So, do the New York Times and the Washington Post have to give back their Pulitzers?

I

Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 9.29.16 PM.png

II

I was reminded today that the New York Times has more than just Trump issues: they, along with the Washington Post, won a Pulitzer in 2018 for their now proven bogus coverage of “Russiagate.”

Do they have to give it back like the Post had to for Jimmy’s World?

When the US President says it is "fake news”, we can now see there is a good and valid reason for it.

I wonder how many people who were dining and banking on Mueller enabling their vindictive tendencies could have survived that kind of pressure? I doubt any of them.

How many real stories have been ignored as a result of this stupid fixation?

How many hacks got awards for spewing propaganda?

When something horrific explodes, and we discover it began during this era, you know who to blame for the neglect…

Nothing much to say today...

I have had a lot on the go, and I am tired.

I am still working on the first Chaser arc. I wanted it out much sooner, but I keep researching just to be precise, and then want to write it in such a way that it isn’t too dense.

After that, I don’t want to do heavy things for a spell. I want fun. 2018 was way too heavy, and I want to lighten the load.

But then I scan the National Post and shake my head at their nincompoopity. This column is the absolute worst of the worst. Spinning and justifying is a bad thing. You have a troubling little gathering and you need to acknowledge it, not blame the person who is calling you out on the carpet for those troubling details — and then throwing their past and disavowed beliefs in their face. Not only is it a logical fallacy, it is also completely irrelevant to the charges.

But this is the newspaper that serves as minion PR flunkies for Steven Galloway and Jordan Peterson. Journalism they are not. Intelligent they are not.

Worthless, they are.

Lara Logan is repositioning herself in her career, but she is a day late and a dollar short. Journalism isn’t “losing credibility”; it got destroyed, and it got that way because people in that profession stood together, creating a wall that kept ideological diversity and intellectual innovations shut out completely.

There was no need for it. It chose to be in cages, and not roaming in the wild. Journalists became animals in a circus and freak show, and have no natural instincts for survival.

I plan at least two fun entries here tomorrow, then the the first arc of Chaser.

We will see where my heart and mind wander from there, but today, I went to my old alma mater for a concert with a friend and did lunch at the Phoenix…with this classic as one of the songs played…

53285486_10157046375977387_6998503102634524672_o.jpg

"Fact-check" is a bullshit term? You don't say!

The New York Post thinks it is revealing something by noting that “fact-check” is just a way for partisan operatives to pretend they are neutral.

Of course “fact-check” is meta-propaganda. It is a sham of epic proportions. Anyone who uses the term “fact-check” is not to be trusted.

Why?

Because there is no empirical methods to it. It is no different in methods than regular journalism, which itself has no empirical methods.

It is like using a sniff-test to determine if water is polluted. It is not an actual way of accurately determining if water is contaminated — and having two people sniffing the water is no better than one.

It’s bullshit.

“Fact-check” is a term of pure doublespeak. There are no standards, and has no value whatsoever…

We don't need politics. We need empathy, respect, and compassion. You know, the things that count.

I

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naïvest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”

“To forget it!”

“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

“But the Solar System!” I protested.

“What the deuce is it to me?” he interrupted impatiently: “you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”

—Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in A Study in Scarlet.

II

I am not pretentious, but I am not stupid. I know details, and get nuances and catch on to Shibboleths. I don’t shop in Manhattan, but Secaucus, New Jersey where there are those fabulous outlet malls, for instance. I have ever since I was a teenager. I prefer the complexities of Bénédictine over most other liqueurs. Armani for the wife, Versace for the mistress, but Moschino for Alexandra.

I am not some yokel. If I don’t know something, don’t assume I wanted to know it. I heard it, determined it to not be all that, and promptly forgot it.

Such as whatever script someone spews at me. Brag all you want. In one ear, out the other.

What interests me is human motivation and strategies. Who are you as a person matters, not some bullshit story you are telling me to impress me or make me jealous.

Because I am not obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses, people think that I am going to be impressed and feel inadequate. Don’t be silly. What Alexandra wants, she gets, one way or another.

And Alexandra gets what she wants and needs all by herself.

I am choosy and I am fussy.

I love to learn. I just signed up for this Oxford short course. I love to write books, and that’s what I am doing.

I don’t have to take the course, but I like to expand certain areas of my mind, and bring them up to code.

I have three more pieces of unfinished business. Right before January, it was a dozen. None were minor.

After those are taken care of, it is the next level upwards and forwards.

But I never forget my roots.

I don’t look down on people who didn’t have the same opportunities. I respect and admire them greatly, and not in some precious, condescending way. People survived wars, slavery, incest, abuse, terrorism, illness, poverty, and victimization. They didn’t “bring it on” themselves. I am genuinely outraged that my country treats First Nations people like they were disposable, for instance, while we have grifters who live it up on the taxpayer dime.

The US Democrats act like the Catholic church — they talk a good talk about liberties, preach to tell you that you are inferior and need them to guide you, use Doomsday scenarios with their environmental policy, and yet keep begging for donations as they ride around in limos.

And like the church they emulate, they are the ones who get caught doing really infuriating things that prove they are hypocrites, making the New York Post very giddy.

Dyw1xKXX4AI8AG9.jpg

What is with this whole blackface thing, anyway? I mean, it happened in my junior high during class, and even then as a tween in the 1980s, I thought it was downright racist.

I can believe in forgiveness as a general concept, but it isn’t my place to forgive. I’m a white Canadian. I take my cue from the people who were wronged.

I remember The New York Times having this priggish Op-Ed piece when Megyn Kelly said kids did it in her time, and the opinionist got all snooty, claiming it wasn’t happening in his time and he was a couple of years older than Kelly.

Bullshit.

It happens now, but as we know, it happened then, too. I smell pants roasting.

So here is one group of people who branded themselves as a morally superior party having a cemetery of skeletons jumping out of their closets proving that it really doesn’t matter who you vote for — they aren’t authentic. The labels of these political sects is just a front for conniver who wants to wear a paper crown and will tell you whatever you want to hear.

III

Canada has the same problem right now. The federal Liberals are equally troublesome. While Postmedia owns both the Toronto Sun and the National Post, getting to play both sides of things, I found this National Post column interesting:

The other jab in this combination of punches is their regular mentions of Justin Trudeau’s “family fortune” — a phrase the prime minister himself used inadvisedly in a press conference.

“That amount ($5,000) is peanuts for a prime minister who inherited a great family fortune,” said Conservative Rosemarie Falk, by way of example.

…But there is good reason why the Conservatives are adopting such deceptive tactics: they are working.

What deception? That the Prime Minister has no empathy or ability to adjust his perspective? His policies are not for the poor. They aren’t good for the Middle Class. They cater exclusively to limousine liberals: people with money who do not want to be inconvenienced economically nor personally.

And then Trudeau opens his mouth and proves it, as the Toronto Sun gleefully pointed out:

“We see proof that the conservatives simply don’t understand that low income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes,” said Justin Trudeau.

It is Trudeau who doesn’t even know the basic reality of his own poor. Poor people do have to pay income tax even if they make less than $12,000 a year.

They also pay HST on goods and services. There is no tax exemption when you buy basics.

The left-leaning press kept their mouths shut on this one, as usual, hoping not to draw attention and censoring unflattering nincompoopity from the Jive Turkey because they know if the Tories win, there is no goodie fund for them.

What you have is a prime minister completely incapable of genuine compassion and empathy:

“While we continue to stay focused on Canadians, Conservatives continue to stay focused on how I grew up,” Trudeau shot back.

Yes, because you never grew up. The Grits focus on themselves, no one else. When you keep the poorest at arm’s length, you have no idea who they are, what they need, or how they came to be poor.

Method Research would go a long way to understanding what needs to be done.

For one, I would force any candidate running for prime minister to be forced to live for two years among the poorest of his or her nation with no help. All funds would be cut off, and they would be monitored.

You are going to live in a shitty little shack. You are going to have to get a joe job. You are going to have to pay the bills with whatever you earn.

Two years.

No limos. No colorful culturally-appropriate costumes. No designer clothing or children’s socks.

And, for giggles, you’d be sent up to the remote location where everything is more expensive.

Then you would be grow up, put on your big boy pants, and have a fresh perspective.

It would be good if everyone was healthy, happy, and prosperous.

This isn’t reality.

And ignoring it isn’t actually working for the Left. People aren’t blind or numb to their own whispering problems.

With Trudeau, it is shallow gestures and empathy phrases with no core to it, He apologizes for other people’s actions of the past, thinking that means something.

Not if those injustices are still alive and well in the present and you don’t see them.

Anyone with drama training can shed a few crocodile tears. So can people clocked for speeding and bawl to the nice police officer not to give them a ticket.

Kids in toy stores can do it, too.

That doesn’t prove you have empathy, respect, or compassion.

I am still haunted by my grandmother’s agonizing death. She chose to live because she didn’t want to be away from her family. To her, she did not want to abandon us and sacrificed everything to look out for us. She worried about how much sleep I got and agonized about my derailed career. She gave me pep talks and advice as she lay dying.

I looked after her 24/7. I had been so focussed on her that I abandoned myself in the bargain. My mother did the same.

And then my mother was diagnosed with cancer and then I was, too a few short weeks later.

We looked after each other. I had to trudge in the snow to walk a long way to the hospital to see my mother after her surgery three weeks after have surgery to remove my left ovary.

They gutted me. My stomach muscle was split in two. I was oozing and in absolute agony. I didn’t take the morphine I was given. I didn’t even pick it up because I could not be under any influence because I had to drive and look after my mother.

And I can barely walk, but I make the trip twice a day to the hospital where my mother lost a lot of blood and had a hard time keeping awake because of it. I had to look after her as I am terrified that my cancer has spread.

But I march to the hospital every day like a soldier. I would go to Fortinos to buy my mother something with flavour to eat as I also would bring her coffee, and try to cheer her up, and I can barely sit in the hospital chair, still in shock that asymptomatic me had motherfucking ovarian cancer.

And then she comes home, and a few weeks later, she has to have another surgery because she had something so rare that the doctor who had to operate never seen it before.

It is a never-ending siege of trauma.

And I know there are people who not only had it as bad, they have it even worse.

They have children with incurable degenerative conditions.

I have a bracelet a student made for me in jewelry summer camp that I taught one year. She was the sweetest, cutest, kindest little girl who took the class so she could make things to raise money for the fatal disease she has.

But she gave me a present because even though she is ill, she wants me to know that she likes me.

And it moves me. If I had the power, I would make her problems disappear.

But I don’t, and it bothers me.

I have known people who are going through extraordinary lengths for their terminally ill children, fighting a brawl with the heavens to extract every extra second at the expense of everything.

And we have a deluded prime minister who has his panties in a knot because his rivals have his number and keep dialling it.

We have never had a prime minister — on the left or right, who put children first.

And no, photo ops of you reading to them doesn’t count. Fuck you.

Neither is giving people money per child — it encourages the wrong kind of people to keep having them for the free money. I used to sit in the solarium and watch outside my old house on Main Street East in Hamilton and see Stroller Row.

We have children in battered women’s shelters. We have children who are sex slaves being passed around and videotaped.

The Grits give money to newspapers who fucked up their own worthless profession — but completely ignore children’s services.

This is vile and disgusting.

I like my art. I like my surrealist paintings, my books, my theremin, my Kintsugi, my Alexander Katsulin pottery, Turkish coffee, and antique furniture.

I like Sherlock Holmes, Han Hoogerbrugge, the Hives, and the Blue Beetle.

I am self-indulgent and eccentric, and if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.

You aren’t paying my bills. You don’t care that I had cancer. Go to hell. I don’t have respect for your negging.

Because it is all meaningless if you don’t have a moral compass.

And politics isn’t the place you’ll ever find it.

Neither is this neo-Victorian façade. It’s not genuine.

A kinder world comes from empathy and compassion.

That requires vulnerability and connect, not cheap acting stunts and empty words…

They really need to issue blue checkmarks for genuine and unpaid outrage...

That people still believe that Twitter rage is some homegrown and organic response is interesting.

But when the press still falls for it and doesn’t try to expose the political propaganda that runs there amok, you really have to wonder.

There is an article from the New York Post how Twitter attacks “protect” people.

No, it merely exposes the paid political skulduggery going on unchallenged.

Why aren’t you questioning who is attacking or what is their real incentive?

We already know how much fraudulent activity and fake accounts there are on Twitter. There is no way to stop it unless people stopped using Twitter and then there would be no benefit to wasting resources of dispatching mass propagandists.

Don’t bother with trying to take on a paid mob.

Find out who is footing the bill, and cut off that source.

Dangle a piece of meat, get the paid hordes to react on cue, and then work from behind the curtain and expose that.

We know paid fans exist at events and it a part of the manufactured celebrity machine. We know there are fake followers on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

So why are we still not critically looking at fake outrage on Twitter?

What? You don’t think politicians build up a fake base or deflect criticism using Twitter?

Don’t buy into the fairytale. As there are absolutely no checks and balances, anyone can create any fake mass response they want.

There are no laws or regulations. You don’t know what is on the other side. Underlings, cyber goons, political operatives, bots, the politician’s mommy or daddy, anyone.

That is the way you incite emptyheads and fool the press into thinking something is genuine.

It is why I don’t stare at Twitter: other people ghost write the tweets with blue checkmarks and foot the bill for fake responses.

Let’s as a few real questions before we buy into some fake narrative…

Online Rage isn't so? You don't say, New York Post! Didn't you get the memo on my site last October?

The New York Post is, like, so behind. Outrage is hyped by the press?

You don’t say!

Axios was trying to spin some journalistic propaganda about how America was becoming “radicalized”, but I called out the bullshit story way back in October.

Memo to dumb fucks who think they are “Woke”: when a corporation starts co-opting a message, they are doing it to sell worthless shit to morons. They don’t actually give a flying fuck about your worthless and fake “morals.”

We don’t think you are actually enlightened or outraged: you’re just a bored meddler and control freak who doesn’t want to pay attention to your corner of the world.

We know already. We get it.

Stop doing free advertising for billionaires who are not paying you loser to do it.

Because that just makes you an asshole and a ditz…

If not Russia, then China: When an industry hates the whole world.

First, those Russians were bad, but I guess not bad enough, because now it is China’s turn to be the Super Evil Bad Guys, according to journalists.

They want to take over The World!

If that is true, then those motherfuckers are dumbass morons.

Hey, China! Yoo hoo! Have you ever seen People of Wal-mart on Pinterest? You really want to take over that? Really? Social media has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that global domination is the stupidest goal a person could possibly have.

And they are out to rule the press!

If that is your goal, then the world has nothing to worry about. That profession is dead.

So with this dumb fuck strategy, the People of Wal-Mart have nothing to worry about. They are safe to wave their freak flags sky high.

It seems in every journalistic narrative these days, there is a Super Bad nation that are like those sci-fi planetary villains where everyone on the planet is evil.

Looking for anything to provoke a public into believing them again, we are now seeing a regression in coverage where xenophobia is the bait. The Washington Post has a real knee-slapper of a quote:

As with all authoritarian regimes, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is organized around manipulation and control of information and ideas.

This from the newspaper that has been spewing organized and manipulative propaganda for a very long time.

It seems that giving facts and not stooping to fear-mongering isn’t happening anywhere on the planet these days…

Troll Scroll's dumb fuckery continues: Do not blame Beyonce for people not voting for your candidate. Blame democracy.

The New York Post had a ridiculous article:

Fans blame Beyoncé for Beto O’Rourke’s loss to Ted Cruz

This quote takes the cake:

“You have such a huge, influential voice and you wait until Election Day to post this?!” one flummoxed fan wrote. “Beto needed you sooner. Maybe you could’ve actually made a difference.”

“Lol these posts a week ago could have made the difference in young voters,” someone else noted.

Memo to the dumb fucks trolling social media: if someone needs a celebrity to nag them into voting, then please, let them stay home. You don’t need a dumber fuck voting because they Appeal to Celebrity and have no idea of what a Ted or Beto are.

And if your logic is to blame a celebrity for your candidate’s loss, you also are a worthless voter who has no idea how this whole reality thing works. Fuck you, asshole.

People have a right to vote for whichever candidate they want, and if they think both suck, they can refrain from voting. I am not going to vote for a garbage candidate or a garbage party.

And if I chose not to vote, do not assume I am lazy, stupid, or would have voted for your shitty candidate if I went out to vote.

People voted for Tony Clement, and he turned out to be a gullible perv. People who voted for him did not vote for him because they thought he had the best dick pics of the people running for the same job, and that was what they were looking for in a candidate.

You know squat about Beto O’Rourke. You know squat about Ted Cruz. You go into the polling stations and vote blind. None of you went to the candidates or asked questions. Some faded celebrity told you to vote for a Democrat and that was good enough for you.

That is a fucked up way to vote and guide your country.

And now you have the Troll Scroll where the moronic can nag the apathetic.

Oh, how we evolve so brilliantly in a democracy.

I would have a quiz at the polling station for every voter to give five reasons why they are picking one candidate over another, and anyone who cited their family tradition, nationality, or celebrity endorsement as the reason would be sentenced to wearing a dunce cap for an entire political term, and be forced to take a few brutal classes in Reality and Sensibility to get their voting privileges back…

The Politics of Noise: It's all bullshit. We have an empty noise that burns, and nothing but bullshit to show for it.

Long gone are the days of Bayard Rustin, who is Person #22 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

He was a strategist during the Civill Rights Movement, and he was an African-American who was also gay, and never hid it.

He was a pacifist, however, a rare quality in strategists. He didn’t beat up on people, particularly those who pummelled him during demonstrations. He’d talk to them, and do something that made the person walk away, knowing full well they were the cowards who took their deficiencies out on the superior person.

His politics was the one of Sound, and what he said had meaning:

We need in every bay and community a group of angelic troublemakers.

But his message got lost along the way, as Sound is no longer what people make.

But Noise.

We have women pretend to be “activists” and make false accusations, and then say they did it as a “tactic.”

And then those little propagandists at Vox try to spin it by blaring in a headline that “It’s not one of the ones you’ve heard of.”

You mean, it is not one of the ones you paraded to the little people as if that mattered? That she made the accusation through official channels is what counts, not whether the slumbering middle class or dead media knew about it because neither group knows much about anything.

They know how to make Noise.

Not Sound.

And Noise killed journalism.

The New York Post thinks it gets it by asking for the President and the press to tone it down.

You can tone down the noise all you want, it is still bullshit.

We have “Ontario Proud” claiming they defeated the Ontario Liberals in the last election.

No, you didn’t.

The brag is Noise.

The voters who hedged their bets on the NDP fucked up enough votes to allow the suburbs and rural areas to make their votes count.

It was Orange Noise that sunk the Grits.

The federal Grits are equally deluded and think their Noise got them elected, and now want to pass a law to prevent other Noise from fucking them the way they fucked the previous Tory regime.

It had nothing to do with that Noise machine.

Trudeau promised free money for pushing out babies and legalizing pot.

Society allows connivers to think they have power and control and give them distracting tasks to scheme and plot as the world spins on the way it wishes to spin.

You cannot claim to be the force of a zeitgeist or ortgeist.

We have the brain dead knuckle-draggers at the Toronto Star wondering if there is some sort of Left-wing populism coming to Canada.

There is no other kind of politics in Canada but populism - Left or Right.

It is a byproduct of an ignorant news media and middle class.

Fill people’s hearts and minds with Sound, and they find solutions.

Fill it with Noise, and they do nothing but create problems.

And we are in an Age of Propaganda where it is all Noise, all of the time.

Noise is bullshit. It is trying to dismiss everything that does not align with your interpretation of reality. Vox is sophistry garbage that has discredited the Left along with the other propagandist and partisan Noise.

You have empty noise that burns and destroys. You have morons who think they are informed and political, and do not realize they are Victorian puritanical religious zealots who just mindlessly parrot whatever Noise sounds good.

Babbling, spewing, and rage puking. That is what happened to the Left along the way. They abandoned reality and truth for the sake of power, money, and bragging rights, and the more extremist they are, they more greedy and corrupt they become.

Left, Right, they have no difference in structure. They use the same rigged games.

And the same Noise.

Rustin was always ignored. He was always a footnote because he rejected Noise for Sound.

He was ignored then as he is now, but when Noise burns, it hides all the truths as it blinds us to reality — and the reality is that we have no information to guide us anymore…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Six: a furturist in a Neo-Victorian vacuum.

If we need any more proof that the Victorian Ladies have come full force into 2018, look no further than this article:

Employees and execs are failing drug tests at shocking rates

You don’t say!

You mean all that over-reaction, fear, and paranoia came from using mind-altering nervous pills!

Nah!

Knock me over with a feather.

Those delicate Victorian flowers, of all genders, who are lactose and fragrance intolerant, vegan, organic, and stoned because of their delicate constitutions.

4.jpg

Whenever drug use increases, it is a sign of a repressed society.

2.jpg

But hardcore drugs were not just legal in the Victorian Era, but highly prescribed.

Doctors gave their jittery patients the hard stuff like heroin.

7.jpg

And the not-so-hard stuff, like cannabis.

3.jpg

Even post-Victorian days, people were downing radium.

1.jpg

There is a myth that drugs are “recreational”. They are self-medicating. They are not cool or hardcore or edgy or rebellious, the way chemo isn’t any of those things, either.

You can take Prozac or smoke weed.

Whenever you have a society that follow scripts as they mimic, model, and memorize what sanctioned authorities decree is acceptable, they will fall off the mark of the rigged game, and then seek medication to “fix” themselves, especially if there is a premium on success, and they miss the mark or perceive to miss it, and then have the anxiety that comes from feeling ineffectual or deficient.

Anger is suppressed with weed. Anxiety and shyness with blow. Uppers, downers, drugs are role facilitators.

It is the reason they were all the rage in the Victorian Era. You had women stuck and dependent on their husbands for survival, and having to wear corsets that constricted their movements and often fainted.

I never understood the moral angle of drug consumption. It is coping mechanism, just as tattoos are not about expressing individuality, but about linking through overt group affiliations in an attempt to cement them and find permanency in a world of fleetingness. Shaming or condemning the act isn’t productive because it makes too many assumptions about why people are doing the things they do: their overt explanations rarely align for the actual obvious reasons.

But what is concerning is why is 2018 so repressed? There are unprecedented freedoms. We have never had a society that allowed women to run for the highest office, for example. We have had gay marriage, and now increasing recognition for transgender rights. We have the Internet that opened so many doors and opportunities.

And yet we have whiners and squealers who are having meltdowns, screaming about resistance and socialism — something that would have caused their ruin not that long ago.

You have wealthy celebrities openly advocating sedition. You have people who were jailed for treasonous acts, have a sex change, and then get released to much fanfare and then enter the political arena.

Once upon a time, gay couple would never be seen in the movies or television. Biracial couples were seen as scandalous. A person who wasn’t white couldn’t dream of becoming president. People who had tattoos or neon hair could never find work. Teenagers with out of wedlock children would never get their own television show, nor would they have been allowed to keep their children.

And despite it all, there is a real oppression.

The Troll Scroll hints at it: the amount of emotional stoning and shaming going on is surprising, considering how liberal 2018 is compared to earlier eras.

But unlike past oppressive eras, this one is self-inflicted.

The confines are not institutional or societal. They are of the person’s own making.

Which is peculiar.

When I originally ran Chaser, I said there were three stages of real change in individuals and collectives: Anarchy, Alchemy, and Altruism.

When I wrapped up Chaser, I called it Anarchy, and we are still in its throes.

But that brings us something shocking to consider: that anarchy still bring repression.

People in the most permissive time in the history of mankind have been so conditioned to structure their minds in repressed forms that they do not see the obvious.

Perceptions are not aligning with reality.

People are free, but do not feel happier or freer than they were before. They reason that there some other outside agent causing the oppression, and then push the goalposts, hoping the next area anarchy will do the trick.

But anarchy is not medicine. It is not a curing drug. It is a state of chaos.

Anarchy can not bring you either happiness or misery. That is an internal mechanism that has no correlation with external mechanisms.

We could have complete hedonistic freedom right now, and if you were unhappy before it, you will be devastated after.

Why?

Because you have reached the limit of demands you can possibly make, and it has not made a single dent in your misery.

Because that repression is yours alone and you have sole ownership of it.

We could legalize all drugs tomorrow and give them for free, delivered to them personally of their own choice and quantity of the finest. People could all be issued mansions and get paid a premium income without working, and if you think that would be utopia, you would be badly mistaken.

People would be still complaining and whining how oppressed they were in this horrible trap called paradise.

Paradise is within you: you are either at peace with yourself or you aren’t.

Those If Onlys are excuses.

And that’s where we are now.

When there is too much freedom and it is met with ingratitude, outside agents seize it. People are already expecting oppression; so it encourages others to grant that wish of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

People become angry and rebel, only to get crushed as their softness works against them.

And those who truly were dispossessed became livid at those spoiled brats who have everything and it is still not good enough.

But now that I am working on Chaser once again, I am not calling it Anarchy for much longer.

People are burning out.

It is time for Alchemy.

The time to turn psychic lead in a noble metal.

People are buried under so much negativity.

And as there is freedom, that means the external agents have done their job.

Now is the time for people to own up and work on their internal problems.

Drugs don’t solve them. They mask them and merely prolong the inevitable. If you are unhappy sober, your subconscious is equally unhappy stoned. You can fool your conscious self, but never your subconscious.

There will be two distinct groups: those who cannot face their own inner demons or even angels, and will always look to outside agents to make changes for them.

The other will be those who can easily face the stuff of their very hearts and souls and make changes as they do not wish for outside agents to meddle in their lives.

It will not be a Left-Right divide, nor will it be one of Rich-Poor, or Educated-Uneducated.

It will be Active-Passive.

The agents of their own change will be those who thrive in Alchemic methods. They will have their own language and creations, and their goal will be utopic: they will see they can build their own paradise independent of others, and relish the opportunity to create things beyond the Establishment boundaries of politics, wealth, education, entertainment and communications.

The passive ones will still to scripts as they wallow that scripts are poor medicine for their woes. They will stick to the Establishment and seek to destroy.

The passive will be the agents of lead, while the active will be the agents of alchemy.

Chaser is for the active, not the passive.

It is for those who have gone through the wringer, but are still optimists and active creators at their core.

It is not for the spoiled or the sheltered who cling on to childish narratives always looking to validate themselves.

This may be a Neo-VIctorian vacuum, but I am a futurist who has left that vacuum and am going to places not explored, ready to be my own agent of change and progress without expecting anyone to live my life for me…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Forty-Nine.

I

When I was researching the mechanisms of journalism by becoming a journalist myself, I deliberately went to a lot of job interviews in order to see the workings of it. I used the Matthews’ Media Directory as my guide to mark the change in players, but also the dirty gossip rag Frank magazine as my baseline. I had other ways of finding out things, but I found using both together gave me a crude roadmap that I could refine once got going.

I didn’t just go to interviews at media outlets. I also went to ones at public relations firms to get a feel for what they were looking for and their thought patterns when hiring; however, I often found out more than what I could have anticipated.

There was one international firm that had an office in Toronto, and I have discovered through different channels — including Frank — that they had an obsession with the dress code. Women could never show their midriff, which is reasonable, but they couldn’t skip pantyhose, not even if they wore pants.

When I didn’t want a job somewhere, I would make sure to be the right candidate in every way but one. You’d never get hired if you broke one ridiculous rule that had nothing to do with the job and wasn’t obvious to outsiders because that fake rule was the bane of the organization’s existence. You could be otherwise qualified, but if you Broke the Silly Rule, it was their Shibboleth, and that was that.

So, when I got the interview here, I wore flatter pants and dress-up sandals, but no pantyhose. If the rumours were true, that would be good enough not to hear from them again — and it was. The interviewer made a point of me not wearing pantyhose, and that if worked there, I would always have to wear them.

So my intel was spot on, and the interview went precisely as my outside research predicted it would.

But there was something that didn’t conform to my expectations that made this interview a motherlode of information for me.

Behind the interviewer was her computer with the screen on with several windows open. She was in the middle of “monitoring” BBS boards as this was the mid-1990s, and she was doing it for one of their bigger clients.

I took a good look at the screen and saw she was doing much more than just monitoring — she was actively participating — but as if she were just a regular citizen with no vested interest in promoting the client. To others on the forums, she was just another user.

Yet she wasn’t. She was an operative.

And that was the first time in my young career that I realized just how easy it was for PR firms to take advantage of a guileless public who never learned how to reflect to question, but merely react to opine about something they knew nothing about.

II

We talk about “social media influencers”, we know people are paid to shill handbags and shoes, yet when a celebrity tells people to vote for a certain party or candidate, we naively believe they aren’t being paid shills.

And yet they are.

They fight over swag bags at low-rent awards shows. They are paid to appear at birthday parties of dictators (and then try to pretend it was an “accident”). They have ghostwriters churn out their tweets. They pay for fake followers.

If there was any one group whose political beliefs are available to the highest bidder and not to be trusted on any account, it is Hollywood’s A-list.

It is a very Machiavellian business. Two threads stick out in modern political discourse: paying for agitators to cause trouble by having them pretend to be on the other side before encouraging the rivals to make damage to discredit them, and encouraging people to be repulsed by comfort and luxury.

We can see that the American Left have been co-opted for a long time now. The sudden taste for socialism points to it. In order to get people adjusted to getting screwed over by the rich and powerful, you have to first sell them that having a good life is a very bad thing.

But this is nothing new. Art Nouveau was a fin de siècle art movement that made luxury and idealism something even regular people could afford. The idea that everything was art — buildings, furniture, jewelry — was a novel idea and it caught traction in Europe.

It was heavily used in advertising with the likes of Alphonse Mucha defining the women depicted with have whiplash curves and doing things that were hinting at a fashionable feminist — feminista — preface.

Then suddenly, all of those frills were spun as being primitive and minimalism abruptly took over — it was harsh and masculine as it shunned luxury and espoused bare bone pragmatism.

And then World War One broke out.

People were primed to feel aggressive, and they fell in.

Then after power was consolidated, the more flamboyant Art Deco took over. It was the roaring 20s, but when the Dirty Thirties took over, Art Deco was still in play, but soon fell out of favour as the Second World War broke out.

In each case, popular culture had abrupt shifts, and it is a shift we are experiencing now.

But unlike previous eras, there are ways to expose the manipulation by the very vehicle that makes it too easy to prime a thoughtless middle class.

III

Much of the lure of social media is the idea of hiding your identity in order to push an agenda, but when it exposed, it breaks a spell. Amazon in Canada had such a scandal when anonymous glowing book reviews were accidentally exposed the identities to show it was the authors, their friends, and family who were telling people how great the books were.

But paid operatives are nothing new. American literature was also corrupted by having writers be secretly funded to shill political viewpoints.

Which can be disheartening — but also a starting point to get rid of the weasels who pretend to be opinionated, but merely prostitute their words and meme posters to the highest bidder.

The New York Post recently fretted about the illusion of a political divide in the US, wondering if anything can be done to stop, and the answer is yes.

Show which PR firms are being paid to push a political side.

Show how they are manipulating the public.

Ask the public why they are so eager to believe without verification. Yes, put it on the middle class and put them in the hot seat where they fear to sit.

Show which celebrities are being paid, and how much. Show who is paying for their limo rides and writing their political speeches.

Corner those celebrities and ask them hard questions about policy and statistics, and then start asking them to answer basic questions about how is it that they can afford their cars and mansions when they have been out of work for the last five years, and their cable or streamed shows don’t pay them very well to justify their lifestyle.

The alternative to journalism is a spell-breaker: it slays middle class fantasies as it exposes the games of the wealthy. It makes no narrative a safe fortress. It terrorizes propaganda by showing reality, and comparing and contrasting them both.

The American house is not “divided”. It is merely ignorant. Both sides need a good shaming, but not as much as their followers who think chest-thumping can be mistaken for knowledge, confidence, or passion. It is a mere misdirection to hide the fact people have hedged their bets and think that the They chosen will give them some freebies and a lollipop for picking the “correct” side.

Children, this isn’t grade school. This isn’t story time, either.

This is reality. This is life. Take off the blinders. Stop looking for crib notes.

The alternative to journalism is the anti-crib notes: it is the manual for navigating through reality, and actively using your own critical thinking skills as you are responsible for your own fate and future…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Forty-Five.

I love the beginning of the New York Post article on their snooty cousins the New York Times:

The New York Times is scrambling to quell a staff rebellion at its metro desk after the section’s editor, Cliff Levy, unleashed a blistering e-mail to staffers last week, saying the section had “lost its footing” and was in need of “urgent” change.

The News Guild of New York, which represents the 40-plus journalists in the section, called Levy’s memo a “public fragging” by Times management and said his offer of “voluntary” buyouts as the section became more Web-focused was “an unexpected threat to our journalism and our jobs.”

The New York Times has needed a reality check for a very long time. The old guard is being pushed out for cheaper and younger models who do not cost as much to product dreck, but the stubborn ways of the profession always mystified me as the dead of the profession was more than just entirely avoidable: it was easy to correct in the first place.

But the Times already admits defeat. Print will be replaced by digital? I doubt digital will last as long as Big Tech pretends it will — so what happens to journalism?

It’s dead: you have pseudo-journalism right now. Partisan dreck in disguise as journalism with fewer people using the product because it is too gossipy to be of use.

But we are seeing more than just print publications die. Even those with an online presence, such as the Stratford Star are bidding adieu:

After more than 24 years of publication, Stratford Star will cease operations, effective this week. “Due to economic forces buffeting our industry we are rescaling our business again . The recent volatility of the newsprint market made our options clear,” said Martin V. Hersam, Publisher and CEO of HAN Network, owners of the Star and 11 other weekly papers and websites. “The best efforts of our incredible staff and years of strategic planning, retooling and restructuring we could not overcome the economic realities of tepid advertising and subscriber interest in this market. We just could not sustain a publishing business here any longer,” Hersam continued. The company will continue to publish its other weekly newspapers — the Darien Times, New Canaan Advertiser, Wilton Bulletin, Ridgefield Press, Milford Mirror, Trumbull Times and Shelton Herald. However, four other sister publications — The Easton Courier, Weston Forum, Redding Pilot, and Monroe Courier — are being closed as well. “Stratford, like the other markets we are exiting, is a wonderful town with remarkable residents and we enjoyed being their print and digital local news source. Newspapering is a business we truly love and it saddens us to leave after such a long run. Unfortunately we could not operate at a financial loss here any longer,” Hersam continued. 

In a booming economy, that is quite the declaration to make. They are not the only ones.

We need information the way we need sleep, shelter, and food, so why has journalism falter?

No much junk.

Not enough substance.

The alternative must be one that nourishes the mind and the heart. Facts will do both. How do people find their way?

With truth that comes from kindness, not manipulation.

It had been an easy hack for journalists and politicians to appeal to a certain segment of the middle class: but the entire planet isn’t the sheltered stay-at-mall types — male and female — who just want to brag and pretend they have reached the Promised Land.

There are people struggling with illness, poverty, discrimination, and are willing to admit this.

The alternative can never pander to those who cannot admit they are in the wrong or those who think they are perfect in their beliefs.

The newsroom uprising at the Times comes from those who lack courage to see that yes, they need to change to get themselves out of the quicksand.

The appeal to realists seems counter-intuitive, yet there are plenty of people who know they do not like where they are, and want to know why it is wrong.

If they know the problems — all of them — they can devise their escape from it.

That is all journalism ever needed to be: but its alternative can kindly and bravely pick up the slack...

Google rigs its search results? You don't say, New York Post!

Donald Trump has spoken the obvious about Google, and CNN, being the powerless and brainless immature teen, takes a contrarian viewpoint just because.

The New York Post frets about Google's power, and they are right to do so.

It is not a conspiracy theory. Google, by its very nature, has to rig results. Google can deny it, but then again, they have been fined by the EU for rigging.

Google and Facebook rake in billions, but they expect people to give ratings and reviews on places and products for free. So, right off the bat, you have a structure of exploitation: grabbing content for free, and then mining big data to sell and advertisers who pay these social media companies, not those providing content.

And if you have a robber baron mindset, then it extends in everything you do.

A few years ago, without my permission, Google Books had chunks of my first book online for free, and yet had advertising on the side of the page -- so they were making money on my print product.

I wrote to them to complain, but they cheerily refused my request, telling me to take it up with my publisher, which I did, and they thought it was a great idea, because, according to the publisher's logic, it was like browsing at a bookstore, which I said was a wrong analogy because it was more like having a photocopier right beside the shelves with free paper.

I still, as an author, have problems with Google. When you google my name, what comes up in the search results is a crapshoot, which it should never have been. Most of my articles that should show up, do not. 

And then there is the sidebar that they can never get right. I have written to correct it several times. It never gets changed, or gets changed back to the incorrect version.

I clicked on the small print that says, "Do you manage the online presence for Alexandra Kitty?" to claim it, but the process is obscene, asking for way too personal information that includes providing a photograph of me holding up my driver's license.

Excuse me? Why would I give you a photograph of that? You are using my image and my works, and you have control over what is in my biography -- one that, if Google's system wasn't rigged, would have it right.

But it doesn't have it right. It never has. Why isn't this website at the top of the search results? Why does my Twitter feed outrank alexandrakitty.com?

So Google's denials are insincere. I have played around with it, and I have noticed patterns of rigs. It is not just political with suppression of other ideologies to just a single one (and hello! there are far more than two). It is also rigged to maintain an individual's confirmation bias.

You get different results on the same search words depending on your previous searches. I have a couple of computers and use different Google accounts. On one, I searched scientific and atheist information. On the other, I looked up tarot, astrology, and other hoodoo.

Then I used neutral searches that were unrelated on both for each primed account.

The results were very different. It restricts alternative thoughts as it reinforces your opinions.

So Google denying that it rigs search results is rubbish.

Search engines can easily socially engineer people's thinking patterns, and it forms unnatural habits.

Yes, we need to study Google empirically to see how their various rigs alter thinking and behaviour.

And it should be a top priority...

How well has #MeToo really been doing lately?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Journalists keeping quiet on assaults on them? Nothing new. Not at all.

A couple of interesting, if oblivious articles about how journalists are keeping quiet that their fellow reporters are getting hurt covering leftist protestors. On CBC and in the New York Post.

This isn't exactly new. In the late 1990s, I had tried to write a story about how some reporters had been harm and manhandled by various people (such as prime ministers!) and protesters who had positive narratives spun, and those incidents were not mentioned by their colleagues. Needless to say, my story was nixed and never saw the light of day, even though I had interviewed those who had been harmed, even if they had police trounce them for merely asking a world leader to repeat what they said.

It happens. It is difficult when there are mobs or people in power who can screw you over.

Once upon a time people would be outraged for the simple reason that reporters were just about the only people who could get access to volatile events or have a path cleared to interview people in power.

Now, it is not the same. Politicians a tweet their selfies and get their lackeys to spew junk on social media. Protestors can film themselves and control their narrative, spinning stories how they are oh-so-right-and-moral and if anyone sees their lies, contradictions, and hypocrisy are just pure evil for pointing it out.

So abuse of journalists is shrugged off because they have become obsolete. The value of journalists has been plummeting for years because of access to an international audience has been opened to the general public.

It is a sign of the times, and one that is still hard for many in the business to grasp because its implications about the state of the profession is too catastrophic to entertain...

It is virtual, not real. Fake followers is nothing new. It predates the Internet.

Fake it until you make it. That is an old saying, and it is hard for people to understand that on the whole, people just aren't that into you.

As in, at all.

I was always skeptical of carny. I do not believe the hype of the Kardashians, for instance. People cannot remember the names and ages of their own children; so they are not remembering much of other people's children, either.

How much people pretend to earn -- and I am talking celebrities here -- is vastly misaligned with what they actually do earn, for instance. When I was writing about the business of journalism, one thing I knew about was paywall (back when it had a different meaning than it does now: back then, a paywall was the maximum salary anyone in a set position could earn), and I knew what people were actually making, and what they told me they were making was something two or three times what the paywall was -- not that they clued in that I may know more about their wages than they thought I did.

There is a pay scale, and puffing is a common ruse among people in entertainment and communications. What they are trying to do is make themselves seem like the cool kids who everyone knows, envies, and bothers reading or watching.

Bloat a following and maybe advertisers will be fooled into giving you truckloads of cash to hawk their wares.

Once upon a time, a good hint about a celebrity's true worth came from People magazine when they had a little section about celebrities selling their homes. It was never the ones whose careers were strong; just the ones who had a bad film or two in a row.

The first expense that had to go was the luxury mansion.

Newspapers played those games long before the Internet by including papers they dumped in colleges and greasy spoons as part of their paid circulation. That was their version of fake followers, and nothing that caused the New York Times to get huffy about.

They are whining about fake YouTube views this time. People try to make themselves stand out, and they will pay to inflate the figures. Spin back an odometer or inflate page views, it is always the same game.

That is the reason I always used to verify numbers in different ways than what I was presented by a vested interest. People would build up the hype, but the truth is that much of hype comes from people either recruiting friends and family to anonymously endorse them -- or paying a third party to boost the numbers to gain that grit of traction.

Advertising doesn't always work, and neither does the most clever campaign. You can have a first-rate product, but the push doesn't always bring you what you need, let alone what you want.

Fashion publications can't hype of their September issues anymore -- but it is cheaper for fashion houses to appeal directly to potential customers via social media than in the glossies. I have a soft spot for Louis Vuitton, Van Cleef and Arpels, Shu Uemura, Takeshy Kurosawa, Ralph Lauren, and Moschino, for instance, and I do not need Vogue to show me the goods.

But I haven't cracked open an issue for well over a decade for personal reading because I have ways of looking at what I like directly. I don't need the middle man to tell me how to think or how to dress myself because my style is my own, and always has been. Being a good little middle class sheep and minion was never my thing in the first place.

680154ce69109170e9d23baa8d624d67.jpg

But the New York Post seems surprised, but their piece on it had one interesting observation:

“The September issue means nothing anymore,” said Sam Shahid, founder of branding, advertising and design agency Shahid & Company. “You used to hold that magazine in your hand. It takes you to a place — that’s what a magazine used to do. Now they are all doing the same thing. There’s no imagination there. It’s just pure product, it’s pleasing the advertiser.”

Shahid says a lack of funds at publishers, due to a decline in print circulation and ad revenue in the digital age, has led to a crazy scramble to attract any kind of buzz or revenue.

“There’s a desperation right now with print,” he added. “The power magazines used to have is no longer there. Celebrities are controlling fashion.”

Celebrities have the machine to hype their things and buy their followers, but even they have co-opted the puffing, and took out the gate-keepers.

We like the myth of other people worshipping us, but we aren't paying attention to other people much anymore.

For an alternative model to journalism to thrive, it has to take that into its equations.

And not try to bluff its way with a big bang.

But a little pop. A little at a time to cultivate an alternative way of disseminating information in a world where virtual is still mistaken for actual...

How to kill the dreamers and visionaries? Just misuse social media.

I

When I took Political Sociology as an undergrad, my professor made a very interesting point: when we try to equalize unequal entities, what happens is not that the weaker or poorer element elevates, but the stronger or wealthier entity demotes.

The harmonization does not move up. It harmonizes down.

Of course, she didn't just make an opinion. She had case study after case study proving the point.

If your attempt to elevate the fortunes of the dispossessed hinges on opening the floodgates and making everything accessible to everyone equally, you are going to fail.

You will pull down those who had an advantage of a rig, but in no way are you going to help those people who were once denied it.

Why?

It is very simple: the people who had the rig will always assume it is their natural/innate superior that makes them better, and they are used to the rig that serves as their invisible crutch. Kick away the rig, and their reality changes -- a reality they are no longer in tune with, and they will keep doing the same thing, but expecting the old outcome.

But then why do the people on the lower rung fare no better?

Because they never had the opportunity to understand the nuances of the old rig and the limitations imposed on them, they believe their limited worldview is reality. The blinders of their confined world trick them into believing they need no further refinement or understanding. Worse, they will do the same thing, but the new rig at first rewards them, and then they will believe they are making progress, even if they stuck in the same rut as cannot move upwards or forwards.

It is no different than someone with a gambling addiction who got hooked on beginner's luck: they think they are special/smart/lucky when they got their first "win", not thinking that jackpot may have been rigged to sucker in new players.

Stimulus-response takes over, and you have instilled an unnatural habit in the person for life.

You cannot just "liberate". Lotteries now give classes to big winners because society has learned the hard way that you can't just give a big sum of money to previously poor people and honestly expect them to know what to do with it.

And yes, that includes you personally.

It includes all 7.4 billion people, so get over yourself.

II

What happened to journalism is simple: it got demoted after their rig was taken out of their exclusive control and given to billions of people.

Now the people who wrest control away from old media companies pretty much gave a jackpot to people who once had no way to broadcasting to publishing their own views.

People who had no experience in many different critical things. People who did not understand the concept of sophistry. People who think logical fallacies make definitive crushing arguments. People who never bother to verify information, nor would know how to do it if their lives depended on it.

I used to liken it to amateur writers who got an article published in their local paper. They would crow and compare what they were doing to how I was making a living, and they'd show me the article in question.

Sometimes it would be a "profile" on a friend of theirs that had a business or was a local athlete or artist -- and there wasn't even an interview or a single quote from the subject, and me being me, would make a comment about how it would have been interesting to see a quote from the person and other people who had dealings with them.

The blanched and shocked faces never failed to amuse me. "I hadn't thought about that!" more than one would tell me.

No kidding.

You can read hundreds of articles, but if you had to make one, you would be shocked at all the things you would miss.

Writing is not just slopping words together and then sophistry and insult is going to forever crush opposition. It is about facts. It is about avoiding the confirmation bias, appeal to authority, sink or swim, and a long list of other logical fallacies.

It is a long, complex, and complicated undertaking.

But social media made none of those requirements of broadcasting or publishing to a mass audience.

Journalism was dragged down in quality and power as a result, and the profession collapsed because of this mass equalization. Content providers were decimated because anyone anywhere can write anything they want and billions of people have access to it.

Journalism is trying to scare people into reclaiming their former glory. They still don't get it.

Communications has been harmonized down. People just babble and spew these days because they can get away with it.

And journalism is also just babbling and spewing, too, making them indistinguishable from the amateur babblers and spewers.

But now there has been a shift, and another group of people are suddenly getting harmonized down: the dreamers and visionaries.

III

Dreamers and visionaries do not function in the same plane as most other people. They have a vision of the future, and they have grand plans. 

And understanding that realm is not simple. Not everyone's level of cognitive development is the same. Jean Piaget's fourth and final stage, is the stage where visionaries do the best: in the world of hypotheticals, and unless you have the right mindset, you are not fluent in the language.

Pre-social media, these people had a barrier, keeping them shielded from those who were not imaginative, sensitive, flexible, or forgiving of their eccentricities.

It was the gift of learning Shibboleths and nuances that help elevate them and get them into the history books.

The rich white men had the money and means to build their fortresses and got to do many epic things that the rest of the world got already prepackaged.

But social media is tearing down those walls -- and many of companies who reaped the benefits of these creative big thinkers -- are backstabbing those people at the first sign of controversy, and throwing them under the bus.

Old Tweets are suddenly cause for firing bankable directors. Heartless corporations -- in a bid to pander to complainers who probably never lined their coffers to begin with -- are being equally heartless to not just the unpaid interns they are exploiting, but also the very people who consistently put them in the black.

It is not as if the sentiments weren't known to these companies in the first place. They were merely could ignore them and give in because the returns outstripped the cringeworthy behaviour.

But it is still a harmonizing down.

Elon Musk was once seen as a visionary, and now people who have never done a thing in their lives are decreeing him a fraud.

What happened?

That's an interesting question because we don't actually know the real answer.

IV

I find it very interesting how certain things are being framed in regards to social media -- but selectively so.

On the one hand, we have a admission that there are literally millions of fake followers on Twitter. Leftie Americans are blaming Russians for disseminating fake news on Twitter...

But they are not actually questioning whether or not the faux-rage on Twitter may be less organic and more, Machiavellian in nature?

Who is not to say that a rival person, group, company, or even nation didn't hire a PR firm or secret operatives is deliberately smear certain targets with fake Twitter rage?

And companies are just falling for it without investigating or asking the most basic of questions.

The harmonizing down allows it to happen.

We have fewer visionaries and when that happens, we stop progressing.

The problem was the honour was given to a very confined demographic, and one would think if social media was a true equalizer, we would see other groups produce their own visionaries, which is something that is depserately needed.

Except that is not the case.

The very structure of incubating visionary thought is being dismantled, meaning we are harmonizing down, not up.

This will prove to be detrimental to progress -- both technological, but also social progress.

Because once that buffer is gone, you don't have anything to work with, nor do you have experienced people passing that knowledge to the next generation.

What we are seeing is the dismantling of progress. When you get a hold of things and try to salvage them, you are starting from scratch, and you are doomed to make errors that you could have avoided if you had some veteran to teach you.

Journalism made this fatal error, and that's why it does nothing but spew hate and babble lunacy.

It has no ideas of its own anymore.

Journalism needed visionaries and dreamers to push it forward, but the industry decided to shove them away.

Social media is a shell game on many levels, and one that is not trustworthy. I am certain a little digging will show that many of these supposed citizen mob attacks were choreographed and had some rival behind it to sabotage some other entity.

It is a Troll Scroll for a reason.

But the damage it is doing to social discourse and progress is not to be ignored, either...

Vice was built on "smoke and mirrors"? You don't say, New York Post and New York magazine!

I love an obvious story, and the New York Post has one as does New York magazine, too on how Vice Media did some very dodgy optical feints in order to seem more successful to potential investors than they were -- getting money all while, of course, poorly-paying and sexually harassing their female employees.

Yeah, that was always more than obvious. Their product was always male self-adoration narrative trash that was scant on facts and heavy on childish sophistry that thinks it is hip and edgy because they flip the bird in photoshoots.

Nah, that is what unoriginal grifters do hoping you will be shocked and not take a closer look at the shoddy work of the drivel they puke out.

That journalists have just clued in now is hilarious. They never learned to question those cocky white boys because they may be the Next Great Man or Visionary.

Please, grow up ad grow a pair of ovaries.

They never learned to question, think critically, form a hypothesis, and conduct and experiment that tell them if what they see is real or a bluff, and in the media industry, puffing is just a way of saying hello.

Anyone who thinks Vice has any value is naive. It never did. It is just peddling a fairy tale narrative to pacify the boys who never became hip and edgy rock stars.

It's just silly, but it is always a hoot to see the extent of journalistic gullibility show its empty head every once in a while...

Denver Post not getting their happy ending after their temper tantrum. Reality bites.

In Hollywood movies, after someone gives their righteous speech standing up to someone they do not like, everything changes as everyone changes their minds and it All Works Out In the End.

The Denver Post did that, and nothing has changed. Charles Plunkett was the editorial page editor who dressed down Alden Global Capital, the owners of the Post. He has resigned. Alden Global Capital are still there.

Journalists haven't been dealing with reality, and their reality is that they cannot get quality owners for a reason. Just look at the New York Times reporting their subscription numbers.

The problem is the numbers aren't what they appear to be. Their rivals the New York Post point it out, but when I worked as a journalist, I used to cover the business of journalism, particularly print, and one set a numbers you could never trust was subscription numbers. The definitions were getting watered down when I was covering it, and what is counted as a subscription is dubious at best. If advertising revenue is down, even when numbers seemingly look as if they are growing, that is the red flag that the subscriptions numbers are not as robust as they look.

Reality bit journalism to death, plain and simple. They are pulling out all the stops to try to make it seem as if they are reviving, and yet those stunts aren't doing anything for their fortunes.

With the US economy having a very robust streaking, media outlets should have been experiencing a real bounce -- even if their own industry is in tatters.

Yet it's not happening. The New York Times' numbers should have been significantly higher, just because more people are employed and have disposable income, and want to look informed as are willing to have a prop subscription to do it.

Yet the Times is struggling, and it's America's most well-known newspaper. This is a real shift is journalism's fortunes.

And no sunny spinning of rot is working.

The Denver Post is still collapsing, and the Times is having a harder time presenting a façade of strength.

That's the reality -- and journalism's inability to face reality explains the reason for their dismal fortunes...

Why journalism cannot come to grips with their demise.

Michael Goodwin has an interesting article in Imprimis about how the 2016 US Presidential race harmed journalism, and although there is much to go for it, Goodwin doesn't get it. Journalism had it easy for one reason: they owned the flow of information and speech, and he misses this point from the get go:

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner.

People had no choice back then. They gave not so much their trust, but their goodwill to the press. They complained about coverage even back then, but as there was an alternative, they let many things slide.

But the second they could bypass the press, they did so as fast as they could.

That's when journalists began to panic, and I agree with Goodwin that legacy media, such as the New York Times did go down the propaganda gutter -- but the difference was they were so focussed on regaining power that they forgot to hide their true motives: they weren't covering the news: they were rigging the flow of information to get the outcomes they thought worked int heir favor.

They could not keep up pretences and fight to reclaim their past clout at the same time.

Donald Trump won because he tweaked his nose at the press -- he has an uncanny ability to read the pulse of the collective -- something good sales people can do with ease -- and he used that untapped energy to win. He did what people wanted to do to the news media for decades, but couldn't.

It is like the servants being forced to listen to putdowns by their employers, and then go spit in their food.

Trump spat in the press's food in font of the world -- and the world cheered.

He merely stated what people had thought for years, but were too terrified of saying it.

The press saw Trump as a joke and dismissed him the way they dismissed all those broken down unemployed people in the Rust Belt -- the press created a kinship, but it was Trump who could read the crowds and the press and ride on those wavelengths.

He used Twitter to show how useless and powerless the press truly was, and now that same press is in a tizzy because they were exposed for being unworthy of the power they once held.

There are points going for Goodwin's piece, but his optimism blinds him in one significant way: he thinks journalism can be resurrected, but it cannot.

Journalism is unfixable and too corrupted. It is antiquated and not aligned with reality or the current state of technology and the world. Worse, journalists had a taste of that power and they will always be scheming to get that power back -- and that's not the point of their jobs. It is not about issuing royal decrees: it is about informing people with facts.

You cannot go home again. Journalism had problems long before the US election: what Trump did was hammer the final nail in the coffin, but the body in that coffin was already decomposing when he hammered.

What we need is an alternative to journalism -- something that gets away from the old rot so we do not have to have a replay of the ugly propaganda and social engineering that has held the world back for far too long...