Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Thirty-Seven.

I

Leonard Sterndale: “How do you know that?”

Sherlock Holmes: “I followed you.”

Sterndale: “I saw no one.”

Holmes: “That is what you may expect to see when I follow you.”

The Devil’s Foot

II

As someone who studied journalism by doing covert empirical experiments as a journalist with the added perk of covering the Canadian journalism industry, I can tell you the arrogant sleepwalking mindset of those in the profession.

Canadian journalism is the worst of the Western offenders, but the US is not that much far behind.

It is the reason they absolutely despise Donald Trump. He calls them “fake news” for a reason: he exploited the press with baloney for decades, and they never even challenged him, save for the defunct Spy magazine.

The New York Times got the ball rolling with a way too kissy profile in the 1970s, and they are trying to bury him now with sleight of hand skulduggery.

(Just a reminder of how the Times introduced him to the world, children: “He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates. He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth “more than $200 million.” Flair. It's one of Donald J. Trump's favorite words, and both he, his friends and his enemies use it when describing his way of life as well as his business style as New York's No. 1 real estate promoter of the middle 1970's. “If a man has flair,” the energetic, outspoken Mr. Trump said the other day, “and is smart and somewhat conservative and has a taste for what people want, he's bound to be successful in New York.”)

But no one should buy a word they say. They not only told the little people to cheer “Yay, Trump!” for decades, they also instructed said little people to drool over countless baddies, from Harvey Weinstein to any other grifter fleecing people out of billions of dollars, and if you want details, read my latest book, where I go into detail.

Credibility is like virginity: once you lose it, you are never getting it back.

Lulling a populace by building up fake Great Men is a bad thing. Reinforcing childish narratives so that people think they know something is equally bad. This meltdown is just like a divorce: The Times got dumped by Trump for Twitter, and now all the "dirty laundry” comes out?

Remember, kids: they are rehashing everything during the time they were actively fawning over him and building up his empire.

Now, they are drudging up garbage?

Worse, no one actually cares. People have already forgotten as Brett Kavanaugh got sworn into the Supreme Court.

Protestors throwing hissy fits were getting on him for throwing hissy fits during the confirmation hearings.

He got angry.

1538078631-screen_shot_2018-09-27_at_1.00.18_pm.png

They got angry.

women-protest-kavanaugh-in-new-york-city.jpg

And at the end of the day, anger didn’t do a thing to alter the outcome.

181006184156-02-kavanauh-swearing-in-super-tease.jpg

I know that anger because once upon a time, it was Western journalism that made me disillusioned.

ello-optimized-f28cf9b2.jpg

And I can tell you right now, if that crowd got violent, they would have prove the narrative of them being aggressors and villains right.

So no, violence is not any answer.

I realized journalism became a baloney peddler, but I decided to study it by becoming a journalist.

But now that journalism has collapsed, they are trying to incite gullible middle class people to get back at them for abandoning them for social media as they simultaneously try to get to them.

They are manipulating women and using their own traumas against them. It’s sad, and it is sick, but the most interesting thing in all of this mess is that it isn’t actually working.

III

The reason journalism isn’t working is that the monopoly of information has been broken, meaning the entire structure and mandate is not up to code. It is like using old-fashion special effects for a modern film and not expecting for people to notice it and laugh.

Trump saw it eons ago and it was the reason he bypassed the press. With his approval ratings slowly inching past fifty percent, he knows what he is doing.

On the other hand, the federal Canadian government and journalists do not know what they are doing. They are as stupid as stupid can be. Their ignorance could be hidden by the old special effects of old school journalism, but now nothing they do is working or remotely aligning with reality.

Trump tweaks Prime Minister Pantywaist’s nose strategically, with Trump in the role of strapping jock, and Justin Trudeau as helpless nerd whose only purpose in life is to endure atomic wedgies from his antagonist.

Like the A-list US celebrities who faced humiliation when they told their little fans to vote for Hillary Clinton, and their endorsement meant squat, Canadian journalists are mortified that they are coming off as the nerdier and duller country. Canadians like to fancy themselves as superior to the Americans, and now the USMCA has proven that Trump owns their backsides and makes full use of it by kicking it in front of the entire planet.

The CBC is hopeful the UK will rescue them from USMCA, but they shouldn’t count on it. It cannot make up the deficits, and the UK cannot even negotiate an exit deal with Europe, and by the time the dust settles, the UK will hedge their bets and make more lucrative deals with the superior US, not to mention that if the US had a superior deal, then by pride and bragging rights, the UK will demand something even more from Canada.

The Toronto Star hopes the Grits will be able to mend fences with all the provinces who elected conservative provincial governments, but they shouldn’t count on that, either. The provinces are also hedging their bets and are politically aligning to the US in order to salvage their fortunes as the federal Grits proved to be knuckle-draggers who ghettoized women with their virtue-signalling trade demands. If the economy is booming, you do not need provisions. Bring home a good deal for your country, and the womenfolk can take care of themselves and don’t need Daddy Government to make them dependent on it.

The National Post hopes there really wasn’t a loss of sovereignty, and tries to spin it with this ridiculous quote:

Others argue the change is more symbolic. “While I understand why people see this provision as a bit of an infringement on Canadian sovereignty, that’s not typical of an FTA,” said Matthew Kronby, a Toronto-based trade lawyer at Borden Ladner Gervais. “At a practical level, it has far less significance than some people are suggesting it does.”

Oh, it wasn’t symbolic: it is real and it is significant. You can live in denial all you want, but the fact that China has gone ballistic is all you need to know about the damage the USMCA has done.

China, which has so far exploited desperate countries and is buying their natural resources for a pittance (including Serbia), they have gotten rather overconfident of their own cunning, and Trump has merely stuck his foot out and tripped them up using the Prime Minister and Chrystia Freeland to do it.

As one professor also misread the signs:

“The U.S. is going to get all its partners to gang up on China, but it’s clear that Canada did this because there was a gun to its head,” said Mary Lovely, an economics professor at Syracuse University who studies trade issues. “Now Canada has its hands tied.”

Not at all. Trump went to Canada first with a better deal than what they had before: the Grits scoffed at it because they couldn’t morally masturbate in public with it by demanding frivolous ideologically-based clauses to pander to the middle class as if they were the senior partner with clout who had the muscle to do so, and Trump turned the tables, and then Canada snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

A professor is not an actual expert in the reality of the world. Professors are mere experts at theory. As they never enter the lairs they study, they are too far removed from it to make informed decisions.

We have political science professors galore, for instance, and not one has the mettle to lead this country.

We have economic professors coming out of the wazoo, and yet none of them make a salary on their understanding of markets, as they pull a safe public sector pay check.

That journalists defer to professors to reflect on reality shows how little they understand the nature of it.

When I decided to become a reporter as part of my Method Research, I had done research by taking a very good media studies course as well as read hundreds of books and journal articles about journalism from academics.

After I finished my experiment, I can tell you right now that the academics were correct zero percent of the time.

They were wrong on everything.

If I had depended on the academic study of the profession, I would have been way off course. The methods are sound, but the application is ridiculous.

You cannot hover above and be squirrelled away when studying a profession. That does not produce knowledge, but sophistry.

Academia had the methods, but not the savvy, and that is a huge problem when it comes to how j-schools teach their future journalists.

It is pure sanctioned insanity.

It is why we are still groping in the dark, believing all sorts of inaccurate and ridiculous things.

I could have believed all sorts of inaccurate and ridiculous things about journalism if I just became an academic and took the cowardly route of standing outside the profession and think the window-dressing contained the atom of truth.

IV

The reason Donald Trump has played journalists for the fools that they are so effectively for so long is the same reason why I could create a new form of journalistic empiricism: he walked among those in journalism. He gave interviews and he was accessible.

I conducted interviews and was accessible.

But I also had an assist because I used to box to understand war strategies.

Trump would have made a powerful boxer. He is one of the few people who is a savant in this area, while journalists are not savants in anything. Trump uses multiple strategies.

At the most basic level, he is a cross between Muhammad Ali and Floyd Mayweather Jr. in that he keeps moving and trash-talking like Ali, but his defensive strategies are in tune with Mayweather’s.

But Trump has something else in common with the latter boxing champion: he can set himself up as a villain and incite the crowds to root for his defeat…and then win.

Mayweather is known for it, but people do not see that Trump’s strategy banks on it. People consistently underestimate him.

More specifically, the Left and their satellite industries of entertainment and journalism, think they are more cunning, intelligent, and beloved than he is, and then march right into the boxing ring, get pummelled into a pulp, and then think they can spin a KO into a victory.

And then they keep going into the ring with the same stupid loser strategies thinking this time they will beat him.

How so when he has plenty of practice and knows your loser ways by heart?

If those kinds of strategies could repeatedly and effectively bypass journalism, then it was important to study those ways in order to create an alternative to not just journalism, but find the way the alternative didn’t fall for the same traps, feints, strategies, carny, or misdirection.

I had the answer by how I studied journalism: by being a journalist. I used the methods of academia, saw what worked and didn’t, refined and modified the methods, and turned the world into my own laboratory to gather truths.

I learned how to follow trains of thought without being seen. I learned how to observe in different ways that neither journalism nor academia did.

It became F.R.E.E.D. and in a world where people think their uninformed opinions are facts, we have no light to guide us. Just monsters.

I do not agree with the Weekly Standard that America is in decline: what they are is a nation without a credible, reliable, useful, or valid alternative to journalism.

That’s the problem. Journalism’s methods are archaic and antiquated. They no longer work. It’s trash, and when you have a profession that does everything from crib from press releases to openly steal ideas without credit from other people to flat out lie and distort, you cannot expect anything better.

You need a different angle and structure.

Journalism was used to social engineering, and now their methods are blaring, especially as they cannot alter the outcome of anything anymore. They cannot alter elections or confirmations of judges or trade deals that turn a nation into a satellite banana republic.

Had journalists walked among those they were covering without getting sucked into their mindsets, they would see reality and give real and useful information.

I found the truth and reality about journalism that way. I could have come up with an infinite number of theories, but being a journalist and creating testable experiments based on the mundane reality of the profession, gave me extraordinary insight and information.

It is why I know journalism needs to be replaced — and what can do the job: a sturdy and flexible matriarchal narrative-free empirical model that informs without trying to manipulate or become a tyrant in the bargain…