National Post's continued peculiar conflict of interest. Newsmaker, client, guest columnist? What gives?

The National Post is a newspaper without a shred of propriety.

How else do you explain the tangled web of manufacturing newsmakers before having one of their lawyer-columnists represent two manufactured newsmakers as clients before seeing both said newsmaker/clients writing for the newspaper?

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 5.42.16 PM.png

And newspaper owners should start policing the muddied waters their editors credit. This kind of thing is highly unprofessional. It is one thing to report on people. That’s fine. It is also fine for an attorney to write a column and represent clients in court. It is also fine to have guest columnists.

But when they are all mixed in, something is definitely rotten in the state of Postmedia…

Piaget, Pandas, and why there is absolutely no "war" on men or boys. As usual, the National Post is afraid of women with self-respect.

I

ext.jpeg

II

of.jpg

III

When I was in my early twenties, I had a rabbit named Trixie, given that name because I got her on Halloween (trick or treat), not because of Beatrix Potter.

Screen Shot 2019-02-02 at 3.41.29 PM.png

Trixie Pixie weighted 900 grams.

She was a tiny little thing, but had a heart of a lioness. I also had a red canary Ben who was free and the two were inseparable. When Ben passed away because the vet gave the wrong antibiotic twice instead of once, Trixie was very sad. I rescued another rabbit Susie, and the two also became inseparable.

Trixie had numerous operations because her jaw was too small for her teeth. She went to the University of Guelph constantly, but she lived about six years. She was loving, bossy, nosy, and very brave.

Particularly when it came to standing up to humans that rubbed her the wrong way.

There was one man who was a family friend who was not the most sensitive person in the world. He thought it was funny to make loud nonsensical noises when he saw Trixie, and tried to twist her nose repeatedly. She’d run away, I would tell him that wasn’t acceptable, he’d dismiss me as some sort of snowflake, and do it again.

But Trixie always got her revenge.

Because she knew which pair of shoes he wore and then promptly pissed in them. Only his. Never anyone else’s.

Then he’d put them on, complain they were wet, but never quite hit upon the fact that he was mucking around in rabbit urine.

And then he’d come for the next visit, where the cycle went on without deviation. I never went to hide his shoes from Trixie.

That’s what you get for intimidating a 900 gram herbivore.

Trixie was a smart little bunny. I had to euthanize her when she developed a brain tumour. I think her passing hurt me the most in the fuzzy kid division.

She had an unbelievable sense of fairness. I had been dealt a serious blow in my professional life, and one that would have been a breakthrough. I can count on one hand the number of times I have cried in my life, and that was one. I was blowing off steam on my sofa in the living room with my mother on the love seat that was in front of a ledge with potted plants on it. Trixie ran to the ledge, and promptly knocked flower pots right on my mother’s head by pushing them with her own little noggin.

What can I say? She thought mom was responsible for me getting upset and was going to level the playing field. She was a righteous little mini-lop.

She was protective of me, and I always returned the favour. I did not take kindly to people trying to abuse her, but it seemed every time I told a male — and it was always an adult male — to knock it off, they would fly off the handle, and keep doing it. I had a male relative do the same thing, and neither one of those people are in my life anymore.

They were both ill-behaved and unteachable. When someone tells you not to make loud and stupid noises and try to twist their pet’s nose, stop doing it. You are being a swine. There is no benefit in frightening a small animal. There is no benefit in bad manners that net you no rewards, but impede your social standing as you alienate people who just want you to stop annoying them and their pets.

It is not a “war” if someone tells you to stop being uncivilized. It is the inevitable byproduct of feral behaviour. I never went to these men’s houses to molest and disturb their animals.

But it wasn’t just my pets. These were the same people who belittled every one of my achievements, called me names, tried to gaslight me as they patronized me, telling me what to think regardless if I had expertise and they never heard of the subject before in their lives, and thought they had every right to tell me how to dress, dye my hair, put on my make-up, and that I should stop having a career, and do something of value, like get married and have children.

I never stood for it. I told them off, even as a kid, and then they got upset with me, calling me rude.

Excuse me, I just said, “Hello.” You made lengthy comments about a pimple on my chin. That is a deliberate attempt at establishing a pecking order by making me feel inferior to you and be too consumed with my alleged deficiencies to see what you are doing.

I am not a moron. The fact that I push back doesn’t mean there is a “war” against snowflake you.

Instead of getting your knickers in a knot, you can sign up for some etiquette lessons.

LOGO-GOLD-e1527165672104.png

They really are miracle workers. Bless the Brits for their centuries-long dedication to sensitivity to other people’s feelings.

They didn’t write a silly column in the National Post whining about some non-existent war on boys and men, and then try to impose a narrative about it being “ideology versus science” because it isn’t.

So what’s really going on here?

Simple: communications technology finally caught up to reality, and what was always happening suddenly could no longer be suppressed by a patriarchal news media.

IV

In Canada, men are a minority, and have been for at least thirty years. 50.4% of the population are women, and yet men are vastly over-represented in positions of power in both business and government. We have always had rigs that favoured men, and biology has zero to do with it. White men, who are even a smaller piece of that demographic pie, are even more over-represented based on the population make-up.

So here is a single minority group among a mosaic of minority groups, who are upset because the Internet finally allows us to hear what everyone around us is thinking. Stop mansplaining is not throwing a grenade; it’s feedback that the individual does not need to be treated like she is in kindergarten when she has a graduate degree and has expertise in the field under discussion.

Before, the press would either ignore the complaints, or worse, spin them to make it sound as if some lunatic fringe was spewing insanity. That is a crying shame. If people understood that in a planet of 7.4 billion people, you will have a sea of disagreement, outrage, support, and differing opinions decades ago, they wouldn’t take the peculiar stance that they are.

Fox News exploits this demographic: they target frustrated white men and then tell them nothing in their lives is their fault, which is ridiculous. Sometimes you are the architect of your own misery, and the sooner you see it, the sooner you can do something about it and get yourself out of your slump.

A big problem for men is the fairytales they have been told where there can only be The One, and if someone opposes you, that they are the Villain to be vanquished and women are just there to be saved because they are inferior to you and are made to drool all over you.

That is a fantasy.

And a horrible lie. If we reversed the gender roles, it would be no less horrific. No one should be following this destructive rigged script.

A more sensible map is that we all have hopes, dreams, and goals. We all have different life requirements. We are all flawed and make mistakes. We have rights, but also responsibilities. Life isn’t always looking for an entourage to drool all over you, nor find an inferior ditz to relieve your crude urges. People who have different ideas have the same rights as you do.

Cooperation and negotiation to coordinate our competing interests is far more profitable and liberating than some competition where it is all-or-none. A shrewd person makes alliances, and ensures that there is a balance for everyone in terms of work, risk, responsibilities, and payoffs. Jealousy, greed, laziness, and ego are very destructive forces, but they are not some static force that chains us forever to ruin our lives. We have to face our worst traits, acknowledge them, realize they manipulate our perceptions of reality, and then do something about them.

Men shouldn’t feel threatened if a woman is a visionary who is ambitious. She has every right as does he to aim high, but the second a woman does break through as a man is called on the carpet for trying to sabotage her, other men get scared and then make up a propaganda tale of there being a war on men.

No, there isn’t. There is a man person who is prime minister, just as the other two political parties have man people in charge of their party. The only party to have a woman person is the Greens and they have one seat.  The world’s most powerful players are men. That hasn’t changed. And those men have their fans and many are seen as visionaries.

There is no war just because someone calls you an asshole. You are an asshole.

That Fox News can tell bedtime stories to men who are silly enough to believe them is not a surprise. The sad thing is that those men don’t realize that the FNC gets rich by keeping them running on a hamster wheel of hate, and keeps them in a very unhappy holding pattern because that’s how they create audiences. MSNBC plays the same propaganda for losers on the left. Both sides would be wise to look inward, get off the fucking wheel, and break old habits and modify their behaviours to make them prosper.

But the National Post is playing a similar game, recruiting Jordan Peterson into their web, which I find utterly fascinating. Peterson is a psychologist by trade, and this pop psych narrative has many of his detractors unnecessarily stymied. Their counterarguments are too cerebral. They are over-thinking things and not addressing the audience that has had a spell cast on them as they have been primed by the FNC into thinking they are victims.

What’s interesting is that Peterson’s pop psych arguments do not go anywhere near the logic of Jean Piaget’s Stage Four of Cognitive Development (Piaget is Person #31 on the List of People Everyone Should Know). The Formal Operational Stage is one that many adults never attain, but you cannot be an experimental psychologist and not be in that very stage because that’s the very stage where experimental psychology depends on for its very purpose and methods.

So Peterson isn’t someone who could possibly be devoid of a Stage Four mind, yet his pop psych is clearly at Level Two and Three.

That’s quite a feat.

Journalism was never in Stage Four, and I have said that is the reason it collapsed, but Peterson made a career of intellectual regression. It is a cagey move: for one, your detractors will never reach the people who are being beguiled because they will use Stage Four Arguments, and those under the spell have been stymied by their Stage Three prison, and can’t see it.

They very well may be capable of making the leap to the Fourth Stage — but they were led to believe that they didn’t need that leap because the narratives they were told are of lower stages, and they cling on to those stories, thinking it is the answer for Winning At Life.

It is a recipe for self-destruction.

So if there is no “war” on men, why are they stuck in a slump that distorts their perceptions of reality?

The answer lies in pandas.

V

Many ambitious white collar types — and even the entire profession of journalism — have the same problem, regardless of gender, race, nationality, religion, or age. They make it so far, and then they can no longer move upward in a company or career. They have the right education and experience. They are smart and even social.

Are they victims of outside forces?

No, but they are a victim of their own panda.

A panda is a term for a seemingly benign personality trait or mindset that is more destructive to you than you realize.

Such as indulging in aggressive behaviours and ignoring repeated requests to knock it off. You may feel as if you have power to thwart and emotionally upset people, but if they push back, they aren’t going to give you another inch. They can retaliate.

Do you want short-term thrills — or do you want long-term viability?

In business, being passive-aggressive can get you up so far, but then when you hit a certain level, the rules change and what what worked for you begins to work against you.

Adherence to The One Rule That Explains Everything is a losing gamble.

And if your rule is that you can bully other people and they’ll just sit and take it, you are in for the surprise of your life. There are people like me who don’t care about your gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, wealth, education, nationality, connections, fame, or political affiliation.

You pull some bullshit stunt on me, and I will unleash my righteousness on you. Fuck you.

Treat me with kindness and respect, and I will go out of my way to help you if you should ever be in need or want of it.

No war.

And we in an era right now where we have arrogance and temper tantrums where everyone is accusing everyone else of waging some “war” on them.

No, what you are experiencing is the technology that lets you hear the world’s thoughts at once.

People have agendas. They bully. They try to get things they did not earn. They try to impress people with some image. They hedge their bets on a side they think will reward them.

The fuel of arrogance is messing with a lot of minds, but that’s easily remedied with a good dose of humility.

The only problem is when you chose the medicine, it goes down very easy — but when life rams it down your throat, the cure is often more traumatic than the disease.

And it’s coming a lot sooner than people think.

It’s not a war, but reality people need to worry about.

After all, if we just give in to “biology”, remember, people sure did love to kill, rape, and pillage, and enslave other people.

And they went to watch the slaughter of gladiators, imprison foreigners to serve as their slaves, and spark wars for pure financial profit.

Eventually, people started to become civilized and learned something called empathy.

And they sublimated those biological drives into something creative and productive.

So the biology excuse is pure nincompoopity, and it’s time to go up a rung in evolution — not down…

Jordan Peterson's Big Boo Hoo: Free speech is for women, too, Mr. Peterson.

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor whose diva antics over free speech propelled him into a pop culture career as an author, is not extending the same courtesy to another professor and writer named Kate Manne, as he is threatening to sue her for calling him a misogynist.

If you want freedom of speech to be a thing, then you have to accept everyone’s freedom of speech, even when they call you a misogynist.

As someone who writes books for a living, not everyone is enthralled with me, and have said very nasty things about me in a public forum over the years. (Mind you, they also send me lots of nasty email messages, too).

I don’t sue them because I am a defender of free speech, and in a world of 7.4 billion people, lots of people are not going to think you are special.

As in, pretty much all 7.4 billion people who all think they are way better than you, minus your mom and the person who has a crush on you.

Fame is a roulette wheel, and the chances of you always winning are nil.

You are one of the rare lucky ones if half the people in a public who know who you are actually like you. When TVQs were all the rage in the 1980s, only three people had somewhat more than 50%: The Pope, Bill Cosby, and Michael J. Fox. Let that one land in your brain.

Peterson does not seem to get this whole public career thing. He was used to the lecture halls where students were a captive audience who had to behave themselves if they wanted to pass any course, not just his. That is a controlled environment and an unnatural one that is rigged to favour authority and its decrees. It forms unnatural habits and reinforces unrealistic expectations of life outside of academia, and if you spend decades under that kind of environment, your expectations once you reach a different realm where the rules are vastly different and the outcomes less predictable as they are not rigged by tradition, habit, rote, or routine will not be met. You must adjust your expectations accordingly.

If you are intelligent and teachable.

I have taught in controlled environments, and I know how easy it is to think your are in control, but I also worked as a journalist, and I know that control is an illusion. You cannot control your own narrative in a world of social media.

The article in the Cut fails to mention that Peterson’s lawyer Howard Levitt just so happens to be a columnist in the National Post, a newspaper that has repeatedly bristled at #MeToo, women’s rights, and has been openly partisan in its defending of Steven Galloway…and had written at length about many of things that led to the lawsuit against Winfred Laurier University in the first place.

The Post needs further scrutiny because it certainly does not behave in ways one would expect of an objective disseminator of information.

If you are going to make a case of free speech, be advised it applies to people who are not impressed with you. You cannot rig the public forum the way you can rig a university or a court.

But Peterson is doing Manne a huge favour. He has just given her free publicity and a legitimate news peg to breakout as a serious public voice for feminism, the same way his detractors gave it to him under the same set of circumstances.

Manne is no Cathy Newman, a television host who was used to a rigged battleground and could not handle Peterson. Manne is an academic and knows the same intellectual tricks as Peterson. Nor is she a clueless New York Times reporter whose predictable sophistry is easy to dismantle.

Had he ignored the article, the impact would have been minimal as it was actually nothing that his detractors hadn’t already said before, but by drawing attention to it, people are primed and triggered to wonder about Peterson’s own limitations and weaknesses…

National Post's peculiar ways with Wilfred Laurier University: We don't just cover the story -- we have our scribes represent you!

The National Post's ethics do not sit well with me with regard to their peculiar coverage of Wilfred Laurier University. They are the ones who have hyped up Lindsay Shepherd's little mess with her snowflake bosses who are very afraid of University of Toronto's mediocre pop psychologist/guru to the snowflake man-child demographic Jordan Peterson. Charles Krauthammer he is not.

The entire affair has turned Canadian universities into trailer parks, and really, let's have this out on Dr. Phil or Judge Judy or the recently wrapped up Jerry Springer because, in fact, this is precisely where this low-class egotistical brat-fest belongs. Kardashians are a snore, but nerdier Kardashians are an epic embarrassment.

You had a no-name graduate drudge by the name of Lindsay Shepherd do the inexcusable act of showing dreck from TVO. That's a pretty slacker thing to do as TVO is just vapid state-run babbling that you can watch for free at home on your own time, unlike sitting in a classroom, which is very expensive. Jordan Peterson, whose claim to fame isn't doing anything worth remembering in academic psychology, but behaving like dad Murray from the 1980s-themed sitcom The Goldbergs.

Peterson refusing to use any gender pronoun other than he/she is just the same as Murray sitting in his recliner in his underpants yelling at his middle child Barrie who wants to be called Big Tasty instead of his birth name Barrie. Murray could shout angrily that he isn't going to call Barrie Big Tasty because his son is a moron and that's not the name on the birth certificate, while an angry and offended Barrie throws a fit, and then runs with his arms swaying behind him.

That is why Jordan Peterson actually gets any press. It is all very sad and inconsequential. That the University of Toronto was Bev Goldberg to Peterson's Mur by getting all in a huff because dad wouldn't indulge junior just goes to show you that just like bad American comedies, Canadian academia is also a joke. 

Shepherd showed a big nothing to her sedentary class and her bored professor-overlords, who are paid generously to sit around and pontificate as they make up things to do other than actual work, went all gangbusters on her and she secretly recorded them as they expressed suspicion that she was in cahoots with Murray Goldberg, aka Jordan Peterson.

The National Post jumped the bones of this non-story, whining on end how this was an outrage, and shame on anyone who slags a common graduate drudge who airs an episode of Canadian Goldbergs. The university was stupid in flogging a garden variety underling, and the Post was silly in hyping up said underling into some sort of hybrid of freedom of speech crusader and abused little girl. They have been trying to place their backside on two chairs, with very little traction as the story always seems to collapse between those two wobbly chairs.

And, as usual, the Post never had a clue of what was really important.

The real question was how much student's money is sunk into trailer park nonsense and showing TVO drivel instead of, you know, teaching students to research, conduct experiments, and do something other than puke out sophistry, but as critical thinking is not a sought-after quality in journalists, the episode got bizarre with the university apologizing for babbling nincompoopity to an underling while ignoring the fact that students sit around watching TVO instead of going out in the real world and think as they act.

This isn't teaching. This is babysitting.

Shepherd stood around outside, and just as sitting in front of a television in class is construed as work, the act of construed as protesting freedom of slacktivism.

The National Post was quick to cover all of this non-news in a lop-sided way because it was cheap and easy no-brainer trigger clickbait, but then Shepherd and Peterson -- who are supposedly not linked, suddenly got linked in a real way: they are both suing Laurier using the same Financial Post journalist (i.e. National Post)/lawyer Howard Levitt.

This presents an ethical dilemma for the rag.

Levitt is free to represent anyone he wishes as lawyering is his day job, but the National Post is not free to just cover this melodrama. They have a vested interest in this story they framed incorrectly -- and I find it very interesting that Levitt is representing the side the Post has painted as the hero-ish victim.

It was in the pages of the Post that painted Laurier as the bad guy ("Thought police!"). If I were a lawyer representing the university, I would be going after the newspaper for turning an internal matter into a pseudo-circus, and note how this all-so-very convenient set up came about.

This was not a national story: this was a local story about a teaching assistant who resorted to showing television shows instead of providing more substantial methods of teaching, and her bosses miss the obvious and then pick on her for some triviality. She may have been ordered to do so by the same slugs who gave her that pathetic verbal lashing, but that's up to the university to explain why they allow such passive teaching methods to go on.

The entire episode is an indictment of social science education: we have students sitting around watching a television clip, and then talking about it. Are you people serious?

Students can do that at home for free. As in, YouTube.

I remember when I was in Kindergarten, I was told to ask my mother to bring in dry pasta in various shapes so we could glue it on construction paper and call it "art" -- my mother, who is an artist herself -- hit the roof. She just went ballistic in two languages, not just one. It was a waste of food, a waste of time, and patently insane to slop some glue on food, stick it on paper, and then be proud as you mislabelled it art. This was educational deception and she would have none of it.

Art took practice. You had to get your hand to move in certain ways. You had to study your subject and you had to understand each medium you used. This was heartless, soulless pseudo-artistic garbage, and she let my teacher and principal know that was a lazy cheat to pretend to teach art without actually teaching it.

Fortunately for me, mom taught me art herself, and sent me for private lessons as well.

I feel that is the superior form of education in a modern age where young adults are doing the equivalent of slopping pasta on paper and calling it a social science. We do not need to have sterilized theoretical debates on gender pronouns: we can have in the field experiments that give us real world results we can use, instead of passively sitting like dummies watching public sector blowhards spit sophistry and opinion in each other's faces and then someone has the nerve to opine that they have something that resembles importance in their own field.

If they did, they wouldn't be chewing the fat on TVO. As in ever.

The National Post should be fundamentally embarrassed for looking at the trash and then thinking they found treasure. You didn't.

You don't see the obvious. That everything is just a farce and a sham, but the Post always had their writers glue pasta on newsprint and then have the gall to call it a story...

How journalistic sophistry builds up false thinkers and messiahs for the himbos.

 "A father and son are in a horrible car crash that kills the dad. The son is rushed to the hospital; just as he’s about to go under the knife, the surgeon says, “I can’t operate—that boy is my son!” Explain."


"A completely black dog was strolling down main street during a total blackout affecting the entire town. Not a single streetlight had been on for hours. As the dog crosses the center of the road a Buick Skylark with two broken headlights speeds towards it, but manages to swerve out of the way just in time. How could the driver see the dog to swerve in time?"


I

Look for the obvious first as you forget the blinders of narrative. That's the easiest way to find the truth. It is very easy to build up an impossible lock-room murder mystery as you build up suspects with their scene-chewing quirks, and forget to look for signs of ways to override perceptions.

I was a journalist with a psych degree, and the psychology always came in handy that way: I learned to focus on patterns and the habits they formed as they distorted perceptions. People always gravitated to the narrative first, then personality -- and then tried to make reality look like it proved the narrative right as well as the assessment of the personality. I was taught to look for ways how perceptions and interpretations could be manipulated, and so, my job was always to question stories and personalities as I looked for facts.

Stories were always secondary for me, and it meant that I have had to endure a lot of nonsense from people over the years, especially those who knew I was a journalist and wanted to either impress me or one-up me with some canard to draw attention to themselves.

One of the stories that always annoyed me the most was the one where someone who was average but tried to build herself up as special was trying to convince me that her old house was haunted by a ghost.

The proof?

Sometimes her faucet turned itself on; so there was the "proof."

As someone who has done her home renovations from installing toilets to doing the entire kitchens and grew up with a handy mother and grandmother, I am very familiar with everything from putting new floorboards to fixing a sink.

An old house usually means an old faucet, and defective O-rings and cartridges often cause that kind of turning itself on the woman tried to convince me was a ghost.

Seriously, if you were a ghost and had the advantage of power, invisibility and stealth -- are you really going to play childish pranks if you could get away with something far more malicious -- or would you even bother with lesser developed creatures in the first place? What's in it for ghosts to fool around with a bathroom sink, especially as living people do far worse things when they know they can get away with it?

If you are going out and lie with a stupid ghost story, then think of the ghost's motivation for doing the ghost stuff it does. Is this supposed to be a poor OCD apparition?

And how smart is it to tell it to someone who can disprove the ghost theory with a wrench and a working knowledge of basic plumbing?

Just look for the obvious explanation, but that is hard when you have something to prove and an axe to grind with someone you want to best in some way.

II

Journalists are in a profession where it isn't fun if you find the obvious. It is always about building ideas and people up. You cannot just be a very good businessman: you have to be a Titan of Industry or even Visionary who Defines His Generation.

They look for what is larger than life: that impossible locked-room mystery.

The problem is their actual job is to show how that locked room isn't impossible or how people are just people. People can use misdirection and argument to build themselves up -- but a narrative is not reality.

I always had a lot of deconstructing to do as a reporter: puffing was rampant, as was insults from sources who didn't want me to feel confident enough to question them. For some sources, they would put me down whenever I started to ask questions that revealed I wasn't impressed with their puffing and crowing. I was looking for facts, not buying narratives.

I was looking for the obvious, and I always found those who played those games were, in reality, in a position of weakness, but used smoke and mirrors to make themselves seem powerful.

If you want me to start taking a hard look at your situation, insulting me and trying to imply I am inferior to you is a perfect place to start. It is not going to work with me.

Because you are obviously hiding something and are banking that my self-esteem is shaky enough to deflect attention away from your deficits. It's an old ruse, but it can be very effective when you are dealing with narcissists or those with an inferiority complex.

But those who prey on the weak don't just feast on egos with put-downs: when convenient, they also seem to praise and reassure those who are looking for validation.

Yet even then, it is always done in such a way that he places himself on the top of a pecking order and his pigeons would be lost without him because they are weaker than he is.

He builds himself up as someone who is a deep thinker and even messiah. He is extraordinary.

And he seems to be if no one looks at the obvious.

But journalists don't look for the obvious. They are always on the prowl for the extraordinary.

And they aid ad abet those those try to hide the obvious at all costs.

III

Actors are usually are the big beneficiaries of this journalistic logical flaw. Athletes and singers also get the special treatment. Politicians and CEOs who burst on the scene can expect the drooling, too.

These are the people who are built up, but many get torn down when they cannot reach the hype they created themselves. The obvious eventually shows itself, and then people feel betrayed. You were supposed to provide to them The One Rule That Explains Everything, and then be the living proof that TORTEE is reality.

And then reality smirks and uses the truth to prove the messiah is nothing more than a mundane person who dabbles in puffing and sleight of hand.

But time and again, journalists give those mundane and flawed people a free pass. They may be critical, but they still do not look for the obvious.

Watching the press get trampled by Dr. Laura for white boys Jordan Peterson is instructive. His theories may enable a certain insecure demographic, but those theories are not flattering.

The Los Angeles Times recently had a silly piece that missed the obvious. The headline set up the blinders:

Hate on Jordan Peterson all you want, but he's tapping into frustration that feminists shouldn't ignore

Peterson isn't tapping into frustration: he is doing what Fox News Channel has been doing fr years: throwing dirt on white men who waste their lives believing a fantasy fairytale that has destroyed them, but as these same group already abuse themselves, the dirt-throwing seems kinder by comparison.

Feminists shouldn't worry about Peterson as he is no threat to them. He is pandering to the weak, not building them up because if he is their leader/guru/messiah/daddy, the implication is they are too silly and incompetent to think without someone giving them a list of thoughts to be put in their heads.

The theories Peterson proffers comes from the old "special needs" theory of men. The theory covertly postulates that men's testosterone has a natural fear of women's estrogen and cannot function in the presence of women who are not repressed followers parroting other people's scripts that rig things in men's favour. Knowing that they would lose to women as they are innately inferior, but do not want to draw attention to this fact lest the true extent of their genetic and biological malfunctions be exposed to the superior gender (go, girls!), mean come up with a series of ruses and excuses to ensure they are not discovered for their poor genetic quality, and deceive their gender rivals into thinking they must retreat because men are smarter visionaries and stuff.

Which means men need rigs to succeed. They cannot function understanding how to negotiate with someone whose life requirements differ from his. They cannot think outside the box; so they must stay in the box for mere survival. They mistake dysfunctional rote requirements that do not challenge his flawed interpretation of reality as order.

They are special needs who must be propped up and reality and truth most always be hidden from them lest they fall apart.

After all, if you are special, you need fewer props and rigs and can surpass the average.

But if you are special needs, you need more help of that sort just to keep up with the average.

And Peterson's theory assumes the evolutionary and biological inferiority of men, and devises excuses and feints to keep their deep dark secret from women.

It is war on women, and as war is deception, Peterson offers a variety of ruses to prop up his fellow sex.

This man-theory on men is not new. Pick up artists do it by negging: insult a woman out of your league by pointing out her "flaws" to make her lose focus and confidence.

She never realizes she is settling for less and will be slumming it with the inferior mate because of the prop of siege and gaslighting.

People of quality never stoop to manipulation or decreeing ahead of time that their in-group is superior to the out-group.

That's propaganda, and Peterson is not a very convincing propagandist to people who are in tune with reality and truth.

But journalists never understood reality or truth, and they build up an unremarkable psych professor because they don't see the obvious.

The sophistry appeals to a very certain male: the white boys whose mommies phone the professor to make excuses why he isn't going to do his presentation as she does his assignments for him so she wouldn't lose her money bankrolling his education.

I had more than my fair share of these students -- always males with one exception, always white with no exception. There wasn't a course where this phenomenon didn't happen at least once, unless the class had all females, then it just didn't happen.

I did have female students fail, skip class, and make all sorts of stupid and unconvincing excuses, but they weren't recruiting their elder family members to save them.

I never had my mom do my assignments or call my professor to get out of failing. As soon as I could write, I always insisted on writing my own absence notes with my mother signing them, and even then, it bothered me that my own signature carried no weight with the school. 

But for this concerning number of young men, it was always the mommy who tried to clean up his messes. Usually it wasn't enough and he'd drop out anyway because he couldn't hack it.

Peterson as a professor would be very familiar with that breed of inferior male -- somewhere along the way, a light could have gone off.

You have a group of men who can make withdrawals from the Bank of Mom and Dad who want to hear how bad it is to have to deal with estrogen when your testosterone isn't up to snuff.

Because if these men were strong and equal to women, they wouldn't be bothered that a group of people have their own ideas, theories, hopes, dreams, ambitions, and hearts.

But it always comes back to sanctioned insanity: what if we replaced Men with White and Women with Black?

Would this theory sound right?

Of course not. It's just silly.

And wrong.

Journalists never learned to look for the obvious. That requires testing, experimenting, and verifying information and theories by running them through empirically-based tests.

Feminists shouldn't build up Peterson because he has a very dismal view of men. They are incapable drooling crybabies who must live in a sterilized environment to function. They are not the wild, exotic creatures who can thrive out in the open as they embrace the world as it is and thrive despite all the differences and puzzles in the world.

I know my worth because I am that wild exotic adventurer who has fought a million wars and still stands, being grateful for all the gifts and blessings the define me -- and all those others who also fight a million wars to make the world kinder and better. No strong man has ever threatened my ways -- and no strong man would cower in the presence of a strong women like me.

That is the definition of strong: you do not compromise yourself -- nor do you require others to compromise themselves.

You do not need to be a follower or leader: you live your life for you and you don't compromise.

That is a simple and obvious truth -- but for whatever reason, those obvious truths terrified journalists and they have been ignoring them ever since...

Jordan Peterson's intellect wipes the floor with the New York Times. Why journalists don't get his rigs -- and why journalism needs an alternative.

The New York Times has intellectual lightweights who resort to narrative hacks instead of facts to inform the public.

Jordan Peterson isn't an idiot, but his entire thesis is based on facts, but is still hopelessly flawed and wrong.

But try as they might, journalists get trounced by him as he builds his own intellectual empire.

The Times has a very long and pathetic profile on him here. Trying to stick your nose in the air doesn't make you right, and Peterson thrives -- not in order, but in chaos.

He quietly creates chaos when he debates, and that alone disproves his theory that men are about order and women are about chaos. That's hogwash. Men constantly create chaos to grab power -- that's why an entire patriarchal system has wars and campaigns, and not order.

Men are disrupters. They are the ones who create riots, anarchy, and terrorism. It is a myth that men bring order to the table. They love the labels of rebel, maverick, and visionary -- all titles that suggest revolutions and changes are imminent. 

Women are not given those indulgences. They, for centuries, have been trained with rote tasks that have drilled the desire for order and predictability as well as stability. 

Even in storytelling, the Hero's Journey is always about bringing about radical change -- in the protagonist -- and his environment.

Peterson's hypothesis is laughable on every imaginable level to the point of childish absurdity, but he excels at trouncing those who are not schooled in the ways of psychology -- which, in turn, gives an appearance that he is right, and those who disagree are wrong -- and whiny.

The Times' piece just gave the man free advertising to those who like to tweak the noses of the politically correct who are genuinely terrified of Peterson.

I am neither fearful of him -- or impressed. He is not a big thinker. He is not an intellectual heavyweight. He isn't even remotely correct. He is merely the equivalent of a Dr. Laura or Dr. Phil for men. He is pop psychology for cowards who must retreat into a man cave and are resentful that sometimes the wife has some say in the environment she shares with the man she reproduces the next generation.

Life is hard.

The problem is that the white men with degrees such as Peterson can go unchallenged where it counts because journalism was never equipped with understanding human behaviour.

In other words, they have no background in psychology.

And you absolutely need it if you are going to chronicle the goings on of human beings.

My undergraduate degree is in psychology, and I can tell you that it has always been my faithful companion. I have been able to make use of it in my career as first a journalist, and then as an author.

A true alternative to journalism would focus on the psych stuff -- the realm where Peterson has the clear advantage. Had journalists been blessed with such a training, they could easily show the numerous weaknesses of Peterson's various musings to those who would normally be attracted to his narrative.

And that's an important skill: not to act as a stenographer, but as a fact-gathering -- a science that is about experimenting, then comparing and contrasting the results before presenting those tested facts to the public.

And that's the reason we need that kind of alternative: to have newsmakers as subjects to observe and test before giving those results to the public. Journalism should have always been a science of emotional intelligence, and Peterson's rise is proof we need critical thinkers who can rationally see the weaknesses, test them, before exposing them in a way that reaches people regardless of their leanings and beliefs.

Just the facts. It is a simple mandate, and one where journalism could never reach -- but it doesn't mean an alternative would fail as well...

Deconstructing Propaganda, Part Two: Making mundane disagreement into "controversy."

When journalists were the sole gate-keepers of information, they could shade the information any way they wished. They could build up people to become Titans and Great Men. They could turn anyone they disliked into a Jabberwocky. They could keep back information just as they could enhance or downplay critical information. They could use narrative and sophistry any way they wished. Their critics could do very little to stop it.

Then the Internet came roaring and giggling along, broke down the gates, and then journalism lost its clout.

The biggest blessing social media gave was to lift a veil on many untested truisms that were mistaken for reality, the biggest one being that journalism was all about narrative, and not actual facts.

But there are narratives inside stories, but there are also meta-narratives about how citizens view a person, event, or issue. We make assumptions based on press coverage, believing we are working from facts, when, in fact, we are basing our knowledge on journalistic narrative.

Because journalism could suppress opinion by ignoring it, there was a lot of things we didn't actually know, but should have.

Twitter was the biggest liberator of public opinion, and showed us something that seems to disappear from all the chatter:

That opinion doesn't actually matter on one level, but is absolutely essential on another.

How so?

In a world of 7.4 billion people, every permutation of a opinion is out there. You will never get 7.4 billion people to agree on any subject, no matter how big or how small.

For instance, the press loves to pick on the band Nickelback. It is supposed to be a given that the band is just awful...

And yet, they sell songs, tour, meaning people pay money to see them, and have a fan base.

So the consensus is an illusion. You have people who like them, people who love them, people who hate them, people who don't care about them...and people who have no idea who they are.

But if consensus is an illusion, then so is controversy because no matter what the issue, there will be people violently against it.

Twitter has proven this fact beyond a doubt. People will knock all things...

And you would think that since this fact has been exposed to the world since March 21, 2006, the day Twitter made its debut, that we wouldn't be talking about something being controversial as something newsworthy, but mundane.

And yet journalism still uses the notion of controversy to manipulate stories. We talk about "controversial" figures, even when, technically, even the most benign and mundane of things are seen as such to groups of people.

The term is imprecise. A figure may be polarizing, but they will have supporters along with detractors. People may be controversial to the Establishment, but not to those far away from power. The term is used to designate an "outsider" who doesn't play by the Establishment's made-up rules for the most part.

We can often see old school strategists still invoke the ploy. Jordan Peterson, who has been labelled a "controversial" figure, tried to pass on the same label to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne in a recent interview. This is a mere game of optics and taking the lines you draw in the sand to be real, rather than a mere hypothetical construct of personal convenience.

Peterson reaped benefits from the controversial narrative, but then tried to use it to force others to see it as a dark filter toward someone who does not share the same life theories as he has. It is a patriarchal structure, explaining why journalists still cling on to that illusion as well.

It is to build up a false narrative to rig opinions to align with the speaker of the message's desires.

We are all controversial to someone -- many someones. That is not a big deal, especially in an Age of Twitter.

We have no shortage of opinions, explaining why they aren't important. We have people trying to take something mundane and build it up to cause fear, acceptance, adoration, or even derision.

But what we lack are facts. Controversy is relative, but facts are absolute. What is happening? How is it impacting people? What are the consequences?

That matters, but somehow, we still look for controversy when it is not as important or telling as it first seems...

Gracious, what a tintinnabulation! Jordan Peterson, do not call Kathleen Wynne Canada's "Most Dangerous Woman" because it makes you sound, well...sheltered...

It is very untrue, for starters, because if she were, what a total letdown that would be for Canadian women if that is considered the "most dangerous" our gender could muster. She is not starting wars. She is not violating people's rights. She is merely wasting taxpayer money on unhelpful things that voters gave her permission to do in the last election. The Human Rights Commission is frivolous, and doesn't do much to help the sick or disabled in this country, for instance. Do not build her up to be a monster. She is a pandering strategist who knows how to play the game as she always comes up with shockingly similar campaign promises to Andrea Horwath's right after the NDP leader offers them first, and there is quite a few of those kind of players around.

Besides, she is hardly Canada's "most dangerous woman," and considering I have been writing about the World's Most Dangerous Woman since 2013, (actually, 2012, before here and here) I am in a better position to know than you...