Globe and Mail babbles about recycling...misses glaring point. Recycling is a Middle Class distraction. Just go to the commercial dump.

I

II

As our ditzy Prime Minister is desperately trying to deflect attention from his own himbosity by offering the super-rich Vatican Canadian lumber and steel that would be better used to build our destitute shelters, he also wants to play propagandist to scare the Middle Class into voting for him by declaring a “climate emergency.”

This is pure bullshit. If there was such a thing, there are many simple solutions that could have been employed, but haven’t because Canada is a lawless country that runs on the politics of fear and virtue-signalling.

But instead of exposing the manipulations, the dregs left of Canadian journalism prefer to be government mouthpieces.

Look at the babble-fest of the Globe and Mail that offer a very long and rambling bullshit story.

It is all about the problems facing recycling because China decided not to play make pretend anymore.

Recycling, for the most part, is a sham. It always has been. This is how governments play kindergarten teacher to the middle class to get them to, in essence, reenact doing something stupid while spinning it as productive as pasting macaroni on to cardboard and then calling wasting food an art lesson.

Recycling is pasting macaroni on cardboard.

While the obedient and credulous Middle Class spend hours separating garbage and then morally masturbating to their fake friends about it, businesses throw all of their trash in one big heap at the commercial dump.

I know because I have had to throw out a lot things, rented a big truck, and was told that I had to discard it at the commercial end of the dump.

And then saw the building with all the garbage just stacked in a single pile with no recycling equivalent there. I had a lot of glass that could have been easily recycled, but was told to throw all of it in that huge pile.

Think about how much garbage businesses throw out in comparison to the residential, and then tell me about recycling.

And nowhere in this incessant rambling and irrelevant fact-puking does the Globe look at the obvious. The entire article is rubbish because of their glaring confirmation bias.

It is not the only place where they seriously fuck up. Even the usually oblivious CBC gets that Canada allows too much superfluous and non-biodegradable packaging to clog up our dumps. All the government has to do is make excessive plastic and packaging illegal. If the Liberal government actually believed in the line they are feeding people, they would have already done so.

Because the environmental monster tales are just for show.

We have garbage because we don’t actually have a government that puts a stop to it.

The Globe thinks cramming charts and graphs means they are serious journalists. No, you don’t question your government on basic things, so why would you think that?

If two magicians see the obvious, then let’s let magicians inform the public — not the pretentious morons at the Globe and Mail who are too stupid to see that the federal Grits gave millions of dollars to a price-fixing grocery chain that gets free swag — and the epicentre of the kinds of environmental waste that clogs our dumps in the first place…

Journalists do not have to be "used" to get a scoop: it's just the lazy way of doing things.

I find this commentary interesting:

Reporters are 'used' all the time. That's the way it works: Neil Macdonald

Hogwash. Reporters do not have to allow themselves to be “used.” It’s like saying wives get beaten all the time. That’s the way it works.

But this is also interesting:

Leaks a sign news media is doing its job

No, it’s not. It is a sign of the opposite: that they are passively working as stenographers parroting whatever they are being told, and usually it isn’t worth very much at all.

What leakers do is gossip, and not give facts, but narrative. There is a huge difference. With the “leak” in question: it was to smear Jody Wilson-Raybould with some bullshit about how she and the prime minister disagreed on one of her suggestions, and that he didn’t like it because he was more exacting than she was, and blah blah blah.

It was an attempt at misdirection, and it backfired. This is how divorcing couples trash talk each other in public, as if anyone cares. Trying to justify why you are a bottom feeder sounds as unconvincing as the prime minister trying to make Wilson-Raybould sound like a bad guy.

Not working…

Memo to the U of T students: Homework is not a cause of suicidal depression. Shame on you, too.

If you read this website regularly, you know that in 2018, I had ovarian cancer at the same time my mother had colorectal cancer. You also know that prior to that, my grandmother Stanka was dropped by Hamilton paramedics and they caused her amputated leg to burst open, broke her teeth, broke her arm in two places that never healed, and gave her a brain bleed.

Read More

Scholarly journal publishers strong arm universities? You don't say, CBC!

I have written about the monopoly problem of academic journals before right here that has been reblogged on Tumblr many times.

But the CBC, always late to get the memo, are just shocked that academic publishers charge exorbitant fees for universities to access their articles — all while people who submit them do it for free.

As if regular media outlets and publishers don’t play the same games.

For example, there are databases with my old articles. I never see a penny if someone bought them.

As a general rule, content providers are not respected, even though without them, there would be nothing to sell.

The problem is structural. For example, in order for me to provide good, quality content, I have to research, interview, and write, meaning that my focus, time, and resources cannot be spent on doing other things, from promotion to lobbying and negotiating.

In academia, it is no different.

We haven’t figured out how to create a system that is not rigged against content providers, but it is time we do…

CBC lives in an infected bubble.

I

1033049-Rupert-Murdoch-Quote-Monopoly-is-a-terrible-thing-till-you-have-it.jpg

II

III

Gracious, an outbreak of sophistry at the CBC.

Take a look at this silly piece of dreck:

Maybe it's really time to break up the post-industrial monopolies: Don Pittis

Anti-Google statement by News Corp proves it is no longer just a project of the left

No longer?

It never was “just a project of the left.”.

News Corps. CEO Robert Thomson has been whining about this for a long time.

Remember MySpace? That’s what the company banked on being dominant when they outright bought it.

This is all about Establishments wanting control of something that has nullified much of their power. Since they can’t put the genie back into the bottle, they want to capture the genie another way.

This column’s Well golly! preciousness strains all credulity…

Erosion of Trust? No, just corrupt governmental nincompoopity: The federal Liberal freak show gets more pathetic.

The Prime Minister is puking up a storm, spewing about “erosion of trust” in a sad attempt at deflection and spinning over their corruption in dealing with SNC-Lavalin and their mistreatment and fuckery of Jody Wilson-Raybould, but let’s review the facts here.

The CBC and the Toronto Star, loyal liberal lapdogs, are spinning nonsense about a fake “he said-she said” narrative, which is an out-and-out lie and misrepresentation of reality.

“He said-she said” applies when both parties can speak freely and put all of their cards on the table. It does not apply in this case.

Why?

As has been repeatedly said by Jody Wilson-Raybould, she is not allowed to speak freely about the matter. So all bets are off.

This is a rigged case of He-he-and-he (Trudeau, Gerald Butts, Michael Wernick) spin and She (Jody Wilson-Raybould) can only present a bit of the facts unless the Big He (Trudeau) allows her.

And if the board can be that rigged in favour of the Liberal regime, and they still fuck it up, you know there is more than just bad optics: we are talking about some serious illegal bullshit going down. An entire month of this scandal — that had it just been a wacky “misunderstanding” — would have been put to bed on Day One. That shipped sail far away, never to return because the ship is the Titanic.

But the journalist minions keep distorting the facts. The propaganda here is beyond pathetic.

The only person to offer evidence is Wilson-Raybould. The other three spin as they drag their feet.

This scandal is far worse than what it appears.

But as Canadian journalists are cowards to defer to authority, they do not have either the courage nor intelligence to find out…

Actrivism, Part Nine: Immerse yourself in wavelengths. Learn to ride in someone else's soul.

I

6361070-Nikola-Tesla-Quote-If-you-want-to-find-the-secrets-of-the-universe.jpg

II

Nicola Tesla was a smart man. He’s #35 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

And I took a lot from his ideas, particularly about understanding the deepest truths of the universe by understanding energy, frequency, and vibration.

Or, riding on the wavelengths of other people and groups.

When I decided to study the ways of journalism by becoming a journalist, what I was doing was riding on the wavelengths of this collective, how the justify their beliefs about themselves and how they process the world around them.

In-groups have their own little set of arrogant ideals, and they like to fancy themselves as superior, even when they are seen as underdogs or undesirables.

Look at CBC getting haughty because Fox News didn’t air someone who has gotten a lot of free press opining about the rich and their taxes.

CBC has conducted countless interviews that never made it to air.

When you interview a lot of people to make a narrative, some do not perfectly “fit” your pattern, and you will exclude it.

I have had editors cut out people I interviewed for articles, and I never found out until after publication.

But even in j-school, when one CBC producer came to lecture us, and we were given a real-life scenario, and we had to pick and choose which interviews made it and which ones were excluded.

So let’s not pretend. I have been interviewed for stories, and I never made it in the final product.

If you do not align perfectly with a narrative, you are removed.

I wrote OutFoxed: Rupert’s war on journalism, and I recount how the FNC is careful who they air, but it is not just the FNC.

Whenever you rely on narrative, you are going to do that sort of thing to keep the mindset in place.

Once it happened to me when I was writing about women who broke the law to appease a mate. I included a young woman who murdered a perfect stranger because her boyfriend asked her to do it.

The reason I included that case was to show it wasn’t some sort of romantic notion or that every woman was duped. I wanted a textured story, but the editor lopped it off, and the nuances of the story completely changed. I was not happy.

But that is the mundane reality of the newsroom.

I bet you do the same thing on Twitter and Facebook — cherry-picking articles and propaganda posters (that is what a meme poster is, kids) that fit perfectly with your beliefs with no dissenting perspective and stories.

But you take it for granted.

I didn’t.

I wanted to ride the wavelengths of the profession.

But once I began writing books about my findings, I wanted people to be able to immerse themselves the way I did.

So I did something very subtle: I presented the facts objectively through structure, but in such a way the mimicked the mindset of those I was writing about.

I did it with all of my books. You are going inside the mindset of the profession, feeling the same rhythms and frequencies as those working in it.

But a funny thing happened.

Some reviewers didn’t get it.

One was upset that I took the same “pot shots” at FNC pundits that they took on others, while completely missing the point.

The same goes for my latest book, When Journalism was a Thing.

The mimicry of the energy, frequency, and vibration completely went over some reviewers heads.

Not everyone was clueless, mind you. A lot of people understood the point.

I remember when I was a relationships columnist with the Hamilton Spectator, and I did the same immersion with a short 600-ish word column about money.

Someone wrote in, and got it. As in, felt it.

I set up a stage. I get into character — but not a fictitious character. It is Method Research, and I am a Actrivist.

I will upload the column and response another time.

But even back then, I would reflect the frequencies of those I was writing about.

That requires not being so me-centred. It is a you-centred exercise.

This is how you deal with the emotional aspect of covering people or events.

That’s how you walk through Infinity with someone else’s heart and soul to see their perceptions and go through their motions as if they were your own.

There is no Us Versus Them. You become the Them.

Outside and inside. You are both. Above and below. Left and right.

This method is the way of the Radical Centrist. You learn by becoming, and you gain energy by allowing its essence into the very stuff of your soul to see what are the problems and the core of their cause.

By becoming part of the problem before transmuting yourself into the solution…

Fake radio experts? You don't say!

Advertorials are not news. They are advertising made to look like news.

And people still fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Memo to radio listeners: do not invest your money based on a radio program. The “experts” pay to be there, and they are shilling their services. That the last bunch of grifters used fake names shows you just how outlets do not care.

Not doubling checking the company or the people is on you.

I am serious. Do not invest your money in a sham. Anyone who falls for an advertorial in 2019 has no excuse.

Bullshit sham “committees” looking at “fake news” are gunning at social media — but that they are ignoring legacy media’s role just shows you how rigged and worthless those committees happen to be…

Memo to Macleans: It's not journalism if you tell people when it is too late.

How worthless is Canadian broadcast news?

Every motherfucking newscast on every single motherfucking channel started with the Oh, wow! It is snowing! non-story.

Yeah, asshole, no shit. I can look out the window or go outside and I figure it all by myself. That’s not news.

That the federal Grits have been caught with their pants down didn’t really register at all. There is no excuse for it.

But then comes a long and rambling piece in Macleans that is very instructive to the mindset of Canadian journalism.

It finally gets around to talking about this piece of legislation that has already passed June 21, 2018.

It made no headlines, and now that SNC-Lavalin is in the hot seat, now everything thinks about it.

This should have been news long before it was made into law: as in, who lobbied for it, for starters.

But no one was really paying attention at the time because everyone was too busy tweaking Trump’s nose to see the bigger picture.

They were too busy defending the Prime Minister and helping him along with the optics instead of ignoring the optics and looking at what is actually happening.

Now, the damage is done. Stop telling bedtime stories to the Middle Class because that’s why they think everything will work out in the end by some They who will save the day.

And that’s why we have predatory laws and an entire provincial economies dependent on corrupt companies — and people howling when things implode.

You cannot bank on a House of Cards.

Now, things are out of hand.

But Canadian journalists are too busy giving free publicity to feel-good slacktivism.

Who the hell cares besides their parents? That is a cheap and easy no-brainer. (And memo to CBC: That’s not “news for kids”: this is press releases geared at children to help Corporate America sucker in the next generation of empty-heads. Shame on you for being so willfully deceptive).

Canada has serious problems all simmering and waiting to explode on cue. That’s more than obvious now, but there is one thing in the Maclean’s piece that is true:

Screen Shot 2019-02-12 at 10.50.49 PM.png

No, this country doesn’t innovate. It willfully ignores innovators hoping not to rock the boat because everything is so rotten, one innovation can be compared the rest and then it all hits the fan.

Journalism cribs and steals, and then wonders why it implodes.

Stop picking political sides, for starters. They are all the same. Stop pretending being on the Left is more enlightened. The hell it is. People don’t believe in God they way they used to, and now the predators took a new mask to wear.

Radical centrism is the method of seeing the rot on the left and right, above and below, and it is way past time to stop pretending and playing along with those who cannot function unless they do harm to others as they take the spoils all to themselves…

A federal regime opts to meddle in journalism? You don't say!

Blacklock’s Reporter has a hilarious article about how the federal Liberal regime in Canada was advised not to meddle in media, but did so anyway:

The memo said any federal action against fake news could have consequences for free speech, and that remedies were already found in the private sector. “It is important that we enable private sector leadership, innovation governance approaches and new business models to flourish,” wrote staff.

But, of course, how the Liberals not grease the palms of those who cover them:

The note is dated February 5, 2018. Six months later, the Department of Canadian Heritage began negotiations with an Ottawa-based group called Public Policy Forum to “monitor digital and social media in real time” for “disinformation in the lead-up to the October 2019 federal election.”

The Policy Forum in a statement last November 28 defended the monitoring scheme. “The country lacks adequate understanding of what’s being put through our media ecosystem,” wrote CEO Edward Greenspon, a former Toronto Star executive: “This project is designed to expose these attempts and determine how best to counter them.”

You don’t say!

The Public Policy Forum is a sham. It is pure garbage that openly used its resources to lobby for the government to fund incompetent journalistic products.

And Canadian journalism is pure garbage, make no mistake. If you had a product that people could use, they wouldn’t be in trouble.

It is like having the 8-track industry lobby for money because people will not get to hear music if they collapse.

It is no different.

The CBC is an apologist for that same federal regime, constantly presenting government narrative as fact, such as this article:

John McCallum was fired as Canada's ambassador to China over his statements on the Meng Wanzhou case.

Normally, this would be a job for diplomats — but the man who was supposed to help the Trudeau government navigate this path, John McCallum, was fired just days ago for suggesting (twice) that the best outcome for Canada would be if Meng wasn't handed over to the Americans.

We now know the offences alleged by the Americans in the Huawei case go back about a decade. Canada, over that same time period, has agreed to 90 per cent of all extradition requests, according to federal records.

So it seems safe to say that it would be unusual for Meng not to be extradited, despite her status among the members of China's business elite and the unprecedented international publicity her case is generating.

This is pure baloney. The federal government has been trying to blame McCallum for their own bungling of the matter. This is the same government that hasn’t done a thing about one of their own sketchy MPs whose word means nothing and is holding on to power, even as more questionable and alarming activities emerge about him.

If this government cared about the “rule of law”, they would practice it every once in a while. Canada had to dodge this bullet, and had to have a plan long before the Meng debacle.

They didn’t. If the federal government did not know in what precarious position they would find themselves in, then they have no business being in government. You cannot afford to make folksy and sheltered Middle Class mistakes when you are sandwiched between two powerful nations that can eat you for breakfast.

And the Canadian journalism industry thinks the government will save them?

Yeah, no wonder this country’s journalism industry collapsed…

Method Research, Part Eight: Canadian politics. Predictable ruses. Uninspired. Boring. Journalists shouldn't be using that playbook.

I

pt-helium-brighthose-fullframe.jpg

II

I am a huge fan of stage magic. It is all optics that prove time and again that our perceptions can be manipulated, yet somehow, people keep behaving as if they cannot be fooled in any way.

If you can be fooled a foot away from your nose, that should be a big clue that what you sense if not necessarily what is.

As a kid, I ate this stuff up, always trying to figure out how to figure out the tricks. I had instruction manuals of stage magic, and I studied them. My hands were always too small to pull it off for many tricks, but I understood perception’s limitations extremely well by the time I was ten.

By the time I was fifteen, I discovered the when you senses are put at rest for a period of time, they “forget” how to deceive you, and you can actually hear sound as it truly is — tinny, cacophonic, chaotic, and rough. The smooth sounds you hear is your brain downplaying the background noises as it pull together that sound that bounces off the walls in all directions.

That meant that there is an internal deception mechanism and an external one. From all those lies you need to discern the truth.

Two years later, I would go to university to study psychology, allowing me to learn those answers, all while my studying of magic and illusions continued. By the time I became a journalist in order to empirically study journalism, I was deft at breaking down illusions and figuring out how PR tricks were done.

But during one of my classes in cognitive psychology, I had a professor I didn’t like very much. As a person, I just did not like him. He rubbed me the wrong way by his very presence, and I can’t say that he ever said or did anything to me personally to offend.

But he was a very smart guy, and had a lot of interesting observations I took in.

He made a comment once that stuck with me. He decided he was going to go to a psychic fair to see how these people tricked people into believing them. He was armed and ready…and then the tricks were so bad that it would be a waste.

No cunning strategies. Just shower people with praise and good news, and you can be off by a mile. The end.

It was disappointing to him, and I could suddenly relate to him.

Because I always felt the same way about Canadian politics.

III

Canadian politics are as predictable and boring as you can get: give patronage appointments to partisan people in journalism.

Use propaganda to accuse another party of fear-mongering as you use fear-mongering against your rival.

And bribe the taxpayers with their own money — or borrow money to do it.

Or, some of the taxpayers.

The federal Liberal regime is trying to bribe Millennials with mortgage promises, while elderly Canadians owe almost 3.5 billion in reverse mortgage debt, and unprecedented figure in this country.

But who cares about older voters?

There is no strategy. There is just bribing and empty promises of nannying.

The Grits used to be the master of this game, but then the Ontario Liberals made really big promises, and then the NDP wised up and then upped the ante.

The federal NDP can do the same thing. If I were Jagmeet Singh, I would have a field day. Let’s turn this election into Let’s Make a Deal and the Price is Right with hints of Wheel of Fortune. Jive Turkey promises help with the mortgage, Singh should promise them a free house.

The Grits are already priming and radicalizing the electorate to skew from Red to Orange territory. Singh doesn’t have to be smart or worldly-wise. He can promise not to bungle international relations like the Liberals as he promises Basic Income, free dental, free university, and free beer and weed nights every first Friday of the month.

Have a big wheel. Spin it to see what today’s election promise will be.

maxresdefault.jpg

And tell the electorate that they are the best and sexiest people on the planet. We are just The Best. Crown us, baby!

Miss-World-Canada-Cynthia-Menard.jpg

Singh just needs to take the same approach as psychics: praise and promises of prosperity.

The Grits are the Government Party for a reason, but they are having to veer more left in order to do it.

The NDP can promise to turn Canada in to the Ultimate Party Paradise.

That’s all.

That’s the big trick in Canadian politics.

That’s why it is boring. The Grits know it is the same predictable ruses. The Tories are too stern. The NDP too flaky. Both make the Middle Class jittery.

If anyone can be the spoiler, it’s Singh. All it takes is to beat the Grits at the same game, and they collapse.

That’s why they are tanking on the international scene: those games don’t work on world leaders.

They have one trick. If the other two wise up to that One Trick, the Grits don’t stand a chance, and they’ll end up in the same place as journalists.

But being a one-trick wonder is nothing new here.

IV

I had a good chuckle over CBC’s howling that grade school classroom sizes will increase. As they are one-trick wonders, they cannot function is something veers from the script. Parents are upset because they bought into the hype that small-classroom sizes have to be better so their precious little flower can blossom.

Teachers in Canada are upset because the bigger the classroom sizes, the fewer of them you did to keep employed.

It’s self-serving.

Because classroom size is not that big of a deal. You go to an intimate little bistro to hear a band or a huge concert — are you telling me you cannot process the big concert because there are too many people there? The singer isn’t paying enough attention to the big crowd while the small venue has some serious one-on-one time?

Of course not. I bet you remember the monster acts you seen much better than the acts you saw in a smaller venue.

I have taught huge classes. I have taught tiny classes. My strategies for tackling both were completely different. One is a small dinner party. The other is a baptist sermon. The small class has your centre of gravity in a different place than a large class, but the content remains the same. It is the structure that alters.

And strictly have small class sizes is a detriment to students. They should have small classes where the focus is on the student, but too many classes like that and the student becomes too selfish and me-focussed.

Having large classes teaches students that their place does change depending on the circumstances, and more times than not in life, it isn’t about them and their needs and demands. Sometimes they absolutely have to muddle on their own until they get it right.

Large classes teach with the focus on the knowledge. You become bonded to the content of the course.

I am not opposed to big classes. They have their place. So do small classes. I can handle either. I don’t even have a preference. When the class is small, I am very much in the background as I emphasize students empirically testing the material.

When it is a large class, I hold court. I put on a show and make the material come to life.

The content can be identical, but you can learn in a crowd just as easily as by yourself.

So when I hear temper tantrums how this turn is horrific, I know this is just a knee-jerk reaction to someone having the gall in deviating from a set script.

So why do we have educators that do not know how to shift their methods and focus in Ontario?

Because we have a leadership that sticks to a single trick. There is no change, innovation, or evolution. Ingenuity requires a sensitivity to your environment. You don’t cling to a script and follow it as you shut out reality.

But we have a regime that just pulls old stunts and got the little people running on a hamster wheel.

That’s not a magic show. That’s mind-numbing rote conditioning.

And it is easy to sucker people to hop on that wheel and run for their lives as you scare them with monsters under the wheel.

Unless, of course, you can’t get all of them on the wheel.

And some of those stubborn mules know about optics, faulty perception, manipulation, war strategy, propaganda, psychology, and then wants to do something useful with all that wealth of information and comes up with something called Method Research.

V

Journalism in Canada behaves the same way as the government. It talks at people. It’s archaic. It takes its unverified truisms as the gospel truth. It scares people into trying to convince them that democracy cannot live without them.

Politicians do this every election — they make big threats of how the world will end if the other guy is elected. The other guy is elected. Nothing changes. The world goes on.

The government can get away with it. Journalism thought it could get away with it. It did when it was the only game in town. Once the Internet burst on the scene, people had options, and ditched the one that they had less control over. The end.

Don’t think the same can’t happen to governments. If there was an equivalent where people had an alternative governance system that bypassed the traditional, they wouldn’t be listening to politicians at all.

Have a global alternative, and you’d see a drop in immigration — people wouldn’t need to bother moving when they can order government online or use some other world-altering medium to do it.

Journalism keeps behaving as if it were in an old-school superhero comic book.

clarkkent.jpg

It’s reality! 2019!

I saw how unresponsive the profession was. It still is.

Governments are just as unresponsive. They think they have a populace whipped.

thoughtballoonsaction6.jpg

Give an alternative, and the one trick goes to pot.

Or have someone bypass the system by turning over that one trick until it breaks.

And then another. And another.

It doesn’t take much.

I turned a profession into a laboratory. I turned a classroom into a theatre.

Turning the world into a magic show isn’t a stretch…

The Chaser Solution: Epilogue: おもいやり, baby!

I

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 8.18.33 PM.png

II

mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-122.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-98-2.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-104.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-119.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-132.gif

III

97.JPG

IV

dvljoatr.JPG
twmdwtbr.JPG

V

of.jpg
latestbbok.jpg

VI

facebook_1536847164296.jpg

VII

VIII

Screen Shot 2018-12-27 at 9.19.50 PM.png

IX

Omoiyari. What a quaint notion. The idea of altruism. It is a not a notion taught in j-schools, but it is one I abide by because if you are in the business to teach and/or inform, that has to be your guiding motive.

Because knowledge is one of those things you give without losing it yourself.

So long as you understand that it is something without strings attached.

Too bad journalists never learned that lesson.

The Toronto Star never did, judging by this article with the link stating this:

Donald Trump has made at least 3,924 false claims so far in his presidency. The Star's Daniel Dale counted

How many lies did the Canadian PM make? How many did the Star?

How many secrets did the federal regime keep from the public? How many did the Star?

They both had a mutual secret that got exposed recently.

And it is a very treacherous one that is, in fact, scandalous.

But both the Star and the federal Grits are in serious trouble. That magic weed isn’t doing its trick, and the gullible rubes at the Globe and Mail think they know something, but they are morons.

Journalists failure to understand おもいやり has cost them their clout.

A profession thrives and progresses so long as it has innocence and idealism, from education to medicine to journalism.

When you allow psychopaths to infiltrate a noble profession and use sophistry and logical fallacies to cover up their wickedness, the profession becomes corrupt, rotten, and eventually FUBAR.

X

Canadian journalism is the best example of that rot that turned them into propaganda tools. The CBC doesn’t get it. They are speculating about Trump’s government shut down and how it could backfire. They do not understand military strategy, and hence, don’t see the big picture.

When I wrote OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism, I studied The O’Reilly Factor very carefully. I drew maps all over the place. I read every single transcript of the program from the first to the very last one before I could no longer update my book. I broke down his methods and strategies and treated them like military operation plans.

westpoint03.jpg

For good measure, I used my Britain’s toy soldiers to recreate five of his most effective gambits, with each soldier representing his arguments.

There was no wonder why he held full control for almost every debate save for one, which I wrote about at length that pretty much came off like this:

But Trump has a natural instinct that surpasses O’Reilly. You cannot interview a couple of “experts” and think you have figured him out.

Because journalists are so isolated from the world, that they have no idea who they are covering. They live in a psychic bubble and have less and less connect with the public.

Why?

No おもいやり.

おもいやり requires you to give, not to take.

It requires you to have respect for the past, nurture the present, and be a guardian for the future.

That’s not journalism.

Not anymore.

おもいやり guides me. I feel おもいやり and am grateful that I do.

I see things from the heart. I have emotions that give me as much information as my mind. It gives me the courage to face reality in order to find the truth.

Journalism could have been reinvented and stronger than ever. Instead of seeing problems as puzzles to solve, they decided they were going to brainwash 7.4 billion people and trick them into giving up their free will and liberties. Enough already.

Deal with your own rot first. Write exposés about the wickedness of your own profession. Once you see how far you have sunk, then you’ll understand how you got there and why people walked away from you.

Instead of scaring people, you should be making them brave.

That’s おもいやり.

That’s what is at heart of everything I do in my life, including a little resurrected site called…

Chaser.png

The Chaser Solution: Chapter Twelve: Months in a year, hours on a clock, it all comes up to a dozen. We mark time, but never make the most of it.

I

51 copy.JPG

II

mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-133.gif
dw5.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-130.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-121.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-131.gif
mz_11518666_bodyshot_300x400-117.gif

III

52 copy.JPG

IV

Petty shits.

Who was worse this week?

The New York Times for publishing family gossip that was unsubstantiated, or NBC for not correcting the record when they knew they were wrong?

Even the Washington Post is cautioning them to be careful of not spreading fake news.

Should anyone care about the Times’ story? I don’t recall too many modern presidents being soldiers or enlisting. They still got voted in. Canadian universities still have those Left-wing American draft dodgers as professors, and no one is getting upset about that.

The same people who were marching in anti-war protests are bitching about someone who didn’t fight a war? You assholes didn’t, either; so just shut the fuck up.

The middle class don’t care about much.

Not even if the news has no connect to reality.

Take CBC here in Canada. They puke bullshit how the Canadian economy was “resilient” in 2018, but for whom? We had a lot of stores closing. We had factories closing.

We have a homeless crisis, and in traditionally middle class safe havens such as the Golden Horseshoe. Real estate is rapidly cooling off, and household debt is at very bad levels. We have an opioid crisis, and that’s not a sign of prosperity.

Yet like a dubbed foreign film, the voice over doesn’t ever match up with the moving lips.

V

So what’s going on?

On the one hand, it is a confirmation bias: choose a self-serving narrative, and look for evidence that supports your narrative as you ignore evidence that refutes it. In the US, the press is anti-Trump all the time. It is pure insanity because they had power to be kingmakers until the day they weren’t. They are mad at him for showing them the reality of their situation.

They should have been grateful.

They should have seen what happened and how to re-invent their profession. Instead, they veered into rank propaganda and haven’t stopped as their fortunes go further down.

They hate Trump. They also hate Facebook for the same reason. They hate “populism” — again, for the same reason. They got mad at poor people for expressing themselves, using social media to do it, and voting for the only candidate that spoke to them during the election.

Once upon a time, journalists wouldn’t be hating those people: they would be writing about them and speaking to them, but then they got full of themselves and got lost in narcissistic fantasy.

You used to inform these same people. You used to publish their letters to the editor. You used to get outraged when they got hurt in life, and the Establishment tried to screw them over.

What happened to those people? Where did you go wrong?

In Canada, the press betrayed the people, but in a different way: they lied to them, but are lulling them into thinking things are better than they actually are. They mimic Soviet-style propaganda where the news told citizens how great the economy was, and it was in the toilet. People laughed at the news because it was bullshit and they knew it.

They believed it for a while, until they imploded. Regions broke away, and the fragmentation spelled the end of that system of governance.

It happened to the Soviet Union. It happened to Yugoslavia.

Would it happen to Canada? It depends how badly things go. Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta would leave. Toronto would, too. The US would greatly benefit because they could gain access to natural resources easily and quietly. It is not as if Canada would be a match for the US, but why do it loudly, when you can do the same thing silently without fuss?

But Canada was always an impossible country: it is too big with too few people spread out too far apart.

What holds them together? Fairy tales.

The kicker is that if this country could face reality, it would leave other countries in the dust.

VI

The US is in the same position. There is nothing wrong with their president. He is no worse than his predecessor. You cannot fault Donald Trump for seeing reality that you can win a presidency by stumping and going directly to the people in person — and by using Twitter. Kudos to him.

He exposed that the media has no teeth. They have been gumming at him for so long that you’d think they’d get tired of their own temper tantrum.

The press should have just stood back and saw their own arrogant and oblivious childishness.

I remember talking to one US reporter about Trump before November 2016. He thought Clinton would win it. I said no way. He was absolutely certain, citing polls. I said look at the polls for Brexit, and even for Toronto’s mayoralty race where Rob Ford handily won. He said it was an apples to oranges comparison. I said it was apples to apples.

Trump won.

I could see what Trump saw: a dead media. The model was no longer aligned with reality. If the strongest of the media — the US — couldn’t do it, then neither could anyone else. People can get offended all they want, but no other country had the journalistic muscle saved for the UK. They are having the same problems, and there is no relief in sight.

And what you have is a hamster wheel that marks nothing.

What you don’t have is news anymore. North, East, West, South.

No one minding the times. No one minding the place.

For example, child exploitation is a serious problem in Canada. So is human trafficking. We have a serious problem with First Nations women vanishing and being murdered. Lots of child pornography and prostitution going on here.

And the laws here are a joke.

With a press that aids and abets these people.

And in the US, the hate on Trump is so out of control that the US will pay for it for decades to come because no one is paying attention at the things that are actually important.

How many people can live well? How many people die needlessly?

What are the dangers?

That’s news.

It is not a fairytale. It is not campfire story.

It is a clock. It is a compass.

You know where you are right now and where things are going?

When you know, you are F.R.E.E.D.

What should you be going after?

That’s Chaser.

The strength isn’t in the One.

It is in the Infinite.

twmdwwatp.JPG

And, darlings, that is your message to ponder very carefully, courtesy of…

Chaser.png

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Eleven: Fred Sanford called it right. But so did Isaac Asimov.

I

II

12301739_1647183242207754_3605260518764740460_n.jpg

III

4924a88002613933dba76734f8fc1607.jpg
45178842_1277519379057238_7360571306703585280_n.jpg
39976828_10156604031727387_2885553432557518848_o.jpg
th-2.jpeg

IV

The Middle-Class is not a well-educated class: they are not taught critical thinking, and are taught just enough for job competency, but not to break rules, question authority, or look outside their little caves.

Just look at this sorry piece from the CBC:

Modern sex-ed curriculum has huge support among Ontario parents and students, consultations show

Really, who the fuck cares?

They support it, but so what?

The Nazis had huge support from parents and students, whoop di fucking do.

I would quiz parents, asking them a slew of questions about their knowledge of the differences between the two first, and if they can’t tell them apart, I would sentence them to wearing a dunce cap. There is no evidence to show one is superior to the other. I notice these same parents and students have serious logic gaps, meaning they both have something else in common: a shitty education in critical thinking.

Why do you “support” something? What does it mean? Why aren’t you upset that your math and language skills are deficient? Why are you cherry-picking things? Do you understand the subtext of either one of those curricula?

It is not different than that patronizing Middle-Class appeal to authority complaining about people who don’t support the same thing the person does: why the fuck do I care what the Establishment has to say? What’s in it for me? How do you know that is what they are spending? Or where that money is really going to — especially as we have had governments “misplace” and misspend billions of dollars over the years?

And you still like a moron trust their numbers.

I remember how the Chretien Liberals couldn’t account for over a billion dollars under the human resources ministry — and we have some Middle Class know-nothing rattle off sketchy numbers as if this was some divine truth.

Go fuck yourself.

We have a government that has no teeth and no standards, and you actually buy what they are selling you?

I worked as a journalist, and my job was simple: having to hear a never-ending stream of bullshit, propaganda, and lies, and then find the truth.

V

When you have a majority never question anything from authorities, they, in fact, make no real demands. They make no demands of a competent government. They make no demands of a competent press. They merely look for someone to issue scripts for them to follow, and will swallow whatever mystery pill that promises them something. The promise will be vague, but if the decree is to swallow, then they swallow.

Revolutions happen when a majority swallow too much shit for too long and then explode — as if their problems were someone else’s fault. You made fun and maligned those who told not to swallow shit. You thought you found the trick to winning at life because someone told you swallowing shit and following the script was all you had to do and you didn’t have to put effort or think.

That’s what eventually happens in a Zero-Risk society: they take one dumbass gamble too far, betting their last grains, and everything collapses, and then they get mad.

You mean, all those government statistics were just garbage? What do you mean my education was wanting? The scripts were nothing but distracting, life-sinking lies! Eating dog shit was bad all along! Outrage!

No shit, Sherlock.

VI

The problem is Middle Class people don’t look for real answers as much as a saviour. The flock want a shepherd to guide them, and as many people have quipped…

DN0dyIvW0AEoJnc.jpg

But Hitchens suffered from a severe case of confirmation bias: it’s not just religion that rolls that way: atheism does.

And so does politics.

It is always the same motherfucking patriarchal dynamic of a Chosen One and a Flock.

Humanity is just the same old story of doing the same thing, and always expecting a different outcome.

I am not a sheep, nor do I wish to be a shepherd to a brainless flock.

It doesn’t give me any kicks or thrills.

So, I don’t want to be a propagandist because that’s just sad, and I don’t want to be some messiah leading the little people who really ought to stop looking for training wheels and start looking for their brain cells.

I have had people with zero experience in my expertise tell me I am wrong without even listening to a word I say. They think their ignorance is superior to someone else’s knowledge. Expertise and knowledge are not respected because people want you to tell them that they are right, just, and good. They want a Servant Leader who gives them things and does all the thinking and work.

How realistic is that? How well can one small group of people cater to a collective? Why don’t they get off their asses and make their own wishes come true?

Because deep down, they know they are willful big dummies because they never do things. You can never be smart or capable if you wait on others to do your work for you. You never gain wisdom or experience. You can never innovate or be a visionary. You can be an annoying lump dependent on authority to live your life for you on their terms.

That is what the Middle Class in the West have settled for.

I haven’t, though. I don’t believe in settling. I believe in upward mobility.

And I have no aversion to work or taking risks to do it. I don’t chase after worthless paper crowns: that’s just being Pavolv’s dog getting trained for basic stimulus-response.

I have better things to do with myself.

The question for me is — am I the only one?

Lots of shootings and homicides in Toronto...but let's keep lying to the little people!

How many homicides in Toronto in 2018?

94 as of today…way surpassing the previous record of 89.

But the worthless motherfuckers of the CBC are in denial because the bimbos think they can spin it:

Toronto breaks homicide record from 1991, but numbers don't tell whole story

The losers think that it is better because there were mass murders that happened in their city this year, so it is like it doesn’t count.

You fucking cowardly, propagandistic shits are really reaching. Do you scumbags realize that makes it worse?

Assholes.

Oh, and there were four shootings today.

But that is not the only propaganda in town. You have the press here acting as Amazon’s publicists all happy that Amazon is bringing some low-paying jobs here.

Just as their workers and customers everywhere else are screaming about the shitty conditions.

Other countries have some inkling of reality. The UK has just realized most of the female murder victims are killed by a man they know. And the US are starting to wonder about their economic future.

But not Canada, no sir. They don’t care if their womenfolk get slaughtered or raped: they’ll just get the National Post to blame the women for it. And their economy? Poverty is where it’s at!

That’s why we can never have a real discussion in this country about anything: it’s just immature bullshit.

You have inflated housing costs that drives up personal debt to un-payable levels, but don’t touch the Greenbelt!

And bring in illegal migrants!

Okay, where will all these people live? At your house? They will all go to a sure thing city like Toronto where there is no way they can afford it.

So then there is Hamilton, where there is the same housing crisis, where the poor are being shoved out by limousine liberal gentrification, so where do they go along with the migrants?

If you suggest to build more, they throw fits.

So what is the plan? People protest building in the Greenbelt, in poor neighbourhoods, and object to high-rise buildings, the only other solution available.

So what do you suggest? You want everything, but will trade off nothing.

Canada is not a bottomless pit.

You want to put the provinces and country in more debt with less to show for it?

You have a serious crime problem. You have a serious debt problem. You have a serious housing problem. You have a serious trade problem. You have a serious international reputation problem.

So why are you motherfuckers still sleepwalking when the cliff is one step away from you?

The press is lying to you, making up bullshit stories to lull you because if you fall off the cliff, they have something to write about.

The next step is yours.

Do you keep in denial?

Do you hope your imaginary friend They will come to your rescue, princesses?

Or do you actually wake up, look at the reality, and start adulting before the bullet comes to your head…

CNN's very bad day in court.

This is not a good ruling for them (you can read it here), but the bottom line is this:

This interlocutory appeal requires us to decide whether the motion-to-strike procedure of the Georgia anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-11.1, applies in federal court. Davide Carbone filed a complaint against Cable News Network for publishing a series of allegedly defamatory news reports about him and the medical center he administered. CNN moved to strike the complaint under the Georgia anti-SLAPP statute or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court denied that motion. It ruled that the special-dismissal provision of the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in federal court because it conflicts with Rule 12(b)(6) and that Carbone’s complaint states a claim for relief. CNN challenges both rulings. We agree with the district court that the special-dismissal provision of the Georgia anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in federal court, but we lack pendent appellate jurisdiction to review whether Carbone’s complaint states a claim for relief. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

You can read about the anti-SLAAP statue here, here, and here, but the simplest explanation for the uninitiated comes from here:

Anti-SLAPP laws are designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights. The acronym “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a phrase coined by two law school professors in the late 1980s. They identified a trend of retaliatory lawsuits brought to intimidate and silence opponents or critics who had spoken out in the public sphere, typically on land use and development issues. The actual resolution of the plaintiff’s claims – for defamation, tortious interference or related theories – was a secondary motivation at best. Anti-SLAPP statutes were proposed to provide a quick, effective and inexpensive mechanism to combat such suits. Anti-SLAPP laws enable those who are the subject of a SLAPP suit to seek early dismissal and oftentimes get their legal fees reimbursed.  The fact an anti-SLAPP law is on the books in a jurisdiction can also help to deter potential litigants from filing retaliatory lawsuits in the first place.

This ruling is going to seriously hurt. In Canada, two doctors went after the CBC in 1996, while this country isn’t known for awarding big payouts in civil cases, for the CBC, they made a big exception. Journalists often use the façade that the person suing for defamation is a villain wanting to silence them, but honestly, that’s not too common: suing a large institution is intimidating, stacked against the ones suing, expensive, cruel, and slow.

In the CBC’s case, the melodrama proved troublesome as the facts took a backseat. In the CNN case, if the network used bad statistics and bad empirical methodology, they are in serious hot water, especially given the compulsion to use narrative over the mere replaying of facts.

And if that is the case here, as it was with the CBC, there is no better argument to replace journalism with an alternative that doesn’t commit those kinds of amateur errors in the first place…

Living in a Zero-Risk country: It isn't as safe as you think. Nepotism, no regulations, just big promises, and then that big drop.

I

II

NPR had a dumbass story about how regular citizens are now completely helpless because the newspapers they weren’t buying or reading anymore were gone.

Right.

If those papers were useful, they would have read them, but journalists don’t see how much of their selfish bad attitude makes their work unusable.

For example, Rodney Stafford did not look in his local newspaper to find out that both of his child’s killers were transferred to Healing Lodge and Easier Jail. He found that out all by himself, and I commend him for it.

But the CBC’s response was very cruel, but disguised it well. They had this slap at him:

Why even the 'worst of the worst' criminals get transferred to medium-security prisons

Read: it happens all the time, and your kid isn’t that special.

The piece was an outrage, and an absolute spit in the face to the Stafford family.

And the reason why we need to appreciate and respect the Rodney Staffords of the world a little more.

Because he is living in the same country I do: the Zero-Risk Nation.

And it is the reason why one of his children was snatched away from him through no fault of his family, and then gets disrespected by a media outlet that has the nerve to pretend their ilk have value.

III

A Zero-Risk Nation gambles in the name of safety. A Zero-Gamble Nation builds by employing a series of risks. The goal to any utopia is to build on risk, know there is no such thing as a “sure thing”, that citizens may be cared for, but not nannied into passivity or self-entitlement, and not stoop to taking gambles, especially not those based on wishful thinking, arrogance, or folksy Middle Class logic.

Citizens are not nannied because should a threat come from the outside, citizens are active, vigilant, and capable enough to hold their own. That threat is unlikely to be an invasion, but there is economic downturns, natural disasters, grifters, and the like.

True journalism requires a Zero-Gamble Mindset. Canada is a Zero-Risk Country. Our journalism has collapsed, and the mindset of the profession holds much of the blame.

When you appeal to authority, you are taking a gamble, but when nepotism brings you those authorities, you can be sure the reason is (a) people are familiar with the name, thinking there is no risk, and (b) they are taking a gamble assuming one relative is a reasonable facsimile for the other.

And Canada, like Serbia, has a serious nepotism infestation. If we look at the names of the current roster of politicians in play: Trudeau, Ford, Mulroney, Blair — what we see is people in power who have built-in name recognition and had careers predicated on their relative’s name.

It is seen as “safe”, and even if it is proven to be a bad strategy, a Zero-Risk society still uses the same formula because it requires risk to alter it.

I find the brouhaha over OPP Commissioner a telling sign of Zero-Risk: Ron Taverner is a friend of Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and despite the protests, various levels within the province did not stand in its way — that is, until the interim Commissioner Brad Blair (no relation to Bill Blair in a shocking twist) wrote a letter urging the province to stop gambling with its choices.

Mind you, if Ford were a Liberal, the press would have remained silent. His victory threw a monkey wrench in all the Left-wing nepotistic games, and now they are merely drawing attention to the Right’s versions, hoping that the misdirection will draw attention away from their own. If it sucks when the Right does it, it sucks the when the Left does it.

IV

A Zero-Risk Mindset is an unnatural one: it is a lie and a con, and all lies and cons require a narrative to lure in prey. A Zero-Risk Society breeds nepotism, but to keep the racket going, you need to groom people to be happy with having no real upward mobility because the real glass ceiling is nepotism.

Because the leaders have an expectation of entitlement, they are passive by nature: people give them things. They do not actually have to go out and earn them. Their mindset is passive. They gamble because they think they are innately entitled and fortunate.

And that means they do not struggle. They do not understand strategy — a form of thinking where you cannot rely on any script — nor do they understand risk.

They follow the script that worked for their predecessors. They are misaligned with the times and the places, meaning they are removed from reality.

And when you have regimes who do not understand the nuances of failure, defeat, pain, loss, or suffering, they are not intellectual alchemists.

They have suffered no spiritual death; hence they cannot turn lead (defeat) into gold (victory). They assume people will just give them gold because of who they are or that they have a Midas touch, which they cannot.

In Canada, where the Middle Class embrace Zero-Risk, we see how their perpetual ignorance has harmed them. They are as passive as the nepotistic leaders they elect. They make no demands because that would draw attention to their own slumps and problems, going against their sunny Facebook posts.

Because no one wants to draw attention to problems, those problems are never confronted, and it is the reason why Canada has so many people lose their life savings in various scams, and the news media covers it only after it is too late.

Like the Globe and Mail’s piece:

Inside the fall of Fortress

Fortress Real Developments raised $920-million from 14,000 Canadians who thought they were getting low-risk, steady income. Now, as the company comes under the pressure of an RCMP investigation and faltering projects, some face the prospect of devastating losses.

The Globe had the nerve to label this under “Investigations”, but that’s bullshit: investigations means cutting it off at the pass, not when bankrupt people come crying to you.

But the mindset of the victims of Zero-Risk is very telling:

Four years ago, Mr. Narciso was framing a roof in Toronto when he fell several metres, breaking his spine and leaving him partially paralyzed. Confined to a wheelchair and unable to work, the now 58-year-old received a $500,000 insurance settlement to help support himself, Ms. Cortes and their daughter, now five years old.

The couple wanted to put the money into a safe, income-generating investment but had little experience with investing. An acquaintance introduced them to an adviser well-known in Toronto’s Portuguese community, who suggested one of their best options was to invest in a so-called syndicated mortgage, a pool of funds that would help finance early-stage real estate projects.

We have hit every single benchmark of Zero-Risk thinking within the first paragraph: they wanted “safe.” They trusted an acquaintance, not someone they researched. They went with a “name”. They went within their own ethnic group.

But it goes on:

“He said that the only way it could go wrong was if the real estate market collapsed, which was extremely unlikely at that point,” recalls Ms. Cortes, 35.

In 2015, the couple agreed to hand over their whole $500,000 settlement, joining 600 other investors who would collectively pool $36-million for the Collier Centre project.

What Mr. Narciso and Ms. Cortes didn’t know was that Collier Centre was just emerging from bankruptcy protection and that a group of earlier syndicated mortgage investors still had not been repaid the $16.9-million they’d put up back in 2012.

“If we had any warning of risk anywhere, we wouldn’t have put all our money into this,” says Ms. Cortes, who is expecting a new baby in the spring.

To avoid risk, they took an enormous gamble with their entire investment, which has gone to money heaven. They worked on trust, not on finding out something about the Centre that turned their gamble into a sure-fire money-sink.

To avoid risk, they gambled a painfully-earned half million.

But they think the trouble was risk. It wasn’t.

It was the gamble on a “sure thing.”

But it isn’t just about the money. Let’s go back to the reason why they had that much money to give to grifters: the husband did work that crippled him.

How come?

It wasn’t his doing: we live in a country that has no rules or regulations because to have them is an admission that things go wrong and that people do bad things. You use tools that do not work and malfunction. You have jobs with no real security or safety. You are playing Russian Roulette every time you go to work, and the government’s solutions have businesses howling, even though those measures don’t actually address the problem.

As a college instructor, I had to watch online videos from the Ontario government about workplace safety.

And it was total unhelpful bullshit.

But in a Zero-Risk Society, that’s what you can get: simple and simplistic answers because it is too scary to admit there are real dangers that can be catastrophic and permanent.

V

The worst problem with a Zero-Risk Mindset is that level of conniving manipulators who pollute societal function. They play mind games, try to shame and sabotage genuine talent not just ot break them and prevent them from achieving what they can and should — but in such a way as to trick them into becoming their servants in order to make them look good.

Sooner or later, people stop trying, and then begin to sabotage the saboteurs.

The latent anarchy is neither good nor bad — it all depends on the filters used to see it.

A moral and constructive group in anarchy can turn it into paradise where no one is exploited, ignored, abused, or impeded.

An immoral and destructive group in anarchy can turn it into the place below hell where everyone exploits and abuses everyone else.

It depends on whether the collective take risks or gambles.

Canadian journalism is defined and entrenched in a Zero-Risk Mindset.

To rebuild, it takes a Zero-Gamble Mindset, but too many people have made careers on gambles, but no risk because they praised the very scripts that destroyed them, and as they do not want to admit flaw or fault, they will cling on to the script until their last breath.

It is the reason an alternative to journalism requires to completely bypass the old wreck with the mindset that Risk is optimal.

It also requires Utopian Scholarship.

Utopian scholarship, she says?

What is that, you say?

Something to discuss at a later date and time, but suffice to say, I am a Radical Centrist, and to be one means to be an active risk-taker whose genre of empiricism is utopian scholarship.

2019 will be a very interesting year for me.

Stay tuned…

Memo to the CBC: You are a bunch of manipulative trolls, but your propaganda ain't all that.

Journalists are trying to justify their existence, and they think they found a loophole, but let’s take a closer look at how their deceptions know no morality.

The lying motherfuckers at the CBC are the dumbest of deceivers, and their latest attempt at making themselves sound important takes the cake of their bullshittery.

This is the piece of amateur propaganda in question:

News media under fire: 251 journalists in jail worldwide, most facing 'anti-state' charges

All right, you dumb fuck assholes, how many CBC journalists are on that list?

Zero, you say?

Canadian journalists?

Huh.

US?

Hmm.

So why are trying to get some of that glory without being the ones in actual danger?

Oh, I see; so you can pretend that you are guardians when you are mere gossipers. јеби се, говно.

And let’s not pretend this is a journalism problem. These are places where any civilian gets arrested, from teachers to store owners to even other politicians.

It’s like me trying to make myself look valiant by going on about how Serbs are vanishing.

Sure, in Kosovo, where there is tyranny against them and a land grab by enabled organized criminal elements over there.

Not here in Canada.

How low are you going to sink?

You know, you assholes, it is far more dangerous being an Aboriginal woman in Canada than a journalist anywhere in the world because that number in a population of 7.4 billion is not even a drop in the bucket.

Not even a blip of a blip, you manipulative and deceitful trolls.

So just shut the fuck up, and stop pretending you are in any danger because of your jobs…

And, oh, by the way, CBC: do you know why teenagers think journalists are full of shit?

Because they caught them telling lies, just the way I caught a CBC producer in a lie when I was a teenager. The difference is I called and confronted the National on a news story that was a lie because I had the same report sitting in my lap at the time, and then she tried to lie to me by omission, forgetting people could record a newscast and rewatch it to confirm it.

So if you are genuinely wondering why people think you tell lies, you ought to consider the fact that they know something to be fact, and that’s not what journalists are reporting.

Just a helpful tip…

The psychology of CBC propaganda: A confirmation bias with a strawman argument isn't going to get you any credibility, assholes.

The federal regime-sponsored CBC is at it again with the propaganda, comrades:

The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence

'This is not a time to be passive and allow this calamity to happen to us,' says one psychologist

This is pure one-sided propaganda that commits numerous logical flaws.

What about those psychopaths and grifters who use fear-mongering to manipulate and control behaviour by turning environmentalism into a doomsday cult?

Why are we encouraging appeal to authority, the confirmation bias, and the strawman argument?

Why don’t we look at the real psychology of the climate exploiters instead of the junk psychology of skepticism?

Because the governments know way too much of the hype is pure bullshit.

Just go to your neighbourhood dump, like the one in Hamilton where there is a “pro-environment” mayor. Within the last year, I emptied- a storage locker and had three glass wall units that were no longer functional and a thick glass top that was chipped, and had to be discarded. I had the idea of taking them to be recycled because there would be a lot of glass to recycle.

So I rented a truck, but when I went to the residential part of the dump where you have all these recycling bins, I was told to go to the commercial end because I was taking it in a truck.

And that was very illuminating to how governments assess the problem.

Commercial waste is much bigger than residential, and boy, there weren’t any recycling areas.

Just one building with a huge pile of trash all thrown in together, and I was told to just throw all that glass in the pile.

No recycling of any of the garbage. Businesses come and just dump it all in the same pile.

And I could see the cans, bottles, and paper all going into the same pile of garbage with no one questioning it or telling them to separate the garbage.

And it is not just garbage. Wind turbines mess up the climate. When I was renting a lakefront cottage for several months in the winter in Selkirk to write my latest book, I was warned that I’d be snowed in. I brought bags of salt, a shovel, and prepared for the worst.

Except the town is littered with wind turbines, and there was no snow at all.

As soon as I left town and drove to non-turbine areas, it was a different story. There was huge snow. None in Selkirk.

I thought nothing of it until I binge-watched the West Wing, and one of the characters made mention of the problems of turbines, and when I read more about it from academic sources, then yeah, they are very bad for the environment.

We have had scandals with scientists admitting to fudging and “tweaking” data.

So when you have people who are protesting wind turbines, they aren’t “deniers”, and it is a manipulative misnomer to label them as such. They are witness to various skulduggery that people assume is true, but is just snake oil.

When you have too many charlatans hiding under the banner of environmentalism, the movement loses credibility. You can’t just shame people, and expect them all to walk lockstep with whatever decrees you make.

It is true that pollution is a damaging thing. It causes all sorts of serious health issues, such as cancer. It kills plants and animals. Many companies are gratuitously filthy, and there is no need for it, either because we have the resources and the technology in place to make cleaner output a viable option both environmentally and economically.

But fear-mongering is a dangerous gambit that begs grifters and manipulators to use the cloak to hide their more dubious schemes, and people can see it, and once that happens, they will no longer trust the message.

They are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They are not mentally defective.

They just aren’t buying the bill of goods you are selling.

And if CBC was a real journalism outfit, and not a mouthpiece for the Liberal regime, they’d point it out.

But they aren’t journalism. They just spew propaganda, and then are honestly surprised that people stop believing the lies they’ve been told.

You don’t pick sides. You look for facts. You measure, compare, and contrast. You don’t try to shame or label people mentally ill because they have been burned.

If we had sensible information coming out without the theatrics, facts become self-evident, and it is far easier to gain consensus on solutions and finding the ones that actually work.

And this piece of propaganda isn’t helping anyone — it is just creating hatred and fear when neither emotion is required to find a solution of any sort…