Memo to The Atlantic: Just because you still have j-school students, doesn't mean they have the ability to save a dead profession. They are the Rote.

As I have commented numerous times here and in my book, journalism schools have not done one real or substantial thing to save journalism, and continue to teach using the same flawed theories and models with suckers and pigeons lining up to give money to what is essentially an academic scam. I have even used articles written by j-school students to show just how dysfunctional this segment of journalism is. The one place you would expect revolution and change is sputtering along in the same jalopy down the same garden path.

The Atlantic is doing what journalism always did: see a few people cluster together, and then decree it a trend. Their article about young Rotes enrolling in j-schools is a classic case of being shallow and not seeing the big picture.

Rotes are young people who memorize, mimic, and model with no creative input or output. They bring nothing to the table, but are conniving enough to think if they just march the way other people march, they will fly under the radar and get somewhere on someone else's ingenuity and hard work. They follow scripts have have no reasonable understanding of reality. They look for a paved path and march lockstep dutifully, believing that just because they have made a decree, that reality is going to bend to their fantasy and will.

It is no different than #NeverAgain. They do all the same things previous activists have done: blindly shill a side without looking at the facts that refute their own decrees. You have youth violence. You have kids murder other kids with guns.

But if you take away the guns, the problem doesn't solve itself.

So do you just want people not to have traditional guns? They can make 3D guns or eve make their own metal guns. They get smuggled guns or use a knife, a bomb, or even poison.

So why do we have youth activists go for the easy and lazy solution?

Because they are following their parents's scripts.

Doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

It would be more impressive if they called for action to see why their generation is murderous. It would be refreshing if they wanted to explore facts to find out whether the movies and games they consume are trashing their psyches -- and if not all of them are getting riled up by consumption of those media -- which ones are at risk, and what are the game plans?

That would show a proactive youth, but it is not. It is not even an active youth.

But a passive one going through the motions as a middle-aged spouse in a loveless marriage and a dead-end job.

So you have a cluster of followers go to j-school, and willingly submit to garbage education to get worthless degrees in a dead profession.

Whoop di do.

Most people who get a j-school degree never get to work in journalism, and of those who do, almost all of them have pay so horrid, they have to get jobs in other fields.


Because the education was always horrifically flawed, and did nothing to rejuvenate the profession.

Youth are not blameless and their blind fantasy is mistaken for idealism and optimism. It's not.

Optimists seek to transform, create, invent, and innovate. The ones in j-school haven't been doing that -- they honestly think that their partisan and propagandistic demands mean they have morals and being biased and with an agenda will force journalism to resurrect themselves and they will have better luck converting people to their skewed and self-serving demands than their fledging blogs and tweets.

You do not see demands for alternatives in journalism from this group. Ask hard questions, and watch the tantrums fly with snide and snippy remarks as they decree they are on top of a nonexistent moral pecking order than those who point out the obvious flaws in their theories.

You would think you had a generation see the collapse of journalism, and then want change in the profession. That would be the case if the motive wasn't primarily driven by an ego and a need to manipulate and meddle.

Older generations who destroyed journalism have a lot to answer for and should be forced to do so.

But younger generation who follow in the same footsteps also need to be held accountable for enabling rot. They may not have experience or a fully developed brain -- but they do have eyes and the ability to compare and contrast to see the reality of a situation.

J-school students who go into those programs have already proven to be incapable journalists: if they cannot see the reality of the situation and go in all the same with no plan to create something functional than the dead model, then how can they possibly be expected to resurrect a dead profession?

They can't.

If you had a generation have the courage and the morals to demand the alternative because they saw what an outmoded model of journalism did to societies, it would be glorious and a breath of fresh air. It would be a true revolution and a sign for progress and improvement.

This isn't it. This is a group of investors sinking their money in Enron stocks just as the company was exposed to being a fraud just because older people got rich in it a few years ago.

It is the same logic and lunacy. Nothing more.

Flash-rage: Mass anger today; tomorrow, huh?

In an Age of Propaganda, there usually a fixed target and all fear, anger, and hatred is thrown at the target.

The Left have chosen Donald Trump, and they keep hoping something will stick. People get angry one cue, but it is a shallow rage: the preachers of the Left pick a target, an angry flash mob plasters some shoddy quality propaganda posters on the Facebook as they rant on the Twitter...and then poof.

The momentum is lost.

It is hard to believe Facebook was a pariah this year. Everyone vowed to cancel their accounts because It Was Very Scary, and then they didn't save for a few goobers who reactivated their accounts, and then it all went back.

Remember Stormy Daniels and her attention-starved lawyer? The whole 60 Minutes interview? Somehow, it's not such a big thing, anymore.

#TimesUp? #NeverAgain?

So thirty seconds ago.

And now we are waving fists in the air over separated families. Outrage!

Flash-rage. Fleeting rage. Shallow rage.

Usually rage without focus is a dangerous thing, but this is a rage that is mechanical in nature. Slacktivist rage that is fast to come on, but the memories are short.

And then the next thing comes, and while the issue is nowhere near resolved, it is quickly forgotten.

Teflon rage. The anger that never sticks.

Because people are still holding out for They to clean up the mess. They should tell us what is fake news. It is as if public rage is seen as enough to let They know what mess to clean up, and that is good enough. People registered their disapproved, and hollered for their invisible servants to make the inconvenience to go away.

People remembered that once upon a time, journalists would shame someone, and then the government or police got involved and assured them that something was being done.

That collective habit never went away when social media came on the scene. The stimulus-response dynamic is still there, except with more gossip and stories that require a knee-jerk reaction, the potency of such behaviour has dwindled down. Ride out the storm because another incident will grab attention soon enough.

Without the emotional and intellectual investment progress needs to push forward, flash-rage overtakes the real kind, and people explode for a moment, only to forget why they were angry in the first place...

Who are the Establishment grown-ups behind #NeverAgain? This isn't a protest devised by teens. It reeks of rich, sheltered adults who still do not get this whole Internet thing.

This article is a good one to read for one reason: it is a reminder that Canadians -- who are under very tight gun control laws to begin with -- are getting all the guns they want from the Dark Web. You mean that people who seek to do illegal things get their weapons by illegal means?

You don't say!

Yes, children, gun control is a farce.

And these days with 3D printers, it is very easy to make your own lethal weapons in the comfort of your own home.

So you have a bunch of empty-heads who are marching for something that cannot possibly work because the technology they grew up with disproves their theory.

And that is an interesting contradiction worth examining.

Why do you have a bunch of zombies who are transfixed on their god phones not think that technology makes their request unobtainable?

I mean, come on: ISIS/ISIL/DAESH do all of their terrorist junk using technology and the Internet, but now kids who grew up knowing all of this -- and knowing what web sites have gory death images -- suddenly are living like it's 1969?

Their demands -- should they be granted by some despotic regime -- would make them more vulnerable to more extremist and more cunning homicidal maniacs who would work from the shadows.

We know many killers are, in a real way, techno-geeks: they buy what they need online, they post their manifestos online, they use Google maps to finesse their attacks, and they even use a variety of software to hide their footprints.

And they are teenagers. They are not adults with a PhD in computer engineering or programming. They are kids.

Just as you have teenaged hackers and cyber stalkers.

That is the anarchistic world teenagers have been immersed in for the last twenty years.

So what's up with this ersatz movement that has the same logic of a middle-aged  wealthy white man who still hasn't got the hang of this whole Internet thing?

I have been to my share of meetings of my peers where I am the only one to bring a tablet to type my notes as everyone else uses a pen and paper. It always shocks me that you have people scribbling while I can not only type in my notes, I can also take advantage of the Internet to double-check points right on the spot before I pose my questions to the one in charge of the meeting.

It is not the same if I am the oldest in the room, however. Then everyone is using a laptop, or even the smartphone to jot down notes, or even email each other for clarification. When I worked at the Sheridan Institute way back in the early Aughts, the classrooms were already equipped with smart tables where you plugged in your laptop (and during my time, I gave a peer seminar on using "web logs" in the classroom long before it was a thing).

I never had a problem keeping up with technology and taking advantage of it.

So this "march" is very awkwardly archaic. It is not youthful. It is not of the same mindset of someone who grew up with Twitter and Tor. Old school people use their debit card; the little more advance remember to tap, while the youngest just use their phones -- or BitCoin because they are doing their shopping online from home.

And yet here is a march that has the mindset of writing a check instead of, at least, using eTransfer.

Journalists, who also never got used to this whole Internet thing, are not questioning the obvious old timey nincompoopity of this staged freak show because this is how they think and why they became irrelevant in their first place.

Because if this were a genuine youth movement, none of this would be unfolding this way. The mindset is way too old to be on the level.

I am not unfamiliar with teenaged activism. When I was in my graduating year in school, I was already busy with being yearbook editor and (being forced by the aforementioned position) representative on student council, but my history teacher had recruited me to devise an event in school to highlight the problems of Apartheid in South Africa.

It was 1989-1990, and it was a different pre-social media world. I found it odd that he'd ask me, considering he always thought of me as being some sort of fan to Margaret Thatcher, which was peculiar to me considering I always though of myself as some sort of borderline anarchist at the time.

I agreed to the challenge, and I asked friends who were attending other high schools if they did anything along those lines -- and a couple said they had a simulation of Apartheid in their schools where students either got a "white" passport or a "black" passport, and then there would be more freedoms for the minority white passports, and restrictions on the black passport holders.

The feedback I got was the event was a bust because there weren't real restrictions that were actually inconvenient and there was no one actually checking passports.

I asked if there was any organization that their schools used for consultation, and there had been. I called them, and interviewed them, not realizing at the time that was foreshadowing a career in journalism.

I realized the simulation could be more effective with some tweaking. I told my teacher who then left me in charge of the entire event, including the publicity, something I had no experience in.

I had a budget of zero, and was left entirely on my own.

I made it very inconvenient. No groups of three or more "black" passport holders allowed to congregate. No speaking unless you were spoken to by someone in "authority." No sitting in the front row. You had to wait outside the cafeteria for the "white" passports to be seated first, and then you could not sit where you wanted. You had to use the most inconvenient door and stairwell. I recruited the football team to serve as the "security force" to check passports.

The event almost didn't happen. Student council wanted to change black and white to green and blue, but I unleashed my righteousness, and they backed off. My teacher had my back on this one, and I called various media outlets to give them a head's up, something I had never done in my life.

The community paper covered it without hesitation, which was not surprising. One news radio station interviewed my teacher. One rock station interviewed me, and it was my very first media interview.

The television station took a pass, but it was the Hamilton Spectator -- the major daily in the city -- whose response was the most fascinating to me.

At first, they ignored me, but unbeknownst to me, some irate white parents called to the school to complain right before they called the newspaper to complain about the event because they thought teaching their children about the evils of discrimination was wrong. The well-to-do white folks thought it was good enough if their children saw it on the news, and weren't made to feel what it is like to be held back because of the luck of the draw.

That's when the newspaper came to see the "controversy."

Students told them it was lonely and humbling -- but the best sort of education you can get. It was instructive. It was illuminating. The story got positive play on the front page of the metro section -- and I found out about it only after my teacher told me about it when the reporter left.

The paper got positive letters to the editor about it, too, with one reader insisting that my teacher should get a medal for the idea.

But to get attention on a youth-based story came only after the adults with influence told them it was an issue, but in my case, I am sure they were none too thrilled that the story was about what a great educational tool the simulation was.

It was a feather in my cap to know I could tweak a mediocre concept into a powerful one that did its job, and a learning experience that stayed with me. I learned that the Adult With Influence was not the one-off: it was standard for any youth-related story, even when I became a journalist myself.

So this is not a grassroots movement. It has the stink of a well-oiled machine devised by an old rich white man of authority who gets the power of a pricey public relations firm, but never understood the Internet, and despite his billions, has a flip phone.

If we had actual journalism, we'd know exactly who was behind this game and what was the real reason to orchestrate the credulous Selfie Generation to vogue for fleeting fake publicity. Getting real attention on real stories is no longer a thing. Only the prepackaged pseudo-stories ever get a mention anymore.

We are not being informed. We are not being made literate in information verification. Marching in the streets will not solve the problem, but demanding and creating alternatives to journalism would reignite our understanding of the world without having wealthy luddite meddlers dictate our thoughts to us...

They are starting the Devolution! Welcome to the first generation begging for the adults to control and restrict them while they clean up their messes. Seriously.

The Selfie Generation are certainly full of themselves. They are starting a devolution. They kill each other with guns, and then demand the grown-ups clean up their messes.

This is the first generation willingly giving their power to the Establishment.

Please be our nannies! They are marching in the streets, demanding that the government control them.

They want to be controlled by the government. They want to be restricted and confined.

Once upon a time, America was the place where people risked everything to get away from monarchs, tyrants, and dictators to live on their own terms. They were the revolutionaries.

And now we have a vain and ignorant generation marching on the streets demanding that their rights be taken away because they cannot be trusted.

Oh, make no mistake: they cannot be trusted. They absolutely know the content of their character and have spoken loudly at its emptiness. Their judgement has been completely destroyed by selfie.

They are not visionaries. They are not creative. They are not innovative. They are not brave. They are not truthful. They are not honest. They are not kind. They are not smart.

They have made it known by march. #NeverAgain do they want the responsibility of being free and responsible for their own destiny.

Has-been celebrities smelled their fear and are running there to co-opt the message to jump start their dead careers after the Women's Marches weren't as newsworthy.

It seems as if American society peaked, and now is going backwards.

Once upon a time, you had youth fight for their freedom. They marched not be drafted into wars they did not sanction. They fought for their civil rights. They fought for the rights over their own bodies. They fought not to be slaves and not to be property of their husbands. They fought for their love to be sanctioned and tolerated.

They fought to be free.

And now they want to be put in cages.

No, they are demanding to be put in cages to be protected from themselves.

They are prey and are willing to take away their own freedoms.

And what is prey in a cage?

A faceless morsel to be exploited and devoured.

Yes, there is a violence problem in America. If you deal with the violence, you keep your freedoms.

But that's not what is happening.

It is the opposite.

This generation has built their own cult with the fortress of sophistry, fear, and selfies.

Remember when the Occupy Movement was about fighting for freedom? It was not that long ago.

But then came the Resistance, but something was off.

And now we see what it is: a movement to be restricted and confined, which is an admission that you are not independent, authentic, or trustworthy.

It will be interesting to see what will be the next right they will demand be taken away.

They should be very careful what they wish for because there is no shortage of psychopathic tyrants willing to give them exactly what they want -- and then some...