilson-Raybould gave her cryptic statement, it pretty much told the world what happened. There was no question that she set the narrative that broke away with the old Sunny Ways bedtime story, and dropped big hint that anyone with some sort of inside gossip — or general knowledge of how things work on Parliament Hill — could start nosing around.

Ms Wilson-Raybould, just like the Prime Minister, has a nepotistic advantage. And this clash goes back a generation. There is context and a history here. It is easier to decide to stand your ground when you have a family legacy and support than if you are the first in your family to make a name for yourself.

But Canada is a country ruled by nepotism. I don’t care if it is government, media, or industry. In a Zero-Risk Society, people look for the familiar and openly allow themselves to be oppressed and professionally stymied because when it comes down to the wire, they will always pick the label and not test the unknown commodity.

But duelling familial designer labels aside, even the press here in Canada have figured out that this matter is very grave and bad. I am not totally unfamiliar with SNC-Lavalin’s internal gossip there, and I doubt any government connection to this company could possibly be on the up and up. Why were they allowed to acquire Candu in the first place? Why did the government quietly push a law in their omnibus bill to let a company like that get away with criminal activity unscathed?

It doesn’t matter what level of government we are talking about — the narrative is always the same. Organized cabals take advantage of shoddy or nonexistent Canadian laws. An honest citizen becomes a whistleblower and gets blacklisted, shamed, abused, but the government runs interference that benefits the cabal, the police are stymied, the press has a little story to run — but nothing changes. No one goes to jail. The activity doesn’t stop. The whistleblowers are not protected. No law changes. No politician goes to jail. The extent of the rot is always hidden.

And not a single thing changes.

The fact that the Federal Liberals are blocking any probe is a de facto admission of not only guilt, but if someone looks, even more corrupt things are happening.

Where is the transparency? Why not welcome an inquiry or probe?

The answer is obvious, and if the country just had an internal corruption, usually no one here would be marching the streets, and it would blow over in a heartbeat.

But Canada has irked a few foreign interests, who may very well have their own operatives knowing what is happening, anyway. I find it interesting that this whole scandal has come when it has, especially one that proves without a doubt that “Rule of Law” and “Canada” do not belong in the same sentence (because we have child molesters all over coaching and nothing ever changes on a local level, let alone a national one) and of all things, it is the multinational company SNC-Lavalin that triggered this scandal. Usually, that kind of icky thing is safely kept under wraps. If one dirty secret doesn’t do its trick, there are a truckload of others that can be leaked.

I don’t see this problem as going away for the Grits any time soon.

Canada, as I have said before, is getting its ass whipped in this geo-political game of Go. The problem is your luxury brand item is no match for the down and dirty war going on. This regime is in over their heads and setting off every landmine in their wake. They are used to people giving them things, not having (a) earn things, or (b) having things be taken away as they get spat on and not drooled over.

The problem is there is no viable alternative to take the reins. It is truly none of the above. You need someone who thinks differently, acts different, and i an untested commodity who is unpredictable.

The masses will never go for that. You see the irrational howling in the US that a businessman won the presidency instead of a politicians with a luxury brand name. The United States turned into a nation of Sheldon Coopers because of it, making up all sorts of nonsenical bullshit stories to justify their fear of script-debunking.

But that’s a Zero-Risk nation: fearful, timid, and willing dupes who wish to have their freedoms curtailed if that means a mere illusion of protection and safety.

Canada is in the same boat, only more so. It is the reason organized crime flourishes in Canada with no consequence whatsoever.

The problem is the entire planet isn’t Canada, and not every country is a Zero-Risk one.

It is turning out to be a very 2019 so far…

A very uncivil war...

I

592fc3cfea1f5844294fd95f17d357c7--spiritual-symbols-ancient-symbols.jpg

II

The Wall Street Journal dishes on Vice and their thwarted blossoming relationship with the Saudi regime.: I found this passage interesting:

The talks with Vice about a business partnership are unlikely to move forward, according to the people familiar with the discussions. Vice said it was reviewing its deal with government-controlled Saudi Research and Marketing Group, or SRMG, to produce documentaries about Saudi society.

How nice. No special interests, just pure facts and objectivity here, kids.

And then who should bluster into this narrative but Big Tech’s Bad Boy:

Amazon Inc. founder Jeff Bezos on Thursday pointed to additional efforts on the part of Saudi Arabia to polish its image in the Western media. In a blog post, Mr. Bezos alleged National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc. had tried to blackmail him and potentially colluded with Saudi Arabia to damage his reputation. The National Enquirer last year published a front-page cover of Prince Mohammed and nearly 100 pages dedicated to his kingdom’s reform efforts. Saudi individuals also have held talks about a possible investment in AMI, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

When asked on Friday in Washington whether Saudi Arabia played any role in the dispute with Mr. Bezos, Adel al-Jubeir, the minister of state for foreign affairs, said: “As far as I know: flat no.”

Oh my, oh dear.

Legacy media tattling on digital media who are getting exploited by Big Tech. Because there is economic troubles and danger, all of a sudden, the knives come out, and they are cannibalizing each other.

Vice hooking up with a regime? Not surprising as its daddy is shedding a few assets, but everyone here has their own interests and survival they’re fretting about, and there are no halos in this batch to root for…