An Update: I need to take a hiatus.

I have just gotten another book contract to write an academic text about war propaganda. I have wanted to write this book for many years, but it finally came together. I have my Kintsugi book to finish in a short time as well, an Oxford art course to take and a Kintsugi course to teach.

What that means is I will have to suspend this web site for the foreseeable future — until I finish everything I need to do, which is a lot.

That means Chaser stories are put on hold. One of the stories on war propaganda will be in the upcoming book instead, and will no longer be Arc II. My story on Postmedia is on hold until I hand in my manuscripts. When I come back, that will be the next entry here, aside from my usual musings about coming back, but this absolutely changes how I will do Chaser.

Truth, Explained will have its second episode this week, but that’s about all I can do. So expect one more entry tomorrow.

No Cavewoman Graffiti. No expanding the List of People Everyone Should Know. No Dangerous Woman fiction. No writing about journalism and modern combat strategies. No musing on Quora. I am so swamped that I am overjoyed, but what I do takes unbelievable focus and I write books worth of items here — so now it will be in book form.

Things are picking up for me on this end. I have my Kintsugi photographs that I have to take for the book as well — as well as finish the rest of the book. That takes me into April, but then I will be writing nonstop and I have to schedule my art courses — both as student and teacher into all of it.

I have written two books in one year before, but not at the same time. These are both books I have wanted to do for a very long time, and now I get to do them.

For regular readers, I thank you very much for coming here. I will be back, more eccentric than ever. I still have F.R.E.E.D. to place, however, and I have plans to do something else.

If you like my style and want to read other things that I have written, if you can download many A Dangerous Woman offerings from Kindle — or Kobo. I have plenty of offerings there, fiction and nonfiction. I have my Ello page and my Quora page as well, but those two are on hiatus.

So, there will be a podcast tomorrow, but I am going to keep this site up with no changes or updates. It is not a matter of energy or me not having enough to say (ha!), but I have to focus on things that require research and precision, and when I am in that zone, I am a very different person. I never realized that until I gave a book talk to a group and the hostess who is a dear friend told the group all about my behaviour while I was writing the book. She did a very good impersonation of me, too.

Even my theremin playing will have to be put aside. I do have tickets for one play at the Shaw. That’s about it.

When I come back here, it will be me very unleashed…

cropped-1505247251617-1-185096362.jpg

Why so cowardly?

I

tombstone.png

II

If you want to see the blueprint for F.R.E.E.D., I placed it right here.

So that we have no confusion about who created what.

But that’s just the beginning of that work.

That’s because Alexandra Kitty has courage, and that’s not a common trait in Western culture. One gripe on social media, and companies throw everyone under a bus.

Which makes me boycott them because I do not like people who don’t stand behind free speech.

I also do not like big pretenders who have delusions of courage and then try to dine on it.

Screen Shot 2019-03-20 at 11.07.27 PM.png

The “fight for truth”? You?

Don’t make me laugh, motherfuckers.

Journalism isn’t about any fighting about truth. It is about cribbing from press releases, acting as stenographers, and then telling the little people what to think as they try to bully and intimidate them.

You don’t make people afraid. You make them brave. That’s what journalism never learned to do, and the reason it has made such a mess of its own profession.

It is a cowardly profession. It hides behind veils as it demands everyone else to take theirs off.

Yeah, lead by example by taking off your veils. Stop your chest-thumping. It’s just another lie you spew.

Because cowards use lies as shields and fortresses, thinking they rig the board to their advantage as they weaken opponents and strengthen their own position.

Except when you have an antagonistic relationship with the people you are supposed to be informing, your motives come into question.

People are attacked for speaking their minds and from the heart. Truth is all about facing the reality of that and not trying to kill free speech.

But that’s what journalism is trying to do: prevent other people from offering divergent points of view in alternative venues using alternative methods.

I am moving around some of the Chaser Arcs, and Arc II will be coming in a couple of weeks. It will be about war propaganda — and showing how outlets malign contrary voices even if the evidence from experts contradicts their labels. I will question and challenge assumptions using two different wars as a comparison.

Unlike the first one, I will have an interview or two. This Arc, however, will be a meta-article: I will show the construction of a news article with annotated notes. I may use a PDF file to do it because this web site doesn’t give me the freedom to do what I want.

So as I begin to merge Chaser and F.R.E.E.D., I will provide an alternative way of interpreting information — not using fear-mongering, but bravery-inspiring.

Because the industry has become pathetic with its self-aggrandizing psychopathy — worse, universities refuse to acknowledge the problem, enabling those delusions.

There can be no truth if you are afraid. Cowardice attracts lies.

That may be how the timid classes roll, but not all of us are of that ilk, and we won’t go away, no matter how afraid of the truth others become…

What's on tap next week...

Two debuts.

Finally, the Chaser debut! I wish I could say that I was dragging my feet, but it is tedious work in finessing certain things.

The Second is an advice column of sorts: Truth Explained. I will go back to my writing roots and give advice based in reality.

The first debut will be heavy. The second will not.

I would like to have a podcast and another Cavewomen Graffiti is due. I have other things on the go, but I want to shift the focus yet again.

The site is like rearranging furniture — you love what you have until an idea pops in your head, and you move one thing in a place you like better, but then everything else has to be moved around. It is the reason Chaser has been slow to debut — it has become an odd piece of furniture that I don’t know what to do with just yet.

Stay tuned…

Adlibture: the stream of inspiration that will take you to the strangest of places. Follow your instinct, not the script.

I

14646388_bodyshot_300x400_zpsb4509935.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zps868869ed-2.gif
14646388_bodyshot_300x400_zps6b575371.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zps0d3dbe85.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400_zpsd7e6d362.gif

II

neo2_zps1dd966d7.gif
11518666_bodyshot_300x400-14.gif

III

Reading journalists whining is a real pain in the ass. Shut the fuck up.

Stop spinning a narrative overtly or covertly. What is done is done.

When you ignore people like me, expect the same treatment in return from the public.

Because no one is listening.

For a reason.

Journalism is following old scripts. The new kids are all frauds who are cribbers. Fuck them. They are riding on the coattails of the old and broken antiquated models.

If the profession wanted to be reborn, then they have to start from the very beginning.

And learn Adlibture, not scripture.

IV

The first step is anarchy, and with anarchy comes adlibture.

Follow your instincts, no matter if people disagree with you or think you are strange.

You take risks, not gambles.

You find inspiration wherever you wish.

For me, I have many, but let’s talk about one: my adoration for a comic book character who is seen as Steve Ditko’s other bug-themed superhero.

Ted Kord the Blue Beetle.

He is what every person should be: a person whose word is their bond.

You make a promise. You keep that promise.

The end.

He made a promise to a dying man where no one else heard him.

He did not have superpowers, but he was smart and made the technology.

He was inconvenienced. A police officer dogged him convinced he killed the civilian who was the original Blue Beetle.

But a promise is a promise.

He may have been rich, but he used his wealth for good. He could laugh. He could fight.

But most of all, he could absolutely be trusted to do the right thing.

I have the entire Charlton run in my office.

For a reason.

Because I have an affinity for the character, I have no problem being inspired in different ways.

Make use of what you have. Keep your promises. Help other people. Don’t forget to have fun.

And I did that all while having to deal with cancer.

And it took me out of very dark places. The Kordian System is a resounding success, and who cares if it came in a comic book?

Wisdom lurks everywhere.

That is the reason journalism’s collapse is an enigma.

But it is a selfish profession that hordes in anarchy, stealing scripts.

Not creating adlibtures that make you fluid and adaptable.

Because once you prove that you can be absolutely trusted in anarchy, you are on to the next step: alchemy.

Turning lead into gold.

Because alchemy is the emotional science that takes those adlibtures and puts them to good use.

You can improvise and assess on the drop of a hat.

And then, when you have your personal gold, you share it.

The third step of altruism.

You do not tell people how moral you are: you show.

No virtue-signalling or teeth-gnashing.

You give. You give credit where credit is due. You do away with pecking orders. You are not petty or jealous, let alone vindictive or closed-minded.

Your adlibtures begin to create new worlds on their own — and if you do it right, long after you breath your last.

People patronize me, ignore me, bully me, and dismiss me.

But they can never stop me.

I made a promise a long time ago.

And I keep my promises.

I have no trouble telling people off.

But I also have no trouble being inconvenienced to help someone when they are down without them ever knowing that I did.

That’s what should have been journalism. It should have been a noble profession.

Why?

No alibture.

And hence, no way of getting on track to altruism where it could freely create castles and gardens of gold without losing anything in the bargain…

Why is there a linear divide in 2019?

I

Screen Shot 2019-02-15 at 7.29.12 PM.png

II

I remember when Mortal Kombat first came out. A friend had it, was pumped, and wanted me to play it because I had been into video games, was very good at it when I was, and at the time, females weren’t being equated with being into the hobby (odd because I knew lots of girls my age who were actively playing it).

I didn’t like the gore. I thought it was overkill. I was really starting to appreciate the Bushido Code at the time, and thought the game was a spit in the face to it. You defeated an opponent; ripping out his head isn’t victory: it’s a serial killer’s MO.

I expressed my displeasure and got called names for my lack of enthusiasm.

I know the 11th edition is coming up. I have been exposed to the tenth version, and to me, it is a ridiculous premise: a character dies with wounds on one side of his face and the characters look sad.

Uh, excuse me? Don’t you people chop up opponents who are allegedly your pals as a course of habit? Including the dead guy?

And if given a chance, parents and children are chopping and tearing each other up and posing for selfies of the carnage.

Seriously?

Voguing after you commit indignity to a human body?

Stomping someone to the ground isn’t brave.

Some video games really taught generations how to function by rote: find a target, develop an antagonistic relationship with them, and then fight them, and then stomp them into the ground.

It explains Twitter. It is Mortal Kombat with words.

I don’t think video games induce violence, but I do believe that reinforce antagonistic dynamics that restrict ideas of cooperation as they reinforce intense and reactionary behaviours.

When I was a kid, I made my own computer games. They were crude, but always involved cooperation among players that involved thinking up very ribald and gross ideas and then turning it into a story where no one knows what the other person wrote until the end. I don’t think a single story did not have someone included some sort of scene involving various bowel movements. Kids are stupid, but always find laughs somewhere.

The stories were immature and obnoxious, but were great for laughs.

I did play Impossible Mission, and it did scare the shit right out of me when the little pixel guy screamed as he fell to his doom. My mom always knew I was playing that game by my facial expression of doom.

I managed to beat the game even though I never had actual game play instructions. You didn’t fight anyone: you dodged robots as you gathered clues to stop the evil scientist from taking over the world, muah ha ha and all that jazz.

I lost interest for games fairly early, though I did like the early online Escape the Room games where people from around the world would play it when it was release and cooperate with each other to solve it.

That I liked very much.

I always wondered why we don’t foster cooperation without creating pecking orders. Mutually beneficial outcomes while respecting others is the optimal solution, and yet people are always scheming how they can do a jig after destroying everyone else around them.

With Arc I, I am going to start questioning our base societal assumptions. I will be asking why we cannot let facts speak for themselves.

It’s a simple base, but one with more promise than the partisan guff we have conditioned ourselves to put up with for no good reason at all…

Getting back into the swing of things: Yes, this girl is back in town.

I

II

Scan 4.jpeg

III

Scan 1.jpeg

IV

giphy.gif

V

15301983_bodyshot_300x400-1.gif
6-2.gif
5-2.gif

VI

I am almost there!

2018 took everything out of me. It literally was life and death for me — and in a holding pattern.

2019 is starting very differently for me. It has been an enormous adjustment. My filters needed some serious changing, and that’s a ball that is in my court, no one else’s.

It is a strange feeling being derailed, but you can either mope and waste seconds of your life for no good reason, or you can pull yourself out and get back into the swing of things.

I choose the latter.

You can make excuses, or make things happen.

Again, I choose the latter.

And yes, it is a conscious choice. It is easy to whine and wallow and bury yourself in self-pity.

It is your life to waste.

Life is short. I don’t want to waste a second of it.

Chaser will debut this week — and it is not going to be something big, but it i going to be about learning to adjust perceptions with an old murder case.

From there, we will see.

But I also want to introduce lighter elements here.

I am writing a book, but that is a feedback loop, and I am waiting for feedback. It is exciting and I love writing books.

I also love teaching.

I am an artist, and usually, the art comes with teaching. This is the first that it connects to my writing.

But next week, I am moving forward, as things get resolved and reset…

Coming soon: A Post-Progressive Murder Mystery in 1913.

It looks like I will be doing this next week. I have been swamped and way behind schedule.

Chaser.png

It also wrecks my order.

So this is Arc One.

I have alluded to this one before.

For all the talk about this being a Woke Generation who is raging against the Man, there is a murder case that has three elements of the same problems that happened over a century ago.

Things happened. Things changed because of it, but the interesting thing was the calls came because of the treatment of the various accused.

The victim and others witnesses at the trial did not get the same woke focus.

And they should have.

I am not going to introduce anything new, but I am going to curate this case from a modern perspective.

The reason? It is about perception and interpretation.

I will be using a couple of modern cases in conjunction with this one to compare and contrast the times and even the facts.

Stay tuned…

Actrivism, Part Five: A long and complicated journey into Mindwild.

I

giphy (1).gif

II

2201990351_0cf9321d55_o.jpg

III

I was extremely fortunate that I was photographed by Villiam Hrubovcak and the picture is one of several from that photoshoot. He has shot everyone from Bjork, Elvis Costello, Billy Idol, to John Waters, and if I recall correctly, Ollie North.

I have this one he shot of me hanging in my living room.

757903794_551de7ebee_o.jpg

It is still my favourite photograph of me.

Because I usually do not pose that way. I like my face in front, but he suggested it to show off my distinctive nose; so I did, never thinking that would have been the photograph I would have selected after. I like to break my own rules, decrees, truisms, routines, and theories, but in this case, someone made the suggestion.

I do take advise. I do take chances.

Because I am not afraid to question things or people, including myself.

I test my own theories, but every once in a while, someone shows you a place where you didn’t think of testing your own rules.

But when you are intellectually uninhibited, you can question everything and eventually figure out that’s how you find the facts of reality to find the truth.

IV

Percentage-wise, Twitter brings me very little traffic to this site. I can easily deactivate my account, and my numbers would remain untouched. I have a modest, but steadily-increasing international base here, if I believe what the analytics are saying to me.

Wordpress wasn’t as accurate, and there were strange things happening. For long stretches, it would claim I had no traffic from Google searches, which I did not believe, and tested it myself on my other devices, and lo and behold, those didn’t register, either. Nice try. I cannot say the same for my current host Squarespace. So far, I am very happy with them. They are helpful, prompt, thorough, and I have never been left frustrated or have something I could not figure out on my own unresolved. I wish I came aboard sooner.

But I cannot say the same for Twitter. Is there shadow-banning of me? I don’t know why there would be, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either.

I have been on Twitter for years, and I have been hover at 1790 followers for as long as I can remember, according to them, which is low. I am also on Ello, a smaller social media site, and though I have not been there as long and don’t post as often, my followers have increased steadily to over 3600, more than double what the Twit nets me.

And I do not make the first move to gain followers. People come to me first. So that’s quite a difference where the pool in one site is far greater than the other. By mere chance alone, I should have more than double on Twitter than I do on Ello.

Maybe the difference is that I don’t trust Twitter. There is no proof that any organized groundswell of reaction is organic, spontaneous, or genuine, and I doubt that it is any of the above. It is way too easy to game the system. It has become social propaganda for various advertisers and political groups that is intermingled with naive people who are followers by design, and believe everything they see on the Troll Scroll.

There is no respect for people. They don’t call it Twitter for nothing.

And there is nothing more deceptive than that Blue Checkmark. It does not signal what is being said is true. It does guarantee that the person writing that tweet is actually there person, it could and most likely is an assistant or PR firm.

Nor does it guarantee that the person isn’t being paid by an outside party to shill.

It doesn’t have any safeguards. The same can be said of Wikipedia, and I do not see it as a credible source of information, either.

And often who gets the blue checkmark mystifies me. They aren’t actually well-known. You can do a basic search on them and virtually come up empty-handed. They are not always people of note, let alone “social influencers.”

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 1.52.02 AM.png

Google has my verified profile, however.

My Twitter profile is there, even though I am an author of several books and do not have the little blue checkmark. I didn’t put my Twitter account there. People do look me up by name because Google’s own analytics let me know.

So across various platforms, there is a real inconsistency. Google has me verified, and directs people to my Twitter feed, yet Twitter will not give me the verified status, even though I worked as a journalist, and have several books under my belt. I had one late last year, and one coming out next year.

By all accounts, that should be more than enough, especially considering how low the bar is.

But it is hard to justify lobbying for something that I know is rigged and filled with propaganda spewed from behind a curtain.

It is more than fake news. It is fake followers. It is just fake.

It is not an informational portal. It is an advertising vehicle to push ideologies just as Facebook is amateur press release.

And whenever you challenge something on that platform, the vipers come out to intimidate with insults.

Don’t give me lip.

Give me proof.

But when you cannot verify who is writing the tweet is who they say they are, nor whether or not they are being paid to say it, you won’t find any proof there at all.

V

Twitter wasn’t build to prove. It was built to bully. It was built to foster groupthink. It was made to prime, groom, and deliver audiences with the right mindset to build clusters of thought.

The word count is too low for anything rational to transpire. At least Facebook talks about connections as “friends” and LinkedIn uses the word “connection.” Twitter was the one who used the trigger word “follower.”

It is brazen enough. They might as well use a pigeon over the Mountain Bluebird they have as their logo.

But it gives the illusion of control and genuine interaction. You think you know what you see, and that is its strength. You don’t know what’s on the other side of that missive or the motive for it being there.

It makes it a prime breeding ground for manipulation.

But it also weakens and devalues words and opinion. There is too much clutter.

Because everything is virtual, the impact is not as great as it appears. The turnover is fast for anything to take root and grow. People let off steam with slacktivism. People try to one-up others. There is petty rivalry, but few real tangible results that hit their targets.

For example, #MeToo. It seemed as if it did its job, but what did the faceless movement actually net?

It took down a lot of men on the Left because they could not live up to the book of rules. They were done in by a misfiring of Alinksy’s Gun.

But that’s not who that gun was meant to shoot: it was men on the Right who were supposed to crumble and fall.

Brent Kavanaugh was supposed to have fallen. While the damsels-in-distress marched in their cosplay red robes, he ultimately got issued a Supreme Court black robe.

Twitter is not a precise weapon. So far, Donald Trump seems to have known how to use it.

Digital media doesn’t know how to use it. They crashed. Traditional media also was clueless and collapsed.

For a social media site that is all about communications, it doesn’t actually work the way people think it does.

Just one septuagenarian. This quadragenarian has no use for it.

Because Twitter is like a bad psychic: you can see the rigs a mile away.

It’s that transparent.

And the motives for people’s continued gullibility when using it.

It doesn’t interest me.

I prefer a more instructive challenge.

Which brings me to Mindwild.

VI

I always thrived with a challenge. I like puzzles. I like when things are not obvious to me.

I when I can challenge my own rules, turn them over, see them break, and then find the atom of truth.

Knowledge is flexible, not static. It evolves, changes, and grows, and why I like to revisit past knowledge and update what I know.

So when I decided to go into journalism to study it, I had to think about a lot of things very carefully.

I had to define what I was doing, and if I didn’t reach certain milestones, or things didn’t go to plan, I needed plans and counter-plans.

I called it Method Research. I was taking my laboratory into the real world. It was like a scientist placing herself into an atom to study it.

My job? Being an actrivist — being actively inside the world I was studying.

These terms were my shorthand to remind me what I was doing. It is very easy to get lost in the moment and forget what to do. It’s like sparring with someone in the boxing ring and then forgetting to keep your guard up.

And what about the experiments I was conducting?

I dubbed those Mindwild. The point was not to think I was confined. I was out in the wild. I was part cavewoman fighting for survival naturally, and part android, carefully analyzing the natural elements to process information empirically.

And my experiments had to reflect these two extremes, bringing them to the radical centre: don’t take sides. Take notes. Take facts.

That meant my experiments could be as wild as I come up, but my analysis had to be as disciplined as they could be. Chaos and order at the same time.

I was methodical but took advantage of any opportunity presented to me.

It was all about taking snapshots of reality, all while remembering who I was and what I was doing. It is not as if there was a roadmap.

I was the cartographer, and I wasn’t just mapping out the profession, but who I was in it because as much as I was an experimenter, I was also the test subject.

And I learn a lot about journalism, myself, how to conduct experiments, and also the nature of truth, reality, perception, and interpretation.

For example, I learned how we define out terms confines the outcomes of what we reap from its definition. The more ill-defined it is, the less we get out of it.

And journalism is a profession with no desire to define any of its terms.

How do you define “fact-check”, for instance? It is doublespeak and a nonsense word that is suppose to give false reassurance to the believers and shut down and psych out detractors.

How can you even have an imprecise and folksy term for something that dictates specialization and precision?

It’s a scam. Worse, it is a patronizing scam.

It’s no different than saying someone is a doctor: what kind of doctor? What is their area of expertise? An oncologist or internist? And even then, they have their specialized area.

Or lawyer. What kind of lawyer? Criminal? Divorce? Real Estate? Corporate?

So the word “fact-check” is pure bullshit.

It’s just an arrogant bunch who use the word to snow people who don’t know the industry.

But that doesn’t work on people who know because they worked in the business, never falling for its alleged prestige and bragging rights.

While society moves towards AI and conducting research with cold arbitrary logic, they are losing the wild part of the equation.

The part the develops instincts. You can teach someone to box with a textbook, but put them in the ring, and they will lose to the person who had to fight in real life for their survival without a trainer.

But, have someone fight in the real world for their survival as they have a trainer and a textbook and war manual, and they understand the theory and the practice.

That’s what I called Mindwild.

I didn’t just use it working as a journalist. I still use it to this day. I can look at something, and see the rigid thinking and assumptions its structure and content is based on.

And it can do a lot to your thinking.

I became a political atheist.

I believe in peace. I believe in progress. Neither can be found using an antiquated model of governance or journalism.

I also became a radical feminist, but not in the traditional sloppy definition of it.

But that means that (a) you do not expect an Establishment will change because you shamed them, and (b) you have to have active strategies to building new systems and not rely on old patriarchal models.

Most importantly, I learned as much about myself as I did about the world around me.

The world chose to stagnate and to old on to toxic security blankets.

I chose to flourish and grow without worrying about myself because I know who I am.

Someone who doesn’t worry about memorizing a script.

Because I don’t hide behind a script, I have allowed myself to mature and blossom, and I know who I am.

And it’s not any established role someone else has rigged up to keep people from succeeding.

I have learned to challenge the rules of anarchy and enigmas because I become both, and broke more barriers because I knew that even anarchy masks something beyond it.

And that means there are new frontiers we haven’t even seen yet.

The world is never a bore — there is always some new thrilling truth to learn, and yet people still cling on to the same old boring lies.

The world is beautiful. The future is exciting.

But you’ll never know it until you explore it, study it, nurture it, love it, listen to it, and unleash yourself in it.

That’s Method Research.

That’s Actrivism.

And that’s Mindwild.

Every atom is an omniverse of excitement and thrills just ready to be unleashed itself.

If only you are brave enough, loving enough, and truth enough to open it…

Actrivism, Part Four: Journalists vogue around the edges. An actrivist acts inside the core.

I

II

Bunny Yeager.jpg

III

Bunny Yeager was a pin-up model and a contemporary of Bettie Page, but she was also a photographer who captured her fellow glamour model.

Bettie-Page-and-Cheetahjpg.jpg

Working from both sides of the profession was helpful and that eye of hers contributed to many of Page’s most iconic images.

The photographer who snapped my picture for Hamilton magazine was a beauty queen and model before becoming a photographer herself. By sheer coincidence, we went to the same middle school and were in the same homeroom class, but as there were three different grades in each homeroom class (6,7, and 8), we weren’t in the same grade or classes; so we knew each other, but hadn’t seen each other after the year was over.

1929901_17560207386_2931_n.jpg

I usually don’t like being photographed, but she did a stellar job of capturing me as I am.

She used natural light in that magazine. I have had my photo taken professionally over the years, but the way she did her job was unique — and it was her experience from the other side of the equation that did it.

There is a balance that is a subtle representation of that era of my life — the boxer’s muscle, the prim and proper punkiness, and, of course, the computer.

The nuances of details — the comic book vibe, the jewelry, the perkiness, the black turtleneck (out of the several tops I was asked to bring — it was the one she picked) — it is all in there.

And that is not as easy to capture as it looks — all without being busy or cluttered.

Which itself reflects me: a Trompe-l'œil minimalist.

I was extremely impressed with the subtextual complexity.

But that was her genius, not mine. I was no control freak and had no expectations coming in. No overt or subtle hints from me.

But that’s what happens when you study something from both sides of the equation: no one has to tell you anything: it becomes one with the very stuff of your soul.

And you don’t need to fake anything: you’re merged inside the core because you are acting inside of it and know its every grain.

IV

Journalists always had to fake it. They vogue and have to spin a big, melodramatic narrative. And one that never aligns with reality.

Because they have no idea what this whole objectivity is about. They think it is being around the edges because it is a bad thing to be in the core.

But that’s the atom of reality. Objectivity does not mean you don’t immerse yourself or move in the very eye of the storm.

Because Left and Right is the huge red flag that you are voguing at the edge.

You are not in the atom of reality.

The Radical Centre.

When you are an Actrivist, on the other hand, you have to act, and that means you are always moving around exploring everything.

You want to get into the heart of the thing that you are studying. You are walking among the subjects and environment you are studying, but also in its core.

You are in the eye of the storm because you do not want to waste your steps. You want to understand the deepest truths — so you go right in to the core to see what is the heart of the reality to find its Truths.

Once you understand the core — the real reasons why reality is in its current state — no one can lie to you by trying to push you away from the core and toward the façade — the edge.

Left and Right are misdirections.

Both sides will try to sell you lie that they are different with one being superior to the other.

And they will point to the content, which is another misdirection.

I can tell you I believe in saving bunnies, but if I shove them in cages in the dark, then my words are meaningless.

It is the structure of my actions and methods that are important.

What are the motives, strategies — and stratagems?

That’s what you need to find out.

Journalists vogue for the public, telling them they are the guardians of the universe and all that jazz.

If you don’t know what they are doing, you will take them at their word.

If you are walking in the core of that profession, you can square the words with the behaviours.

And then you don’t have to be dependent on anyone’s word.

You have the actions. You have the results.

You have the structure to see if it contradicts the honeyed content.

But when a profession keeps the cores of what they are covering at arm’s length, you start questioning why are they so afraid of it.

Because they fear their own core — or lack thereof.

Actrivism is the way of conduct research to become one with the core. By the time you are done, if becomes part of you.

And you develop a feel and see the feints, ruses, and rigs used to keep other’s at arm’s length.

But by then, you see the misdirection of voguing and know precisely where to look and how…

On yearbooks and journalistic laziness. I used to find yearbooks of people I interviewed and covered. Why did reporters need a "tip" in the Northam Scandal?

Trust journalists to brag about their own laziness and try to spin it as some sort of piece of investigative journalism.

Take this Washington Post piece of propaganda:

A tip from a ‘concerned citizen’ helps a reporter land the scoop of a lifetime

Really? Someone had to call and do your job for you?

Why didn’t any journalist not track down the future governor’s yearbooks from high school and university when he first went into politics?

What kind of garbage are you trying to spin?

Because when I worked as a journalist, I always tracked down yearbooks.

You have no idea what a trick it was, but I always tracked them down. You go to the high schools and they have them. There are public libraries that have them. Municipal and school archives have them. Friends and former classmates have them.

There is zero excuse for it, and that journalists didn’t track this down from the get-go shows just how worthless and lazy they are.

I was in the yearbook committee in both junior high and high school, and I was the yearbook editor in my graduating year.

I also have my undergraduate yearbook from McMaster University.

I still have my yearbooks.

The first thing you should do when you are covering a story about someone is to track down their yearbooks.

When I had done Chaser Investigative News the first time, not only did I track down yearbooks, I talked about the process. There was one story about a missing woman who was accidentally photographed at a Take Back the Night Rally.

I tracked down the yearbooks, and discovered the she had switched schools at one point, and failed a grade. I found out she was not involved in any extracurricular activities, was never an honour student, but I found people who knew her who told me a lot about the clique she hung out with. This group even had a name.

I saw through her yearbook pictures that she blossomed quite dramatically, which confirmed information I was given about the family’s fortunes at the time.

And as I wrote about things, I had local people who read my blog who also looked at those corresponding yearbooks to see if they could glean anything I could have missed. People were engaged with the story, but I was the one who got the ball rolling.

Those yearbooks weren’t hidden. Neither was the one with Northam’s dubious blackface. No one ever commented publicly on Northam’s page before that — or if they went to the press before, their tips were ignored.

Remember, this is a yearbook picture from 1984.

Thirty-five years ago.

Right out in the open.

So there are a slew of other questions here, but the big one is why didn’t a single reporter see it until someone had to go to them and point it out?

So the reporter who allegedly “broke” the story, didn’t.

That itself is a gross misrepresentation of the actual event.

And the real story isn’t about a university yearbook with a blackface picture of a future politician.

It is that it was there for decades, and not a single journalist thought to look.

I always did — and anyone who has read any Magnus Lyme Mystery novella knows my stories always have Miss Lyme tracking down yearbooks of suspects. It is a running joke throughout them.

Because that’s what I did as a journalist, and that twist is a nod to my thoroughness as a researcher.

So shame on the Washington Post for being dishonest and deceitful — and trying to spin bad journalism into good journalism. The stench of their burning trousers reek all the way here…

The Art of War, 2019.

I

20171201_134541.jpeg

II

I feel sympathy for John McCallum. When I was a kid, we had a class trip to watch a play of Robin Hood, and the evil Sheriff of Nottingham told the audience he was going to trap Robin by putting a note on the tree, and when he read the note, he’d catch him.

I took this so very seriously.

So when the actor who played Robin went to read the notes, I screamed, “Don’t read the note, Robin!” from the top of my little lungs.

And then so did the other kids.

I am sure the actor was used to it and was either amused or annoyed, but he was a good sport, pretending he couldn’t hear us — and the play went by the script, pissing me off no end, and after that, I just didn’t care what happened to Robin. You don’t take advise, you deserve to be caught by the bad guy. So there.

I am certain McCallum, who is an accomplished politician and academic, is not a stupid man. Watching the political buffoonery must be maddening. I feel the same way about journalism.

So here is a former cabinet minister, professor, economist who is privy to far more of the current federal regime than most people are, and he had become unleashed for a reason.

He wouldn’t risk it just because he is a silly man. He managed to have a long and impressive career all on his own with incident. That is not something to ignore or dismiss to fit a narrative. Something else is going on to the point where a seasoned politician makes an assessment and lobs two grenades in a guerrilla attack.

Welcome to the new Art of War, 2019.

III

The Art of War is an interesting text that has held up so well because people who fight wars tend to follow scripts. It works because we have relied on patriarchal structures and have never once truly challenged them — and even when critics think they are, they always present another patriarchal structure with the lone difference that is it s rigged to their own favour.

Like how the American Left have been pretending to be enlightened with their “socialism” to go up against capitalism on the account that it is rigged to favour the privileged white boys…except socialism was created by privileged white boys, too.

If you want equality, then you better provide tangible evidence that you, too, can come up with your own model to replace the Gold Standard. Otherwise, shut up and go back to the drawing board — this time without cribbing from the very people you condemn.

Current ideological warfare has been reduced to an infantile joke: the point is not to take money from other people to fund your fantasies. Fight for the opportunity to make your own on your own terms.

And I practice what I preach: I created my own writing structures. I created A Dangerous Woman that is nothing like what’s out there. I was influenced and inspired by others because I do not believe everyone before me is horrible, but when I started to write, I did my own thing.

And when I started Chaser News before that, guess what? I took an epistolary style. No other journalism outfit was doing it, and they still don’t get it.

I have come up with an alternative to journalism — F.R.E.E.D. defies conventions of the old guard.

That is what true equality means: having a diversity of visionaries and creators who create something different. We have people howling about “cultural appropriation” even if their own culture appropriated it from someone else — but have no trouble ideologically or structurally appropriating things from others.

So in 2019, the Art of War is not about just deception, but a specific kind of deception: hypocrisy.

This is the reason everything is upside down. You have Right-leaning publications decrying sexual harassment and Establishment meddling in ways they never did before. You have Leftist politicians cribbing from those on the Right, except the Left miss the nuances that will ultimately trip them.

Because in this new ideological war, the misdirection is Left-Right. They are both the same. One is not superior to the other in any way, shape, or form.

And both are hypocrites.

War is hypocrisy. War is preventing your opponent from doing the very things that you do or want to do. Never in modern history has Saul Alinsky been more critical.

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

That’s the starting point to this current ideological war. Both sides are now forced to present a narrative that they are, in fact, doing it, when they, in fact, are not.

This is their fatal weakness, and this is the precise place where it will all break loose. Both the Left and the Right have the same problem that compels them to have the same strategy. They cancel each other out.

Because they are cribbing from each other, but as they are in the Zero-Risk Society, they have to be careful how they do it.

You see it in Canada. The Liberals won in the last election with a leader who is a bland and unremarkable middle manager; so the other two parties got their own version of a bland and unremarkable middle manager. It’s as if these three parties are begging for a minority government and a three-way tie.

The battleground now has a single rule: fight with Zero-Risk, but that is inversely proportional to the amount you gamble.

So here we are in a Zero-Risk War Zone, meaning it is a 100%-Gamble Zone. There are huge differences.

A risk is when you plan, research, practice, and test before trying something different in a trying circumstance, with a back-up plan if the first try fails to produce the desired results. You are confident in your abilities, but realistic as you rely on facts, logic and emotional literacy.

A gamble is when you do not plan, research, practice, or test but have an idea and go into something unprepared with no strategy or expectation of something going wrong. You are overconfident in your luck, and rely on gossip, sophistry and fantasy.

That is the war being waged right now. We have people who think opinion-shaming will force people to surrender.

No, that just makes your enemies look closer at you and see that you aren’t living to your own rulebook.

Because the Internet took away that one rig.

And is turning the Art of War on its head…

Why read the New York Times when this website has already said months before?

I

thief-of-thie4112012ves.jpeg

II

Calvinball.jpg

III

Gotta love those unoriginal thinkers at the New York Times when they have reruns such as this piece:

In Business and Governing, Trump Seeks Victory in Chaos

Gee, New York Times, where did you get this idea?

Perhaps from my last book?

latestbbok.jpg

Or maybe from my website, in countless entries?

Like this one in June of 2018?

For people who read this site frequently, you know the Chaos Narrative and that I have said here and in my book that Trump plays Go and thrives in chaos.

Yes, the New York Times obviously has to scrape my site for ideas.

I have been thinking about things very carefully, and what I am going to do with Chaser. Until tonight, I was at a crossroads; now, I have had a revelation, and combined with my intellectual transmutation, I have a very clear idea of what I am going to do next.

That means that now my third arc is coming first, and that should be in two weeks. It is a One Shot, and it has to do with a notorious case from another era that would be seen differently in a #MeToo era.

Then I will have something on Postmedia, and then comes a geo-political story. 

And then a hiatus for me to finish writing my book.

Come summer, I am taking a vastly different track. Journalism and old school elites play chess. Trump plays Go.

Alexandra Kitty plays something else entirely. It is a game called Chaser, and the object of the game is to turn over rules that shred scripts one page at a time.

And that is your message from…

Chaser.png

Method Research, Part Three: Journalist, Expose Thyself.

I

II

III

Both those prints hang on my walls in my home. Catwoman is a sentimental favourite heroine of mine. She has nine lives, is a survivor, but does it all so very glamourously.

The second one reminds me of a character I created years ago named Magnus Lyme, aka, The World’s Most Dangerous Woman.

When she wears her red dress, watch out.

When people come to my house, they usually say that you can tell an artist lives here.

It’s true. You can tell a lot about me from my house. I am not a secretive person. I am an open book.

My fiction also represents me in different ways.

When I did Chaser the first time, I was open. There were things that pissed me off no end. I put my cards on the table, and that was the reason I used playing cards as an allegory for the website.

Particularly the Queen of Hearts. Particularly the rigged game of Find the Lady.

I talked about magic tricks. There was a reason.

There were many reasons for it. If you are going to chronicle reality, you have to face it first.

And the best way to face the failings of a profession is by working in it.

When you have things on the line and your future invested in it, you have a completely different mindset.

Because when you are walking among those you are studying, it is a completely different experience than merely looking on the outside.

There is an interesting story about a doctor who had cancer:

As A Doctor, I Thought I Knew Cancer Inside And Out. Then I Found Out I Had It.

And he discovered he didn’t know as much as he thought.

He went into a version of Method Version, a post-hoc version, but he was trained to know it as a scientist.

I did the same thing with journalism (and if any moron gets offended by me comparing myself to him, fuck you. I had cancer while looking after a mother who had it at the same time. Read the memo, asshole).

When you compare your understanding before the event and after, you cannot believe how clueless and naive you were. You cannot compare.

That’s why journalism turned into a garbage pile. There is no method to the research.

And we now have a sterilized generation who think they are cunning by not doing anything and living in a bubble: you cannot be an armchair opinionist. You have to get dirty, beat up, make mistakes, and live through it — but when you go in with a plan of study, you are not wasting the ass-kicking you get: you go back and learn. Eventually, you kick-ass yourself as you gain mastery.

You see how the problems really operate. You don’t take educated guesses because it is on your own skin that you feel it as you immerse yourself in it.

Journalism has no transparency.

DxHNCMDVYAAGHLo-1.jpg

For example, what PR firm or lobbyist is behind this cover? What generous benefactor hijacked or co-opted coverage? What friends in high places are waging war through the media? Positive and negative coverage has those who benefit, and yet we keep pretending the work is objective or accurate.

I worked as a journalist. I heard the cheerleading and the demonizations in equal measure. I have heard reporters who bragged about their own drug use condemn newsmakers for having substance abuse issues in their reports.

Psychoanalysts have to undergo psychotherapy before practicing their trade. Journalists should be made to do the same as well as their overlords. You would not get the cocky propaganda being spewed now.

I saw how twisted the logic became in the profession. I saw the justifications and sophistry used to make excuses for rot.

That is the reason I have always been an open book. Unless you have torn yourself to shreds, you have no business tearing other people to shreds. Journalists are assholes, plain and simple, and they should be torn into a million little pieces.

And that’s what I have done as a Method Researcher.

I tore that profession to shreds, examining every atom. I examined it as I broke through façades to see how that industry was dysfunctional.

And bigoted, misogynistic, and ignorant.

It is hard to imagine that in 2019, people don’t make demands.

And call for a replacement.

I have the blueprints because I know how that garbage was left to fester.

Because I am a Method Researcher…

Method Research, Preface.

I

about_face.jpg

II

marmorni7.jpg

III

IMG_1969.JPG

IV

ak951up6.png

V

16952086sy3.jpg

VI

Each one of those pictures represents a milestone in my life. The first is my first profile on me when I was operating Chaser. The second was my undergrad photo where I was on the cusp of creating something called Method Research. The third was at the height of said Method Research. The fourth was taken on my first day in j-school when I was in my first year of Method Research. The fifth was taken when I won the Arch Award at McMaster University where it all began and it came full circle less than a year before my two books of my results of Method Research would be published by Disinfo.

Those were taken years ago, and I thought my work was done.

But sometimes there is a new picture, and a new revelation that brings old ideas into a new light…

alexandra.jpg

The Labellers: Creating false narratives with ridicule and fear-mongering.

I

Spectreredesign.jpg

II

I have had an interesting couple of days where I have had different threads and unexpected comments and messages that are worth mentioning, so here it goes.

I get messages from people, and someone made an interesting indirect comment reminding me how insular and incestuous Canadian journalism happens to be. It’s true, and I remember when I was a Canadian correspondent for Presstime magazine in the late 1990s’/early aughts, and I was at a industry function where someone who was the head of a Canadian journalism organization made the comment that he was surprised that I got to write for NAA’s publication, when you would “expect” some Canadian editor or publisher to hold that lofty title.

Why would they? There is absolutely nothing inherent about the position that would have required that because other people who wrote articles for Presstime were journalists the same way journalists write for every other publication.

But that’s not what he meant. I wasn’t there because of nepotism or cronyism. I wasn’t part of an incestuous network of the usual gang of idiots; so how the hell did I get a job that, in Canada, would have absolutely been reserved for someone who was part of that stagnate clique?

Answer: because I have talent and the ingenuity to put my resume in to a US publication where that degree of cronyism didn’t exist; thereby bypassing the xenophobic structure of the journalism back in my own country.

Most of my credentials rest with US publications, and when it comes to my books, my publishers have either been from the US or the UK. Aside from the fact that Canadian publications and publishers don’t pay anywhere near what the other two nations pay their writers, the truth is that if you are going to hedge your bets and put in the most effort with the best pay-off, do it with publications with a bigger audience, better pay, and more merit-based filters. It’s not as if I have never written for Canadian outfits, but the traditional “harder markets” were just easier to deal with in my case.

There are rigs in place because the structure of thought dictates that these rigs are normal.

And that happens to be the Canadian way.

Just look at Canadian politics.

Rachel Notley is the premier of Alberta. Her was was Grant Notley.

Doug Ford is the premier of Ontario. His father Doug Ford Senior was an Ontario MPP. Doug Junior ran against Caroline Mulroney whose father was a prime minister and Christine Elliott, whose husband was a prominent federal cabinet minister.

Even our prime minister’s daddy was a prime minister.

I liken it to people looking for established names as if they were luxury brand items, but people are not shoes or cars. The one after it is not a replica of the one before it.

People in Canada have a Zero Risk mindset, and the heuristics are based upon this kind of rule of thumb-thinking, always looking for a “sure thing.”

III

But I would in no way say Canada is proof that there is a conspiracy afoot. We have nepotism and cronyism not because of some vast and diabolical conspiracy, but because citizens make no demands, and look for “sure things”, consistently confusing provenance and quality goods with human behaviour.

I remember when the Jive Turkey was running for prime minister, and people who decided to vote for him had a narrative set. When I asked about his profound lack of experience, the answer I always got was since he “grew up” with a politician father, he, by some miracle of intellectual osmosis would have to be up to code.

I would nod and ask would they feel comfortable if their surgeon or criminal lawyer assigned to them didn’t bother with a degree, license, or experience, but had a mom or dad who were surgeons and lawyers. Usually, an alarmed, “No!” told me everything I needed to know about their thinking. In their drive for Zero Risk, they will take a 100% gamble, yet don’t see it unless you place their own logic in a proper context.

Throw in Appeal to Authority and the Confirmation Bias, and what you have is the recipe for cronyism to flourish.

There is no conspiracy. Cronies stick together, yes, but if outsiders put their foot down and give resistance, then the clique no longer exists. Fresh blood comes in, circulating and creating a flexible structure, and people who thrive through rigs and stagnation can’t build walls and fences, keeping out people who have new ideas, better talent, and different approaches. If you want true diversity, then you have to stop taking gambles, and learn how to take risks.

But for those who thrive in rigs and cronyism, they are terrified at the prospect, so they do what all lesser talents do: try to villainize outsiders and label them in order to discredit them from the get-go.

IV

Conspiracies happen and frequently, and people often go to jail because of them. These conspiracies aren’t from a Bond movie, however. Conspiracy to commit murder is common enough. Also common is conspiracy to commit fraud, especially when it comes to fleecing the elderly. Less common is conspiracy to commit forgery. Price fixing is also an example of a conspiracy, and in Canada, we saw bread being at the centre of such an accusation. We have anti-trust laws for a reason.

But “conspiracy” is also a trigger word and a propagandistic one. When someone wants to dismiss someone’s accusations of collusion, or even disagreement, suddenly, the person is painted as a loon and a “conspiracy theorist.”

I just across such a case on Wikipedia where someone with multiple Ivy League degrees was labelled a “conspiracy theorist” without a shred of proof. The person isn’t making wild accusations about Illuminati groups —they are disagreeing with a mainstream patriarchal narrative that I happen to know is wrong. That isn’t a “conspiracy theorist.”

I have written to Wikipedia to ask about it, and got a long, but not an entirely satisfactory reply, and it is something that I am pursuing, and will write more about it later. There have been many radio personalities and authors who exploit the persona of a conspiracy theorist, but the term itself is a real form of propaganda.

Whenever a certain Establishment group want to deflect attention away from their inbred incompetency, they slap the label of “conspiracy theorist”, and then hope the little Middle Class people will brainlessly parrot the label.

Most times, the Labellers banks on mass laziness and complacency to keep a status quo — usually a label that creates both a false role and a false narrative that constricts thinking, stigmatizes and belittles the target with both ridicule and fear.

This is a monster out to make trouble! They are ignorant, and insane! Don’t believe them!

The Catholic church successfully played that gambit on children for decades. You had little boys and girls who were repeated molested and raped by the clergy, and instead of being believed by their own parents, police, and courts, they were labelled as liars and troublemakers.

And as we know now, those young children weren’t conspiracy theorists. They were victims.

Labellers are a very wicked form of propagandist: they try to cut criticism off at the pass, spinning a narrative that questioning them is an act of insanity, bitterness, and evil.

Labellers take advantage of the accuser’s emotionality, which is a normal and healthy reaction to being consistently constricted or even harmed. The problem with their argument is that emotionality isn’t irrationality — but the lack of emotions is a red flag that the person may have an Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Or at least is overplaying their hand with a mask.

That’s why we always need facts.

Labellers try to hide facts at all costs. They will use other phrases other than “conspiracy theorist.” There is always “disgruntled employee”. Well, yes, employees often become disgruntled if you fuck them over. It is akin to calling a rape victim a “hysterical female” after she’s been assaulted and using that distressed state as “proof” that she isn’t a reliable source.

And yes, “hysterical female” is also pet insult of Labellers. Women, who are often discriminated against are rightfully upset that they are being screwed and denied — the agitated state is often evidence of the claim’s veracity.

Whenever we are presented with neatly prepackaged labels, the point isn’t to accept them, but to question them. We don’t accept or dismiss, but then start asking questions. Often, just challenging the label as we ask for verifiable evidence for its usage is enough to prove the label is nothing more than a propagandistic ruse used to hide anything from incompetence to illegal rigs.

Labellers bank on people’s fear and aversion to risk to dismiss inconvenient information that may negatively impact their home sales or promotions. It works until there is one too many “conspiracy theorist”, and then a scandal erupts. Or one too many “hysterical females” come forward and we have #MeToo.

Then all hell breaks loose with those some Zero Risk people howling, how could it happen?

Easy. It wasn’t conspiracy, but complacency. We avoid challenges, confrontations, and debates. We try to stifle diverse points of views and new and untested commodities or ideas. When we fear change or challenge, we allow stagnate and inbred methods to infest society, creating the perfect environment for bad and corrupt practices.

The solution is to keep asking questions as we demand real and concrete answers.

It is the reason why journalism failed: they stopped asking hard questions. They stopped answering hard questions of themselves. The end result is that we are living in a factual void right now.

It won’t last. We have had spells where propaganda dominated because those who were supposed to ask questions became Labellers. As problems mount, they infest and then destroy those comfy “space spaces” and the monsters that we hid under the bed and swept under the rug come to life to terrorize us.

It's never a foregone conclusion. We can’t blame “conspiracies” for our own failings and fears. That’s on us — not on some Them or make believe Bond baddie.

In other words, we are the heroes, victims, or villains of our own story — it all depends on how much risk we take — and how much we gamble…

MV5BMDI5ZWJhOWItYTlhOC00YWNhLTlkNzctNDU5YTI1M2E1MWZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTIzOTk5ODM@._V1_.jpg

Toronto Star's patronization campaign: We're not wrong. You're just stupid. Journalistic negging as a propaganda strategy.

One of the worst newspapers in terms of spreading meta-propaganda is the Toronto Star.

They are absolutely relentless, like bible thumpers.

While many journalist vehicles settle for a war strategy, the Star uses fanatical religious strategy, with dash of pick-up artistry.

I worked as a journalist. I wrote about journalism. I wrote about the Toronto Star. I have recounted before how their one-time managing editor Jim Travers lied to my editors at Presstime, accusing me of making up quotes, forgetting that I tape recorded the entire interview with his express permission. They got my tape, took my side, and told him they confirmed that what I quoted was what he said and in context. I did nothing wrong, he told them he would call to apologize to me — and never did.

But the Star is very image-conscious. They have cultivated a fortress that hides the true rot inside. Sometimes the rot comes out, but they preach so loudly that they hope to drown things out.

People like me do not fall for it.

Toronto Star tries to use every cosmetic tool under the sun to hide the fact they are not what they preach to be, and try to cut off criticism off at the pass, but their arrogance keeps getting in the way.

Let’s take a look this propagandistic column:

What readers should know about journalism

So, right off the bat, they have, like other cults and religions, created a pecking order. You don’t “know” journalism, and now the preacher will sing the gospel to you:

Study after study on trust in journalism points to an “understanding gap” between journalists and their readers.

They are manipulating readers from the first sentence: we have nebulous and un-empirical “studies” to show that readers are just too stupid to understand journalism.

This is more than just a pecking order: this is a brazen act of negging.

Pick-up artists use it to aim for a woman who is out of their league, and then knock them down a few pegs by making her question herself.

No genuine information provider would produce something so manipulative — the headline and first sentence alone betrays something far more malicious than what is presented.

This is no different than cult literature.

People understand journalism. It is not a complicated product.

People have no use for a gate-keeper anymore. They left because they found sound better.

But the Star hopes people turn back and come back.

The reason we have cultish publications such as the Star is that the structure of journalism actively fosters such Us Versus Them thinking. They are isolated in their little compounds called newsrooms. They have pecking orders. It is a very abusive and stagnate environment.

I understand journalism. I worked in it, wrote about it, studied it, and wrote books about it for two different publishers in two different countries on two different continents.

The cult of the Star is rapidly eroding, and not even a government bailout will change their fortunes, not in 2019, and not ever.

They will keep trying to position themselves as being intellectually and morally superior to their pigeons — but it is an old ruse, and one that no longer is working for them…

CNN's propaganda strategy: Gaslighting as an abusive ex-spouse. A case study of Reliable Sources.

I

II

Dangerous Woman was a song and album that came out in 2016.

My venture A Dangerous Woman Story Studio came out in 2013.

Screen Shot 2018-12-30 at 3.39.32 PM.png

So when people make the assumption that I called this A Dangerous Woman based on the song, I say, “NIce try, you dumbass motherfucker. I predate it by three years.”

I am not impressed with people assuming that I am the follower, just as I am not impressed when people talk about there not being a feminist Intercept when I had it years before the actual Intercept.

So Grande is not only unoriginal, the “dangerous woman” label nowhere near fits the goods.

There was a terrorist attack during her concert in Manchester, she didn’t explode herself or show anything other than timidity.

A dangerous woman would have not just produced a “fuck you” album, she would have done a lot more things to upset the Establishment.

She gets disrespected at Aretha Frankin’s funeral and just took it. She should have whacked him one, and reminded him, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” or he’d find out what happens when you fuck around with a dangerous woman.

And as an aside, when my time comes, and someone does something disrespectful to you at my Viking funeral, please kick them in the balls as hard as you can, and call them “motherfucker” from the top of your lungs, even if we were besties and my death wounds you deeply, and the whole wide world is watching. You can even give them the finger. Calling them an asshole or picko jedna for good measure is a classy and dainty touch. I will be wholeheartedly cheering you on from Eden if you do. Don’t use my death as an excuse to allow bullshittery to go unpunished. Fuck that shit.

But in the communications industries, what you see on the label isn’t what you actually get: you are told this entity represents X, when it represents Y.

We see this in the entertainment industry, especially when they proclaim to have “strong women” or “feminist” characters. It is utter and total bullshit. You cannot have a singer who is rail-thin, in a mock Playboy bunny outfit, and living up to every stereotype of a typical starlet be a “dangerous woman.” She defies no conventions. She adds nothing new to the discourse. She creates no new genre or message.

She isn’t a dangerous woman. She is a popular singer. She can carry a tune. She may be ambitious, but you do not have to be a feminist or a dangerous woman to be ambitious.

But it isn’t just Hollywood that misdirects attention with bombast and empty promises.

It is journalism, too.

III

Because journalism is trying to fight for its existence a day late and a dollar short, they are going for a melodramatic propaganda campaign that is holier-than-thou and self-aggrandizing.

Just like the psychopath ex you dumped who tells you that you cannot live with them.

There is a lot of gaslighting and a narrative where they are the selfless martyr who has to risk their lives for you, even though there is no evidence of it.

I doubt this will be their propaganda campaign in 2019 because it is not working.

But let’s break down how journalistic gaslighting works as their is the least sophisticated version of it.

And to keep things even simpler, let’s take a look at CNN’s journalistic meta-propaganda tool, a show about journalism called, ha ha, Reliable Sources, which is anything but reliable.

Mind you, once upon a time, this was a very good show. When Howard Kurtz and Bernard Kalb were hosting it. They actually did take a critical look at their own profession, had very smart and good interviews, and had good information and perspective.

Now, it is just plain garbage and bullshit used to propagate a self-serving narrative that journalism is the abusive ex you cannot live without.

Puke, puke.

So what propaganda is Reliable Sourced puking?

Well, the episode I saw today was the martyr bullshit story about how it was a “record” year of threats against journalists, which is nonsense. There really isn’t any reliable stats out there. After all, as a journalist, I got my share of various threats, and not one made it to any list of database, and we have had years where people such as Daniel Pearl, Chauncey Bailey, and Jill Dando were killed on the job as a direct result of doing their job.

Even if we were to look at stats, let’s not fall into a confirmation bias of looking at a single profession in a vacuum.

I bet it is more dangerous to live in Chicago than be a journalist.

Or someone on a cruise ship.

Or an aid worker in a war zone.

Or a US high school student.

I bet more nurses in Hamilton get harmed on the job in one year than the entire profession of journalism in a decade.

Or firefighters, police, and high school teachers because while I never met a reporter who got assaulted on the job, I know several teachers that did. I had a student in one of my college classes that I found later had beat another professor. I witnessed a classmate in the second grade throw a desk at my teacher and broke her leg.

How many first responders died on 9/11, compared to a single photographer who was killed by falling debris? (there were a few non-journalists who worked for broadcasters who were killed, but they weren’t targeted per se or killed covering the event — and you cannot compare them to the people who died saving others).

So when we start to do apples to apples comparison, journalism comes off as a very safe profession. Covering the sex life of Ariana Grande is not actually dangerous.

So it is safe to say journalists aren’t sticking out their necks for you.

They may be sticking their necks out lying, and their editors get fired for it when it gets exposed, yeah.

It isn’t as if journalists don’t die, but it is often from a domestic meltdown, a murderer who knows nothing of their profession, illness, or a drug overdose.

That happens to everybody.

But that is not the only sneaky things we see: trying to discredit critics by accusing them of having “fake” complaints" is rich and a typical gaslighting ruse.

I wonder if Fixpoetry is so cocky now that they ignored my warnings from the latest book and their nation’s most well-regarded newsmagazine published a whack of lies for years.

And no, Haaretz, journalism’s problems have nothing to do with “technological” shifts or having a hand’s off approach to so-called “rising stars”: they just never bothered with empirical methods. You don’t need an army of fact-checkers: you need empiricism. If you read my first book, you would have seen how many cases of fraud there was in all sorts of times and places — whether or not there was a photographer present.

There was a photographer present for this lie, Haaretz.

4704471_111618-wpvi-gofundme-case-woman-says-used-11pm-video-CC-vid.jpg

So here is a profession that never owns up to their problems are bothers to investigate their source. They take wild and unscientific guesses, but always fall back to trying to scare and gaslight people into trusting them.

Nice try.

But you fucked up your profession, and it screams the truth no matter how your try to manipulate the people who have abandoned you…

Intellectual Gesamtkunstwerk: Creating the visionary's matriarchal scaffolding.

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

I took an Art Nouveau course from Oxford University. Loved it lots for many reasons, but how often do you get to write Gesamtkunstwerk?

It is a clever concept. It is a visionary’s concept. It is a world building concept and a creator’s concept.

Build from scratch from the ground up. You are the clock. You are the compass. You design the structure and then the content.

The world is your canvas, and it is part consilience, part art, part science, and part engineering.

We often think of it in terms of art movements, but using it as an inspiration to create an intellectual scaffolding is something to consider.

I have when I created F.R.E.E.D. and refined and codified Matriarchal Storytelling.

We don’t have that kind of visionary thinking for journalism, and it is the reason I am doing what I am doing. Creating alternatives.

Everything is very patriarchal, and while Gesamtkunstwerk can imply creating everything to fall into The One, we can also create mosaics of the Infinite with them. We are not tethered by it, and the concept in no way places any kind of blinders.

We come with the blinders.

And it is funny that we speak of blinders as if that were an excuse: we may have blinders, but what about our other senses? Why are they not telling us important information?

537ba6f0e2fa3-970x545.jpg

We are not tethered.

And yet we hold on to disposable ideas as we are held back.

That’s why you get manipulated and played.

Instead of doing an intellectual inventory, weaving new facts into a latticework of ideas as we discard those that have been proven faulty, people hoard bullshit.

And then think shutting their eyes will make the evidence go away.

You don’t have to see it, but hear it or feel it.

What I am doing is building a scaffolding for information. I discussed one sector of it — journalism, and to a lesser extent, patriarchal fiction.

Now I am moving on to strategy.

The point is to use more than one sense to gather information.

And getting rid of any and all excuses to build new worlds and to find the big picture…