Defending public manipulation? Really, Macleans?


For Heaven’s sake, Fritzie! If we ever stopped lying to each other, how would we ever get to the truth?

—Brenda Leigh Johnson to Fritz Howard in The Closer


If you actually think that reporters are free agents out to find facts and present them neutrally, you ought to take a good look at this article in Macleans:

The right (and wrong) way to leak to a journalist

Stephen Maher: The recent leaking of a draft bill by the Ontario NDP was amateurish in the extreme. Here’s how these things are supposed to work.

It is this passage with the paragraphs I underlined that are truly remarkable:

Typically, oppo researchers decide who will get their leaks based on their experience with the reporter and the reach of their outlet — they give a good Toronto story to the biggest Toronto outlet and a difficult story to a good digger at a big paper.

This system allows opposition politicians to stand up in the House, point to the scoop and demand answers, without ever letting on that people who work for them had a role in the whole thing.

It is a fine system, and works pretty well no matter who is in charge, which is why smart journalists do their best to suck up to oppo researchers of all parties while maintaining a healthy skepticism about their bosses.

A fine system? Suck up?

Sorry, you cannot “suck up” to operatives and be skeptical of their bosses. They are a package deal — and you do realize their bosses are on to that, oh, decades ago.

Advocating public manipulation? Really? Let’s fool the little people by pretending that a reporter is not some sort of quasi-agent to an opposition party?

Memo to Macleans: you are not supposed to play along, where you are given strategic dirt on behest of another party, and you act as their proxy so they can then claim you found the scoop, and then they can vogue during question period to “demand” answers.

That’s rigged.

And it’s deceptive.

Because that calls everything else you do into question.

I am not naive. There is always an element of give and take. People don’t do things out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly not when it comes to an Establishment property.

The NDP were careless and not focussed on anything else but getting publicity and keeping on the good side of unions who voted for them. Throwing their source under a bus is a serious misstep, and will make future disenfranchised saboteurs wary of trusting them again. They got off topic, and they should know better by now.

But it is not journalism’s place to agree to take a script from a vested newsmaker and then pretend they didn’t. You become tainted. Many leakers have a vested interest and are manipulating public opinion — and many leakers are not some unpaid intern — they are The Man, or The Man is just using a proxy. This is the reason leaks are extremely problematic. Not useless, but are used as bait to push an exploitative agenda, or manipulative public opinion through the shadow of fear through cloak and dagger means.

It is often used to inoculate the public or test public response — what is known as a kite flying.

There is no transparency, and you are missing critical pieces of the puzzle, that, if you knew what was hidden, you would have a vastly different and more accurate response.

It is a manipulative hot mess, and as usual, the press and the politicians are involved up to their eyeballs in it…

Actrivism, Part Seven: The first question should always be: What PR firm is behind the "trend" and who is footing the bill?



Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 9.47.08 AM.png


Jeff Bezos is trying to claw his way out with a veiled Blame Trump. That’s right. The government grabbed you and made you cheat on your wife. But the deflection and gaslighting is nothing new.

Bezos is merely taking a page from Hillary Clinton’s old playbook: It’s a vast right-wing conspiracy!

Yeah, and your husband still did the deed all by his horny little self. The end.

Bezos is not used to having bad publicity. He is trying to do what every other philanderer does: blame someone else and make himself look like the victim. He isn’t a victim. He plays with the Big Boys because he is one of the Biggest Boys. His employees from Amazon to Whole Foods to the Washington Post are miserable to the point of open revolt. Anyone who falls for his garbage is naive.

And just to be clear, I am a regular at Whole Foods, which I like, and Amazon, which I have ordered countless books and other items from superhero statues to a carpet sweeper just in 2019 alone; so I am not against the company. I got my amplifier, radio, theremin, and ozone generator from Amazon. Bezos has piled up quite a few of my pennies over the years because I like the service and use it regularly, but I am not blind to a feint.

Because it doesn’t matter in the Bezos Scandal: he has enemies because he is a general in a corporate army. Globalization is a battleground. There will always be casualties, and generals like Bezos get lots of help, and when they lose one alliance too many, they implode. He cannot blame himself, so he blames others.

You went into the boxing ring willingly and had your guard down and got knocked out. That’s on you.

Globalization is monopoly and it is not a good idea. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Don’t rely on one path because you are missing out on new worlds and new opportunities if you don’t pave others. Bezos may have had plans that hinged on always being on top, but that’s not a realistic or functional theory, and that speaks to his glaring weaknesses as a strategist.

It would be nice to have a list of all of the people Bezos stomped over on his climb to the top. Having a list of enemies would be a handy reference for the public because they wouldn’t be hero worshipping if they saw it.

But the Zero-Risk Mindset plays tricks on you.


But notice how Bezos sat and stewed for a bit, trying to come up with a narrative to deflect attention away from his adultery. He is wealthy because he thinks.

And what he thought was: who is behind this?

Middle Class people don’t think in active terms, for the most part. That’s the reason they never breakthrough the barrier.

They never ask who is behind this coverage?

Especially if the coverage fellates their egos and validates their folksy and uninformed opinions.

Look at this New York Times piece of propaganda:

Thank God for Canada!

Our boring neighbor is a moral leader of the free world.

Oh, I am sure the homeless in this country, all the rape victims who’s reports are dismissed by police, and the First Nations people here are thinking the same thing.

But, I am sure SNC-Lavalin is thankful for such a helpful government!

Boy, talk about bad timing.

But why did the Times choose to publish it?

That’s a very good question.

We can look on FARA to have a quick sketch of the country’s use of US firms for their affairs. This list isn’t definitive, but it is a start.

If we started to investigate the origins and motives for such a piece of fawning propaganda, we’d have a better understanding of how certain narratives take root and grow.

I find Samatha Markle’s tweet about her sister interesting.

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 10.14.24 AM.png

“Stop the PR crap.”

It would be great to know all the firms that represent the Duchess of Sussex, for instance, and then compare their angle to the angle used by journalists.

Because journalists do not disclose this information to the public.

I stumbled upon this fact during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia as a teenager. Both my mother and I had seen actual press releases on separate desks at different daily newspapers.

Hello! You are coverage a war and you are using a press release as a source?

And then with a little more digging and research, I found out that there was more than one PR firm hired by both Croats and Bosnian Muslims to skew the narrative and optics to their side. Even a publication geared toward the intelligence community confirmed it.

So yes, no wonder the side spending millions of dollars on publicity were seen as the Good Guys and the poor helpless victims, and not aggressors.

Just like Kuwait hired Hill and Knowlton and got Western countries to do its dirty work for them against all odds.

I knew about Hill & Knowlton. I knew about Ruder Finn in the Yugoslav conflict.

So was it just wars, or was this just the way things rolled in journalism?

I decided to find out for myself by going into the business and seeing how it would be vulnerable to various kinds of manipulation.

And how it interacts with the public.


There are PR firms, and Crisis Management firms, and it is not hard to spot when a person or company employs one. The messages fit a certain pattern. Their effectiveness on manipulating public opinion are fascinating.

People will let their children eat their boogers because it’s too much effort to discipline them, but suddenly, they advocate a certain brand of shoes, or spout a political philosophy, thinking it is posh.

No, it has been paid for by someone else.

You suddenly like a new hamburger chain? That’s not your discovery. That’s an effective advertising campaign. You get your directives from advertisers, and follow it until a competitor finds a new angle and the cycle repeats.

Whenever there is a new trend, there is some sort of push from a third-party.

That includes this latest socialism kick.

Who are these players? How did they get the money and the connections?

Who is paying for their expensive PR?

That is the question people should ask first. Find the moneybags and the PR firm and then you know exactly why you are being recruited to believe in anything from “social media influencers” to “socialism.”

Overnight sensations are not overnight: the fantasy of being discovered and then having instant fans fawning all over you is a myth. There is always someone in power with clout and media experience backing the “ingenue” for a variety of reasons. It is not organic.

I recount this type of scam in my first book: the “overnight sensation” trope has been used often enough. Lana Turner was said to have been “discovered” by accident, when she wasn’t. One young violinist was also the benefactor of a choreographed farce with a wealthy man pushing her from behind the scenes.

When you are a spectator, you are passive by default. You only see things once the curtain rises. You think it is all natural.

Take reality show competitions: they have scriptwriters and rehearsals along with NDAs to ensure people don’t spill secrets. You have “judges” look “shocked” at how good a performer is, and we don’t wonder how genuine the response is.

The same goes for newsmakers: we don’t question who is behind the scenes and what is the benefit. Do you go to a music concert just because?

What is the usual incentive? Once you figure out the incentive, then you know how you are vulnerable to PR.

It is one thing to like your music or frozen dinner because of an effective ad campaign, but it is quite another to choose your politics or religion that way, and yet that’s what people do.

When I worked as a journalist, I made mental notes of even why I was drawn to certain stories or issues: how much of it was me — and how of it was as a result of someone’s effective persuasion?

Being an Actrivist forced me to include myself as a test subject: okay, why am I taking this track? Why am I interviewing this expert? How did I find this person? What was my criteria for choosing this professor over a hundred others who all study the same thing?

And what percentage of the “criteria” was mine, and what was the other direct or indirect influences?

Am I being played here directly? Collectively? Deliberately? Inadvertently? Am I a the target audience, or am I a proxy to influence the publication I am working for — and/or the audience that reads it?

Because I broke down my methods to study them, I was very aware of subtle influences of all sorts.

That’s why it is always automatic with me to ask who is the kingmaker of any given story? Who is pulling the strings and setting the agenda?

Is this newspeg organic or contrived?

It is contrived. How else do you get a reporter’s, producer’s, or editor’s attention?

In a world of 7.4 billion people, how does one stand out?

By having the money and backing of someone with clout who is schooled in optics.

Even on social media…

Trudeau pulls a Clintonian word parsing. Jive Turkey in for a rough ride.



Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 8.40.24 AM.png


If there is any proof that Brand Jive Turkey is a sham, the response to the SNC-Lavalin Scandal.

Don’t parse your words the way former US President Bill Clinton did when he denied having an affair with an intern under his charge, because that turned out to be true.

Don’t use the phrase “Rule of Law” as if this country has ever abided by it before, because people will call you out the second you show that you don’t.

The Globe and Mail is hitting back and pointing out the obvious parsing, and having a field day in the bargain. The Grits have tried to paint critics as some sort of lunatic fringe, and now even that card has been taken away from them.

Trudeau never understood how much his pedigree had to do with his success. It was never him. It was the name and his father’s legacy. Nostalgia and clinging to the past’s tried and true got him his current job. Not his talent, brains, or cunning. People indulged him. He had goodwill on his side because of the surname, nothing more.

That, in this country, will take you very far. We are nepotistic by design because this is a Zero-Risk Society. Untested commodities are feared, and hence, we don’t have a feel for how to take risks or assess the situation. Just find the TORTEE and march to the script, following anything that seems to have already been broken in.

The Liberals were floundering because they were having overly-educated men leading them, and people don’t like their Prime Ministers to seem smarter than they are. Trudeau came in, and the Grits went for tried and true, except he wasn’t tried and true. His c.v. was light, to say the least, but he was backed as if he were an experienced political veteran.

It is bad enough there are these accusations, but his amateur responses only seem to confirm the accusations. Do not tell people you did not directly communicate with your minister because a PM works by using proxies.

If Trudeau understood the game — that would not be response he would have given. It is an amateur mistake, and now the stench coming from his office is overwhelming. The gaffes are starting to pile up and it isn’t even a first full term.

He is literally given his detractors all the free ammunition to fire at him, and his supporters are helping them along. Just this deceptive headline from the MTLblog says it all:

Everything You Need To Know About The Emerging Scandal Involving Justin Trudeau And A Montreal Construction Company 

The opposition seems set to make this a protracted political fight.

I underlined the parsing here as well — SNC Lavalin isn’t just a “Montreal Construction Company” — it is a Canadian-based multi-national corporation that owns nuclear energy when they acquired Candu — once a crown corporation.

When you have defenders being as manipulative with their words as you are, the chorus of those off-key notes wakes even the most stubborn sleepwalkers up.

This muck is not going to go away, particularly if there is other scandals and gaffes exposed. The election is still too far away, but the gamble that you get the Premium Pierre Package when you sign up for Junior is proving to be nothing more than a famous bullshit story.

SNC is not just a domestic company — it is a global one with offices in countless countries — and this is will resonate all around the world. Expect China and Saudi Arabia to write this little episode on a stickie for future reference. This brouhaha is a bigger headache than it first appears.

Former NDP leader Thomas Mulcair recently mused that NDP could lose votes to the Greens — perhaps the Grits may face the same fate. In any case, the preset scripts are worthless and we haven’t even started yet.

Who said 2019 was going to be a boring year?


Why so reactionary and regressive? Why an Age of Propaganda fears the future and keeps trying to live in the past.





People who do not have imaginations always crib from old playbooks from the past.

Welp, they think, it worked for some old rich white guy five hundred years ago in a world without indoor plumbing, human rights, or electricity, it’s just gotta work for me, too.

That’s the mindset of this current era.

Like socialism, that didn’t even work for the rich white guys who were rich and powerful through that system.

Don’t you passive motherfuckers have an original idea of your own?

Oh, that’s right. You don’t.

You want to steal bad ideas and pass them off as your own, and then have people you don’t like foot your bill.

What could possibly go wrong?

These days, there are almost no original ideas.

I listen or read the babble-puke of what some They ought to do, and I ask, “Who told you that?”

Because you know it wasn’t their idea, and certainly one that is well beyond the expiration date.

Blech. Rancid ideas stink and are as rotten as year-old eggs.

But when you have a passive generation, they are inexperienced, sheltered, and thus become fearful.

They look for established, Zero-Risk Ideas. That’s the problem when you have neglected and unchallenged Middle Class. They don’t have initiative because they are too afraid of losing their modest standing, but then watch too many commercials and TV shows telling them how special they are and how easy it is to obtain things.

If they follow the script.

People aren’t even consciously aware of it.

The Middle Class are a soft layer sandwiched between two hard layers who, by nature of reality, buffer a lot from this class of people who don’t get the right kind of challenges to see where their theories are off-base. The wealthy are wealthy because they take risks. They have to hustle and use war strategies to be that powerful. That’s why I don’t have any flying fucks to give to Jeff Bezos — he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.

He wasn’t “blackmailed”: he was fighting a war, made careless tactical errors, got exposed as he had his guard down, and rivals struck at him the way he had to strike at bricks and mortar stores and other online competitors to be where he is today.

This is the man who owns Amazon, and remember how well his workers are being treated.

You do remember, don’t you?

And the company doesn’t play nice.

Not even with Washington Post employees who bitched about it in public.

So here is a Titan of Industry who is doing all sorts of below-the-belt things to prevent workers from unionizing — he has vastly more power and money than the lot of them put together.

And I am to feel sorry for him?

Fuck you.

But if you are sheltered and passive without experience of what goes on behind the press release, you can easily fall for that grifter’s bullshit story.

Because you are too afraid to go out on a limb and think, misusing the purpose of the past as you live in the Now, while terrified of the future.

This is a very cowardly era, and it doesn’t see from the cold terror — a fear that has no basis in reality.


The adherence to a less evolved past is evident in journalism. Here is one propaganda piece from the Christian Science Monitor:

Can old-fashioned journalism combat fake news?


The prevalence of misinformation on the internet is legitimately troubling, but could attempts to remedy the problem fall prey to all-too-human biases?

No and, no, you didn’t.

You didn’t write that for any other reason than to try to persuade people to give up their freedoms to come crawling back to you. Shame on you.

But why go back to an old and antiquated model that spread lots of fake news. Go read my first book to get you up to speed how shitty old-fashion journalism was. Give me a break.

Let’s go back to the days of slavery when women were property of their husbands with no right to vote! Three cheers for exposing workers to lead! Yay!

Because we have people who are Zero-Risk, and think they are playing it safe by going for the familiar.

Don’t make me laugh.


The past isn’t some sort of scroll of crib sheets. That is our previous trials and practice sessions. The past is our reference, but one that is less evolved than the present.

Sometimes there are people or events that were misinterpreted and misunderstood because they were pioneers who did things first and were ahead of their time, like Nicola Tesla, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, — or Bettie Page.


There was a collective societal glitch that prevented the past from appreciating what they had and lost, and so some ideas and people are resurrected in spirit to guide us to the future.


But remember: these were rebels and outsiders. They were stigmatized, unappreciated, and exploited in the past. Going for failed concepts that were proven unworkable is not the same thing.

These people are not the safe choice: their ideas and actions are risky, radical, and guarantee to turn everything in the present inside out — that’s why the past saw these people as a threat.

They are bringing with them something different, and they were active-thinking people who chased out in front.

And when we embrace these kinds of people, we begin to appreciate other firebrands and visionaries who live in the present.

Because we not only see the genius of this forgotten gem, we learn the meta-lesson of the past and we aren’t going to do it again.

But that’s not what is happening now.

People want some They of the past with some prepackaged idea that magically proves them right, and gives them stuff without effort.

And it bites them in the ass.


If you want a better future, you have to face the future ready to take nothing but risks.


And that means allowing other, seemingly contradictory risks to be taken by others.

This isn’t a competition. Stop replaying your motherfucking childhood, asshole. Get over your sibling getting an extra cookie.

Weaving with negotiation and cooperation expands our options, improves weaknesses, sparks new paths and innovations, and does not enable tyrants and control freaks who want everyone to follow their self-serving decrees.

When we are active, we weave the chords of time to include the past, future, and present.


And take risks instead of gambles.

So let’s not do the time warp again.


Let’s learn from the past, not recycle its mistake because fear drives us to find refuge in cages…

Actrivism, Part Six: Journalism's slow decay through the eyes of an Actrivist who walked miles in their shoes.




While the New York Times boasts of increasing subscriptions, other smaller newspapers are having yet another round of job cuts.

What is happening in the world of newspapers is what happened to my grandmother after she became immobilized after the paramedics dropped her.

Because she couldn’t move and was confined to bed, her body slowly started to break down.

Mom and I pretty much spent 24/7 moving her from side to side with pillows to prevent bed sores and to keep her system going, every fifteen minutes. Mom slept on a sofa in grandma’s room. Technically, there are beds that move you automatically, but they do not work like they should in theory. When grandma landed in ICU and was on such a bed, she got bed sores, and it took us quite a bit to heal them.

You absolutely have to keep active or your body stops functioning.

The arteries start dying, but not right away. The smaller ones start to atrophy first, and it puts more pressure on the big ones to function.

But eventually, everything shuts down.

And the person expires.

I witnessed this up close with someone I knew since the day I was born.

But I recognized a lot of what I witnessed with her with something I witnessed exploring journalism.

Smaller properties atrophying slowly before starting to cannibalize the big ones. Overall numbers continue to drop. That’s reality, and it has been for the last couple of decades.


The insanity of the journalistic groupthink is mystifying. You go to the doctor who tells you that you have cancer, but with surgery, chemo, and radical lifestyle changes, you’ll be healthy again, and she even shows you your tests results, x-rays, ultrasound, scans, blood tests, everything. You have all of the signs and symptoms. The doctor even goes so far as to encourage you to get a second, third, and fourth opinion, and runs all of the tests, and it all comes back the same. There is no debate that you are in danger.

What would you do?

(A) Go for treatment ASAP, change your lifestyle, and resume your life.

(B) Deny that you are sick, say all those tests results prove that you are healthy as you were in your youth, attack anyone who says you are sick, and go about the same way you did before.

Journalists opted for B.

You may have been young, healthy and strong, swaggering around, bossing and bullying kids on the playground, and come off the victor of bar brawl after bar brawl, but now you are sick.

Denying your weakness isn’t going to turn your fortunes around.

That’s at the heart of the profession’s collapse.

I could see that because I went in to study it. It is the difference between joining a cult because you believe their twaddle, and going in to study it because you see the twaddle for what it is.

Yet you still do the same things, but finding out why this cult believes in what it does — how do they talk themselves into believing something clearly not aligned with reality.

Where did it go so horribly wrong?

And what are the excuses this cult is using to keep reality away from them?

I saw the decay up close. I also walked miles and miles in their shoes. I was a journalist, but I wasn’t a member of the cult. That’s how Method Research works.

And even though I was a journalist, I was also an Actrivist. I questioned myself, and my motives: why did I interview someone a certain way? Why did I pitch this article? Why did I use this source before another one?

That’s how you see the flaws and how you improve the methods.

That’s what you are supposed to do: not statically cling on to an old rule and think that the world evolves and changes, but you got a Get Out Of Reality Free Card.

Hell, no.

Being an Actrivist means being flexible and always refining and evolving. It is woven into the mandate and definition. Activist/Actress.

You act.

You keep moving, stopping to reflect and refine, but then you keep moving again.

So that you are not left behind, but chasing out in front.

You are future-focussed.

You see all around you as you keep moving, walking in another’s shoes in order to understand their place in the evolving world.’

So that you don’t start to rot and lose your lifelines one by one.

Because I have seen that up close.

And no one should ever have to go through that.

But when a profession willingly chooses it, is appalling.

My grandmother didn’t choose it. It was imposed upon her by careless hands.

Journalism has no excuse for it, but they thinking up news one every day as they rot in place…

The Bezos Brouhaha takes an interesting turn...

Someone is throwing a fit.

Amazon’s overlord bad boy Jeff Bezos went to Medium to cry foul, claiming he is being blackmailed with dirty pics of his affair.

That the National Enquirer plays dirty? Of course, and they play for keeps. This isn’t kindergarten, children. This is war, and the various armies aren’t Middle Class mommies and daddies. You want to be the world’s most powerful and richest man? You’ve made enemies stomping your way to the top. No Corporate Giant got to where he is unless he played the same war games. Stop trying to spin a victim-based narrative.

He is trying to contain the fallout, knowing full-well what is on the line. He is going to have to pay through the nose in the divorce settlement, and golly, owning The Washington Post isn’t beguiling the public. He can even be pushed out, or suffer diminished power. The stakes are high.

You had an affair, and you were careless, Mr. Bezos. You gave the ammo and the gun to them. The consequences are on you. Money cannot always intimidate or impress everyone. You just thought you were too smart and rich to get caught.

Life is hard, even for billionaires.

Somehow, I am just not feeling sorry for a philanderer who is careless in a world with some pretty insecure technology…

Jill Abramson getting pummelled by corrupt hypocrites: Just another day in the trash can called journalism.

For a profession that criticizes people viciously, journalists certainly do not like when people criticize them.

Oh, what a shock.

They either suppress information or try to tear into someone if their profile is high enough.

So when former New York Times editor Jill Abramson dissed on the corrupt and dead profession of journalism, the book couldn’t be ignored; so journalists went to attack her credibility like a rapist attacks the victim, blaming her and saying she deserved it.


Make no mistake: the level of vitriol has more to do that a woman dared call them out for their sins than the actual content.

Also note, it was the white boys who instigated this very coordinated hit.

So before discussing the guts of the allegations, let me point out that Jill Abramson made it all the way to News York Times editor.

A very lofty position in the profession. That’s as prestigious as you can get. 60 Minutes correspondent or head of a network news outfit possibly trump it.

Back then, she was doing the basic same things she did for her entire journalistic career, and she was employed and got promoted.

And that was just dandy keen for years.

But then she was a cheerleader on Team Journalism.

Now she isn’t.

I wrote a book on journalism’s ethics last year and that book was exhaustively researched.


I had no assistant. I did the entire researching and writing all by myself up in a cottage in Selkirk right on Lake Erie in the winter in the middle of nowhere because it was always my dream to write a book that way.


For five months, that is what I woke up to seeing every morning while drinking Turkish coffee. I wanted absolute solitude, but The Fabulous Ladies drove up every Sunday for brunch and mischief, and I am grateful. I did take some time out to go to Chicago to get semi-precious stones for my jewelry-making. I stayed at the fun and posh Virgin Hotel and dined at Miss Ricky’s and The Gage, but still brought my laptop to work on my book. I still have my little shower lamb from the Virgin Hotel


My book was ignored by journalists in public, though people are still buying it, despite the shut out. So much for free speech. As usual, word of mouth can break through any blacklist.

I still did an interview here and a funky one here.

But journalists couldn’t do that with Abramson. They had to stomp on her and stone her to discredit her work.

You cannot discredit mine, however. I did not go into journalism with stars in my eyes, and then turned into a bitter and disgruntled failure. I went in knowing exactly who they were, and wanted to study the profession by being a journalist for real. I conducted unprecedented and exhaustive experiments. My beat was the business of journalism and my audience were people in the profession.

When I had enough information to write an informed and empirically-sound exposé, I walked away.


I also wrote one on Fox News, and then over a decade later came When Journalism was a Thing.

Abramson was in deep, and as much as she knows about the people in that sketchy profession, those in the profession know all about her.

So those trolls knew where to look and how to strike.

And then went batshit crazy on her in a frenzy tirade, hoping to nullify her revealing of their disgusting dirt.

They nitpicked on a few facts, but even that is under debate. Journalists fuck up on facts all the time. They do not use empirical methods.

But then came the “chargeofplagiarism! Oh, no! Run for your lives! Don’t listen to the scary woman with the book that exposes us!

giphy (2).gif

It is a pathetic ruse.

The poseur “journalists” at the garbage publication Paste really overplayed the melodramatics:

Jill Abramson Is a Disgrace to Journalism

Yeah, as if you grifters know what this “journalism” is. You are not fooling anybody, you twits. Stop using the movie Reefer Madness as a guide on how to behave. You come off as disingenuous nerds.

The only publication with any sense here is the National Review that has a more accurate take:

Jill Abramson Is a Hack, Not a Thief

I am currently reading the book. She knows who she is dealing with. It is kind of a stretch to call it “plagiarism” because the writing for both are so banal and unoriginal, that really, it is like writing, “Bob likes his new job” and then someone else writes “Robert has positive feelings toward his most recent career” and then make some over-the-top tirade because you both are writing about the same damn thing.

Seriously, no winners here. I would not classify it as a “sourcing error”, either. I would classify this as typical journalism nincompoopity, and it needs to be replaced with a more responsible alternative.

Vice is pure garbage. Sexist pretentious trolls with one who got nabbed for being a drug dealer, and Vice got Canadian government money to boot. What does Vice know about journalistic ethics?

I wrote about Vice in my latest book. They are to journalism what a soiled jock strap is to journalism.

And they’re ranting about Abramson?

And other outlets are parroting their meltdown?

I can tell you straight up my book is exhaustively researched, and I didn’t plagiarize. I don’t need to because my writing is superior to Vice hacks or anyone else in that dead profession. It would be a serious step down from my own abilities.

So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black, but who is the pot and who is the kettle is your choice.

If you want to read a book that tells it like it is that doesn’t pull any punches and fears no angry mob of hacks, read When Journalism was a Thing.

You can even read while enjoying a cup of Turkish coffee — because you haven’t lived until you had a cup…

Oh dear...

The federal Grits put pressure on their justice minister to appease corrupt corporate interests before demoting her for rebuffing it?

You don’t say!

And the standard issue regime denials. Parsing their words very carefully.

Oh, of course. All that smirking through the prime ministership is a clear sign of an honest and moral leader.

I did find this interesting:

After a request from The Globe, Ms. Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to discuss the political pressure she endured aimed at persuading her to arrange a remediation agreement for SNC-Lavalin.

“That is between me and the government as the government’s previous lawyer,” she said in an interview.

Asked if she had been approached to direct the Public Prosecution Service to negotiate a remediation agreement, Ms. Wilson Raybould said: “I don’t have a comment on that.”

The Globe also asked whether she had refused such a request. “I cannot comment on that. That is legal advice between me and the government at the time.”

No actual denial. Lots of hints elsewhere, however.

Gracious, what a tintinnabulation.

This is going to be one very ugly election in Canada. You could tell when the Jive Turkey keeps trying to draw deflecting lines in the sand, telling people not to look at Canada’s global snafus and trying to say this should be a “positive” campaign.

And this isn’t even a full first term of this dreadful regime.

Perhaps when Robert Mueller is done with his probe in the Beltway, he can come on over and look at what the regime over here is doing…


We don't need politics. We need empathy, respect, and compassion. You know, the things that count.


His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naïvest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently: “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

—Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in A Study in Scarlet.


I am not pretentious, but I am not stupid. I know details, and get nuances and catch on to Shibboleths. I don’t shop in Manhattan, but Secaucus, New Jersey where there are those fabulous outlet malls, for instance. I have ever since I was a teenager. I prefer the complexities of Bénédictine over most other liqueurs. Armani for the wife, Versace for the mistress, but Moschino for Alexandra.

I am not some yokel. If I don’t know something, don’t assume I wanted to know it. I heard it, determined it to not be all that, and promptly forgot it.

Such as whatever script someone spews at me. Brag all you want. In one ear, out the other.

What interests me is human motivation and strategies. Who are you as a person matters, not some bullshit story you are telling me to impress me or make me jealous.

Because I am not obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, people think that I am going to be impressed and feel inadequate. Don’t be silly. What Alexandra wants, she gets, one way or another.

And Alexandra gets what she wants and needs all by herself.

I am choosy and I am fussy.

I love to learn. I just signed up for this Oxford short course. I love to write books, and that’s what I am doing.

I don’t have to take the course, but I like to expand certain areas of my mind, and bring them up to code.

I have three more pieces of unfinished business. Right before January, it was a dozen. None were minor.

After those are taken care of, it is the next level upwards and forwards.

But I never forget my roots.

I don’t look down on people who didn’t have the same opportunities. I respect and admire them greatly, and not in some precious, condescending way. People survived wars, slavery, incest, abuse, terrorism, illness, poverty, and victimization. They didn’t “bring it on” themselves. I am genuinely outraged that my country treats First Nations people like they were disposable, for instance, while we have grifters who live it up on the taxpayer dime.

The US Democrats act like the Catholic church — they talk a good talk about liberties, preach to tell you that you are inferior and need them to guide you, use Doomsday scenarios with their environmental policy, and yet keep begging for donations as they ride around in limos.

And like the church they emulate, they are the ones who get caught doing really infuriating things that prove they are hypocrites, making the New York Post very giddy.


What is with this whole blackface thing, anyway? I mean, it happened in my junior high during class, and even then as a tween in the 1980s, I thought it was downright racist.

I can believe in forgiveness as a general concept, but it isn’t my place to forgive. I’m a white Canadian. I take my cue from the people who were wronged.

I remember The New York Times having this priggish Op-Ed piece when Megyn Kelly said kids did it in her time, and the opinionist got all snooty, claiming it wasn’t happening in his time and he was a couple of years older than Kelly.


It happens now, but as we know, it happened then, too. I smell pants roasting.

So here is one group of people who branded themselves as a morally superior party having a cemetery of skeletons jumping out of their closets proving that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for — they aren’t authentic. The labels of these political sects is just a front for conniver who wants to wear a paper crown and will tell you whatever you want to hear.


Canada has the same problem right now. The federal Liberals are equally troublesome. While Postmedia owns both the Toronto Sun and the National Post, getting to play both sides of things, I found this National Post column interesting:

The other jab in this combination of punches is their regular mentions of Justin Trudeau’s “family fortune” — a phrase the prime minister himself used inadvisedly in a press conference.

“That amount ($5,000) is peanuts for a prime minister who inherited a great family fortune,” said Conservative Rosemarie Falk, by way of example.

…But there is good reason why the Conservatives are adopting such deceptive tactics: they are working.

What deception? That the Prime Minister has no empathy or ability to adjust his perspective? His policies are not for the poor. They aren’t good for the Middle Class. They cater exclusively to limousine liberals: people with money who do not want to be inconvenienced economically nor personally.

And then Trudeau opens his mouth and proves it, as the Toronto Sun gleefully pointed out:

“We see proof that the conservatives simply don’t understand that low income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes,” said Justin Trudeau.

It is Trudeau who doesn’t even know the basic reality of his own poor. Poor people do have to pay income tax even if they make less than $12,000 a year.

They also pay HST on goods and services. There is no tax exemption when you buy basics.

The left-leaning press kept their mouths shut on this one, as usual, hoping not to draw attention and censoring unflattering nincompoopity from the Jive Turkey because they know if the Tories win, there is no goodie fund for them.

What you have is a prime minister completely incapable of genuine compassion and empathy:

“While we continue to stay focused on Canadians, Conservatives continue to stay focused on how I grew up,” Trudeau shot back.

Yes, because you never grew up. The Grits focus on themselves, no one else. When you keep the poorest at arm’s length, you have no idea who they are, what they need, or how they came to be poor.

Method Research would go a long way to understanding what needs to be done.

For one, I would force any candidate running for prime minister to be forced to live for two years among the poorest of his or her nation with no help. All funds would be cut off, and they would be monitored.

You are going to live in a shitty little shack. You are going to have to get a joe job. You are going to have to pay the bills with whatever you earn.

Two years.

No limos. No colorful culturally-appropriate costumes. No designer clothing or children’s socks.

And, for giggles, you’d be sent up to the remote location where everything is more expensive.

Then you would be grow up, put on your big boy pants, and have a fresh perspective.

It would be good if everyone was healthy, happy, and prosperous.

This isn’t reality.

And ignoring it isn’t actually working for the Left. People aren’t blind or numb to their own whispering problems.

With Trudeau, it is shallow gestures and empathy phrases with no core to it, He apologizes for other people’s actions of the past, thinking that means something.

Not if those injustices are still alive and well in the present and you don’t see them.

Anyone with drama training can shed a few crocodile tears. So can people clocked for speeding and bawl to the nice police officer not to give them a ticket.

Kids in toy stores can do it, too.

That doesn’t prove you have empathy, respect, or compassion.

I am still haunted by my grandmother’s agonizing death. She chose to live because she didn’t want to be away from her family. To her, she did not want to abandon us and sacrificed everything to look out for us. She worried about how much sleep I got and agonized about my derailed career. She gave me pep talks and advice as she lay dying.

I looked after her 24/7. I had been so focussed on her that I abandoned myself in the bargain. My mother did the same.

And then my mother was diagnosed with cancer and then I was, too a few short weeks later.

We looked after each other. I had to trudge in the snow to walk a long way to the hospital to see my mother after her surgery three weeks after have surgery to remove my left ovary.

They gutted me. My stomach muscle was split in two. I was oozing and in absolute agony. I didn’t take the morphine I was given. I didn’t even pick it up because I could not be under any influence because I had to drive and look after my mother.

And I can barely walk, but I make the trip twice a day to the hospital where my mother lost a lot of blood and had a hard time keeping awake because of it. I had to look after her as I am terrified that my cancer has spread.

But I march to the hospital every day like a soldier. I would go to Fortinos to buy my mother something with flavour to eat as I also would bring her coffee, and try to cheer her up, and I can barely sit in the hospital chair, still in shock that asymptomatic me had motherfucking ovarian cancer.

And then she comes home, and a few weeks later, she has to have another surgery because she had something so rare that the doctor who had to operate never seen it before.

It is a never-ending siege of trauma.

And I know there are people who not only had it as bad, they have it even worse.

They have children with incurable degenerative conditions.

I have a bracelet a student made for me in jewelry summer camp that I taught one year. She was the sweetest, cutest, kindest little girl who took the class so she could make things to raise money for the fatal disease she has.

But she gave me a present because even though she is ill, she wants me to know that she likes me.

And it moves me. If I had the power, I would make her problems disappear.

But I don’t, and it bothers me.

I have known people who are going through extraordinary lengths for their terminally ill children, fighting a brawl with the heavens to extract every extra second at the expense of everything.

And we have a deluded prime minister who has his panties in a knot because his rivals have his number and keep dialling it.

We have never had a prime minister — on the left or right, who put children first.

And no, photo ops of you reading to them doesn’t count. Fuck you.

Neither is giving people money per child — it encourages the wrong kind of people to keep having them for the free money. I used to sit in the solarium and watch outside my old house on Main Street East in Hamilton and see Stroller Row.

We have children in battered women’s shelters. We have children who are sex slaves being passed around and videotaped.

The Grits give money to newspapers who fucked up their own worthless profession — but completely ignore children’s services.

This is vile and disgusting.

I like my art. I like my surrealist paintings, my books, my theremin, my Kintsugi, my Alexander Katsulin pottery, Turkish coffee, and antique furniture.

I like Sherlock Holmes, Han Hoogerbrugge, the Hives, and the Blue Beetle.

I am self-indulgent and eccentric, and if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.

You aren’t paying my bills. You don’t care that I had cancer. Go to hell. I don’t have respect for your negging.

Because it is all meaningless if you don’t have a moral compass.

And politics isn’t the place you’ll ever find it.

Neither is this neo-Victorian façade. It’s not genuine.

A kinder world comes from empathy and compassion.

That requires vulnerability and connect, not cheap acting stunts and empty words…

The Guardian is a sheltered newspaper...

This paragraph in The Guardian is the epitome of outrage:

An 11-year-old boy called Joshua Trump who was invited by his presidential namesake to his State of the Union speech fell asleep and has been hailed as a hero of the anti-Trump resistance.

If that is a resistance to you, you truly have lived in a bubble your entire existence.

What this is are a bunch of sore losers.

No of these “resistance” folk got off their duffs, and put their lives on the line to help others for freedom or democracy.

They bitch on the Troll Scroll. Whoop-di-fucking-do.

Serbs, on the other hand, resisted Nazis in the Second World War.

They fought against the “bad guys” in the First World War, too, losing one third of their population.

How many “Trump resistors” lost theirs to the cause?

Stop trivializing valiant concepts to give to spoiled slackers, because you’re just coming off as a cabal of oblivious assholes…

Why did US female politicians wear white to the State of the Union? Obviously, they were part of a polygamous sect as their Husband-in-Chief got the spotlight. Faux feminists strike again.




Don’t you just love a mindless cult where women all have to dress alike and rely on cheap and empty symbolism because they have no power or substance?

I know I sure don’t.

This is cosplay for people who don’t have an original idea, but want attention without having any accomplishments to earn it.

It looks like a polygamous cult of unoriginal dressers as they shrewishly stew that their big shot husband gets to talk and be in charge.

Hollywood actresses wore black to the Golden Globes during the beginning of #MeToo.


No better than the aimless protestors all wearing red cosplay.

All we need is some women to prance and vogue with stink face in a group wearing yellow outfits, and American women have summoned the Apocalypse upon themselves to be devoured by reality. Well played.

How about all going as a dancing banana?

Women choosing their outfits in reaction to a man is as un-feminist as one can get.

You are telling the world you are a follower, like a good little woman. You are interchangeable, faceless, and disposable. Individuality, independence, and originality, please.

And no feminist would go along with that farce. Ever. It is the reason why we needed feminism in the first play — to break away from shackles and prisons of uniformity.

You wear what you want, when you want, how you want, where you want, and why you want it. Not what the high school know-it-alls decree as they’re smoking pot in the girl’s room.

You are just confirming that you are nothing but surrounded stones in a game of Go.

And the Atlantic, that partisan rag that always justifies leftist delusions, think those minions upstaged Trump.

No, they didn’t.

They served as a contrast. He has power. Nancy Pelosi looked like she needed to change her underpants.

They actually did their rival’s propaganda for him. A sea of faceless enemies can band together, but the Hero can stand alone.

Do you not know what you all look like?

Villain minions.

The Force is not with you.

These dress-up games should be very concerning for any woman in the US right now.

Whenever there is a reliance on theatre, it is a misdirection used to hide the fact that the person doesn’t have a plan nor power and is relying on stunts.

There is no maturity among the female politicians and it explains a lot. It is petty high school mind games in a place where you are supposed to, you know, have tangible results for the people who elected you.

If the government had genuine feminists, firebrands, trailblazers, rebels, and visionaries, there would be actual results. You can’t dine on symbolism. You are just buying time, hoping some They will do away with your enemy, and then you can lie and say your garbage contributed to it.

And the grifters wore white.

My teenaged self would be devastated that women’s rights were being thrown away in this horrific and childish way, but at least my adult self doesn’t put up with tricks like that…

Amateur Hour at the Ontario NDP. Leak at your own risk.



As an official opposition, the NDP really don’t know what they are doing. They did rule this province once and have been elected as politicians for decades; so there is no excuse for their colossal fuckery of leading a trail of huge, radioactive breadcrumbs straight to the computer of their leaker:

Ontario NDP’s improper redaction led Ford government to leaker: Sources

Oy yoi yoi.

This is how n00bs function: they get a piece of dirt, vogue and posture in front of rolling cameras filled with ego and bad acting skills, forget the basics of trying to protect people who are going out on a limb, fuck up the message, and watch as the government fires the leaker, gets the OPP unleashed on said amateur leaker, and then no one talks about the scoop, but of your nincompoopity as you conveniently try to dodge the questions, proving you are no better than the man in charge.

The leaker was naive. The NDP were oblivious and self-serving. The Ford regime had no choice but to come down hard, and it helps greatly that this fuck up happened so early into the Tories’s tenure: because the trail was coloured with loud neon green bread crumbs, they can see how to fortify their defences, and the other potential blabbermouths are going to know that the NDP are not professionals, and they won’t give them goodies to spew for press conferences.

This thwarted headache is now a gift to Ford.

When I worked as a journalist, I tried to avoid using anonymous sources as a general rule. There often is a good, but not noble reason for someone wanting to go incognito. If their identity is made public, someone is going to blab what this person is really up to. I preferred getting information, and then going off to independently verify things through some more open and forthcoming channels. My job is to give facts in context, but I am not going to tell you what to think of those facts.

When I was asked to write the companion book to the documentary OutFoxed, I was presented with three anonymous sources, but I wasn’t told their identities, which posed a dilemma for me. The book has to reflect the documentary, and I had no say over a canned movie not of my making. The vast majority of the interviews were not anonymous, but some very important details came from those three sources.

I have a rule: I need to verify information to my satisfaction, and I have to know who I am dealing with. It is not as if I expect perfection from sources or else they are completely tainted, but if you weigh your facts and sources, eventually the scale will tip one way and you can use the intel, or it tips the other way, and you know the intel not true — and then you have to find out why you were told an untruth and what it is hiding, meaning there is more to the story, or just a completely different story than the one you were given.

It is like being Anubis, and figuring out if you are going to feed Ammit and unleash him to the person who tried to con you.


So, I could not add anyone that wasn’t interviewed for the film (whether or not they were featured in it) to replace the three anonymous sources.

But I then took each interview and in very short order, managed to figure out the identities of all three.

And I could also verify what they said, meaning what I used was good intel. People can chose to use their own scale and dismiss an anonymous source, but the book didn’t pin everything on those three sources, either. There were the memos, other sources, and the breakdown of the actual transcripts, among other things. I offered a huge buffet of facts, you want to skip three dishes, you have hundreds of other options to choose from.

But I shouldn’t have been able to figure out who they were, or as fast I as did. If you are using anonymous sources, they have to stay anonymous. With Watergate, Deep Throat’s identity was safe for decades.

In the gossip, surveillance-happy Beltway filled with operatives, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and lobbyists.

This was extraordinary, but fair to the source who gave enough information to take down a president, but not enough was revealed to figure out who he was.

But Bob Woodward is an actual journalist. So is Carl Bernstein.

And this was back in the day when the Washington Post was a real newspaper.

But the NDP bungled this badly. It reminds me of the “Eyewitness Ed'“ episode of the cartoon The Completely Mental Misadventures of Ed Grimley.

All Horwath forgot to do was don an Astroboy hairdo and play the triangle…

More propagandistic trash from The Cut: Reality Deniers try to pretend journalism didn't collapse.

Boy, do journalists love to be in denial.

Take a look at this piece of propaganda from The Cut:

While the companies’ reasonings behind mass layoffs aren’t identical, there is a common thread: The cuts have less to do with the talent of the workers, and more to do with financial imperatives and the whims of investors.

This is pure, pathological and egotistical bullshit.

Memo to the dumbass motherfuckers at The Cut: you do not have talent.

People stopped watching and reading you.

And you were redundant and let go.

They are going to the New York Times, but that is not a good sign, as I have pointed out before.

This is the lie you are telling to save ugly face.

2100+ reporters lost their job because they aren’t bringing in the dough.

This is the new lie journalists are telling to keep reality away because the Time Person of the Year propaganda of valiant heroes didn’t take.

Or last August’s lockstep propaganda campaign that was a dud.

If your kind were profitable, there would be more journalists hired, not fired. You are not useful. Don’t be a nerd.

Newspapers are closing because they are not profitable.

You cannot make up your deceitful little minds: you beg like paupers for donations and then pretend your companies are super-profitable. You can’t even keep your lies straight.

You do not know basic business.

You don’t actually know very much at all.

This is just another tactic to keep leeching on to the public, and it is not working either, assholes…

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



Bunny Yeager.jpg


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.


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.


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.


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…

Memo to Washington Post: Is your coverage of the President just juicy gossip or a political hit job?

The propaganda arm of the Amazon Establishment Empire, also known as The Washington Post are obedient little minions with this laughable conflict-of-interest article:

Was tabloid exposé of Bezos affair just juicy gossip or a political hit job?

No, your overlord/man-whore fucked his own way into a scandal all by himself. He can’t keep it in his pants, let him man-up and face the consequences. Nice try spinning this mess to make it sound like he is some sort of victim.

But as the saying goes, when you point a finger of blame in one direction, three fingers — especially the middle one — point back at you.

Does that mean that all of your anti-Trump articles are a political hit job?

Because there has been something of a spat between your overlord and the President.

For how long now?

And what better way to influence public opinion than to use you little minions as his mouthpiece?

Propaganda isn’t journalism.

How cowardly of your overlord.

He is used to cheerleading in all those fabulously fawning advertising disguised as news stories.

And now his fucking a woman who wasn’t his wife is exposed for all the world to puke.

No hit job.

He took out his gun, loaded it, gave it to his enemies, and told them the pull the trigger at his crotch.

That’s not a “political hit job.”

That’s being a moron.

So let him put on his big boy pants, take out his big boy check book, and go halfsies with the brains of the family…

Memo to the New Yorker: Der Spiegel's "pathology" infected the rest of the profession, too.




The New Yorker has a naive piece on the Der Spiegel scandal where they let one reporter use leftie fantasy tropes and sophistry, folksy details, as he charmed the staff, knew how to outwit fact-checkers, and slathered his stories with no facts, just lots of colour and eccentric characters.

And then have the shallow twits have the nerve to talk about “deep psychology.”

No, you’re too stupid to know about “deep psychology.”

This is a replay of Stephen Glass and the New Republic.

In other words, Der Spiegel doesn’t do anything differently than any other news magazine.

They just got caught because someone in their magazine started to get suspicious.

Someone who was younger and less established — the same way Glass finally got exposed.

And nothing ever changes. Even the New Yorker is doing the same things in its telling of the scandal.

I wrote books on this problem — and even in the New Yorker piece, they are still playing partisan games, by trying to spin the idea of being upset over fake news as being some sort of Right-wing/Fascist/Trump Supporter lie.

And it isn’t.

If you are not perturbed by the amount of lies and errors being churned out in news products, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

You cannot distance yourself or try to downplay the number of scandals of deceit journalism has faced over the decades.

Fake news is a real problem. It is a real problem in mainstream Western journalism. There are no government bodies or quality control requirements or standards. The very fact that this reporter felt compelled to put some sort of qualifier in a bid to discount the “fake news” label makes this piece less than credible.

Just because you look down on people who are criticizing you doesn’t make you right or them wrong.

It is no different than the National Post always looking down on women who say that men in power sexually harassed and assault them — and then are upset because their criticisms are dismissed.

Do you not think those women aren’t a little peeved — and have merit to their arguments?

And their detractors are always trying to dismiss as being nutty and slutty?

That is the reason we cannot trust journalists reporting on their own sins and atrocities.

Because they see only their enemies’ bad habits — never their own…

Journalism's hot mess continues.

Not all crap is in the Western press, as “the sightings” of dead person Muammar Gaddafi in Chad is proven to be a hoax. Apparently, the Senegalese media outfits cut and paste from parody sites. Good job.

A Vice Canada’s former editor’s legal woes over this whole drug thing continue. Yeah, they don’t call it Vice for nothing, kids!

The noose around Gannett is tightening as the Asset-squeezers are not letting up so easy.

Newspaper printing has been outsourced at big dailies…as a part of asset-squeezing.

We have Reality Deniers at the New Yorker talking about Trump’s “shrunken presidency”, when his approval ratings remain unchanged. You truly live in the Land of the Stoned and Bladdered.

Oh, the the chicken littles at the New York Times are scared of AI reporters. Don’t worry, darlings, they’ll be just as shitty at the job as you are now.

And that big push how journalists are the guardians of the universe seems to be fading as circulations and ratings continue to plummet…

Unreadable Narrator: Just get to the point, New Yorker.

The New Yorker has a rambling piece on how author Dan Mallory is full of it. Bottom line: if someone is a liar, they aren’t all that interesting or warrant that much colour and filler.

That we have fiction authors bullshit about their lives is hardly anything new.

When you go for melodramatic bullshit stories, you are going to get hosed for eternity. The end.

Spinning yarns gets you lucrative contracts, and Mallory knows the game well.

He also knows that you can spin a story to deflect the accusations, and go on.

Vox, a publication for morons addicted to sophistry, loved the New Yorker puke-a-thon,

The greatest thriller I have read this year is not a book. It’s a new article in the New Yorker by Ian Parker about the editor and author Dan Mallory, and it is filled with so many twists and turns, such scheming and brazen lies, that it eclipses fiction. It definitely eclipses Mallory’s 2018 novel The Woman in the Window — written under the pen name A.J. Finn — which is a competent but paint-by-numbers thriller that is substantially less interesting than Mallory’s real-life story appears to be.

Honestly, if that is the “greatest” anything you have read so far in 2019, you are sheltered idiot. Go get some real life experience.

This isn’t a story to build up: this is a story to tear down. A man gets ahead in a lucrative career by conning people at work. Just the facts. Figure out how it happened and where the breakdowns are.

There is no “thriller” here. What you have is deceit.

This is the precise why journalists constantly get conned: they honestly believe sophistry, color, and babbling make a good story.

You are building up destructive people, making them sound more interesting than they are, and that makes you no less deceptive than the subject you are rambling about.

Please shut up, and try you article again…

They really need to issue blue checkmarks for genuine and unpaid outrage...

That people still believe that Twitter rage is some homegrown and organic response is interesting.

But when the press still falls for it and doesn’t try to expose the political propaganda that runs there amok, you really have to wonder.

There is an article from the New York Post how Twitter attacks “protect” people.

No, it merely exposes the paid political skulduggery going on unchallenged.

Why aren’t you questioning who is attacking or what is their real incentive?

We already know how much fraudulent activity and fake accounts there are on Twitter. There is no way to stop it unless people stopped using Twitter and then there would be no benefit to wasting resources of dispatching mass propagandists.

Don’t bother with trying to take on a paid mob.

Find out who is footing the bill, and cut off that source.

Dangle a piece of meat, get the paid hordes to react on cue, and then work from behind the curtain and expose that.

We know paid fans exist at events and it a part of the manufactured celebrity machine. We know there are fake followers on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

So why are we still not critically looking at fake outrage on Twitter?

What? You don’t think politicians build up a fake base or deflect criticism using Twitter?

Don’t buy into the fairytale. As there are absolutely no checks and balances, anyone can create any fake mass response they want.

There are no laws or regulations. You don’t know what is on the other side. Underlings, cyber goons, political operatives, bots, the politician’s mommy or daddy, anyone.

That is the way you incite emptyheads and fool the press into thinking something is genuine.

It is why I don’t stare at Twitter: other people ghost write the tweets with blue checkmarks and foot the bill for fake responses.

Let’s as a few real questions before we buy into some fake narrative…

You don't really matter, but at least try to seem heroic: How false heroes are made.



Oddly enough, I am not a fan of The Big Bang Theory. I always found it too sexist for my liking. My mother liked the show until this last season, and she is the one who watches it. A lot. I know more episodes than I care to admit.

It is, like Monk and Seinfeld, one of the few shows that I absolutely cannot binge watch because it annoys me. I do not like self-centred characters, and Sheldon annoys me. I can stand Leonard and Raj and I pretty much owned all of the comic books and many of the superhero statues displayed, but if I see more than two episodes in a row, I have to leave.

But there is one episode that I really like.

The one posted above when Amy informs Sheldon that Indiana Jones in no way made any difference in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

A lot of fans of the movie were devastated by a very obvious observation. I knew it as a kid when I first saw it, too. I just didn’t get it. I liked the movie. It was fun, but Indy didn’t save the day.

And as a kid, I devoured the hero genre like nobody’s business. When I was really little, I wanted to be a superhero when I grew up with a trusty pet gorilla sidekick — I didn’t know about Angel and the Ape at the time.


I wanted to have my own crimefighting costume, which I designed myself after taking a drawing course for kids at the Dundas Valley School of Art, and have my own car to drive around, looking for bad guys to stop in their tracks.

I was four.

My mother and I used to get into very surreal fights because I did not believe her that I wasn’t allowed to drive. I pointed to mini-cars — Fiats and Datsun Cherry’s as proof that they made cars for small kids; ergo, I want my driver’s license right now so I can go out and find myself a gorilla and get my crimefighting act on the road, and I had even talked my grandmother into making me my crimefighting outfit — no cape, but a mask.

And mom said no! No costume, no car, no gorilla.

In fact, I was expressly forbidden from trying to get a pet gorilla. With me, she did need to do that. I was stubborn, focussed, determined, confident, and very, very creative. I did know how to use the phone and ask the operator for assistance. I was strangely resourceful for a four-year-old and had often randomly dialled and talked to people from all over for conversations, which people usually indulged, and what I couldn’t do myself, I often could talk grandma into mischief because she thought I should have a happy and exciting life filled with bravery and meaning, and she could always veto any potential scolding. In this particular saga, mom cut that off at the pass. I was not happy with the decrees.

But then I noticed that on the news, there weren’t any caped crimefighters, let alone four-year-old ones with pet gorillas and a Fiat-mobile.

So, that was a bust. I was devastated. No other career grooved me after aside from stage magic, but my hands were too small…until I discovered writing and then teaching.

But I had comic books! Lots of DC comic books. Batman and Wonder Woman were faves, but I didn’t care for the dialogue; so I used Liquid Paper and a Bic Pen to wipe out the old dialogue, and put my own instead.

And I studied my comics. And episodes of Wonder Woman and Batman. The Spider-Man cartoons was pretty much my only foray into Marvel as a kid.

I wanted to understand what it meant to be a hero.

I was going to learn and then sublimate what I learned in whatever boring old career I had to choose because being a superhero wasn’t a thing back then.

But not that there isn’t any in the real world.


But I understood the genre extremely well.

And heroes made a difference.

A positive difference.

So that’s how come Indiana Jones was a fun movie, but he wasn’t an actual hero.

He was an adventurer, not a hero.

But how come people see adventurers as heroes?

They seem to do a lot of the same things, and people fail to catch the nuances, but it isn’t just in fiction.

Many people make careers out of pretending to be heroes, but when you look at their role in any given event, they get accolades, publicity, and money, but things are the same or worse.

They do not transform anything.

The status quo remains, or things begin to decay.

We forget to look at the bottom line: the bombast and spotlight hogging are misdirections.

And a hero doesn’t just help other people. He helps people learn how to help themselves — and then others.

It is supposed to be a communal space.

And we often look to a They, when an Us would more than suffice…