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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.