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


giphy (1).gif




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.


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.


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.


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.


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…

The State of War, 2018.






The target this year was Facebook. Journalists and media owners finally realized that they could not exploit it to resurrect their profession. Politicians realized they couldn’t control the message of billions, and grains brought together say things that are just as powerful as a single entity that holds all the cards. Corporations couldn’t compete with the guerilla tactics of amateur feeds. Facebook is chaos and when Establishment types cannot impose their rigged order, they try to trick people into relinquishing their power in some sort of Luciferian bargain: if you give us your power, we will look after you. Yeah, you’ll take care of us, all right.

Facebook was ill-prepared. It bought its own hype. The problem was Mark Zuckerberg was Pavlovian conditioned in his early twenties, and his mindset is frozen there. He got away with shit, and thought he was cunning. Smiling for the cameras made it seem that he got away with things, and for years, he did.

Facebook’s business model is unworkable. How does it make its money when it gives everyone their own website for free? When it became a publicly-traded company a few years ago, it was struggling because a lot of investors couldn’t see it and didn’t like the odds.

It bounced back, but the truth is Facebook makes money by selling data from its users to people who are willing to pay for it. As an intelligence-gathering tool, it is personal, commercial, detailed, current, and extremely effective.

Media owners would benefit from the level of detail and signed up, but it didn’t actually work for them because their product really stinks. You can know every thought and movement: if I don’t want your product, I don’t want your product. It is out-of-touch and incompatible with today’s technology.

So Facebook got pummelled with a leader who made it far, but was sheltered from the real world. Anyone will make it far if they are fawned over and protected because they have something everyone wants. Once those guardians realized they couldn’t exploit Facebook for their own ends, they turned on the lamb who always thought he was some sort of wolf.

Facebook didn’t know where to turn because it got kicked into unfamiliar territory. It was linked to Russians because the Left were livid that their propaganda failed to secured dud candidate Hillary Clinton a presidency.

Julian Assange knows that one.


The problem is that in this War of 2018, it is not Left at war with the Right, or even Left at war with Trump.

The Left is targeting itself. Zuckerberg is on the Left. So was Harvey Weinstein.

This is the reason why #MeToo was so effective for so long: it was people who hedged their bets and went with the Leftist cabal. They thought they were safe.

When they Left went after Brett Kavanaugh, their winning streak came screeching to a halt. The Right were prepared for this battle in advanced, and they fended off the siege. Weinstein didn’t think his own fellow soldiers would turn on him, and neither did Zuckerberg who was floating around the idea of running for president not that long ago.

This is a war of in-fighting.

The Left will continue to cannibalize itself in 2019. The Alinsky playbook is working against them for a single reason: that manual was meant for poor people fighting against the rich. Not rich versus rich, or rich against poor. It is poor against rich. The end.

It was not meant to be effective for limousine liberals and champagne socialists. It backfires, and deliberately so. Alinsky didn’t want rich and powerful people to use it. It is rigged against it. It is a situational manual, and crafted for that very purpose.

So Facebook was the target of 2018, and it got blindsided by the ambush of its own side. I wouldn’t count out the company nor its founder. Some behind the scenes deals can always be made if they are of use. It won’t have the same power or clout, if even if does. The old guard want something they can no longer achieve because digital is the present and has been for the last twenty years. Brains are wired differently, and the old playbooks don’t apply.

2019 will bring in a different war, and I’ll be covering it right here…

The "Harvey Weinstein" Strategy: Everyone is lying! Really? A vast politically-correct conspiracy?

The “All Victims Are Lying!” defence is a really bad one, but Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer is using that gambit.

It is a desperate one that hinges on a mindset that is no longer in mainstream play.

And this is not the first time in history that it was a defence that backfired.

I will be writing about such a case soon enough for Chaser. Suffice to say the case I will be writing about was well-known, and in the decades since, not a single witness recanted or was challenged in her testimony. The balance of power was grossly unequal then as it is now — even more so — but in the end, the jury sided with the dispossessed females who took the stand.

The smearing of victims before the trial is mostly likely meant to taint the jury pool and set a narrative rigged to favour Weinstein, but these days, it is more likely to condemn him than give him a “get out of jail free” card…

Harvey Weinstein and a narrative that keeps tripping victims in court. When we the courts understand the psychology of abuse?

Harvey Weinstein is out to save his miserable ass from jail. He is whining about how hard he has had it, as he tries to besmirch the woman who accused him of sexual assault.

As a strategy, it could work, but it shouldn’t.

Jian Ghomeshi got off the hook because the women he beat responded to him, and he kept those emails as an insurance policy.

Weinstein seems to be using a similar strategy.

Just because someone you abused has any kind of contact with you after the fact, doesn’t mean the assault didn’t happen or wasn’t an assault.

Let us remember one crucial fact: there have been abusive men who killed their wives, and they do not get off the hook for the murder just because the woman stayed with him.

Women go back to abusers. They often keep dating them, marrying them, having children with them, and pleading to police not to take their abuser away.

The “Marry-your-rapist” laws have been around for a long time in various places. We glorified it for decades, especially Hollywood.


We are consistent with our messages. We really don’t take the psychology of abuse when it comes to these issues. Young women get abused, blame themselves, go back, and often end up in a pine box. When it gets to that extreme, then we get 48 Hours or Dateline NBC to chronicle what a horrible man the killer was for being so abusive as he gets a life sentence.

If he doesn’t go that far, then we blame the woman, as the judge lets him go free.

We have enough academic literature out there to have an educated guess how the dynamics of abuse work.

It would be a very good time to confront it and start making the most of it…

Macron blinks, proving that rioting is the best medicine.

There is an old Serbian saying that Nice and Stupid are two brothers.

I always say, maybe, but they aren’t the same person.

People snapped and rioted, and the government had to relent.

If ex-pat Serbs were that forceful during the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, they wouldn’t have been painted as the villains, and Western nations would have had to report and see the war for what it truly was, but Serbs tried reasoning to their devastation.

I remember when you had union workers in Canada used to do more than strike: they would turn over cars, and then the rich, who are cowards who have everything to lose, had to behave like human beings.

But then you had PR campaigns co-opt the next generation, making having a working class job or being in a union sound degrading, and then you had gullible workers look down on unions who then lost a lot of clout.

While completely ignoring the fact that the rich have their own unions, and we call those lobby groups.

It is the reason you have super-rich robber barons, and the trampling of worker’s rights. It is also the reason journalism collapsed.

Because they started aligning with those robber barons as they connived themselves out of a job and destroyed their own industry.

People who get a little power over someone else become decrepit and they will abuse workers and would chain them to their cubicles if they could.

You need checks and balances in society because sometimes you are the monster who needs to be slapped back with sensibility because your decrees become psychopathic and vile because nothing is ever good enough for you, and you get greedy and demanding more and more, thinking you are owed everything, and motherfucker, you’re not.

The Gilets Jaunes, have let the French government know that they are being insufferable assholes and exploded.

It would be nice if you could say to people politely to back the fuck off, and stop trying to shake you down. People have a horrible tendency to think just because there is goodwill and politeness, that somehow, there is stupidity and weakness to exploit.

#MeToo was once that kind of collective explosion until the Democrats usurped the movement and turned it into a big, whiny, mess. That’s the reason it got fucked up and was reduced to a whimper.

But when power proves to be tyrannical, it needs a counterbalance to show that it is all an illusion, and that goodwill is not the same as being superior and invincible.

It would be nice if humans evolved with a modicum of morality, but sadly, all they seem to do is look for new skins, masks, and scripts to put on to pretend they have a moral or intellectual edge, and can now do whatever wicked thing crosses their minds.

In France, Macron was forced to see that eality. He has been behaving horribly, and the dose of reality came by means of rioting. It is unfortunate, but seems to be the only language the brutes in suits actually comprehend…

Michelle Obama knocks Sheryl Sandberg. The typical female catfight snorefest rages on.

Michelle Obama got calculatedly petty and catty at Sheryl Sandberg because the Leftie Mean Girls on the playground are apparently jealous:

At Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, on Saturday, a very candid former first lady weighed in on whether she believes women can "have it all." Speaking off the cuff, Michelle Obama explained why "leaning in" doesn't actually work, and she caught a lot of attention for it across the internet.

“Marriage still ain’t equal, y'all,” Michelle told the crowd, which had gathered for a sold-out stop on her book tour, according to Vanity Fair. "It ain’t equal. I tell women that whole ‘you can have it all’ — mmm, nope, not at the same time, that’s a lie. It’s not always enough to lean in because that sh*t doesn’t work."

And men do seem to have it, and have had it all for centuries, but women cannot?


Women are intellectually inferior to men and are too stupid for the work-life balance?


Is Michelle Obama some sort of Stepford, neo-Victorian delicate flower?

Apparently so, but there is a more conniving reason for the swipe.

The Left are script-followers and lock-steppers, and the new helmet-haired biddies of this generation. Sandberg is merely a target because the Left want to blame everyone else but themselves for their incompetent failures.

Sandberg at least tried to have a war manual for women, and that was important.

Bravo about writing a helpful book, and not just another Look at Me! pabulum that passes for a book.

Oh, and that book was lauded when the Left thought Facebook was going to be their own little propaganda tool.

And now we have women who are knocking it because it was flawed?

While offering no constructive alternative?

Okay, let Michelle Obama bring us an alternative.

She has a university education, and I take it she has the ability to do some research, and come up with something that is both reliable and valid, empirically-designed, and has utility.

Sandberg at least made her own power and fortune on her own, and hence, has more credibility than the one woman who married into her position, and rode on her husband’s coattails.

Women have to do more than squawk, tattle, shame, and get into catfights: they have to lean in it, punch in, scratch in, kick in, crawl in, steamroll in, blast in, roar in, and fucking fight in.

You’re not fucking fairy princesses, bitches. Life is hell and does not give one flying fuck about your wedding pictures, cupcake recipes, and which toady loser you’re fellating.

You are on your own. You are free to succeed or fail based on your own strategies and active plans for the future.

You are also free to lean in to neo-Victorian Liberals, and go tell them to go fuck themselves and stop spewing bullshit in public.

Because I don’t recall Michelle Obama doing anything for women for her eight years in the limelight other than point out to women how deficient they were and needed First Lady meddling to tell them how to feed their children.

Women these days have decided to retreat and take steps backwards, not forwards. If they want to be oppressed, they are doing an impeccable job for the misogynists. #MeToo was the last real push, right before it got hijacked by the Democratic Party and was FUBAR…

Canada's Dick Pic Scandal gets bigger all the time...

Gracious, Tony Clement got his white boy ass booted out of the federal Conservative Party.

Women are coming forward to counter his claims this kind of debauchery was just a one off.

Bullshit, of course. A man his age, education, and position is not some innocent babe in the woods, kids.

I heard managandist Christie Blatchford on the radio trying to make the case that somehow Clement had the same mental capacity as some gullible teenaged girl who gets knocked up the first time she had sex.

I don’t think so.

The Privy Council and the RCMP are investigating since, as I mentioned before, Clement has clearance, a position of power, and access to things and they have to make sure that didn’t get compromised along with his dignity and career.

His judgement is obviously whacked, but that is what happens when everyone is asleep at the wheel…

Tony Clement resigns as justice critic because he was a naughty boy with too much free time and not enough savvy.

Federal Conservative MP Tony Clement got himself into trouble and not only is he leaving his post, the RCMP had to be brought in to clean up his dirty little mess.

Not everyone understands this whole Internet thing. My mother came into it about less than a year ago, and she already got bored of Facebook and dropped out, but all she ever did was post funny animal videos and still uses Pinterest for jewelry ideas and funny animal pictures.

This is how you should be sinking your life on social media.

But Clement was not Internet savvy:

"Over the last three weeks, I have shared sexually explicit images and a video of myself to someone who I believed was a consenting female recipient. The recipient was, in fact, an individual or party who targeted me for the purpose of financial extortion," Clement said in a statement.

Once it is on the Internet, it is forever, Mr. Clement. Do not follow the ways of Anthony Weiner. He also got himself in a shitload of trouble. Do not send nudies of yourself to strangers online, especially if you have a cushy high-paying job where you get paper crowns with minimum effort. That’s just fucked up.

I suggest the Tories contact my mother immediately for the job: she is nice to animals, has an artistic flair, is dedicated to social justice of all kinds, and has a minimum interest in the Internet…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Twenty: Vladimir Posner wrote about parting with illusions. The West have yet to part with their delusions.

I am upgrading my teaching skills through Harvard University’s short course at the moment, and it is, not surprisingly, extremely expensive, labour intensive, complex, and fascinating. It is mostly psychology, and it is a program geared at professors who teach.

But I am enjoying it immensely.

A lot of the things I knew from my undergraduate training in psychology, but of course, there is always something new to learn, and this week, I learned something about how students test.

If female subjects were given a plain math test, their scores were the same as their male counterparts.

But if they were told the test was to measure gender differences, suddenly, women did far worse on the same test.

Drawing attention to gender did something very bad.

African-American students were in the same boat: if they were to just write a test, their scores were no different than white students…

But if they were asked to write their race on the paper, they fared far worse on their scores.

So we know that drawing attention to race and gender alone can negatively impact people when they need to be tested, meaning the scores do not actually reflect ability when that irrelevant factor is brought into the equation.

And yet the Left does nothing but draw attention to it.

If we want equality, the solution is not to divide, but multiply and unify, allowing for the differences to be left alone and be a normal part of a fabric’s pattern.

One plus on equals a bigger one.

And all equations equal infinity.

The Western Left is bent on divide and conquer.

And selling delusions.

Vladimir Posner had a very interesting book called Parting with Illusions.

But the West has yet to part with their delusions.

In this case, but drawing attention to perceived differences that are skin deep, the Left is actively creating tribes, and with its competitive rig, ones who must compete with each other to be the ones who get the most pity and attention.

But in order to get attention, the tribe must submit to being helpless.


You must be a victim.

You need the safety of your in-group, and never be an individual who can stand alone.

You must be herded like sheep, and take but a single path with the Left as your shepherd.


I will choose my own adventure, thank you very much.

But the Western Left do a very good job at erasing history to present themselves as the only enlightened ones, drawing attention to race and gender, knowing full well that people begin to falter when their innate trait is being called out.

But the Right have not been as backwards or as villainous as the Left like to pretend.

Let’s take alleged progressive country Canada for instance.

Justin Trudeau’s narrative is that he is progressive, but what progressive things has he done to date?

When you start looking for tangible evidence, you soon come up with the truth: Canada has no leadership, and Trudeau is no prime minister, he just plays one on selfies.

It is one thing if you are progressive and not make a big deal, but his cabinet has many females, and none have done very much.

Chrystia Freeland has bungled her portfolio badly. Someone with extensive negotiating skills had to be placed there, and she is out of her league, and it shows.

We didn’t need to blink on USMCA or fall for the oldest trick in the book:


Make noise in the East, but strike in the West.

A basic ruse undetected because we have a regime convinced it knows something.

But they know the little people back homes also know shit about it.

Parting with delusions is the first step to sensibility.

And Leftist bigoted stereotypes that they alone know something about equal opportunity.

In Canada, Lincoln Alexander was the first black man to be a member of Parliament, and then the fist black cabinet minister in 1979.

He was not a member of the Liberal Party.

No, not the NDP.

But the Conservative Party.

So despite everything about the Grits, they weren’t the ones who were about racial equality, but they will certainly pretend they are the only ones, even if they are doing nothing but paying lip service.

Alexander had an illustrious career and is Person #21 of the List of People Everyone Should Know. He broke many firsts in Canada.

The Left no longer acknowledge that other people aside from the Left create progress. They have spun of narrative of having god-like powers and anyone else who does not worship them is a devil.

Delusions of grandeur, and dying your hair blue or getting a tat doesn’t cover up your helmet-haired blue rinse mindset.

It is one of the numerous reasons I lost respect for the Left entirely. Pontifical prickery doesn’t do anything but serve as a mask to hide the inner hatred and prejudice from that neck of the ideological woods.

So, it is the reason I am in the Radical Centre.

A bird needs two wings to fly: a left one and a right one.

I soar by trade; so I am not going to cut off one wing to prove some bullshit point.

I keep centred and balanced: I see the weaknesses of both and do not allow one side to dominate the other.

Because both sides are corrupt by nature and designed, with rigs that ensure no one questions their true motives.

But there are empirical ways to uncover it.

Chaser uses the methods to reveal rigs and stratagems. It is a road map showing how manipulators try to the public.

I don’t expect most to have the courage to do it. I have had my fill of Left-wing bigots, but I know they do their best to mask their prejudice, from pretending to be interested in accents as they are othering you, to explaining away why African-Americans used to vote en masse for Republican candidates pre-JFK (“because they just followed their masters” some white liberal moron recently told me in all seriousness, trying to explain that these were a people without their own mind, free will, or intelligence until the Left started to do their thinking for them. I had my fill of the White Man’s Burden narrative exactly one millisecond after the first time I encountered it).

I never assumed I was to meddle in the lives of other people: I was to get out of their way for them to thrive, and they didn’t meddle to interfere in my life. I wasn’t suppose to swoop in and assume I knew better how to live another’s life just as they were not supposed to do the same to me.

No rigs. No propaganda. No othering. No bullshit stories. No excuses.

No exceptions.

Chaser didn’t play political favourites, and it won’t now. It is about truth and reality, not delusions and propaganda.

The truth is we don’t actually have a political party that has understood the notion of citizen freedom. We have never had one that codified the rights and responsibilities of both the government and its populace.

We never had a government that forbade the middle class from parroting scripts and devoted its energies teaching them the difference between a lie and a truth, and a perception and reality.

And journalists were never any help. They can virtue-signal like psychopaths like to do, but when it comes to truly understanding empathy, they will block the handicap spots at a polling station and not move when someone with a disability needs it because their own egos are more important than covering the reality they are supposed to see and comprehend.

It is all a scam.

Not everyone will appreciate Chaser. I don’t care. It is about the truth — and building a foundation from there…

Memo to Elle: Propagandistic cheerleading cannot hide the stench of incompetence. And memo to the New Yorker: You don't prints maybes. You print truth.

Elle magazine had a recent article on Jane Mayer and her disastrous article she wrote with Ronan Farrow for the New Yorker about Brett Kavanaugh, and it began with this propagandistic headline:

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer Is Holding the World's Most Powerful Men Accountable

The article sounds as if it was churned out by a publicist and has the usual drooling and fawning narative, but it is this passage that is very instructive:

Knowing this is why Ronan Farrow and I were so alert to the significance of other accusers, such as Deborah Ramirez. Her allegation showed that, if true, yes, there was a pattern of misconduct, and likely another side of the judge.

This is not an actual investigative journalistic spewing. This is a gambler hedging her bets, and this is an open admission of being a crusading propagandist.

Just because you have a series of accusations, you do not automatically assume every one is truth.

In my first book, I outlined numerous cases where amid the multiple accusations of victimization (not sexual assault or harassment, but other forms of abuse that struck at men and women, regardless of race) , there often was one case that was fabricated, but the person hoped to slip it in and thought no one would look into every accusation.

Middle Class Ideology is binary in nature: it is all or nothing. Either everything is to be believed, or none. It is The One Rule That Explains Everything, and you can never make assumptions about the whole until you look at each part to verify. This is the economic caste that recoils at independent and active critical thinking and expertise that may cause social humiliation if they are different or wrong, and merely wants a TORTEE so they can blend in and never be wrong. Yes, it always matters if there is a chance of someone being falsely accused, even if it is one percent. That is the reason we must dig for facts so that the right people are punished and that genuine victims do not have to shake because their attacker is free.

In my book, I went over case studies where there were a pat of genuine hate crimes, but then one person got it in their heads to stage it, thinking there could be a class action lawsuit, for instance, and then betting on being believed because there were real cases of it happening.

But then there was the Pepsi tainted can scare of the 1980s, where there were hundreds of reported cases of tainted cans, but then none turned out to be real.

Had the New Yorker been responsible, they would not have gone with the story as it stood. It was a big nothing because there were no facts or anchors. But this was a case of banking on Ronan Farrow’s past successes, but all of those stories were different in that he found corroborating evidence. This was a rush job, and the New Yorker hedged their bets as well, slipping a weak story hoping the previous strong one would prop it up.

What it did was draw attention to the weaknesses of the accusations. Contrast those accusations to those that of the women who were assaulted by Bill Cosby who drugged them. Even though there was variances in their stories, there were specific common threads. It is normal for there to be differences: when everything sounds alike, that is when a red flag suggests collusion and rehearsing.

The problem with the Kavanaugh accusations is that all had the same vagueness of details in the same places. There is something off, and I find it a peculiar common thread — that, and these stories all came out at the same time, even though Kavanaugh’s nomination had been publicized long before the hearings.

It is the reason I strongly suspect that #MeToo was hijacked, co-opted and re-imagined for political gain by people in power. This is no longer a grassroots movement, but war propaganda, and it warrants further examination. When a social movement becomes overtaken by an Establishment entity, it is misused with those trying to fight for equality first becoming exploited before being discarded and discredited.

I have said for a long time that women have a serious problem and that is twofold: (a) they have very little experience in holding power, meaning they are blind to nuances and can make bigger and more devastating errors because you cannot fake it as you have no experience and are tethered by the strategically illiterate Middle Class Ideology, and (b) there are no war manuals for women.

The Kavanaugh Hearings was an unmitigated disaster for #MeToo, made worse by the New Yorker article. Once cooler heads prevail, the fallout will even be worse: how did such irresponsible reportage be allowed to go unchallenged and unchecked prior to its publication and allowed partisan propaganda hijack the industry as well as a legitimate social movement?

If you had concrete facts, it would be one thing. Men such as Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, and Bill Cosby were all brought down by multiple legitimate accusations that were backed up by those predator’s underlings, witnesses, victim’s friends, family, lawyers, and colleagues — despite the predator’s wealth and resources were employed by his best efforts to cover up his sins.

The Establishment Democrats had no genuine feel for #MeToo, and thought they could grab an organic movement from the people, and repurpose it to have a surefire teflon weapon to take down a man they despise — not because of his view on women — but because he was part of Ken Starr’s legal team that went after Democratic president Bill Clinton.

One minute, #MeToo is all about empowering women to feel just like Rosie the Riveter.


The next, women are fragile and delicate children who have no voice and need protection.


The New Yorker has much to answer for here. Women who fight for equality have never had such a good narrative and always had to deal with garbage from the Establishment.


No one could imagine the worst thing to happen was for feminism to be co-opted by that Establishment in order to keep a status quo going.

Feminists also have a lot to answer for as well: why, in 2018, are they still placing all of their eggs in the Democrat’s political basket? Why haven’t they pushed into both parties to ensure their interests are taken care of regardless of which political party rules?

And why haven’t they created an original political party in tune with what women want and need?

If you want something off the table, you have better make sure you own part of that table to have a say of what is on it and what never get placed on it.

Feminists are approaching it the wrong way: marching in the streets and working the Troll Scroll do nothing in the long-run. It is just powerless venting.

Elle is a frivolous air-headed rag trying to cash in on the pseudo-feminist cottage industry and is pandering with a narrative not aligned with reality.

True feminism is not pretending you are holding powerful men accountable when you run speculation and unverified gossip. You are causing more harm than good.

Feminism can longer be dependent on the Dems because they have proven to be unreliable as allies — they must their own path and stop being at the mercy of exploiters who see them as nothing more than objects — pawns and political weapons — to be used and discarded…

Brett Kavanaugh confirmed: How the Democrats failed to "weaponize" #MeToo: Shaming and virtue-signalling are not tools of war, but feints of royalty.

Not surprising as US Democrats are in a far greater dysfunctional mess than they let on. They coasted on #MeToo and this is the movement’s first real and major defeat.

Kavanaugh is confirmed.

The Left truly have no idea what they are doing, but when you build your ranks on champagne socialists and limousine liberals who do not understand that a “Resistance” movement is not a fashion statement, that’s what you get.

Trump is a shrewd man, and unlike the Left, he fights like both a general and a soldier.

The Left are acting like a bunch of kings and queens, issuing their decrees on the Troll Scroll, absolutely convinced slacktivism and carrying placards while shouting like uncivilized brats at people are the tools of war.

No, that is not the breakfast of champions.

Shaming and virtue-signalling is not doing anything but expecting servants to clean up the messes that you also had a hand in making by enabling wicked behaviour.

Turning women into helpless and delicate Victorian damsels was a big gambit and it backfired on Democrats and journalists alike.

The Democrats already lost the first time with Clarence Thomas; so this one they should have won, but didn’t because they think they are blameless and perfect, and way smarter than those on the Right, meaning they learned nothing and did the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

And the excuses the Left are puking are outrageous.

Seven FBI probes cleared Kavanaugh. You had three accusers with way too shaky stories individually, but together, they were glaring.

Ronan Farrow, who also should have known better, went to press with a story that he didn’t verify the way he did with Harvey Weinstein or Les Moonves, and it blared.

Michael Avenatti’s little nuclear bomb proved useless and many on the Left are blaming him for parading someone whose story crumbled after a simple poke.

But while many on the Left are convinced Christine Blasey Ford’s story alone would have sunk him, I do not agree. Seven FBI probes would have had the same outcome. That his mother Martha Kavanaugh was a judge, she would know the routines and the checks judges go through, grooming and preparing him, and it should be no surprise to anyone paying attention that he produced his teenaged calendars on the drop of a hat.

He was vetted, and thoroughly so, and the idea of a cover up is merely the Left throwing fits as their unfalsifiable hypothesis has just been proven false.

This is a horrific blow to #MeToo, and an unnecessary one. It would not have been if it weren’t co-opted by a political party, but everyone thought previous successes would guarantee another victory because of a “woke” mindset, and when you do that, you show how out of depth you truly are.

There is no strategy, let alone one that takes women’s experiences and natural rhythms into the equation.

But the Democrats earned this defeat. Inciting the masses is not a strategy: that is a lazy and manipulative person’s method of getting the little people to do the heavy lifting for you. It was Machiavellian to the core, but also thoughtless, and it showed.

You are not royalty. You cannot issue decrees and expect everyone to do what you want lest you shame them on social media.

But #MeToo isn’t the only loser here. Social media proved impotent as well, as well as their Big Tech overlords who have been openly rigging their platforms to favour the Left. Their billions mean squat as of today.

And it also proves that if your will can withstand the mass disapproval and you are persistent, social media is no match for you.

There will be more temper tantrums and rage puking. All of which is useless.

#MeToo should not have been misused here. The Democrats should have taken another track, but as #MeToo was the best weapon going, they appropriated it, and then spectacularly misfired with it.

#MeToo worked because of diligence. Women didn’t make up accusations: their troubles all had provenance you could follow, and could be verified by other means.

To #MeToo critics, they will now have a field day. #MeToo will also lose support from those who ride on the coattails of the success of others, which isn’t a bad thing; so long as feminists do not become dejected, or worse, not understand that you cannot possibly win every battle, and then hold grudges as you learn nothing from the mistakes of your losses. You have to change, modify and improve regardless if you were wronged in the past or not. You cannot expect others to change for you.

This was a shaky gambit, and the ones using it have a lot to answer for. #MeToo had better success in other venues targeting a different and specific sort of man. It is not all-purpose weapon to get rid of any male you do not like.

#MeToo became a one-trick pony. Women were turned into propaganda figures — all helpless and in need of Daddy Government to rescue them.

That is not feminism. That is not strength. You cannot bank on weakness or tales of woe: that can be the starting point, but sooner or later, you need to bring a new phase that has new strategies and specific goals.

#MeToo didn’t do it. People thought a single ploy was good enough forever and always. That’s a middle class truism; not the strategy of soldiers and generals fighting wars.

And the Left are inciting people who know nothing about basic strategy. Chalk it up to a generation whose parents sheltered them from failing or losing: that core of strategy was never developed. They threw fits and mommy and daddy fixed it by browbeating teachers and coaches into relenting.

You have to learn to fight like a soldier. Journalists do not know how to do that. Neither do professors. And not Democratic politicians anymore.

And that is why we have the Democrats flailing with their trash-talk and producing no victories, while anyone who can think several moves ahead always defeat them.

If feminism doesn’t want to be dragged down, they had seriously consider severing ties to that party and start from scratch — without some moralizing narrative, and with a willingness to learn and experiment with humility and enthusiasm of building something new with the lessons of the past…

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

There is a peculiar narrative quirk in the presenting of #MeToo, and it is something that has bothered me for a long time.

That the running narrative only portrays women as victims who have merely endured abuse and were silent.

Now, this flies in the face of many women who were sexually harassed who reported the instances, or in several cases I know, did physical harm to the harasser, even though said harasser was their employer.

I know one person after their boss tried to molest them, had put that same boss in his place to the point of having to have him taken to the hospital by ambulance while the police refused to charge her for self-defence.

She is not the only woman I know who resorted to fisticuffs to settle a case of workplace terrorism, and this happened long before #MeToo was a thing.

The lack of narrative outcomes means that this is being processed through a patriarchal lens, which hints that there is something else at play.

And by no means does standing up for yourself and fighting back make people who could not or did not look bad in comparison.

Sometimes when you drive, another car charges at you and you have time and space to swerve out of the way, and other times, it is not possible. There is no pecking order or blame.

But, if #MeToo hadn’t be politically hijacked, we would be having a diversity of stories.

Instead, the role for women is now helpless damsel in distress who cannot stand up for herself, and must depend on the “right” government to shield her.

It is downright Victorian in its presentation, and not feminist.

A functional society is one where  you are not impeded, but you are responsible for you and the board isn’t rigged so that you cannot stand up or fight for yourself.

This should be a huge red flag that there is a serious functional problem with the peculiar turn #MeToo is taking. Keep women dependent and helpless as they passively want other people to fight their battles for them.

No wonder nothing has changed. You cannot use a single old-school and unoriginal patriarchal narrative and expect a different outcome.

But there are plenty of people trying to spin things to suit their own purposes.


Yes, ladies: burn the evidence and do all the heavy lifting yourselves as per a random white guy’s orders. Thank you for the permission as there is no well-thought out alternative mechanism in place. Aren’t you clever?

There is nothing but manufactured outrage these days on the Troll Scroll — men, women, Left, Right.

And no facts or plan.

But journalism is dead, and social media has even less discipline than the model it replaced.

No plans or thinking. No new ideas, just rehashing the old unworkable ideologies that our parents didn’t like, so it has to be right.

People with no knowledge and experience angrily barking orders to no one in particular, as if empty and passive words should be enough to change things by shaming that non-existent They to do all of the work for us.

The alternative to journalism is also the alternative to the current model of social media: it provides facts to turn reaction and reflection into something actively constructive.

But that won’t happen coasting on old patriarchal narratives…

Pseudo-feminism in an Age of Propaganda.

This Time magazine cover is pure misogynistic propaganda.


Pseudo-feminist propaganda that is patriarchal in nature, infantilizes women and casts a woman with a position of power and a doctorate as a helpless little victim.

And the fact that this came from a mainstream US publication — the ones that are run by the rich white boys is a real knee-slapper.

This is a trigger cover, and I find it interesting that to “get” Brett Kavanaugh, used an oh-so-very-convenient one “issue” against him, that happens to be the posh “MeToo” movement.

Now, what are the chances?

What? Nothing else? Seven FBI probes don’t turn up other issues, just the one everyone is talking about, and even then, can’t prove it the way other cases were?

The scandal is a little too contrived to be plausible with the usual gang of unoriginal and pandering suspects squawking in front of rolling cameras, grandstanding, and trying to manipulate women to march lockstep on cue.

The gambit, however, is seriously backfiring on the Left. The Right, who were running for cover, suddenly are pushing back and rallying together, something that the Left has been trying to prevent. If they lose the midterms, they are in serious trouble.

And they are in that trouble thanks to their own conniving and manipulative games.

What they are trying to do isn’t working anymore, and there is good reason for it.

Usually, propaganda targets men. You can squawk sexism all you want, but propaganda is based on biological mechanisms that are devastatingly effective. We can pretend to be sophisticated and individualistic all we want, but a single effective piece of propaganda, and all your scripts and masks fly right out the window.

Sorry, children, it is in the marrow.

The biological purpose in life is to reproduce and ensure the next generation is primed to reproduce. It is the reason why war propaganda always targeted young, childless men: they have raging hormones, are violent, competitive, and the ones who traditionally fought in the frontlines.

But what the Left has been doing with far less success is using the same kinds of propaganda that target men during war.


The reason women were used in these images had nothing to do with love or morality: it was a very sexist reason of warning men that their genes were not going to be passed on, but their enemies.

Once a woman is pregnant, she is out of the baby-producing game for nine months.

But this current propaganda model is using the same patriarchal images and then is being used to incite women during peace.

It is actually reminding women that they are — no matter what they achieve — just victims.

War is marked by chaos and anarchy where there is no authority to govern. Peace is marked by order and predictable rules where there is a power that controls as it governs.

What the underlying message is simple: men find their power in war. Women cannot even find theirs in peace.

#MeToo was a legitimate movement that has now been derailed and hijacked by those who do not actually understand war propaganda, but mimic it without rhyme or reason.

I always said #MeToo’s biggest problems was a lack of leadership and game plan, making it vulnerable to its own weaknesses, where others can form a successful counterattack.

But there is a second, more serious problem: while men have their war manuals and have had them for centuries to help them use their innate abilities to govern and gain as well as maintain power, women do not.

That is not the fault of men. I have written such a book, but have not published it yet for my own reasons, but I do not plan to keep it under wraps.

So we now have women who have won several battles, but now think they will keep winning them and then win a undefined war.

And they are now in unfamiliar terrain, and have now allowed others into their ranks who should not be in there.

The pseudo-feminists who pretend to be feminist, but have deep sexist mindsets.

Because no feminist would have created that cover, let alone published it.

Feminism is not about wallowing in frailty, and that cover is all about seeing women in a narrative lens of victim.

A damsel in distress who is at the mercy of authority to recount her tale of woe as a partisan side takes pity on her as she is a valuable pawn in their war games.

The narrative is not one of a heroine’s journey, for instance. You either have to plea your case to the Man, or to the dead profession of journalism that has been run by sexists for decades.

But that is what you can expect in an Age of Propaganda: where people are infantilized and throwing temper tantrums expecting their servants to make things right.

The white knight to the Left has always been this nonexistent They to do things for them.

But feminism was never about relying on They. It has now become incompatible with Leftist ideology.

And feminism should have moved away from it decades ago and formed its own original ideology.

A Radical Centre. A Matriarchal Core.

But the partisan propagandists co-opted feminism and held it back in a holding pattern, where women are groomed and primed to see themselves as victims, even when they think they aren’t.

If feminism truly wants to break a glass ceiling, it means growing up and moving away from a patriarchal political school of thought known as the Left.

You have to have vision and built your own castle and garden: not search for nannying ideologies such as liberalism or socialism. Those were created by the patriarchal white boys, and those proved to be faulty and unworkable.

You want equality? Stop making demands and start forging your own path, and not see demeaning Time covers as some sort of validation of your untransmuted rage…

Ian Buruma's Big Boo Hoo: Ignorance of societal learning curves is not a reason to wallow.

You know, there are 7.4 billion people on Earth. That’s a lot of people to choose from.

There are people who do all sorts of important things, and viral videos on Facebook showcase those bunny huggers who rescue animals and those people who break gender and racial barriers as well as the inventors, innovators, and the like.

And you’re an editor for a magazine that reviews books. There is something in the business called “fit”: certain pitches get shot down because they go against the publication’s mandate.

A men’s sporting magazine is going to shoot down your pitch for teaching art to children.  A science magazine is not interested in women’s fall fashions. A political magazine is not going to print an article about looking after rescued horses. A Left-wing magazine is not going to write an opinion piece about how great a president Donald Trump is. No, no, no.

But the former editor of the New York Review of Books, Ian Buruma, decided getting an article from a disgraced Canadian radio host not known as an author to wallow about how hard it is when society frowns on your destructive dysfunctionality was a good idea.

Buruma has been in the business long enough to know he did a whole bunch of things wrong, starting from breaking away from the magazine’s fit. He had to go out of his way to solicit a piece like this one. It would have been one thing if Jian Ghomeshi wrote a book about it (a still very bad move, but he could have had a bigger excuse to offer) — but there was actually no news peg to justify the piece is what makes the motives for publishing it in a book reviewing rag highly questionable.

Second, Ghomeshi is no “get”. He doesn’t have a following. CBC radio caters to older demographics, and isn’t some to-go hub for New Yorkers or Americans in general. Ghomeshi’s ratings were not through the roof: he had an advantage of having a slightly younger demo with somewhat higher ratings than one would expect from the CBC. No one was clamouring for this trigger piece. If you are going to go out on a limb, there would have to be some justifiable payoff, and Ghomeshi — no matter how generous or charitable you are with the goalposts — could not possibly be it on his own. He just knew where to inject himself and how, nothing more.

Finally, Ghomeshi has YouTube, blogs, and social media if he wants to air his story, or he could just go to the National Post to get a front-page story about how all the little people should feel sorry for him the way they were instructed to feel sorry for Steven Galloway.

There was absolutely no sound editorial justification for this piece even if Ghomeshi didn’t do anything wrong.

There is every justification if I had been asked to write about the state of journalism as I have a new book out from a well-respected London-based publisher, and have had three previous books published, including one that was a companion book to a wildly popular documentary movie. I don’t hold my breath because well-researched and documented books that prove that journalists are less than saints will get shut out completely.

Now add the fact that the author and subject of the essay was disgraced for being abusive to women and allowed his narrative to go unverified and unchallenged, and then, when interviewed, the editor could not provide a coherent answer. It is a fireable offence, and Buruma was shown the door.

But now, oh boo hoo. Now he gets to write the same kind of unenlightened drivel that got him terminated in the first place.

He shows he has learned nothing.

In an interview in Vrij, he wallows and makes a false comparison:

‘I am embroiled in a big scandal, in the middle of storm on social media,’ said Ian Buruma on the phone from New York. ‘It is rather ironic: as editor of The New York Review of Books I published a theme issue about #MeToo-offenders who had not been convicted in a court of law but by social media. And now I myself am publicly pilloried.’

There is no irony. Buruma refuses to get it: you do not need to be convicted of a crime to be fired. Not every incompetent and/or malicious undertaking results in a judicial conviction.

For example, there is nothing illegal about telling people that they smell like garbage.

However, if you tell it to customers who all march off and vent on social media about it, you will get fired for shooting off your big mouth without consideration of something known as consequences.

Buruma seems to believe that you have to get a court conviction in order for people’s outrage to be legitimate. He isn’t exactly paying attention or asking hard questions, making him sound like an even worse editor.

When Ghomeshi was on trial, what vindicated him was something very intriguing and disturbing: copies of correspondence he had with his various victims after the fact.

Correspondence that would be years old. Why were they kept, and what purpose did they serve, especially as none of these relationships were long or serious in nature?

Computers break. Memory sticks get corrupted. Files go missing, but how convenient it was to have easy access to trophies. The case was far more diabolical and troubling than it first appeared…but Buruma sees nothing save to give a platform to a lost little man-child, and then whine when he faces the consequences of enabling bad behaviour.

If you are pretending to disseminate information, then you do it right: with verifying claims. Since he did not, that alone justified his sacking.

If you don’t know how to do a job, Mr. Buruma, then do not be surprised that you lose it in the bargain...

The Coordinated Attempted Comebacks of the #MeToo Men: When they all crawl out of their holes at the same time, it is a campaign afoot.

It is very interesting that many of the men who have been #MeToo are all starting to emerge and spin their own narratives or use proxies.

I will not give links, but you, too, I am certain, know how to use a search engine, but we have had Stephen Galloway’s little brigade of morally devoid groupies at the National Post cry for him as if he were a little boy and not a grown man, Louis C.K. came on a stage to do a routine as if there were a shortage of comedians out there, Jian Ghomeshi getting a platform to feel sorry for himself (though my thoughts can be found here), Harper’s gave it to John Hockenberry, and even Woody Allen’s wife defend him, although as hard as she tries to spin it, it is a textbook by-the-numbers guide of young girls get lured, primed, and groomed, and, in fact, bolstering Dylan Farrow’s accusations in the process.

The timing is very interesting. The recruiting of the usual pawns and cheerleaders is very predictable. I am sure there is a lot of consultation with crisis management specialists and many in journalism are more than willing to give these predators a platform so that this whole #MeToo nonsense would just go away and abusing females on the jobs can be seen as glorious and acceptable again.

But it is not doing it usual magic trick. While the cronies of #MeToo are doing all they can to make White Male Privilege Great Again, it is not convincing an educated populace. The genie is out of the bottle, and the world has moved on.

What it is doing, on the other hand, is identifying those enablers and shows those who were harmed and/or do no wish to be harmed, what the battlefield now looks like and where else to scrutinize. What was once a handy crisis management trick is exposing the places that need to be investigated a little more closely.

It also shows the extent of how self-entitled and unapologetic these predators truly are: their me-centred whining on lofty platforms shows they see nothing wrong with what they did and that believe they are owed a public career.

No, they aren’t. Fame is a reward based on public goodwill. Once that goodwill has been shown to be exploited and abused, you no longer deserve the fame you crave.

Fame is a privilege. Not a right.

And this is 2018, a time where people are not in a mood to give free passes for bad behaviour or to fall for predictable ruses…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism world, Part One.

Chuck Todd's sophistry in The Atlantic is as cringeworthy as it is completely out of touch with reality:

It’s Time for the Press to Stop Complaining—And to Start Fighting Back

A nearly 50-year campaign of vilification, inspired by Fox News's Roger Ailes, has left many Americans distrustful of media outlets. Now, journalists need to speak up for their work.

This is a paranoid conspiracy theory and a form of misdirection: journalists have no one else but themselves to blame for their death.

Yes, Mr. Todd, journalism is dead.

Journalists spewed a lot of lies. On purpose. For personal gain. Fake news, and I chronicled it all way back in 2005 in my book Don't Believe It!: How lies become news.

And Roger Ailes had nothing to do with it, as he was also a news producer whose feints and ruses I wrote about in my second book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

So let us get that misconception out of the way.

Journalism was in trouble for many reasons, and I chronicled that in my fourth book When Journalism was a Thing.

You had your Stephen Glasses and Jayson Blairs. You had your Janet Cookes and your Kim Stacys. Your profession cribbed off so many PR firms and press releases during hard news events such as wars, that to now wear a fake halo and pretend you are all some kind of moral authority is a real gag.

Have you forgotten how many of your own were ensnared in #MeToo? Your colleagues. Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, the Big Boys.

Rose was with CBS, but Lauer, he was at your network, Mr. Todd.


The network that killed Ronan Farrow's story.

So your spinning in the propagandistic Atlantic is as pathetic as it gets.

Bottom line: your wicked cult did it all to yourselves, and you are no better than those priests who abused their power by abusing children and covered it up.

Enough of your garbage.

Journalism is dead.

Good riddance.

Besides, Mr. Todd, it is too little, too late.

Journalism is over. Finished. Gone.

And now it is time to start over in a Post-Journalism World.

Yes, Mr. Todd, you forgot to read the memo as you were busy writing your temper tantrum about how everybody else is to blame but journalists.

A post-journalism world isn't something on the horizon: it is happening now.

Journalists can complain or not complain: they are no longer relevant, and their profession is no longer a thing.

Deal with it.

They ignored the nuances of the Fourth Medium to their detriment. They were so used to telling the little people what to think that they didn't see the people went marching on this spinning globe without them.

But we have a huge void to fill with the next generation of information disseminators.

Journalists are too ignorant and arrogant to change their ways. They are declaring war on the dead Roger Ailes, instead of realizing that the war is over and journalism lost.

And it deserved to lose. It earned its loss.

Why is it Ailes' fault? Because he didn't walk lockstep with your propaganda, and chose to use his own instead?

What a perfect world he ruined presenting another viewpoint? If only he stuck to your little script, it would be all so very glorious for your kind?

That is not what killed journalism -- or its façade.

If you cannot see reality, then you cannot be left in charge of reporting it. The end.

And it is the end of journalism.

But when a curtain falls, it will rise again, but with a new act on the stage.

Journalism is a relic of a bygone era when people were at their mercy to get their information, and to disseminate it.

Those days are gone.

Because we will see the rise of another medium, and it will also change the way we live in this world,

That is the reason why a new replacement to journalism is beginning to emerge now.

The old guard are tone deaf. They are too tainted to be credible, reliable, valid, or useful.

They use old methods when those methods no longer do what they are supposed to do.

And when you have an Establishment journalist writing in an Establishment magazine about "fighting back", what you are saying is you wish to wage war on the people to keep a tyrannical status quo in place.

Because that is what journalism was: shackles that prevented people from being able to bypass the gate-keepers to speak to the world directly -- unedited and unfiltered.

Right now, we are living in a Post-Journalism World. It is one of pure anarchy, and it is devoid of any reliable and valid system of gathering information for a general audience.

But the seeds of the alternative are already in place.

It is F.R.E.E.D.

It is the system of getting information without the egotism and drama as well as the narrative and the sloppy methods that have no empirical value.

It is a creative science whose laboratory is not in the Ivory Towers, but in the real world.

I ran myself as a test subject for years.

The backbone of F.R.E.E.D. is Method Research.

It is a far superior way of gathering information. It forces those gathering information to be vigilant, disciplined, humble, and active, something journalism always failed to do.

Mr. Todd may be barking orders to no one in particular, but F.R.E.E.D. does not play those childish and self-serving games.

Journalism is dead.

And it is time for those in that dead profession to try their hand at adulting -- meaning facing the reality and truth as they finally admit their own responsibility for their own destruction...

How well has #MeToo really been doing lately?

Not too good. Apparently someone wanting to discredit actress and Harvey Weinstein accuser Asia Argento by saying the pot was calling the kettle black.

Maybe blacker, as the young man in the centre of this muck was under 18 at the time.

I have always said #MeToo was a response to shoo out Trump from the White House. That infamous tape of him spewing vulgarities to Billy Bush was supposed to sink him, and it didn't; and so, ramp it up and exploit women who do get abused in the workplace so that the natural conclusion would be the Big Meany Who Spoiled The Left's Narrative Has To Just Go Away.

Middle Class women wanted a female president, and they were denied, and #MeToo hit a chord with them, and rightfully so, but #MeToo was a form of war propaganda. The fact that it was used as such doesn't negate the fact the sexual harassment is a real thing.

But I find it interesting how well coordinated the pushback has been in journalism, the place where many of the accused were employed in positions of power.

#MeToo was a social media-spawned movement, and for one that was supposed to take down Right-wing men, it took down far more Left-wing players instead.

I also find it interesting that the New York Times -- the one who had the story on Weinstein a decade earlier but axed it, are the ones to go after a Weinstein accuser now. Ronan Farrow inconvenienced a lot of media players, and the game of chess has just gotten dirty.

But this is all American limousine liberal kerfuffling, and the worst of it all, Republicans have been whole-hearted on supporting feminist causes because of the number of liberal men who have been exposed to be workplace terrorists, but with social media, control of the narrative is impossible because there are so many voices.

Even Twitter, which openly admits to being on the Left are wholly responsible for Trump's victory. Their current censorship mode is damaging their brand and their power. You may want to rig a board, but you can do it in a game of chess where you allow only select number of pawns on the board. Social media is too overcrowded, and you wind up with stones with no titles, meaning it is a game of Go where the point is to surround a target.

This is the reason #MeToo could thrive as a legitimate Go strategy, but we are now seeing the handicaps of each new game starting to weaken the original victors.

But these players are all rich, famous, and powerful. The US is playing a political war and the soldiers on the board happen to be rich white actresses. As the New York Post once bluntly observed, Harvey Weinstein was picked because he no longer had clout.

#MeToo resonated because it was based in truth: in places where people are starving in a land where the wealthy hoard and exploit, the differences are stark enough for the poor not to be able to lie, spin, or justify their destitution, making them ideal pigeons to recruit in an army whose message is to liberate those pawns from oppression.

We have the same dynamic and structure of manipulation, but only a First-World rather than Third-World grievance.

But that is happening in the US, while Canada has something far more disturbing transpiring right now, yet is flying under the radar.

While overall murders are down in Canada, the number of women and girls getting murdered in 2018 is going up. The number bandied is 79 from January to June, but that is only culling from media reports, which is a very incomplete way of gathering data. If we were to go by missing persons reports, police filings, and court cases to look for numbers, it would be much higher.

But don't expect much play because these are ordinary Canadian women not usually in a public profession who have to wrestle with the Alphas and get dirt under their fingernails as it goes against a narrative that this country is safe.

I always said the problem for women -- particularly ambitious women is that they have no war manuals that are in tune with their natural behaviours, realities, thinking, and circumstances. There is no cultivation the way men have had it for centuries. It is the reason why when get this far in their battles, they reach a point where there is a slaughter, and it is a shame.

Because women are afterthoughts. We don't have self-defence taught instead of physical education in grade school for girls. We don't have the foundations for any of it. It is why women are usually groping alone in the dark wilderness, and become exhausted as they must fight a thousand wars just to have a decent life on their own terms, all while they are expected to lose focus by making dinner and hanging the laundry...

Social media and journalism: how the younger medium just turned into the relics they supplanted.

Twitter is a hot mess.

It is a troll scroll that appeals to Western middle class truisms: knee-jerk reactions in a few words, and with all sorts of easy solutions form people who have no expertise or knowledge on the matters presented before them.

It doesn't matter if it is on the Left or Right: Twitter made a fantasy of issuing royal decrees to the entire world for free real.

You can gang up and bully other people with your arrogant ignorance. Snarky comebacks and taunts that are moronic can be applauded by other people who form opinions before educating themselves on a topic.

The social media titan certainly put the Twit in Twitter.

And then came the obvious victory of Donald Trump that was an absolute shock for the Left.

They thought all you had to do is morally masturbate in pubic and shame people into believing your script as you pretend you are young and hip to those old relics who do not march to your marching orders, and that's it.

Social media always presented itself as progressive and the future -- never mind all of it is run by rich white men.

Just the way old media is run by rich white men.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss, as the old white boy's song plays.

Everyone in the world can now be fooled into thinking they are doing their own independent thinking, was those who wear the Left-winged masks believed.

And then cams along those on the Right who are not computer illiterate, and thumbed their nose at their political rivals, and beat them at their own game.

That women who fancy themselves as feminists kept with the Left is an enigma to me.

You finally have a chance to forge your own path, and you take the road over-travelled?

Just how lazy and incompetent are you?

And socialism? Are you really that historically illiterate?

People who were rich before socialist and communist regimes were still rich, you idiots.

The only differences were (a) the government had secret police to terrorize the poor in socialist regimes to keep them down, and (b) the government lied to the people telling them how their poverty wasn't poverty.

If you think you can get something for nothing, you are a gullible pigeon, and if you do not get the concept that the wealthy are rich because their minds are calculating and can find loopholes and ignore the lines in the sand you draw, then you are oblivious to reality and are unteachable.

In other words, you have people so stupid (yes, stupid) that they want to use an old patriarchal system (and yes, socialism is patriarchal and even more so than capitalism), that is unoriginal, flawed, and easy to exploit by the very rich people who are flourishing under capitalism.

That's what you want?

Who told you to want it?

Yeah, some yahoo on the Twitter, and then it makes it all okay.

And no one seems to notice all of these political players are all rich white men.

Bernie Sanders as some sort of progressive icon?

And it's floundering, anyway, much to the Left's perpetual chagrin.

And these slacktivist pseudo-political aware thinkers are now licking their wounds, trying to re-rig the system to favour them.

So now let's force Big Tech to censor people for not applauding obvious faulty and flawed theories that history has repeatedly shown does not work.

Twitter was always a puritanical sewer. It was not made to inform and educate because you can't know things based on a few words. Western middle-class thinking was raised on television, where advertisers constantly lied to them that all of their problems would vanish with zero effort if they sprayed or squirted goop on something because some mysterious They developed this magical panacea.

That's the thinking controlling modern thought. It is not coming from academia. It is coming from people like Vince Offer shilling plastic in an infomercial or those Ginsu ads that convinced millions of people that knives that cut running shoes are as so good as a fairy godmother's wand.

This is what political thought in North American is based on.

Nothing else.

To engage in any sort of debate is a waste of life. It is a shackle meant to drain people and deflect their focus and energies on creating something new that the old guard doesn't already know the cheats to win.

Rich people are rich regardless if there are communists in power or socialists or capitalists. They wrote those rule books, and they want to have to learn a new playbook.

Poor people are poor because those rulebooks don't work in their favour.

Middle Class are the only ones whose fortunes are somewhat dependent on who their masters will be because they have no expertise or are privy to a system's Shibboleths, and their fortunes rest on whether they have the necessary work skills to be of any use.

Twitter was just supposed to be a harmless outlet for the little people to vent. It is far less personal than Facebook, which is amateur press release.

But the grains of genuine frustrations and selfish entitlements got mixed in together. People had things they wished to express, and they started to vent more and more, finding other like-minded people.

The idea that grandpa would be computer illiterate or some hillbilly from the South wouldn't be attracted to the forum or be able to use it was a real assumption by Big Tech. They were full of themselves with their Ivy League degrees and billionaire lifestyle that sheltered them from reality.

But people are people. If the young Harvard-educated white collar executive can use Twitter, so can the high school drop out from living in the trailer park. It is a great equalizer, and considering there are more poor people than rich people, guess what?

The poor people will have a bigger voice by nature of their numbers.

The middle class will hedge their bets and follow whatever rich people say because they are deluded into believing that at least their children may have a chance to be wealthy if they support the system and suck up to those overlords.

The trouble is Twitter is hot air. Disposable hot air. You have pockets of success here and there, and why Twitter's power is exaggerated.

It is the same as winning the lottery. You have less than one percent of the population win huge jackpots, but everyone plays just in case they end up in that coveted minority.

As long as it looks like some non-expert mundane random person has a hope in Hell, the scam is in no danger of being completely abandoned.

The problem for the Left is they have a single semi-victory of #MeToo, which, ironically, has taken down more of their white boys than those on the Right.

But the Right seemingly has more luck, and Twitter thinks it can rig the board. They have become the Thought Police, dictating who is allowed to be broadcast and who cannot.

The Right, not surprising are having fits.

But Big Tech is playing a game they are going to lose. They have just created a rallying point for a political ideology who can abandon those platforms, and create their own, breaking their dominance. The selling point of Big Tech was its neutrality: by letting anyone use it -- regardless of their lack of knowledge, expertise, educational level, and even sanity, it gave people a voice. If they wanted someone else's voice, they would have stuck to the old model of journalism.

If Big Tech is just like journalism, and journalism was rejected, then the hook of Big Tech is gone, and so is there clout. They were quietly amassing power and wealth in the background, and now that they are showing themselves as being control freaks who pick sides and are meddling in people's opinion-spewing, they are no different than the old boss, and the spell has been broken.

If you are openly rigging a board you control, you have already lost the war. You are no . longer the young cool kids you pretended to be: you are the dictators who were unelected to office, and if you preached all this time that everyone's voice was equal, but yours suddenly becomes more equal than others, you have revealed yourself to be one of the pigs in an Orwellian Animal Farm.

And you can't walk back from it or spin it. The damage is done and those who you decreed are inferior to your opinions will neither forgive nor forget. You made an open clubhouse with no restrictions, you have to live with the consequences of fit.

This is the year where Big Tech has made a series of colossally fatal flaws because they had built a myth of being friendly to the world, and being everyone's buddy. Now that those façades have been exposed, those super-rich are panicking and behaving like those scared and jittery Western middle-class minions who think painting-by-numbers makes them cultured and they follow whatever someone else tells them to follow without considering radical new ideas or revolutionary thoughts.

So they are playing it safe, trying to appease the Left because isn't that what the young people all believe, right? We have to seem with it and cool, right?

Big Tech's midlife crisis is now in full play.

And they are raging rapidly as they appease the rich old white guys who are making demands of them with various threats.

We still have a void of information and facts. Journalism is just biding its time in its coffin, thinking it will all blow over, but they should be prepared to move over in those pine boxes to make room for the new kid in town.

We won't see socialism as a ruling ideology. That is a mere flirtation of someone with that aforementioned midlife crisis.

Something new is coming up. A new way of thinking and a new structure.

Something that fits with the new mindset that social media created, but never understood, let alone capitalized on before they got themselves into a horrible mess.

And Twitter can censor anything it wants; it's too late to stop those dominos that are falling as we speak...

Sure, he is a creep, but he's OUR creep: justifying rot, journalism and entertainment-style.

When #MeToo struck, it hit mostly entertainment and journalism, two very sexist industries, and they are no less sexist today as they were prior to the movement.

Nothing has changed, except a lot of creepy old relics got kicked to the curb so that younger and cheaper employees could fill their slots.

Journalists in particular have been seething over #MeToo as it is an industry that never admits to being at fault, wrong, flawed, or deficient in any way.

And here is something that has been going on for almost a year. 

We are seeing a shift in how bad boys are being portrayed in the press.

James Gunn's old tweets revealing his creepy side hit the fan boys particularly hard because he was directing Marvel movies for Disney, and that's a cushy job to have.

But superhero movies are soulless, by the numbers, and CGI intense. They are predictable with the same kind of music, special effects, and plots. 

There is no actual talent to them. They are run by committee. Looking at a single superhero movie's credits, you feel as if they just took an old telephone book, ripped out all the pages, and just filmed that because no one would notice who was who (considering I used to know who was who, I know it can be done).

So, we have people who are fired from jobs every day. James Gunn puked sick junk on Twitter a decade ago, Disney didn't need the headache, cut him loose, and could keep the machine running with a cheaper replacement because these are disposable movies with franchise and merchandising outgrowth.

Just tell the little people what they want to hear, have some happy music, nifty special effects, some funny lines, a predictable story where the good guys win, and prime those consumerist brats to want all of the action figures when the film is done.

Gunn was expendable because Disney is not art, but a factory where they churn out epic junk. Star Wars, Marvel, Princesses, even pirates, they are established and inoffensive. They are essentially action figures dancing on the screen. Who moves the action figures around is unimportant.

But Gunn's firing is not sitting well with journalists. The have made this story sound as if Gunn was a changed man and a victim, which he wasn't.

People get fired from flipping hamburgers for all sorts of stupid reasons, and we don't see stories where reporters are getting worked up over that. It is Disney's dime and property, and they can hire and fire whoever they wish. That's their chess board, and they don't make money from me.

But it is not as obnoxiously biased as this story in Hollywood Reporter about the fortunes of one CBS News honcho whose leadership is said to have spawned a "toxic" work environment.

The angle of the story from those who work under that regime is that things have improved, but were never "that bad."

I find that angle very interesting because the core of the story is about 60 Minutes.

The newsmagazine that never gave people they did not like second chances, understanding, or wonder if someone changed. 

They dug up dirt from decades ago, and confronted various people.

And now that it is hitting their own newsrooms, suddenly, there are all sorts of excuses.

It doesn't matter if the bad behaviour was a long time ago. A long time ago there were people who were harmed and their lives were forever derailed, and they have the right to have those responsible for that sabotage be held accountable.

And why are things better? Is it because these people are now minding themselves because someone above them is finally paying attention to their actions? And should that overlord ignore it again, will it lapse back to the old ways?

This is a manipulative way of trying to salvage a bad situation by making excuses and to exploit the passage of time to soften the blow of unacceptable behaviour. These people had no trouble to create a hostile work environment. They had no trouble letting bad behaviour dictate the tone of the workplace.

People downplay and make excuses because the idea of (a) being held accountable for their own feral behaviour, (b) their image at Winning At Life is proven to be yet another lie they told, or (c) having to be inconvenienced by defending their actions and enabling doesn't please them.

But mostly because 60 Minutes is about the last news product that has any prestige left, and this blow shows they are no better or sincere in their coverage. 

And now, this mess. A mess CBS is in heavy denial over.

Disney can dump Gunn and move on. CBS News is not in the same position. There is damage control and consequences.

Except now journalism's fall from grace has plummeted so low, that people are not outraged -- not because they don't find it obnoxious, but because journalism is not a thing anymore...