Actrivism, Part Eight: Armchair experts have no idea what goes down or what's up. It is the reason I became an Actrivist.





Growing up in the 1980s, I was a huge fan of the Eurythmics. I had all of their albums, including remixes, and had to special order In the Garden.


I never got to see them in concert, but concerts were never my thing as a teenager. I did go, but usually, something extra had to compel me. I went to see Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine in Orlando for New Year’s Eve, for example. I have seen rock concerts in Belograde, such as Zdravko Colic’s.

While some kids went to see Madonna, I went to see Alan Ginsberg perform is poetry in Europe.

I had a big LP collection, and a lot of old and obscure nuggets from every era, but The Eurythmics were my favourite musical act.

Except I was the only kid in my neighbourhood who admitted to liking them.

Other kids always made it sound as if I was some sort of oddball for liking the band. I didn’t buy it. They wouldn’t be putting out multiple albums and having tours around the world if I were the only one, and I said it. They were a Top 40 act, and as special as we all like to feel, I don’t think their record label would go through all that trouble and expense just for me.

And I used to say it.

For years, I would have people ask me, “Do you still like The Eurythmics?”

Hell, yeah, I do.

To this day. I can still listen to Annie Lennox sing or Dave Stewart play the guitar and I am in a better mood.

But now, thanks to social media, you can find fans congregate anywhere and anytime. No one needs to feel like an outsider when it comes to pop culture preferences these days.

Yet, that kind of familiarity does have a downside.

You can find groupings of anything, and then a pecking order begins to form, where someone positions themselves as the “expert” of whatever the group believes.

And that’s a problem now.

But armchair experts were always a problem, and that’s why I became an Actrivist.


I was a teenager when the civil war in the former Yugoslavia broke out. I didn’t have a lot in terms of experience in adult matters. I was a smart kid. I was an observant kid. I was a kid who studied, and had a gift of researching things and finding obscure sources because I had no trouble picking up a phone or pen and communicating to people in various position of power or access and asking them questions.

Of course, I got shot down a lot of times. I was even called rude because I wanted to know about serious things and went straight to the top. I wasn’t rude. I was curious, and there was no reason to say no to a simple request, or direct me to someone else.

But more times than not, I had big packages mailed to me, filled with all sort of things, and I read it from cover to cover. To me, this was exciting and fun. I couldn’t believe that none of the other kids in school were doing it. Anyone can smoke weed and get hungry and paranoid at the same time. Whoop di do. Not everyone can write to a foreign cabinet minister and get information on their military spending. Go me!

The fun and exciting reasons came grounding to a halt when war broke out and journalists were all parroting propaganda. I found out their source, and I was pissed. They learned nothing from the Gulf War and the babies and incubators hoax.

Maybe there was a reason for it. They didn’t have to learn because their mandate may have been something other than to inform.

But I didn’t know, and I knew I didn’t know.

I could speculate like an armchair expert. That is as easy as smoking weed. No effort, and something else alters your mood for you.

I could also research. That’s how I started.

And I wrote letters, got information, and had banker’s boxes that took up a sizeable chunk of my room — and living room, and dining room, and grandma’s room. These boxes had academic articles, newspaper and magazine articles, UN reports, government documents from around the world, think tanks, responses from reporters and editors, press releases and documents from PR firms, you name it. Every day the mail or courier came to my door. I read everything cover to cover.

I was, at this point, far more informed than an armchair expert. I was also far more informed than any journalist covering the war. I had one anchor from a PBS news program tell me she researched her topic by reading a couple of newspapers, and here I was with boxes piled to the ceiling — and one box alone had cassette tapes of information I got over the telephone.

Yet she got to spew uninformed bullshit, and I couldn’t catch a break.

This was, to say the least, maddening.

But everyday, I would get more information, not just documents, I got video footage of atrocities committed against Serbs. I obtained photographs that also contradicted what media reports were spewing.

If there was an Internet back then, I would have been a teenaged media outlet because in the course of my research about the former Yugoslavia, I stumbled upon other interesting intelligence not about that war or area.

I wasn’t an armchair expert. I was an actual expert.

Yet I was missing a key element all the same.

As much as I read books on journalism, all of it was bullshit. None of it actually aligned with the chasm of what I had and what was being reported. It was like night and day.

When I decided to become a journalist, I had a lot of information already. I knew how to conduct experiments as a psychologist.

But I still needed to know more so I could compare what I had with what the reality of the profession truly was.


Being a journalist gave me insights that put a lot of those banker’s boxes into context. I learned a lot about the MSM, such as the veracity of a lot of their “experts” and pundits. Far from being unbiased and the most qualified, a lot of them were friends with someone in the newsroom — or their parents were friends with each other, but it was schmoozing, not c.v. that determined who got to speak in a public forum.

Insider knowledge helped a lot. These days, you can listen to a radio station and know that some experts pay advertising dollars and basically pay to be quoted. But even when I was a journalist, a lot of articles were just advertorials — another form of the same practice.

Armchair experts are easy to spot: they make guesses, and because they do not know how news is constructed, they make folksy guesses and make assumptions that are wrong and it shows.

The problem with social media is that it gives an illusion that things are all “out there” and all you have to do is point, click, swipe, or tell Siri what you want, and now you are an instant expert.

But you’re not unless you do things inside that system because what you read is created by other outsiders who also don’t know what’s going on. You have no scaffolding or perspective.

And people think it is all obvious and self-evident. It isn’t.

Quiz them to see just how little they know about the basic mechanics of easily accessed information.


And I have parents telling me that their grown children are much smarter than “we were.”

There will always be smart young minds around.

But even the smart ones need context to actually comprehend the significance of what they know.

I have first-hand experience in that department: as much as I knew, there was far more I learned by actively working in the profession I was studying. I didn’t fall for the lures. I wasn’t taken in by cognitive dissonance where I began to explain away and justify things just because I had to do them as a reporter.

I was the subject of my own experiment, and with that, I learned a new way of learning and gathering information.

And learned armchair experts are worth the experience they have — which is none…

The Victorian Left: How the Progressives regressed to the 1800s and keep retreating.

I have been told by many people that I look just like this Gibson Girl.


It is all in the eyes and the head shape. I saw immediately myself, but kept it quiet for years, but when other people made the comment, there was no point in keeping quiet.

I have an affinity for much of the era, from Art Nouveau to Sherlock Holmes to Gibson Girls.

As a kid, I noticed something very weird: women in stories and news article were prone to weird stuff, from “hysteria” and fainting, and often needed “nervous pills”.

You didn’t read or see that kind of delicate constitutions from present day women. They didn’t faint when someone made an accusation or gave them shocking news. While people do often need to be tranquilized when they hear catastrophic news, such as the death of a child, this kind of behaviour just isn’t a thing.

Women in that era were just starting to crawl out of oppressive hell.


And were starting to break taboos.


Or so it seemed.


Certain taboos weren’t all that of a stretch, but they were linked to the oppressive lives of women who could not vote, were considered their husband’s property, faced discrimination, and were forced into marriages not of their choosing, having to sacrifice their own ambitions to prop up their husband’s station.

And that took a lot of a “nervous pills” to stomach.

I was listening to News Talk 1010 the other day, where host John Moore made a snide remark that people who say they didn’t do drugs were either lying or nerds, which is ridiculous.

They are either lying, or are Victorian ladies in need of “nervous pills” to cope with the confines of a middle class life.

Because much of what is now illegal wasn’t back then, and those yummy pills those Victorian women were downing had some loopy side effects that kept them seemingly happy.


It was the way of keeping society humming and semi-civilized.

With Canada legalizing pot, what they are doing isn’t edgy or even new.

They are merely going back in time to the Victorian era to do the same things that were done in order to keep oppressed people in their place and not question their life choices or the reasons why they were settling for exploitation and all around garbage.

But they are not the only ones.

The Leftist media and political operatives are trying to keep current, but have retreated to the same era.

#MeToo had a very 1960s civil rights vibe to it, and had that same upbeat optimism despite the dark origins.


But then the Democrats hijacked it and turned it into some Victorian melodrama based on a whiny and mediocre Canadian propaganda novel and worse US propaganda television shows.


The Left have been so obsessed with differentiating themselves from the Right, that ran in the wrong direction.

You are not progressing, but regressing. You are relying on archaic narratives and tropes to make some non-existent point.

The fun and youthful spirit that was once an integral part of Left ideology has been replaced by old-fashioned wallowing, and I am surprised we do not have marches with people fainting.

They can come to Canada to get legal nervous pills.

Once upon a time, when the Left felt adrift, they licked their wounds by channeling the 1960s and bounced back.

But this time, they went in some other, peculiar, and very unhelpful direction.

Part of the reason is that the Left was overtaken by limousine liberals who look down on hippies, and go-go dancers are now seen as overtly sexualized, and like the staidness and caste system of that bygone era.

The other reason is fear. In their minds, they are facing a monster with many heads, and instead of a sensible and brave resolution that involves creating new strategies and playbooks, they are looking for some other symbolic milestone and the suffragists are it.

It is a grave error in judgement because they are retreating and going all by themselves to the very place they fear the Right will drag them, and even willingly dressing the part.

And why they are in need of nervous pills.

Memo to the Globe and Mail: Ontario News Now is not a sign of Doug Ford's Insecurity. It is a sign that Canadian journalism is dead.

The Globe and Mail is an arrogant rag. They lost their grand building, and had to downgrade, and yet, they think they are still a viable and relevant entity in the modern world.

This childish delusion rages in this silly column that completely ignores the reality of what has happened in Ontario:

Twitter news outlet Ontario News Now speaks to Doug Ford’s insecurity

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

Why would the Premier -- who won a decisive majority because he knows how to effectively communicate with an audience -- bother with an obstacle course that people no longer flock to, when he can do it directly himself?

What, is he stupid?

No, not at all.

Ford gets it.

If you do not need a press to get out a message, then why bother? Why play a game on a rigged board when you can bypass it entirely.

Why put up with the abuses, when you do not have to put up with any of it?

It is akin to saying a child who is being bullied on a playground is insecure because they joined a sport or extracurricular activity. No, they just decided they weren't going to waste their lives and nerves putting up with garbage. They meet like-minded people, become productive, and let the loiterers on the playground have one less prey to torment.

Trump won a presidency without degrading himself to being abused by the press, and having to appease them to win. Ford saw that Canadian journalism collapsed, and that bypassing the news media is more than doable: it is better to go directly to the public and control the message, than be at the mercy of partisan narrative-spewers who will always insult him and find fault with his every breath?

Canadian journalism has been irrelevant for a very long time, besides, why shouldn't the provincial government do what countless organizations do every day -- produce their own in-house articles that are a constant on Facebook and the like?

Sotheby's and Christie's do it. Every museum and art gallery of any note does it. This is 2018, and the practice is nothing new.

And it is nothing new to the Ford Brothers who cut their chops on News Talk 1010 with their own radio program.


Because journalism is replaceable.

When journalism had a monopoly -- which was never a divine or innate right -- people had to endure abuse to get a public audience.

The Internet liberated people who could now bypass the press entirely.

And they do. All of the time.

They are not insecure.

They just had enough, and decided to exercise the power the Internet gave them...

News Talk 1010's Inability to face reality continues.

No one can spin evil like a Canadian media outlet. It has become their specialty.

The Soviets during the Cold War era had this sort of positive propaganda: they had serial killers running amok, the mob terrorizing people, children vanishing, poverty, government corruption, but you would never hear it on the news, comrades.

Everything was just peachy keen, and over time, people started to laugh whenever the news played because when your kid has been swallowed up in the night and you can't feed your family as you are sitting in the dark without electricity, sooner or later, reality grabs your by the throat and squeezes as it stares you in the face and spits at you for ignoring it to the point you turned it into a monster when you could have prevented its illness by facing it when there was still a chance.

Canada is taking pages from that playbook, and it has gotten out of control.

I suppose as journalism collapsed, those industry-destroying knuckleheads are all auditioning to work in public relations and want to show the various firms out there how good they are at spinning rot.

Toronto has so much rot that it needs an independent government or global agency to start overseeing it as it audits it. You had a serial killer burying body parts in people's yards. He might as well just dumped them out in the open and it would have taken the same amount of time to catch him. You had a young man drive a van into a group of people for no reason. You had another man (who journalists are bending over backwards to justify his murderous actions, with no proof, that the killing spree was some sort of mental illness whoopsie, no biggie, kids!) walk down the street shooting people. Nearby Mississauga had a bombing. We had two innocent little girls shot in a playground.

On July 1, four people were injured in a shooting

Right after another shooting where a rapper was murdered.

Because there was that whole first week this July where 11 people got shot in four days.

Have we forgotten about Tess Richey? I haven't. It happened less than a year ago.

We can look at statistics, assuming, of course, they are accurate and inclusive, but violence doesn't always come with a gun.

In Toronto, it comes in a van, bombs, knives, and all sorts of other weapons, too.

These killing sprees are happening with increasing frequency, but Toronto media, wanting to pretend that living in Toronto is sophisticated and stuff, are always looking for "positive news."

You can have every blessing in the world, but one bad thing nullifies all the good stuff. 

If a ten-year-old girl gets killed out on the street or two girls on a playground get shot in broad daylight, you have a sick city.

It is not as if the Toronto media does not understand the concept of bad. They are always comparing themselves to cities where there are a lot of shootings, such as Chicago, and then crow that they are "safer".

You know, kids, I was in Chicago with my mom last year.

We walked out in the streets well past midnight all by ourselves downtown.

We were not shot or robbed or hassled in any way.

For whatever reason, people thought we were plainclothes police officers and kept referring to us as "Cagney and Lacey."


I called dibs on Cagney.

I have also slept in my car and gotten dressed as I was naked in New York City parked on Broadway, driven at 3 o'clock in the morning in Detroit and Baltimore, went to concerts in Orlando and Miami at midnight, got caught in the middle of a police chase with a shooter in Washington, DC, walked in malls in Buffalo where people had their guns where you could see them, and seen signs like this one at my swanky hotel in Chicago.


Those were not safe places. They have serious problems.

Just because nothing happened to me doesn't mean a thing. There is something called empathy.

It reminds me of a line from a parody song by the Royal Canadian Air Farce from years ago:

The Cossacks, they come to loot and to pillage,

To me, it's okay; it wasn't my village.

That's Toronto journalism, except, the looting and pillaging is happening in their village, maybe just not on their street.

For now, at least. 

That kind of pathological logic was on as usual on the "Round Table" this morning on News Talk 1010.

The obnoxious spinning of murder into something that is not a big deal is beyond propaganda: it is enabling violence. If you have had numerous violent attacks in a city where there is strict gun control laws in one year, and your hypothesis is the city is "safe", then you have no pulse on reality. None. You have no empathy. You ask no questions. You do not wonder whether it may be safe for you and your demographic, but it may be unsafe for other fellow citizens.

You are apologists for murder, sweeping bullet casings under the rug, and then tell the little people that Toronto is a safe and glorious city.

No, it isn't. How many rapes do you have? How many convictions? How many street shootings are going on? How many stabbings? Toronto has reached crisis level violence, but continues to behave as if theirs was a civilized city.

If the shooting of over a dozen people doesn't spark you to see that there is a problem, then nothing will. You expect people to settle for garbage and then crow about living in trash. Instead of focussing on how to solve the problem, you are saying there is no problem because you have A Taste of the Danforth which will obviously outweighs murdering teenagers and little girls on that street because, hey, they're just females. 

They probably asked for it.

After all, that little man-agandist Christie Blatchford was on the panel, spewing something else so vile that it defies all common sense.

At the 11 minute mark on the audio link I provided, there is a discussion about the Highway of Tears and the plight of First Nations girls and women. At the 11:37 mark, Blatchford basically blames those girls for getting slaughtered because these destitute women with no guidance, options, supports, education, or life experience are forced to take risks by getting into trucks with strangers.

There were signs on the highway warning them not to go...she babbled, assuming, of course, those girls could read. Or were without mental health issues.

Or had other options. Those girls entire lives are traumatic and under siege. Many of these young women were taken out of their homes as kids by social services, sexually abused, exposed to violence and drugs, and are treated like disposable trash, being kicked from one foster home to another. (As an aside, when I moved and changed phone numbers about fifteen years ago, my new number was the old number for some placement agency or service used by CAS. I kept getting faxes at 2 o'clock in the morning with lists of children needing emergency shelter and placement, most from Northern Ontario. Those lists still haunt me).

I have had interactions with dispossessed young women in Canada in all sorts of capacities, from doing art therapy with those in halfway houses to volunteering and socially. It is easy to be rational when you have some stability during your formative years and are not tossed out in the middle of the night or you come home and your family up and leaves you with no forwarding address.

Women's shelters are always full. Prisons, too. Hospital emergency rooms have many of these women who do not know which way is up.

You don't kill these women. You don't rape them, either. There is no excuse or loophole.

You know, Ms Blatchford, your absolute inability to comprehend the realities of other women is horrific. You were on the same panel who made excuses for a murderer of two young women because he was supposedly "mentally ill." Mentally ill people do not kill. Evil people kill.

I mean, if the press has compassion for a murderer who is supposedly sick, why do we assume these young women don't have the same problem?

I did not hear you knock down a killer or make him responsible for having the presence of mind to take a gun, walk over to a crowded area, and aim and shoot with absolute coolness people he did not know, but boy-o, do you love to blame every woman who was victimized in any way, shape or form.  

Journalism is dead for a reason. Because of logic like that. It makes excuses, misrepresents reality, blames victims, excuses predators, and has some sort of psychopathic desire to pretend problems don't exist, and if they do, let's blame the victims for it.

At what point will Toronto news media realize that hiding bad things doesn't make them go away?

Probably never. They destroyed their own profession, and now want to take down everyone else in their wake.

F.R.E.E.D. is not swayed by blinders. It builds with the atoms of reality and truth.

In 2012, the Russian Orthodox Church made this man a saint.


His name was Alexander Schmorell and he was executed in 1943. He was born in Russia and was an Orthodox Christian in Munich.

He was one of the White Rose resistance against the Nazis and died for exposing their ways through a variety of means, including graffiti.

But his image looks a lot different now. 


That avid pipe smoker is Person #6 that everyone should know, particularly people who have the nerve to call themselves part of a "resistance" movement while driving in limos, having PR firms, and spew out propaganda and meme posters from their smartphones.

All while going on vacation, checking in at rock concerts with Facebook, having maids and nannies take their abuse, and otherwise living a very comfortable middle class to upper class life with no threat of their bored and meaningless peacetime existence.

So what is the problem?

There isn't anyone to slap people back to reality by showing that those howling the loudest are billionaires, A-list actors, and politicians who have a vested interested in dividing their own people for a buck.

Divide and conquer is a common feint.

Journalism once tried to point out how both sides played games, but that sensibility eroded over time and the press took sides -- Left and Right.

They play the same games, but then journalism decided to play them, too.

Putting on blinders has made the news partisan propaganda.

That's not the way to figuring out what is reality, let alone truth.

F.R.E.E.D. is focussed on the atoms of reality -- the fact. It is about finding the facts that show us the truth. It is not about pretending to be on top of a nonexistent pecking order, looking down at the Left or the Right.

We don't need another set of ideological blinders that try to distort reality to rig and force certain reactions.

Saint Alexander exposed real facts that meant life and death -- and notice how the facts he exposed were ignored until it started to hit the lives of those who thought wearing blinders was going to protect them from that reality.

It doesn't work that way. It is not a question of morals. It is a question of common sense.

We have serious global dilemmas as we speak, and we have a documented history of what happens when people shut too much out, and when they let too much in -- and ironically, both binary solutions lead to the same disastrous results.

In other words, with regards to a mass exodus of citizens from troubled countries -- if they are all shut out, it is a bad thing.

But it is just as bad if they are all let in.

You have finite resources, citizens who have paid into a system that will lost their place without having any say, and an ill-equipped system.

F.R.E.E.D. is not about blinders that rigged perceptions so that the logical fallacy of sink or swim seems right.

It is about finding facts from all over so that new, different, innovative, and sensible solutions emerge from those facts.

The world needs to grow up from acting like spoiled, squabbling, petty, and jealous siblings who want a no-prize for getting their own demented way.

Solutions take effort, work, sensitivity, and thought -- not some childish and melodramatic knee-jerk easy answer that has proven not be ineffective under any condition...

Bothering by the book: It's what helped killed journalism, but they still use that logic.

Journalism has a nasty strain of nerdism. They are frustrated bureaucrats who are like Les Nessman, sternly babbling about not seeing an invisible office where a cubicle is as if everyone else she indulge in that sort of lunacy.

They are binary. If you do not agree with the politics, then you must by default be on the opposite side.

No, I am a Radical Centrist. I am not going to follow your stupid rules that killed your profession. I look at reality. I look at facts. I look at the bottom line. Left and Right is not the full picture, thank you very much.

I was listening to the Square Panel Discussion on Moore in the Morning on News Talk 1010 this morning, and while they may call it round, the only ones spewing this morning were square.

Yesterday, you had a Prime Minister talk down to a premier out in public, and the various biased Lefty shills were all applauding his Majesty's behaviour like good little mindless minions.

And, of course, there was no one to challenge them.

I am a first generation Canadian, as in, raised by immigrants, and I find the federal regime's behaviour very destructive to the global equation. You have tens of millions of people seeking asylum in a handful of countries -- that doesn't just destroy the host countries who are in no position to accommodate this many people who have no resources -- many who are very ill, have no skills, and no means to support themselves as they bring various baggage with them -- but also to the countries they leave behind.

You have places such as Puerto Rico that are struggling to rebuild after a disaster because too many younger people just upped and went.

I would make it mandatory for every person who advocates bringing in illegal immigrants to take in one family -- and not one of their own choosing -- into their own homes and support them. Put your money where your mouth is (and for the record, when Civil War broke out in the former Yugoslavia, my mother did precisely that with granddad's home, taking in three families who fled from Bosnia).

But the panel on the radio show who have no idea about the reality or consequences, just spewed how great it was to be patronizing in public and that there are rules and obligations, so Canada has to follow it.

This is a real-life use of a trope known as Bothering by the Book.

You have Leftist regimes who made up rules and now everyone has to follow them forever.

No, they don't.

Once upon a time, you had politicians say it was against the law for women to vote; so do not cross that line in the sand.

You cannot use it as an excuse to hold people to rules created in the past that cannot account for the realities of the future. It is not divine decree.

Rules are meant to be tested, turned, and broken, even when it is not convenient to do so, and especially if there is a bad policy.

And this is as bad of a policy as you can get.

There is no questioning of whether it is better to turn people away, and then do something for their country of origin to ensure whatever the Big Problem happens to be, it is dealt with so people can stay. You tear familial fabric apart, and the ramifications of displacing a generation of people can be devastating.

It is not a moral thing to do. It is a highly immoral one.

But it is not surprising that the dead profession of journalism is advocating this lunacy.

They are still bothering by the book in their own profession and in their academic halls.

You cannot create change or bring in radical and innovative ideas to reflect changing times because there are rules, traditions, protocols, and other shackles a previous regime installed to rig a board to their own favour.

They played that game until they self-destructed.

Well-played, children.

Now you are trying to bring that toxic thinking to destroy countries.

Are you all out of your minds?

You cannot have TORTEE. You cannot have binary thought become your blinders to reality.

You cannot have over eighty million people around the world just up and go into a smaller space. That would be like two Canadas roaming around like nomads.

What would happen to Canada if half the country just picked up and wandered to another country, say Cuba, to seek asylum? How well would our economy turn out? How would Cuba handle it?

We never think to reverse equations or look at other places and times. No, sorry, we have obligations to a corrupt Establishment regime like the UN, so that's that, how dare you question or challenge it?

How dare you not?

You have homeless people sleeping out in the streets. Your shelters are overflowing.

Not just in Toronto, but in small towns.

And you think you can handle this influx without asking hard questions -- or thinking up solutions that would better serve the reason why people are fleeing?

Nice try.

But it helps when you deal with reality without a chip on your shoulder, something the current federal regime here seems incapable of doing...

Political atheism and sanctioned insanity in an Age of Propaganda

News Talk 1010 had a host ask a good question: why is Justin Trudeau's groping of a reporter almost twenty years ago when he was 29 not being played up in the press (having a silly caller babbling about #MeToo doesn't have "due process" -- TORTEE that ignores all the cases where the men confessed and confirmed they did it and that many of these instances weren't criminal, but just abusive, but I digress).

It is not as if there hasn't been chatter about it, but the old editorial where the future PM and faux feminist was sorry that he did it to a reporter and not a no-name woman is not going to gain any traction the same way that Bill Clinton frat boy garbage in the White House had feminists running to the press to defend a sexual harasser, and how Ivanka Trump's accomplishments will be ignored and dismissed by the same psychographic.

We have people who are conniving and have figured out how to manipulate people and get them so upset that they cannot think straight. Just watch Canada run around like chickens without heads all over tariff wars with the US. No reflection, rational thought, research, and formulating a realistic plan instead of screaming and screeching like a toddler whose balloon got untied from their wrist and then flies up in the sky. The US can now do whatever they want because the target audience become their own misdirection as they miss the obvious.

And middle class Canadians are missing the obvious -- but not as badly as the politicians they elect and then have to enable.

So how does someone emotionally manipulate millions of people?

It is a lot simpler than it looks.

First, draw a line in the sand. People on our side of the line is superior than the people standing on the other side. Binary thinking and competitiveness get people primed to see every reason why they are better than the random folks staring at them, while the confirmation bias, personal attacks, and rote thinking take care of the rest. We want to be better and get more: so we think up reasons, not seeing reality, but our fantasy where our superiority fantasy is proven true.

We construct narratives. We ignore our own flaws, but never the people on the other side.

To keep the groups together -- and separate, we pick a leader to do our thinking that we have to memorize -- The One Rule That Explains Everything; in this case, why we are completely right and why people who are not applauding us are completely wrong.

We make excuses as we ignore our own mistakes and failings -- but if the other side points them out right after we point theirs out, we get our noses out of joint, babbling that it's just a made up concept called "Whataboutism".

No, it is called the confirmation bias where you just look for evidence that confirms your theory as you willingly ignore the evidence that refutes it.

Many religious cults used these systems and they have creeped into our political systems.

We deify our leaders. We demonize the opposing ones.

And we babble and spew how we are more enlightened and moral, when in fact, we are not held together by morals at all.

But sanctioned insanity.

We make up stupid rules and rituals to force people to follow instead of think for themselves. We become so distracted memorizing someone else's goofiness, that we completely neglect our own hearts, minds, and souls.

We are now in an Age of Propaganda, and the Left have proven to be just as hypocritical as the Right.

The Left pretends to embrace feminism -- but no feminist can justify what Bill Clinton did. No feminist would work free as that man's publicist in the New York Times for it.

Because no feminist would hitch her fortunes on anyone else but herself.

Feminists have put all their eggs in the Left basket, meaning they have no options. They are chained to a single party.

Instead of pushing through into both parties -- and creating new ones of their own, they passively use one party as their shelter and refuge, meaning any harmful behaviour coming from their side of the linear divide has to be endured.

That's not progress. That's regression.

So Trudeau could do whatever he wanted as a thirty year old man who should have been an adult and a human being by then -- and he can do whatever he wants to now -- he has the little ladies of the Left right where he wants them, because they have to function by fear, not visionary and innovative bravery.

The Right have every right to ask about the double standard, and they are not wrong in pointing out that the Left just babble lies as they morally masturbate in public.

Because people on one side linear divide as no different and no better than those on the other side.

Because enabled men who have everything handed to them on a silver platter as others are always cleaning up his messes are going to feel flawless no matter what ideological and sanctioned insanity they ascribe to for convenience.

And because women who clean up other people's messes will always lose focus and burn out, never learning how to wield and gain their own power under any and every circumstance so long as they play mommy to adults who are scamming them and distracting them in order to steal that power for themselves.

But the illusions of differences are the hallmark in the Age of Propaganda, and it takes disavowing from the cultish ways of politics to see the big picture.

In other words, political atheism is an idea whose time has comes, despite the rambling denials of the fallen Left-sing partisan online rags, such as Democracy that thinks "contrarian Liberalism" is dead.

So is Liberalism, Conservatism, and all the ideological dogma because there is a sophistry fatigue.

If we had a functioning journalism, Clinton and Trudeau would have been rejected a long time ago because their respective countries deserved a lot better than boys who are in love with themselves.

If we had a functioning journalism, women wouldn't be afraid to vote for any party or fear any political system because their needs wouldn't be ignored or dismissed.

But we don't. We never did.

An alternative is not about choosing sides, but examining each one, questioning the line in the sand -- as well as those who play make pretend while they wear blinders, ignoring the rot they are allowing to go unchallenged because they are hoping some benevolent They will solve all of their problems for them...

Watching Canada jump into the rabbit hole: It is a long drop down.

Listening to Newstalk 1010's babbling bimbos on Moore in the Morning is instructive. Sheltered lethargy from the well-heel white trash isn't worth repeating too much; so let's take something silly from a silly and gullible politician instead.

In this case, NDP House Leader Ruth Ellen Brosseau proved that savvy is no requirement for the job of being a politician:

While Canadians stand together, President Trump stands alone. 

Are you serious?

Are you actually grounded in reality -- or is it all fairy princess narrative with you?

To explain how self-absorbed this comment is, let me bring you back to my late teens when the Civil War in Yugoslavia was going on.

It was a scary time to be someone of Serbian descent in Canada. Newstalk 1010 were bashing Serbs to an irrational extent -- having their hosts openly talk of rounding up all of the Canadians of Serb heritage and put them in camps.

Fascist fun on the radio! (And this was before Bill C-51 where you can lose your Canadian citizenship. Justin Trudeau, as usual, made the empty promise to repeal it and hasn't. That wasn't on the table then, but it was no less terrifying to be targeted because of your nationality).

I wrote letters to people in the media. Hundreds of them, as well as politicians. I didn't just babble without facts: I found out which PR firms were controlling the media coverage and how the were doing it, and telling those in the press that there were people who knew they were just cribbing press releases and doing no actual research.

This wasn't the days of the Internet where I could just post everything up, and provide information where I obtained my facts and how I verified them. I had a fax machine that worked over time sending me documents and reports at all hours of the night because I was writing and calling people all over the world to find out as much as I could, all while going full-time to university, and in my final year, part-time to college as well.

I also went on marches to protest what was happening, even though I knew it was an exercise in democratic futility. I picketed daily outside of them MP Shelia Copps's office in Hamilton, the US embassy in Toronto where someone slashed my tires, and even drove up all the way to Ottawa to protest on Parliament Hill.

There were CSIS agents marching along the protesters, keeping close tabs on a bunch of frazzled Serb-Canadians who were pleading for rationality, not causing any damage, and just shouting "Stop the bombing now!"

The protesters weren't any threat. They were terrified for relatives at home. They were terrified of getting their rights revoked over here.

But just how peaceful were the protesters?

More than once, there would be a group of Croatian Canadians coming to taunt the Serbian protesters, rubbing their noses in how everyone was taking their side, ha ha ha and all that jazz. It was not very mature, but if the provocations were meant to incite a brawl, it never worked. As in ever. If those protesters wanted to be violent, they would be blowing up things like ISIL or going over back home to take up arms and harm.

But it didn't mean that Serbs weren't shouting back, and those exchanges were very interesting to me.

What they shouted to the Croatians was the word Ustashe!

Which is the equivalent of calling Germans Nazis.

In the Second World War, Croat soldiers were called the Ustashe, and suffice to say, they were very happy and proud fascists, running concentration camps -- the one is Sisak was made specifically to starve, torture, and liquidate children, and these soldiers photographed all of their atrocities against Serbs, Jews, and Roma with happy smiles on their faces.

This fact is not up for dispute. There is photographic evidence and plenty of it -- all taken by the perpetrators. My Serbian grandmother's family -- parents, siblings, and others twenty-seven in all, all died in various concentration camps during the war. The only reason my grandmother was alive was that she was a nurse during the war effort working on a medical train. My family's demise by the Ustashe is also not in dispute. There are records of their deaths and where they died, with my grandmother's youngest sister Rada being a child when adult male soldiers ganged up on her and slaughtered her.

So here you had Serbs calling the wannabe provocateurs Ustashe, to which the Croats said proudly, Yes we are! We're the Ustashe!

What was meant as some horrible insult was seen as a badge of honour. Serbs never grasped that reality, constantly shouting the very word that brought no shame to their enemy, only glee and pride.

Unlike the Germans, who were forced to face the fact that being a Nazi was a bad thing, the Croats got a free pass after the war -- and still do. My grandmother's entire family may have been wiped off the map by the Croats, but after the war, she married one, saying she that he wasn't like that -- and he wasn't. Granddad was horrified by it to the point that he converted: from being a Catholic to becoming an Orthodox Christian. 

If you are keeping score, I am of mixed heritage. Remember that before you make some bigoted comment that I cannot see reality because I am of Serbian heritage.

But the futile exchange would happen every time -- I would say to my fellow protesters that calling people who are proud to be Ustashe Ustashe! doesn't do a thing, but they never got it.

I got it, however. It would be like a bunch of privileged rich white men calling me a feminist as an insult.

Yes, I am a feminist. I am not ashamed of being one, no matter how many times you call me one. Your tone and facial expressions mean nothing to me.

Which brings us back to what Brosseau said...

While Canadians stand together, President Trump stands alone. 


Do you actually understand anything, sheltered little girl?

So what?

For people who have the attention span of gnats, let me keep you up to speed with recent history:

When Donald Trump first decided he was going to run for president, he did it through the Republican party. They did not welcome him with open arms as everyone from Mitt Romney to John McCain had epic fits. The Old School faction had their golden boy Jeb Bush who had over two hundred million dollars in his war chest at the beginning of this rigged little race put on for the benefit of the little people. Old money wanted the guy who had no less than two first degree relatives hold that job before him. Everyone already decided Jeb was the Chose One. The End.

The Tea Party faction had their boy Ted Cruz. They didn't want Trump, either. They had the guy with political experience who managed to forge ahead with his own little posse.

Those Republicans all stood together united. Donald Trump stood alone.

Who won?

Excuse me, Ms Brosseau, I can't hear you.

And when Trump won the nomination, he went up against Hillary Clinton, the one whose husband was president, and she was a senator and Secretary of State. The Democrats and media all stood together with her while Donald Trumps stood alone.

Who won?

Was it Clinton?

No, it was the man who wins by standing alone Donald J. Trump.

By now, if Canadians were the observant type, they would notice a pattern, and make plans. Trump wins by standing alone. He is that good of a strategist.

(And Ivanka Trump is probably the greatest female strategist of our generation. When her father's campaign was floundering, she came on eleven days after giving birth and turned that campaign's fortunes around without any previous political experience -- square that with Caroline Mulroney, whose daddy was Prime Minister, and who ran for Ontario PC leader at the height of #MeToo, and came in third out of fourth on the first ballot -- all that, and the fourth place noob helped propel Doug Ford into top spot. Caroline snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and couldn't even play king-maker because she couldn't even answer softball questions from the press. To say Canada is ill-prepared for the next leg of the Chaos Narrative is a gross understatement).

Trump has mastered his own country, and now he has upped the ante and is absolutely ensuring that he does the same on the world stage.

There is no contest, Trump wins, and that should put Canada on notice.

Trump created more than just chaos.

He owns the story and it is The Chaos Narrative. He is the magician and narrator.

And Justin Trudeau is too conniving to be able to stand up to him. He needs minions applauding and uniting with him, and that is the sign of an ineffectual and impotent leader.

I was listening Newstalk's squares babbling propaganda on the Round Table -- completely clueless as they were waxing nostalgic when Yesterday's Man Barak Obama had the photo op bromance with Trudeau on his goodbye tour -- and how Obama was "mentoring" Trudeau.

Let me get this lunacy straight: you elect a leader who needs mentoring? 

You think having a leader who arrived without having an ability to deliver is a cute thing?

Have you all lost your minds? That is not cute: that is insulting.

No wonder Canada made itself a target. It is ignoring history of other countries who have found themselves in the crosshairs after enjoying decades of solid relations, is throwing blind fits after real tactical errors were made on their end, not being prepared for a crisis, and not considering the possibility that there is a very good chance there will be something damaging released that will be used as proof that the narrative is true. Something very careless and specific has happened behind the scenes that set this game of Go in motion, and it isn't the press conference.

All that has to happen is Canada's -- or even just Ontario's -- credit rating get a downgrade just as the tariffs hit, and we are so weakened, that the US can buy us at a fire sale price.

And Trump knows it. He has done business here, after all.

He is already paving the path to opening the Korean market -- an untapped market with more potential than keeping business with Canada. Trump has already said as much.

Canada jumped into this rabbit hole arrogantly, thinking just because the US had use for us yesterday, they will have use for us tomorrow. Serbs were convinced that both the US and Russia were going to take their side in the conflict, and it never happened.

It was a shock to Serbs. Not me, though.

I had done too much research as a One Woman fact-gathering centre to think all Serbs had to do was just show facts and explain. There was too much at stake, and there were financial and political reasons to bring the former Yugoslavia to its knees. Germany benefitted the most -- and even now, they are starting to circle back to have another go at the region because their Oaf in Chief Angela Merkel made enough blunders to cause grief to the country, thinking it is the same easy con as it was before the War.

It's not. Too much has happened, and the climate has changed. If they thought they can play the same tricks, they are in for the surprise of their lives. NATO is making silly threats that there is "unfinished business" in the region -- but too many other players -- such as China and Saudi Arabia -- have entrenched themselves and built up too much equity in the area to let NATO thump their chests at the Balkans's expense, not to mention that too many ex-pat Serbs have congregated in places such as the UK where they can wield enough political clout to make a difference. That route is already firmly shut, and Trump is a strategist who doesn't fool around. Europe's old tricks are about to turn on them -- but as they are unteachable, they are going to play this the wrong way to the end like the overly-confident Serbs did in the 1990s.

Canada is beyond clueless that once you willingly enter the rabbit hole, you lost control of not just the narrative, but your role, your perceptions, and your footing. There is no getting out of that hole because your own kicking of dirt shuts the hole up.

And it does not help when the federal Tories are booting each other out and calling each other "back-stabbers." Well played, children. And we accuse Trump of having tantrums? And we're not?

Thinking that Canada can just "stop provoking" Trump is National Post's wishful thinking as is the idea we can "ride out" this story. Trudeau must have done something very bad and very, very stupid regarding Trump, thinking he is clever. He thinks he is a Trudeau, but he is a Sinclair: he understands optics from a shallow point of view. He has no idea how many people have cleaned up his messes for him and paved his way because of his name, and they won't stand behind him for long because their investment in him is about to tank.

Nor does he see that Trump is not just a man who can stand alone: he is a man who has a plan. Canada's role in this plan has no semblance to its previous roles in the past. It is more than plain, but the denial factor is making matters worse because we don't have a plan -- just politicians who blindly stand behind a leader who does not know how to lead.

Jean Chretien had a recent interview that puts much into perspective, and is worth adding here:

Chretien also used the Le Devoir interview to slam Quebec separatism, in particular the notion that an independent Quebec could separate with its current borders intact.

“By what right would Quebec become indivisible? All of (Northern Quebec) was handed over in 1911. It’s not the French who claimed that. It was the Hudson’s Bay Company, the English,” he said.

This is a highly ironic comment. If Quebec were to separate -- they couldn't take the entire province as their own...

Except when the former Yugoslavia broke up -- Canada and the rest of the Western world precisely allowed that to happen, even if the Serb minorities in different regions did not want to separate from Serbia. It was this geographic rigidity that actually cause the bloodshed.

I remember writing letters to various international politicians as a mere teenager, making this very case: what you give to one side, you have to give to the other. Not everyone wants to be part of Croatia just as Croats did not want to be a part of Yugoslavia. Serbs got thrown under a bus, and then labelled as war aggressors and ethnic cleansers. They never knew what hit them as they kept going back to an old narrative and role that was yanked away from them.

They were ill-prepared when Croatia had the improbable plan of breaking away and got Bill Clinton's stamp of approval. After firms such as Ruder Finn got their marching orders, there was no using the old labels or narrative anymore. It was a different narrative, and Serbs kept trying to go back to an old story. It never worked because too many other nations had too much on the line to allow any competing narrative to potentially impact their bottom line.

It was all about the Benjamins, nothing more.

So Chretien's interview proves beyond dispute that the West always knew this little fact of divisibility, but ignored it back then because they had other plans for the region.

And Canada should remember that: Trump has other plans -- and they don't involve keeping Canada to reap the benefits of the status quo.

We are now in that rabbit hole because we passively allowed a very poor quality leader to drag us there. We are a country with a sparse population who never lived like kings and queens, despite all the natural resources we could use to create a paradise. We either pull a pay check from an American company, or from a debt-ridden government, and now we have provoked someone who is a magician who can pull the carpet from under us in a blink of an eye. 

Do not look to US celebrities for validation because they are just talk. How many of those brats actually moved to Canada after vowing they would because Trump got elected?

That's right. None. Zero.

The number of the Fool.

Canada is about to grow up in the place on the other side of the rabbit hole: one that professors, politicians, and the middle class have no idea exists, let alone how to function, negotiate, or even survive there.

Canada is not the only one put on notice: the usual gang of idiots in the G7 have also been shown to be incapable of basic strategy when one of their own deviates from their script.

One man. All it takes is one in the Chaos Narrative is to set the series of events to forever change the story.

And Canada has no control over what will happen on the other side of that rabbit hole...

Tanya Granic Allen's bad attempt at misdirection

Her appearance on Newstalk 1010 in an attempt to save face this week is quite instructive. The blow she faced being removed as a PC candidate was humiliating and she went on friendly and sympathetic territory to try to salvage her career.

It was not a good move.

She seemed to try to deflect attention away from her past bigoted comments that doomed her political career. She denies being a hater, but then has a verified and on-the-record history of claiming if a certain segment of society is given the right to get married, it will result in the "demise of society."

But then she made a peculiar claim that people were phoning her to tell her their children were getting scary attention from Children's Aid for their parents's religious beliefs. The host, who has been on the record as liking her, then asked if she had any proof that this claim was true.

She immediately backtracked from the claim, stating there were privacy issues and the like.

It is not as if people have not gone public to the media and social media making complaints about CAS's meddling. If this is going to be your defence in public, you better have facts to pony up.

It's irrelevant. You cannot take a position, and then, when you are called on the carpet for it, pretend you didn't make that position.

There is a difference between being cunning and conniving -- and many people new to strategy-based careers think they are cunning, when they are, in fact, conniving. They make it so so far, only to crumble when an obstacle requires a genuinely cunning mindset -- they are shocked that their methods blow up in their faces because they honestly believe they are the smartest person around.

It is easy to pander to a group who feels besieged. It is easy to chest-thump and try to exploit morality to shame opposing voices. 

It is not so easy to defend yourself when those gambits are exposed.

Granic Allen entered an arena with far superior intellects who are veterans with experience in dealing with opposition in expedient, cutthroat ways. The base she hitches her ride on will not punish Doug Ford for dumping her -- they will vote Tory no matter what.

And contrary to journalistic narrative, I do not believe Granic Allen was a kingmaker -- had she not put her hat in the ring -- those votes would have gone to Ford regardless. Her clout is an illusionary one -- and it explains why she crashed and burned before the election campaign even began...

Memo to the Toronto Star: A ten year old can make a newscast now. Doug Ford is mocking the press, not respecting them.

Doug Ford is making his own advertorial newscasts these days, bypassing the press and just running stuff on the Internet.


That's how little skill it takes to do it.

After all, the Ford brothers had a radio show on Toronto's News Talk 1010, and even flirted with a television show on the now defunct Sun TV that the legacy media once dismissed.

But as usual, the Toronto Star is tying to spin his own unreasonable facsimile as having respect for the media as they jab him.

Sorry, children, it is a jab to you to let you know that it takes no effort to emulate a newscast. He doesn't need actual journalists covering him, just a Ford Nation brand.

And it is a brand that's proven stronger than the Star brand. This is the same newspaper that speculated that Rob Ford's death would weaken Ford Nation.

It was strong enough to secure Doug Ford a victory as Ontario PC leader. The Star, on the other hand, is spending days begging the federal government for free money to subsist.

The Liberals are throwing temper tantrums, demanding an investigation over them...even though former CBC and City TV journalist Ben Chin did the same thing for the Liberals in 2007 (who won that round, by the way), and went on over to the party in both British Columbia, and then for the federal Liberals.

And that tells you something else about journalism: it is the breeding ground for partisanship, and picking sides all in the hopes of a patronage appointment for your loyalty.

Doug Ford knows it, and just cut out the middleman because they aren't needed anymore.

Anyone can make a newscast. With a smart phone and a Twitter account, you can make any kind of citizen news outlet you want.

And it makes journalism obsolete.

So don't think you are making any jabs at Ford's expense.

He is merely pointing out it is 2018. 

He doesn't need a media bus when he can get his own message out by himself.

And in spite of all that, he can win.

It is not a done deal, of course. Kathleen Wynne is tattling away nerd style, and it could work.

Or it can blow up in her face when voters remember all those irksome kids who tattled on them in their youth, and then give her the heave ho in a symbolic gesture.

It doesn't matter, but once upon a time, it would have been unthinkable to bypass the media in a campaign.

But these days, it is best way to increase your chances of winning -- and the Star would be best not to be so arrogant in their responses in a changing landscape...

Pseudo-transparency and reflection in journalism cannot save it.

It is not hard to imagine why journalism collapsed, but it is not as if every in the profession is oblivious to what needs to be done. The problem is the vast majority are bringing the profession down.

I always said WikiLeaks is the ideal journalism should have been: true outsiders. Julian Assange has lost much of his focus lately, though I cannot say I blame him. He gave traditional media too much credit trying to plead his case that WikiLeaks and legacy media have the same goals. They do not.

WikiLeaks tried to awaken the population so that they would know what is really happening. Journalists at the Post and the New York Times want to mug for America as some action heroes of democracy as they attend red carpet affairs. Seriously, I respect Assange and root for him, but he is proof of what happens to you when you don't get out enough.

But of the few people in legacy media, most have no idea of what they should have been doing, though Newstalk 1010's Jerry Agar had some inkling recently doing a multi-day story on the impact of miscarriages -- starting with the personal and then branching out to the medical and psychological over the course of days. It wasn't a narrative. It wasn't sensationalism or social engineering. It wasn't bombast or fear-mongering. And it never tried to weave in Donald Trump into it in any way. But Agar is not a journalist by trade -- and that's disconcerting that the personality sees something the news producers do not.

In a world with a glut of opinion, people are getting opinion fatigue because opinion doesn't solve problems.

Facts do.

But journalism ran away from facts a long time ago. WikiLeaks understood facts and they gave the world facts.

But the world was too in love with spewing opinions that they ignored them, and worse, villainized them because those facts clashed with their opinions.

Journalism long ago realized spewing opinion was cheaper than gathering facts, and now that they lost their monopoly on broadcasting it, they are trying to move back a more credible model, but they no longer have a pulse on what that even means.

We can take the Toronto Star as an example. They have a public editor acting more as an apologist and justifier, explaining to the little people why journalists interview grieving families for stories because you have the perpetually offended trying to one-up each other to be the Queen and King of Morality on Twitter and whining that exposing the world to the ugly reality is a bad thing, and that privacy is necessary. Besides, what if they are made accountable and forced to change their routine, proving them wrong? What will the jealous siblings say about them on the Facebook?

No, there are people who never want to be inconvenienced by other people's troubles and they do not want to see bad news because then someone may realize their lives are dysfunctional and they do not live in paradise.

Why do you need a public editor for that? People videotape all sorts of tragic and embarrassing things that go viral -- and millions of people watch it. Those same snowflakes hold up traffic to gawk at car accidents on the highway. It's a sham.

Besides, if families do not want to talk to reporters, they don't. Journalists can't issue subpoenas. 

But the Star thinks it is being transparent when it isn't.

It tries to put that façade of seriousness. Even when it tells the Great Unwashed how their reporters get government documents to copy verbatim, assuming that people don't do the same thing in their own jobs or personal lives. 

I don't see the Star actually questioning the veracity of those papers or whether or not what is on them is accurate and valid.

Journalism should have been more than just appealing to authority.

But it wasn't because facts are not important when you are spewing opinion, propaganda, and narrative.

True journalistic transparency takes a lot more than that -- when I ran Chaser News, I was transparent -- not just with how I gathered facts -- but how I analyzed and verified them.

As well as my reactions to things I came across -- such as my anger during a Take Back the Night rally that had trained professionals in mental health and social services completely ignore a woman having a panic attack as she was visibly distressed. It was not part of my original story about trying to find a missing woman, but the episode did hint that people fall through the cracks because we often become numb to our surroundings even as our jobs dictate we must be vigilant.

But vigilance has become something people look down on these days: It's All Good! Perfect! and No worries and three very worrisome attitudes we have accepted as being cool and acceptable.

No, it's not all good. No, it's not perfect. Yes, there are worries.

That's why we have to always work hard to improve things, even if it means being distressed and questioning ourselves, our choices, and our methods.

Had journalists been transparent, they would have seen where they were going wrong. Instead, they chose that nonchalant attitude to pretend they were doing everything perfectly.

And then came their destruction.

An alternative to journalism must take care that the attitude is never a flippant one that deadens the senses and encourages lethargy and complacency. Life is a struggle and a never-ending riddle -- and the alternative must be a realistic and true reflection of our own essences to connect and thrive in the world...

Exclusionary messages: Listening to political babble reveals more by omission than commission.

I was listening to Kathleen Wynne talking on Newstalk 1010 this morning, and found it very interesting. She may have had a you-centred message, but it was aimed clearly at a certain demographic. She talked about "your parents" and "your children", meaning those two groups were not being addressed themselves. She is not talking directly to older voters at all. She is avoiding talking to youth, talking to their parents, instead.

She isn't talking about older voters with a you-message. They are auxiliary headaches for their adult children to endure. She is also skipping the new generation as they, too, are some sort of burden that has to be addressed to their parents.

Auxiliary voters are never directly addressed -- they are seen as having less power or control, even if they have more power than the targeted voting block. Youth are the future. Older voters have savings and experience of skills.

In any case, when you do not address segments directly, your policies will not be made with those groups in mind, meaning whatever you give them will be ill-fitting, and let them know in no uncertain terms that they do not have the power -- but the group you are targeting. This hints that the policies will be ineffective from the get-go.

Wynne is 64 years old -- she is ignoring her own demographic in Ontario's provincial election. If you are going to have a hard Left agenda, then you are supposed to be about equality -- and subtle ageism is as exclusionary as it gets...