Fourteen years ago today, OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism was published.

Disinfo is no longer in business, but the book is still around.


As I am still toiling away, I would like to take a breather and point out some of the fuckery going on in the press.

Like this bullshit piece from Quartz:

A new Twitter account is outing shoddy reporting in science stories

You misogynistic motherfuckers, some white guy starts a Twitter feed, and you give him free publicity about showing shoddy reportage about science?

I wrote two books chronicling the same thing and showing how to spot it, and I did not get a mention.

Don’t Believe It!: How lies become news was published in March 2005 and I had an entire chapter on this problem.

When Journalism was a Thing also extensively went into this problem last year, and you ignored it.

The man posts five seconds on Twitter, and you drool and slobber all over his ass as if he did something original. Go fuck yourselves.

And speaking of fuckery, boy, someone with big boy pants must have taken over the propaganda arm of the federal Liberals.

The National Post are being dutiful little minions and are doing free propaganda for them:

'Inconsistent with democratic values': Internal conflict flared over Jody Wilson-Raybould's controversial last act as justice minister

An internal memo claims Crown lawyers were being overruled and told not to use certain defences to appear less adversarial toward Indigenous plaintiffs

Really? JWR was your pick, assholes. That was the culture of control you cultivated. She was well within the brand of political reasoning — and you wait until your little SNC-Lavalin scandal got this far away from you to try to take swipes at her?

You losers do realize the more you slag her, the worse you sound, right? You either mistreated her, which speaks poorly of your prime minister, or you picked and propped up a lemon for years, which speaks even more poorly of you. If you had class — which, by the way, you don’t — you would be better off copping to the former rather than the latter.

Do you idiots realize this has now gotten way, way bigger than two ousted female MPs? You are all going to get hit with a bigger scandal or three before October, and it won’t matter. It doesn’t even matter now. You all sound like vindictive spouses going through a divorce and come off as petty shits. Get a crisis management team and get over yourselves.

And as for the National Propaganda — stop being stenographers for the Man. No wonder you guys bleed money.

But it goes beyond the childish and psychopathically abusive nose-tweaking. The Grits are desperate and reek badly of it with their vast conspiracy theories of political interference being floated as a possible bogeyman for them to frighten the little people into voting for them.

Dumbasses, here is the memo: all countries meddle in the affairs of other countries. That is why Julian Assange had to be silenced by bribing the regime who gave him refuge with loans — who knows what drugs were given to the guy during his exile to discredit him, but WikiLeaks released information that showed the the “political interference” happened everywhere all the time, and the Left sound like Loopy Lous trying to make it sound as if meddling happened only with Trump, and we have people in the Liberal Party sound like paranoid potheads warning that other countries will meddle in our election.

Yeah, the way you stick your pointy little noses in theirs. Fuck you. For a group of blowhards who preach about globalization, why would this even bother you? Globalization precisely means the right to meddle in other countries’ affairs. That’s like wanting to fuck everybody and still be a virgin. Morons.

One last observation: Peter Mackay’s column in the Toronto Sun seems to have a very sly, but nasty jab to Justin Trudeau:

No one is fooled by the crafted image, stage-managed appearances, bold bromides, soaring rhetoric and flashy wardrobe; the stuff of an Old Spice commercial spoofing itself for effect.

The Old Spice reference doesn’t fit — unless you recall that Matthew Perry’s stepdad was the Old Spice guy in commercials…and that Perry boasted in public how he used to beat up Trudeau in school when they were kids.

Trudeau could never compete with Perry in the acting sphere, so go show up the guy in politics where you are completely unqualified. Take that, Matthew Perry!

That’s all for now. I am averaging a chapter a day, and I am picking up speed. Propaganda-busting gets my juices flowing. I could never stand liars because they are arrogant cowards to the core.



CBC lives in an infected bubble.





Gracious, an outbreak of sophistry at the CBC.

Take a look at this silly piece of dreck:

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

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

No longer?

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

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

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

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

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

A fake expert was quoted in multiple media outlets as being legitimate? You don't say, Gizmodo!

A fake expert was believed and quoted without anyone asking questions?

You don’t say!

Remember the Lying Dutchman? The social psychologist who made up his studies, and then the press believed them, for like, years?

They didn’t learn from that episode — and in fact, got even worse because they didn’t even double-check the new champ’s creds.

I wrote the book on these kinds of things, and it is common enough that one wonders why journalism never had a vigorous screening process on their so-called “experts.”

Did you read their studies? Their books? I have done so, and I have even had people who wanted to interview me make sure that got and read the book before interviewing me.

I may be eccentric and not fit any simple and sanctioned label, but my credentials are sound, verifiable, and above reproach.

And I have had people interview me who had no clue who I was at all. I have turned down interviews because I wasn’t the one who could or should speak on the topic.

So not only is this not surprising, there are a lot more fake experts being quoted even now, and nothing ever changes…

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is the mundane reality of the newsroom.

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

But you take it for granted.

I didn’t.

I wanted to ride the wavelengths of the profession.

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

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

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

But a funny thing happened.

Some reviewers didn’t get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will upload the column and response another time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amateur Hour at the Ontario NDP. Leak at your own risk.



As an official opposition, the NDP really don’t know what they are doing. They did rule this province once and have been elected as politicians for decades; so there is no excuse for their colossal fuckery of leading a trail of huge, radioactive breadcrumbs straight to the computer of their leaker:

Ontario NDP’s improper redaction led Ford government to leaker: Sources

Oy yoi yoi.

This is how n00bs function: they get a piece of dirt, vogue and posture in front of rolling cameras filled with ego and bad acting skills, forget the basics of trying to protect people who are going out on a limb, fuck up the message, and watch as the government fires the leaker, gets the OPP unleashed on said amateur leaker, and then no one talks about the scoop, but of your nincompoopity as you conveniently try to dodge the questions, proving you are no better than the man in charge.

The leaker was naive. The NDP were oblivious and self-serving. The Ford regime had no choice but to come down hard, and it helps greatly that this fuck up happened so early into the Tories’s tenure: because the trail was coloured with loud neon green bread crumbs, they can see how to fortify their defences, and the other potential blabbermouths are going to know that the NDP are not professionals, and they won’t give them goodies to spew for press conferences.

This thwarted headache is now a gift to Ford.

When I worked as a journalist, I tried to avoid using anonymous sources as a general rule. There often is a good, but not noble reason for someone wanting to go incognito. If their identity is made public, someone is going to blab what this person is really up to. I preferred getting information, and then going off to independently verify things through some more open and forthcoming channels. My job is to give facts in context, but I am not going to tell you what to think of those facts.

When I was asked to write the companion book to the documentary OutFoxed, I was presented with three anonymous sources, but I wasn’t told their identities, which posed a dilemma for me. The book has to reflect the documentary, and I had no say over a canned movie not of my making. The vast majority of the interviews were not anonymous, but some very important details came from those three sources.

I have a rule: I need to verify information to my satisfaction, and I have to know who I am dealing with. It is not as if I expect perfection from sources or else they are completely tainted, but if you weigh your facts and sources, eventually the scale will tip one way and you can use the intel, or it tips the other way, and you know the intel not true — and then you have to find out why you were told an untruth and what it is hiding, meaning there is more to the story, or just a completely different story than the one you were given.

It is like being Anubis, and figuring out if you are going to feed Ammit and unleash him to the person who tried to con you.


So, I could not add anyone that wasn’t interviewed for the film (whether or not they were featured in it) to replace the three anonymous sources.

But I then took each interview and in very short order, managed to figure out the identities of all three.

And I could also verify what they said, meaning what I used was good intel. People can chose to use their own scale and dismiss an anonymous source, but the book didn’t pin everything on those three sources, either. There were the memos, other sources, and the breakdown of the actual transcripts, among other things. I offered a huge buffet of facts, you want to skip three dishes, you have hundreds of other options to choose from.

But I shouldn’t have been able to figure out who they were, or as fast I as did. If you are using anonymous sources, they have to stay anonymous. With Watergate, Deep Throat’s identity was safe for decades.

In the gossip, surveillance-happy Beltway filled with operatives, lawyers, journalists, politicians, and lobbyists.

This was extraordinary, but fair to the source who gave enough information to take down a president, but not enough was revealed to figure out who he was.

But Bob Woodward is an actual journalist. So is Carl Bernstein.

And this was back in the day when the Washington Post was a real newspaper.

But the NDP bungled this badly. It reminds me of the “Eyewitness Ed'“ episode of the cartoon The Completely Mental Misadventures of Ed Grimley.

All Horwath forgot to do was don an Astroboy hairdo and play the triangle…

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






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

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

Trixie Pixie weighted 900 grams.

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

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

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

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

But Trixie always got her revenge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

So what’s really going on here?

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


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

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

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

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

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

That is a fantasy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s quite a feat.

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

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

It is a recipe for self-destruction.

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

The answer lies in pandas.


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

Are they victims of outside forces?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules for Radicals: the war manual for poor people. Not limousine liberals. Not champagne socialists. Just poor.



Saul Alinsky was a forerunner to Method Research. He tested out his theories in the real world by walking among his subjects, but his was a post-hoc version of it, yet his results ended up being a book called Rules for Radicals.

His rules?

  1. "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."

  2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people."

  3. "Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy."

  4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

  5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."

  6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

  7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."

  8. "Keep the pressure on."

  9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

  10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition."

  11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside."

  12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

  13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Simple. Effective. Elegant.

But they are not universal.

They work, but they are highly misapplied these days and misunderstood.

The Right hate Alinsky. The Left think they own those rules.

Both are silly and hopelessly wrong.

Alinsky’s rules were not partisan-based. They were class-based. They had failsafes to prevent rich motherfuckers from using them against poor people as it gave poor people a chance to crawl out of the hole the wealthy dug to kick their competition in to bury them.

Alinsky was very careful. He didn’t call his book a war manual or a guide for the poor. He wanted to energize this broken demographic, realign their perceptions, and give them a narrative to give them the power and incentive to push forward. It is not called “Rules for Poor People” after all, but “Rules for Radicals.”

They are very effective in many ways, but the Left ideologically appropriated them.

To understand how badly the Left fucked this war manual up, let’s look at another movement that was short lived, but extremely effective: Art Nouveau, or Jugenstil.


Art Nouveau lasted about twenty years, and for an art movement, it was very short.

It began when a bunch of young European male artists couldn’t break through from the Establishment artists.

They wrote manifestos, and all but declared war on those rich bastards.

They had a plan: they made art of mundane objects, from furniture to posters to jewelry to lamps to buildings. They found a new market and niche, and were daring.

Eventually, those swaggering turks broke through, and abandoned the movement.


Mission accomplished. They went on with their careers and lives. The end.

Those in the movement understood the purpose of their movement, the ultimate goal, and that once they broke through, the movement was to be discarded because it no longer applied to them.

You mature. You go on to the next level of success that requires different strategies from the ones you needed once you arrived and delivered.

The American Left have never gotten this memo.

In the 1960s and 1970s, they used the rules and broke through.

But then kept using the rules they ideologically appropriated with diminishing returns.

These rules are not Left going after Right. In fact, if rich Left people go after poor Right people, the rules turn on them.

Every single one of these rules are for the Davids in the David and Goliath battles. Plug in the variables and do the math yourself. A rich person ridiculing poor people? Do the optics play well?

Of course not.

How does a rich person demand a poor person live up to their own rules when they are too busy surviving and protecting their children from a life of destitution?

Easy for a rich asshole to do things with a staff looking after their brats. That’s the reason Alinsky said for the poor to force the hands of the rich: show they are hypocrites even though they have no excuse in the world to be hypocrites, and you break the spell of perfection.

And if the rich use their resources to trample the poor? You become a global pariah.

These rules are not meant for the rich because they make them look like psychopaths.

But the same standards don’t apply when you are poor because someone who is rich is keeping you back and down.

So when rich Leftist Hillary Clinton called poor people who wanted to vote for her rival a basket of deplorables, she was using Alinsky logic, forgetting that she was not poor and they were.

She radicalized the poor Right the way Alinsky radicalized the poor Left — the difference being she didn’t intend to do that, and Alinsky did. That is her legacy and she alone owns it. For someone whose undergraduate thesis was on Alinsky, she has no feel for it.

The wealthy Left keep using Alinsky and it is increasingly backfiring. They couldn’t stop Donald Trump with it. They aimed lower and then couldn’t stop Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court judge.

They failed to sink Fox News because the FNC targets poorer people on the Right — giving them all sorts of scapegoats why their lives went off the rails. I recounted this in my second book OutFoxed in detail.

The limousine liberals and champagne socialists are stuck in a time warp where they think they are the fringe outsider rebels and radicals.

Don’t fucking delude yourselves, assholes.

You are the Establishment.

If you have an Oscar, Emmy, Tony, Grammy, or Golden Globe somewhere in your house, you are the Man.

If you have graced a cover of a national or international magazine, you are the Man.

If you are a politician, actor, singer, media owner, fashion designer, current or former cast member of Saturday Night Live, or corporate executive, motherfucker, you are the Man.

Fuck you.

Don’t try to use the Rules for Radicals when you are the Man.

You are a rich bastard. You can retire the war manual. Saul Alinsky called from Eden and he says to put the book away, and stop using it on poor people because you are not poor.

Stop using the rules against poor Right people. Stop using the rules to exploit and co-opt the poor Left people.

It is time for someone to finally use those rules on you.

Experience has made you rich, to paraphrase a song.

And now they are after you…

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


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













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


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

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

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

Too bad journalists never learned that lesson.

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

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

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

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

They both had a mutual secret that got exposed recently.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


No おもいやり.

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

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

That’s not journalism.

Not anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

That’s おもいやり.

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


Even when the National Post gets a clue, they Lestrade it. Mycroft Holmes they are not...

I have been saying for months that Canada is being isolated from the global stage, and this has been a slow, strategic, and deliberate process.

I will say now do not expect this game to be over anytime soon. We are merely in the first arc of this torture.

The game is strategic and the Canadian federal regime are arrogant morons and trolls who keep making things very easy.

Look at the how strategic this isolation has been:

The United States has slapped “national security” tariffs on us. Not just any tariffs. Our prime minister was accused of being a slimy boyish deceiver by the US president, and we lost our rights with USMCA. That takes care of North America.

Then came the dispute with Saudi Arabia with big dummy Chrystia Freeland mishandling that as well. Saudi Arabia has marked us and struck at us with no sign of ending their punishment. That takes care of the Middle East.

And now China. They, too have declared Canada an enemy with no forgiveness in sight, and their retaliation is only beginning. That takes care of Asia.

Do we see a pattern, children?

Do you realize South America and Europe will also have powerful players on the Hate Canada list in the near future, and those streams are already starting to show themselves?

This is a political and economic Gesamtkunstwerk: this methodical take-down has an artistic flair with everything being part of this disturbing masterpiece.

Canadians get snooty and pride themselves on being liked globally, and now, all of a sudden, that narrative — the only trick in our bag — has been disproven.

It took the National Post this long to realize that Canada is being isolated.

You don’t say! Reading my web site for story ideas again, children?

And memo to the National Post: your “guide” for watching the Fox News Channel is seriously wanting.

The superior one was written in 2005, by me, and it still applies.


What are we going to do with you, children? What is going to happen when the dumbass motherfuckers of the federal government get so stymied that they can’t give away monies to the newspaper owners in sneaky ways, anymore, like they did for your pals at the Toronto Star who had their contract canceled after word got out?

Canada is in serious shit. It is in serious, mothefucking shit up to its eyeballs. It has zero to do with us babbling about “human rights.” No one is actually buying that bullshit story when they see First Nations people live in shacks without so much as electricity as they mourn of the women that vanished; so just because a few universities have a faculty and make a disclaimer that they are on First Nations land, means nothing but lip service and insincere virtue-signalling.

It also has nothing to do with our paltry economic power or political clout.

It has everything to do with our natural resources.

China has been busy in this department for years, buying up mines and other raw areas in Africa and Serbia — all for a song.

You don’t think they were making nice with Canada because we’re so cute and cool, did you?

And now that they see the US has staked their claim and their intentions and mean it, it is war, and Canada is the battleground.

We are in uncharted territory without allies, but plenty of vulnerabilities, and a regime of goobers that the press insists on trying to pass off as competent, although others have seen how they could have dodged a bullet, but didn’t.

You have no idea what’s in store for you. Ontario tried to cut it off at the pass, but Moody’s still downgraded this province at the worst possible time. Think about it.

2019 is going to be an ugly year for the Reality Deniers, Script Followers, and Thought Thieves. They are in for a series of serious shocks and jolts like they have never experienced before.

But it was all avoidable, if only they thought their own ideas and faced reality instead of looking for scripts to crib…

Communist propaganda, Canadian journalism style: Note how the Reality Deniers never have the ovaries to just state bad news.

When I wrote the book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism, I had in my possession a significant cache of memos staff at the Fox News Channel were issued on how to cover events before they did any work on the stories.

It’s a propaganda rig: how a story played out all depended on the memo, not the actual facts of reality.

But if you think the propaganda is just a Fox-thing, or a Right-wing, thing, you truly are a moron.

We see the same games in Canadian journalism, played out on a mass scale.

Just look at this propaganda piece in the Huffington Post Canada:

The Good News About Canada’s Suddenly Shrinking Economy

If this keeps up, Stephen Poloz won’t be jacking up your mortgage rates much longer.

This article goes beyond being patronizing and stupid:

Some dark clouds have gathered around Canada's economy in the past few months, but that might actually be good news for the country's most indebted households, and for homebuyers, as the Bank of Canada is less likely to keep hiking interest rates.

Dummy, if the economy tanks, people will lose jobs, and the interest rates will be spiked higher. People will lose their homes because when the economy is bad, there are fewer jobs available, businesses shut down, and debts get called in.

There is no good news in Canada right now. None.

When I was a kid, I lived in a cul de sac with brand new townhouses. Both my mother and my grandmother had full-time jobs: my grandmother worked in a factory and my mother was a driving instructor. There were about thirty families living here, and the economy was doing very well, until it didn’t.

The mortgage rates spiked, and all but three families lost their homes in the bargain. My family was one of those three families to be able to weather it out. It was an ugly time, and I still remember it well after all these decades.

So this article is pure bullshit.

Because Canada has too many people on social assistance as well as too many government workers. Both these sectors rely on a tax base for their survival, and neither truly contributes to the economy by producing goods. The provinces and nation are both heavily in debt, and should we get downgraded, that means cuts to the dole, and cuts to the government payroll which been artificially propping up our economy because these are people who are the best paid in Canada — if they lose their jobs, we’re fucked.

When my mother used to teach metalworking at the college level, she had a variety of adult students taking her courses: factory workers (particularly GM), bank tellers, nurses, police officers, professors, office workers, teachers, executives, artists, casino workers, and retirees.

Then came a recession, and by the time the dust settled, the only kinds of students who could still afford to take lessons were teachers who are on the government dole. The other white collar types vanished.

As I was the one who did the managing for my mother’s teaching and jewelry design career, I used to send out emails, and one day a virus caused the email to blast to people, but the number of emails that were no longer active that got kicked back to me was chilling.

They came back because those were work emails and those places no longer existed.

And neither were those jobs.

With investment to Canada dropping, US tariffs crippling our economy, and the Saudis proving their anger has real consequences, things are not looking up — and the weed as economic saviour narrative is proving to be a serious lie.

Journalists are not covering this reality. They are trying to spin shit into a gourmet meal.

No, you are trying to tell your people what a glorious thing it is to eat shit. Shame on you.

Just like the prime minister who made a childish idiot of himself, tweaking the US President’s nose yet again.

The last time you did that like a powerless little boy, you got tariffs slapped on this country. Does this moron have any ability to learn and correct his infantile behaviour?

And you have losers in a dead profession cheer this garbage as if it matters what an incompetent and subjugated bungler calls evidence of his defeat.

Trudeau can call it the Great and Glorious Economic Orgasm of Canada, we are still reduced to a vassal state who is screwed over.

The Canadian mindset is a cowering infantilized one that cannot process the fact that there is such a thing as bad news that cannot be corrected by some They.

That’s what lulled the Communists into oblivion. They were constantly told that eating shit was actually dining like kings.

And then the Americans popped that balloon.

With glee.

We have Reality Deniers who keep trying to spin rot, and the bad news keeps rolling in. Sooner or later those wicked games come back to haunt you — and they are already starting.

Because you cannot have goods until you face the bad — and do something about it that actually takes a lot of effort, sacrifice, grit, discipline — and work

Memo to BuzzFeed: Boycotting Fox News? Sure, and people should boycott BuzzFeed News. You are propaganda on the opposite side of the same bad penny.

I never understood ideological control freaks.

They want to rig things so it is just their ideas that are acceptable, and, naturally, those ideas benefit them only.

Nice try.

We are in an Age of Propaganda, and one of the more obvious propagandists happens to be BuzzFeed.

They lack the intelligence and the experience to do the partisan manipulation covertly.

They are are on a tear on how people should “boycott” Fox News:

Fox News Isn't A Normal Media Company. We Have To Stop Treating It Like One.

Assholes: neither are you.

You are Leftish propagandists, and I have said some of it on Metafilter, but you are very patronizing Leftist propagandists with your nerdy and cringeworthy brain dead quizzes, and your creepy advertorial-esque celebrity obsessions.

You spew garbage that looks like used candy wrappers, and you want people to boycott Fox News?

They should boycott you, too.

Your publication is the worst sort of smug, worthless garbage that has no factual valid or utility.

You are not news. You are partisan bullshit.

No better than Fox News.

If only everyone would censor ideologies that are inconvenient to BuzzFeed, then the world would be just perfect, eh, fellas?

You could just puke sophistry with reckless abandon, and never be made to prove your arrogant delusions.

We need facts. The more facts we have, the more propaganda becomes obvious and silly-looking.

And we don’t have enough facts to see it…

Publishing is a fickle business...

It is sad to see my first publisher The Disinformation Company vanish. They no longer have the old web site, and this is on their Twitter feed.

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 3.58.36 PM.png

My first two books were published by them. Don’t Believe It! was the first, and it was Richard Metzger who asked me to write the companion book to the documentary OutFoxed. I was teaching at Sheridan College at the time, and I was teaching a workshop on using “web logs” in the classroom to other professors on campus that day when he called me and asked if I would do it.

I was shocked and thrilled at the opportunity and happily said yes. That kind of opportunity doesn’t happen every day, and I was grateful. In 2005, thanks to Disinfo, I had two books published exactly one month apart.

I thought Don’t Believe It was going to be my swan song, but it was merely a preface to a new era for me.

I am sad to see it go, however. They were anarchistic, unruly, and daring, and even Skeptic magazine (where my breakthrough article about objectivity in journalism was published) never got them. For people like me who do not fall into little categories, they were truly independent.

Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 12.06.48 AM.png

Truth be told, I didn’t fall into their regular fare, either, but they accepted eccentric Alexandra Kitty all the same. I had a controversial idea for a book, and it was a breakthrough for me…


In an Age of Propaganda, all paths are rigged in the fun house.


Hey, hey, we are The Monkees
You know we love to please
A manufactured image
With no philosophies

We hope you’ll like our story
Although there isn’t one
That is to say there’s many
That way there is more fun

You’ve told us you like action
And games of many kinds
You like to dance, we like to sing
So let’s all lose our minds

We know it doesn’t matter
’Cause what you came to see
Is what we’d love to give you
And give it one, two, three

But it may come three, two, one, two
Or jump from nine to five
And when you see the end in sight
The beginning may arrive

For those who look for meanings
And form as they do fact
We might tell you one thing
But we’d only take it back

Not back like in a box back
Not back like in a race
Not back so we can keep it
But back in time and space

You say we’re manufactured
To that we all agree
So make your choice, and we’ll rejoice
In never being free

Hey, hey, we are The Monkees
We’ve said it all before
The money’s in, we’re made of tin
We’re here to give you more
The money’s in, we’re made of tin
We’re here to give you…

— The Monkees, “Ditty Diego—War Chant”, 1968.


When I wrote the book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism, I spent an entire chapter discussing Bill O’Reilly’s program The O’Reilly Factor.

It was pure theatre and a seeming battleground.

What it actually was, in fact, was a rigged fun house, and the host was far savvier than most of his guests. He knew what he was doing and knew how to get his narrative across the noise of ideologues.

These days, that fun house goes beyond the Fox News Channel.

It spans through the entire dead profession of journalism, but also social media.

And yet there is an illusion of diverse voices.

Social media today reminds me of the Monkees’ movie Head.

The movie is brilliant as it is disturbing. It is, in essence, a movie about nothing in a literal sense.

As in, how the Monkees self-destructed and lost everything in the bargain.

The movie begins with the four jumping off a bridge, committing suicide, and then after a pastiche of fragmented and surrealist vignettes, they are jumping off the bridge, but inside of ending up in a lake, they are alive and stuck in a fish tank.

This is what social media has become: a fish tank that is now actively confining thought and thinking patterns rather than expand them.

Because everything is rigged to force a binary outcome before the binary vies for a monolithic victory.

Because everyone has to fight for attention, the rig is competitive in nature.

And as they are no overt guides, people must guess what is acceptable, but in such a way that they are at the top of a pecking order. It is the reason why there is so much sophistry.

And propaganda.

Because it has become rigged for it.

Try to break away through extreme measures, you get thrown in the fish tank where you are trapped inside, and everyone on the outside can see it.

The trick is to break the cycle, and it is not difficult to do. O’Reilly’s rigs brought him ratings and clout, but his downfall occurred outside his show when his champion and protector Roger Ailes was ousted, and he soon followed.

With so much focus on social media, it seems as if there is no alternatives, and yet there are several.

And in the coming months, a big part of Chaser will be breaking away from traditional journalism and social media to create a new form of news that never falls for rigs or propaganda…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Twenty-Three: Journalism never learned to asked the two most important questions: Who is paying for this spectacle, and what's in it for them to do it?

Machiavelli’s The Prince is must-reading if you are ever to make yourself into a real information-gatherer. Unless you are willing to question your reality, you are only going to find rubbish and not the truth.

Let’s take the Antifa movement, for instance.


This is not some sort of organic grassroots movement. I have seen their pricey, professionally done recruitment posters at universities. It is too polished to be some ragtag group of sour grapes hooligans. You know there is serious money backing these groups and some rich white Leftist pampered brat who is intimidating Right-winged rivals by proxy.

My feelings on the propagandist Fox News Channel was made amply clear in my book based on the documentary OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s war on journalism in 2005; so my views are out there and unequivocal. I do not like the FNC, but Antifa is worse because while the FNC is open about partisan games, Antifa hides behind veils and trick mirrors.

They went after Tucker Carlson, and that thuggery is a rapist’s tactic. Antifa is openly Machiavellian in that to them the ends justify the means, but whose ends are justified?

Certainly not the paid minions who thump their chests. Those peons are for sale. They are faceless, disposable, and gullible cannon fodder who serve their masters, thinking they are going to get something for compromising themselves.

They are radicalized, but not civilized or rationalized.

This is a war tactic and it is nothing new. My family’s roots are in Socialist former Yugoslavia where games like that were often government-sanctioned. None of those minions ever ended up well.

In order to recruit, revise speeches, strategies, make ephemera, write text, placards, organize, get willing bodies, find the addresses, coordinate, and intimidate is not cheap.

You need labour and a chain of command, and none of it comes for free.

The big story is not that Tucker Carlson was threatened.

The big story is what rich white dickless motherfucker is a psychopathic coward who is bankrolling this war propaganda campaign.

Antifa is a scam the way cults are a scam: they make big promises of the Promised Land, but it’s all bullshit, the way the Right’s Tea Party was bullshit.

Follow the money and you will discover this has nothing to do with liberation or human rights, and has everything to do with rich bastards rigging and manipulating to line their own coffers as they sell bullshit stories to gullible youth who think they are clever and cunning.

No, just conniving. I have seen this game many times before.

They follow scripts and wear masks as they hide who they are really working for. They are given marching orders, false promises, and like dutiful little soldiers, they march.

If the West had actual journalists doing their jobs, Antifa would be exposed for what it truly is, and there would be no war games: we would know which assholes were trying to fuck with the lives of people and they would be cut off at the pass. There would be no recruiting and no spectacle.

But this is an Age of Propaganda, and pseudo-journalists such as Rachel Maddow are organizing protests with their partisan bullshit spectacles themselves.

That isn’t the way of a real news-gatherer. That is partisan propaganda ruses that are as Machiavellian as all of the ones before it.

It is all optics, and optics are always a lie.

When I did Chaser News, I had started to do preliminary work for an undercover story about cult recruitment at university campuses, but I had to drop out — not because I was afraid or threatened, but because my personal circumstances took a hit, and then I had to pull back.

When I was a university student, I knew of a few fellow students who joined cults who recruited them right on campus. I found their brochures and kept them.

But those brochures were not as snazzy as the ones coming out now.

Nor were those cults as well-organized, literate, or politically focussed. This is now a sophisticated operation that runs very much like a dirty tricks political campaign.

And for the record, I have been keeping tabs all these years because I still want to do the story; so I do have a baseline to compare and contrast.

Some control freak who comes from fabulous wealth got ideas seeing the true grassroots variety of student recruitment, and used real money to jazz things up. I have no doubt.

I will be going back to this story under Chaser, but the how I go about it will not be the typical way most reporters or even undercover agents do it.

The dumb ass university students aren’t questioning the ridiculous level of sophistication of this game — if their education was worth a fuck, they’d use their critical thinking skills to see how someone wants to exploit them, use them, and then discard them should they get arrested, crippled, or killed.

There is a game afoot. A few someones are keeping their hands clean while they try to scare people to distract them from seeing the ruse by using their ideological servants and maids to do it.

Will it work? No, all it takes is a few broken promises you made to spoiled brats who realize they are nothing special, just dupes who were used as toilet paper, and then the scam unravels.

But there will be a lot of minions with shit on their faces who will fuck up their lives fighting for ideals that are just too wicked to exist in reality.

If you want to change the world, change your mindset first, then do something kind for others without looking for applause or attention.

There are children whose druggie parents are whoring them out as we speak. There are homeless people with schizophrenia who need help. There are people with cancer who can’t pay their bills.

There are people in your own fucking family whose lives are falling apart — start there, and stop looking for that non-existent They to do it for you…

Self-deception in an Age of Propaganda.

The shrill and irrational temper tantrums coming from the US right now is fascinating to watch. In fact, if the US were a person, it would now be juicy fodder for an E! True Hollywood Story episode.

Looking at my Facebook feeds, the amount of unfriending right now is breath-taking, and the level of hurtful and vitriolic comments coming from those who believe Brett Kavanaugh and those who don’t is shameful, with both sides morally masturbating and virtue-signalling to extremist levels.

And the kicker is not a single one of these people know Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford personally or professionally, and wouldn’t know either if they were in the same room with them.

And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

But people do not actually want to know facts. They want to be right and superior, and win some non-existent war.

The seeds of this delusional and ill-informed hatred came from foreign influences, and it wasn’t Russia. In my book OutFoxed, I had noticed that the Fox News Network was drawing lines in the sand and pitting the Left against the Right in a very particular way, and back then I wondered if there was a darker reason for it; that is, to weaken and divide the US, and a nation divided is a nation destroyed.

Western thought is extremely shallow. People make big theories based on tiny snippets of gossip and hearsay with no factual and rational basis for it. You hedge your bets, pick a side you believe will get you the most, and then find reasons to support it as you demonize and degrade people whose life requirements are not the same as yours.

Left, Right, in the Western world, it doesn’t matter. It is a competitive patriarchal structure, and it is binary, meaning it is a bigoted thinking process by default. You may believe the content of your thoughts embraces diversity, but if you are creating political or ideological pecking orders, your structure of thought is one based on prejudice. The End.

Because Western thinking on both the Left and the Right is competitive and not cooperative in nature, there is no concept of First Among Equals, meaning First is a ranking and a prize, and not a duty or responsibility. It is based on pride, greed, fear, envy, and ego, not on quality or competence.

And should the dark side of those traits be exposed, the whole house of cards collapses because to expose that weakness reveals the brutal reality and the ugly truth.

That’s when an era becomes an Age of Propaganda.

And it is happening because you have two sides who are equally flawed, but have to pretend they are without flaw, superior, and divinely perfect in their ideology.

Trump’s presidential victory exposed the flaws and weakness of the Left. They could not shame people into voting Democrat, and now with the Kavanaugh Debacle, the Left now believe they can use various forms of propaganda to force people into voting for Democrats.

For example, this laughable piece from Newsweek is such a case:

Republicans Just Lost Women For Good

Don’t count on it.

Some of the most pro-Kavanaugh comments I have been seeing have not been coming from men — but women.

And not just American women. The National Post in Canada is quite indignant that there is “no due process” in these hearings, and the article was written by a woman.

There are plenty of women who believe Kavanaugh and do not believe Ford. There are women who come from religious and highly partisan quarters and will not be persuaded.

On the other hand, some of the most extremist pro-Ford comments I have been seeing have been from white men.

There is much sophistry, but little understanding because facts have been drowned in narrative.  People want to be proven right, and they do not actually care for the truth.

But that’s what happens when elections are modelled after war campaigns. It is binary, win or lose, and the losers are shut out and paraded as inferior, while the spoils go to those who hedged their bets on the winning side. It is a collective form of sibling rivalry, and it is always a recipe for hatred.

It is one step up to monarchy and dictatorship, but as both require an antagonistic and competitive structure, it is very easy to fall on the hamster wheel and keep running in circles.

The ideas of governance by referendum and democratic conscription are never considered because that would mean cooperation and not always angling to “win.” Democratic conscription is having a group decide what matters can be settled via referendum, and what requires entrusting a leader to guide them until that goal is met. No one is left behind or shamed because anyone can be conscripted to be the First Among Equals. There is no elitist cliques disseminating propaganda to rig results because their say has the same weight as everyone else’s, and no one’s needs are ignored.

As for your wants, that is up to you to achieve on your own. Wants is up to the individual, but needs are up to the collective.

Yes, you as an individual have rights, but as one in a collective, you also have responsibilities. There are no freeloaders, rich or poor, in the bargain.

But that is a Matriarchal structure, not Patriarchal.

There is One, but there is also the Infinite.

And that is the heart of the problem in the West right now.

It is selfish at its core because it is a competitive structure based on being The Chosen One.

Not the First Among Equals.

And when you are all about Numero Uno, you do know anyone, not your parents, children, friends, lovers, no one.

An what we have right now is a nation completely disconnected from each other.

United they stood.

Divided they are falling.

That is greatest shame of journalism: they stuck to the Patriarchal and its competitive decrees, slowly planting the seeds of discord in its people — and in its own profession.

The root of all fear begins when we are led to believe that a pecking order is a real measure of our worth.

One day, the world may grasp this truth as a collective and as individuals.

But in an Age of Propaganda, that benevolent thinking is discouraged at all costs as people are led to believe that hatred and anger is the only way to strut around your moral superiority…

Memo to Patrick Soon-Shiong: Social Media is not a "cancer". It is a liberator. Fake news has been a staple of journalism for years. I wrote the book on it.

LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong bought deadweight. Journalism is dead because it looked down on social media, and thought they were superior to the little people who finally were liberated by the shackles of tycoons owning media properties and controlling information to the public.

But now he is trying to spin things by fear-mongering about that inconvenient social media, calling it a cancer.

Nice try.

Why is it a cancer? Because you cannot dictate to the Great Unwashed what they should be thinking and how they should be thinking about it?

Arrogance, arrogance.

And he spews and babbles about “fake news” making it on social media.

Mr. Soon-Shiong, you are coming off as a sheltered man.

Propaganda and fake news has been the staple of journalism for decades, and if you would like to actually be an informed deadweight owner, let me introduce you to three exhaustingly researched books to actually educate you.

Don’t Believe It!: How lies becomes news.

OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on journalism.

When Journalism was a Thing.

There has been plenty of fake news in all sorts of mainstream outlets, and that played a big role in the success of social media. Now that it is harder to control a public, you are trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle so that you alone hold that wish-granter.

The genie will have none of it.

Because fake science made the news. Fake war stories made the news. Fake tycoons made the news.

Or have you never actually read a newspaper or watched a newscast in your limited experience?

I was a newshound, and I do my research and made a career exposing the lies that made news.

You can read all about it here.

Your narrative is laughable and completely ignorant of the reality of why journalism collapsed.

If only the little people would just agree give up their freedom to be indoctrinated to whatever the wealthy want to further their own ends, then everything would be wonderful, right?

An alternative to journalism is what is needed. Journalism died of its own sexist, racist, and classist cancer a long time ago. Too bad you didn’t get the memo then.

The past is journalism. The present is social media.

The future is F.R.E.E.D…

Does the New York Times live in this century?

I seriously doubt it. Their logic is of another time and place, and  what they see -- and don't -- is very telling as to why journalism is no longer a thing.

They have some rambling piece with the following headline:

When a Local Paper Gets New Owners, Partisan Strife Hits Its Doorstep

When any media outlet gets new owners, partisan strife hits the fan. I chronicled one example in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism when News Corps bought a previously independent station and then wanted to veer hard Right. 

The book came out in 2005.

This is not some sort of "local newspaper" thing. When new owners take control, they want to put their imprint, and people who work there do not like a disruption of any routine because they memorized the script and broke in the old bosses, and now there is new rules and games with new rigs, and chances are that the new owners are going to break your code, and then you'll be without a job.

The article revolves around the  Santa Clarita Valley Signal, and its backstory is typical of many other places where the new boss has ideas that the old boss didn't, and now people are throwing fits because people do not like change, let alone an outsider whose beliefs do not march lockstep with their own.

In other words, xenophobia.

But the Times doesn't bother to state why the original owners jettisoned the cargo in the first place. The opening of the article has some folksy logic how everything here was just grand until the Mean Old Republican bought the newspaper, never mind that there was no Good Old Democrat who saved the newspaper in sight:

The paper has a circulation of about 8,000, a newsroom with about 24 reporters and editors and the slightly misleading slogan of “Your community, delivered every day” — the paper is printed and delivered Tuesday through Saturday. For decades, it has been a reliable source of information about the Santa Clarita Valley, a region of more than 300,000 people that includes the city of Santa Clarita and communities such as Valencia, Newhall and Saugus, all part of Los Angeles County.

“It was the one place where people had a kind of town square,” said Anthony Breznican, 41, an entertainment journalist who lives in the Valley. “The great thing about it was that it was very local.” 

For a lead, it could not be more manipulative.

Obviously, the newspaper had problems because you do not shed something that is working for you.

So there is more to the story than is being told for the sake of a fake narrative.

Then we have another feint in the piece:

And in smaller, rural communities, the decimation of the newspaper industry is being keenly felt. Since 2004, more than 1,800 newspapers have died or merged with other companies, according to research by the University of North Carolina’s Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media.

This has left roughly 200 “news deserts” without any local newspaper coverage, and even more areas where a single source dominates, said the study’s leader, Penelope Muse Abernathy, the university’s Knight professor of journalism and digital media economics.

Those numbers are growing. “There are more counties than you can count that are right on the line right now,” Ms. Abernathy said.

Why is there an abandonment of newspapers?

Because they weren't being the watchdogs as the article implies. Local papers covered easy events, and then, when that whole Internet thing came, people had another source to get their information without the middle man. The Times always glosses over this point.

They keep assuming that people cannot communicate without a medium, as if they were psychics who were the conduit between the living and the dead.

Journalism was replaced. 

The photographs in the piece are typical propaganda of activists and citizens looking oh-so-very serious, something typical of partisan newspapers that skew right.

But the stupidest part of the piece comes here:

Some residents of Santa Clarita have taken to Facebook groups and Twitter to make their voices heard.

Like, just now in 2018?

They haven't been griping on social media before?

Hello, New York Times! People have been doing that for years!

That's the reason they don't rely on journalism anymore.

And the brainless buzzword "news desert" is quite the knee-slapper: people are relying on citizen journalism directly through social media.

They think their opinions are superior to journalism's opinions and have for a very long time.

So there are a bunch of discontented white people in California who want everything their own way. That is the sum total of the Times' babbling propaganda piece.

That's not even news. That is enabling and validating middle class ennui and ignorance. These days, it is very posh to whine as you move goal posts and complain how that group called They aren't cleaning up your messes and making life perfect for you, while you pick issues that have no meaning while ignoring the real rot because that would mean being wrong and flawed and then having to do something about it yourself.

It is 2018, and journalists have no idea about their times and place. None. They want that magic wand to make everything good again. Not happening. Deal with it.

Times have changed. So should the Times...

When Journalism was a Thing is out today

Published by Zero Books and it is a follow-up of sorts to my first book Don't Believe It!: How lies become news, and hits much harder than my second book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

jhp59ccaa956d599-2-3 (1).jpg

It is not your typical media criticism book. It is not about justifying or excusing bad behaviour or denying the industry collapsed.

It is not about blaming other people for the mistakes the industry made, and it is not about whitewashing or spinning the things people in that business did that sunk their fortunes.

I poured over articles, transcripts, white papers, legislation, books, reports, interviews, and just about anything else I could -- from journal articles, ephemera, and even intelligence publications to get a clear and accurate picture. 

I went through research from decades ago to the present from multiple countries in multiple languages.

This book was very labour intensive.

There will be many people who will not like the facts and evidence presented in it because it challenges their narratives.

There will be students in j-schools who will not like to know that their chosen profession is dead, and that there is no They who paved the path for them so they can waddle down someone else's labour and put no genuine effort of their own in it because the scripts they were given are outdated and inadequate.

There will be many journalism educators who are not going to like being called on the carpet for being responsible for that industry's destruction.

There will be many journalists, editors, publishers, producers, and media owners who are going to throw epic fits and pin my face on a dartboard because I am not stroking their egos and believing they are heroes or noble knights.


It's about time.

And now, it is time to build a new method from scratch.

National Post's Man-aganda continues, but they ain't the only cowards in journalism.


Jonathan Kay may not have the ability to understand that women's chromosomes in no way prevent them from spewing man-aganda, but then again, that fourth and last stage of Jean Piaget's is a tricky one to reach.

The National Post thinks it has some sort of legitimate way of spewing misogyny without being called on the carpet for it.

No, only someone with bigoted filters would think there are intellectual, moral, or philosophical differences based on external features.

Memo to the National Post: if men can be feminists, then women can be self-loathers, too, especially those without talent who just do whatever the Big Boys tell them because courage and original thought take real guts, talent, and ovaries to pull off.

The suggestion that it is otherwise is a very bigoted assumption that convicts them of the charge, but no one could ever accuse anyone at the Post of being a deep thinker.

Maybe if you actually spoke to everyone and informed them with actual information and not dumb sophistry, you would not be reduced to whining in public about how you cannot make ends meet because people are not buying your product.

The Post is a man-agandist publication. Nothing else. They hold the trembling little gonads of those scared little boys who need to know they are not to blame for anything just to reassure them.

Fox News Channel perfected it, and it is something I took apart in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism.

Some men are men: they do not fall apart if their employers are women. They do not harm anyone, male or female because they have courage, compassion, intelligence, ability, morals, and bravery. They get ahead on the job because they are competent and innovative. They actually know how to behave and are fantastic people because their testosterone is not afraid of the presence of estrogen.

Others are little boys. They thump their chests, but run to mommy and daddy whenever someone sees their bullying is just to prevent those of quality from besting them. The Post enablers those men who hold society back and force the rest of us to waste time and resources cleaning up their messes.

And considering how badly the Post's fortunes have fallen, they are trying to hold on to as many little boys as they can. They give free front page advertising to Steven Galloway as if his self-pity was Very Important News. They are forever running around like irrational chickens, screaming #MeToo is a witch hunt ecause they are too thick to get it. The irrationality has gone overboard, and their propaganda blinds them to the obvious.

But they think they can fool people into thinking they are some sort of legitimate news outlet.

No, you're not. You spew man-aganda, even if you have a few chicks and broads willing to do the dirty work for you.

The sex of the one who spews propaganda is immaterial and does not legitimize your slop.

It is the content of your argument, the structure of your arguments, the scope of your vision, the facts you choose to ignore, and the inherent rigs of your work that actually determines whether or not you are a legitimate news source, or an apologist for incompetent men in power.

The race and gender of those puking out your sophistry is not some sort of protective force field. It is a misdirection, nothing more.

Christie Blatchford happens to be the Post's loudest man-aganda and gets a pay check regardless of how many lives get mucked up because of primitive thinking.

Like this piece of silliosity. I love the preface of that video:

Trudeau’s #MeToo moment has once again proved that if women are going to come forward with allegations, it should be in the courts not in newspapers, according to Postmedia columnist Christie Blatchford. The courts are the one place where both men and women can get due process.

Due process? You may cover the courts, but doubtful you have been sucked into that mindless machine and been eaten alive.

Child molesters get a couple of years when they are convicted of assaulting scores of children for years. The End to the argument of Due Process. No due process. Just a game of make pretend as we torture people and waste their lives and raise their hopes to get spat at with their own tax dollars. If there is any definitive proof that we allow society to become heartless psychopathic barbarians, it is how we run our courts when it comes to sexual assault trials. 

Let's just take today's legal news and see how great the Post's theory applies. In this case, a judge dismissed a sexual assault case against four teenage boys who were accused of assaulting an intoxicated teenage a girl, and they were cleared because she was drunk at the time.

And according to Blatchford, this is reasonable because an Authority figure decreed it so.

Let's see: if you are intoxicated, your judgement is acknowledged by the law and scientific research to be so bad, that:

1. You cannot give consent to drive and if you do, you are arrested because you do not have the mental capacity to operate a vehicle.

2. You cannot operate a plane or boat, either.

3. Children's Aid will take your children away from you until you go into rehab.

4. A drunk police officer, judge, teacher, lawyer, doctor, and babysitter caught on camera while intoxicated on the job would cause a scandal.


Because your ability to make decisions is garbage when you are bladdered.

But the judge seems to set a double standard when it comes to teenage girls:

"The issues here focus on consent," O'Donnell said. "Was the complainant capable of consent? For example, did she understand the nature of the acts in the car to the degree that she could reject them or agree with them?

"This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to consent to sex. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity."

Okay, that is Authority decree, but let us replace some of his words with something just as important:

This is an area in which judges have come under criticism in the past, but we must remember a drunk person can have the required capacity to operate a bus full of schoolchildren and drive them home. The person can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity.

In fact, if that is the thinking, we should ban any law against drinking and driving entirely. I think police officers should be allowed to be intoxicated while handling firearms, too. They can even be quite intoxicated and still have that capacity to fire a loaded weapon.

The judge's Authority logic decreed it so; so, obviously, it must be true.

Let us make it all legal so that at least we can be consistent with our primative sanctioned lunacy.

So, we have, to put it mildly, a legal system that is run by whim that has no basis in evidence or fact -- but mostly on whatever lobby groups do a superior job to convince lawmakers to back off with certain laws or at least water them down.

And the National Post thinks this is a good and glorious thing, and too bad the populace is meddling by making some demand for rights or something.

No wonder the National Post's colour is Minion Yellow.


Appealing to Authority is what they do best, after all. No wonder they are upset that the current federal regime didn't give them money to enable their incompetency. They sucked up to them and everything!

Because that's how passive cowards navigate through the world. Whatever the Man tells them, that's good enough for them, male or female. Equality means equality.

Once upon a time, you had journalists risk their lives and cover dangerous things. Some would reject anyone who decreed to be an Authority, regardless of political affiliation.

But then came the dregs who thought appeasing Authorities and praising them was the way they could get ahead. Short cut your way into a "career" as a "journalist"!

They were the ones who had no talent, just a conniving nature, and they would in no way go out and do real and dangerous work, because they knew they could not handle it.

Like those hiding under the National Post banner.

But they are hardly the only ones.


#MeToo was a social media-based movement. It exploded among educated, white collar women in the US who endured the war strategies of incompetent men who distracted their competition by terrorizing said competition by various means that would do the most emotional damage.

Sex had nothing to do with it. Sexual harassment was not about the sex: it was the way of gaining dominance by creating an invisible barrier to make rivals hesitate and feel inferior enough not to go after the same brass ring.

So when the Post frames this issue that this is about sex, this is mere smoke and mirrors. This is about workplace terrorism and sabotage.

You had previous generations of women endure this degradation in silence because they thought if they did endure it and broke barriers, their daughters and granddaughters wouldn't have to put up with it, too.

That was a big tactical error.

These were the same women who wanted Hillary Clinton as their president. Clinton was a symbolic choice on many levels: she was an Endurer (but she was also an enabler, and the reason I never cared for her), and the reward for endurance and patience was to finally reach the top.

Except she got easily clobbered by Donald Trump.

But not just clobbered: her supporters leaked that infamous tape of him crowing about being able to harass any woman he wants with her blessing and impunity. 

If all that dung-swallowing was actually worth it, people would have been outraged, not vote for Trump, and installed the first woman in the White House.

It didn't happen.

It didn't happen.

A lifetime of pretending getting abused on the job was the price to pay to pave the road for the next generation was proven to be a con game.

And those well-educated, white collar women who got abused, and even raped on the job and said nothing, snapped and revolted because they suffered a real and terrible shock that not Everything Will Work Out In The End.

All those affirmative sayings they plastered on their walls at home proved to be the same horse-dung they swallowed on their claw and crawl to break a glass ceiling that wouldn't break.

And so #MeToo exploded on the scene and resonated, but its epicentre was the US.

It is a legitimate movement. It is not a witch hunt. It is what happens when an entire generation without their own war manual get disillusioned and are forced to face reality when their own home-grown strategies prove to be worthless.

But in Canada, we are not in the same place because we are a nannied and sheltered people.

If we lose our safety net and are forced to survive on our abilities and wits for real, the shock will be far greater than what spurred #MeToo.

And we are there.

Canadian journalists are beyond there, but because their lens is that of a coward's, they are still in the denial stage. 

Because if they saw reality for what it is, they wouldn't be supporting and begging governments for anything as they sucked up to Authorities, hoping for a paltry little patronage appointment.

They would be rioting on the streets.

Really, that sad and pathetic lot have nothing left to lose.

Because those Authorities they drool over so much have played those arrogant and oblivious empty-heads for the fools that they are. Fish in a barrel, nothing more.

The problem is they think they are still something special because they get invited to a cocktail party here or there, or because they hang out in the corridors hanging on the every word of some Authority to report about it to the little people.

But because #MeToo is a social media movement, journalists could not stop the movement from making damage to their own profession.

CBS had their Charlie Rose problem, and it should not be surprising that one of their bosses ran to a law firm that brags that they "kill stories" about the deeds of delinquent little mediocre boys pretending to be Great Men.

Oh, and the one of the principle members of that legal cabal doing the story killing is a woman.

Which is the go-to sex many sexual predators run to in order to make it seem that they are not predators. As if.

Journalism did not fare so good during #MeToo. Despite hiring legal enablers to sweep their sins under the rug, the tiny fraction that did slime out was ugly enough.

It was the biopsy that proved why the profession no longer had any credibility left.

They were no better than the people they labelled villains over the years.

They were never for the people.

They weren't for the poor, the sick, or the dispossessed.

They weren't for people with darker pigments, or people who toiled in blue collar jobs.

They weren't for people whose sexual orientation was not heterosexual.

They weren't for children as they never bothered reporting anything to them.

They weren't for over half the population who are women.

They weren't for foreigners.

They weren't even for most men.

Just the well-heeled ones.


And only if you were the right sort of man. Not the used up and broken souls who lost their health in factories.

They did away with Labour sections and called it Business, you sillies.

And when their snobbery got the better of them, they ran to those Great Men to bail them out.

Memo to the Post: they no longer have any use for you.

You relics went out with the trash years ago.

But when it is garbage your little boys and girls are spewing, it is very hard to notice the difference...


Breaking the Cycle of the Fake Arenas: Journalism perfected it. Twitter stole their bit. And why both are con games.


It never ceases to amaze me how naive and gullible people can be. Educated people with doctorates are no more savvy than the person who never spent a day in school.

They are being constantly tricked by pathetic ruses because they see walls where there are none.

Here is a short list of Truths for you to ponder:

1. We have 7.4 BILLION people on the planet. 

2. You will never meet 99.999% of them, meaning these are strangers to you. They do not pay your bills. They do not call to see if you are doing well. They have no idea that you actually exist. They all can live easily without you.

3. This pool of 7.4 billion people you will never know exist will not all agree with anyone on any single point. Mass agreement does not exist.

4. You do not need a single one of these 7.4 billion people to agree with you.

5. 7.4 billion people can, in fact, disagree with you, violently throw tantrums and insult you, and you can still be The Only Person In The World Who Is Right because if you base your case on observations, research, facts, experiments, and other verification techniques and they blindly follow the dictates of someone else's lie -- the results will be in your favour regardless. The number of followers or agreers is immaterial and irrelevant.

6. You do not need to waste time engaging people who blindly follow other people's decrees to be proven right. They are trying to force you to submit to their lie so they don't get inconvenienced by reality.

Got it?

Have these Truths penetrated your mind?

If you still cannot grasp it, imagine you have been attacked by a group of thugs out of the blue as you were walking to work, and somehow, you manage to escape, but not without some major internal injury. You go to the hospital to get treatment, but the doctor on call decides "it's not that bad" and the police don't believe you because you don't look as if you were assaulted and as there were no witnesses or security cameras, they decide it is less work to file in the paperwork than believe you.

Worse, someone overhears it, and then uses their smart phone to record it and posts it, saying with repulsion that you are a liar because both the police and the doctor don't believe you.

And all the posters run with this assessment uncritically, it goes viral, and 7.4 billion choose that day to all agree and then malign you.

So, did it happen?

Of course it did. Experts can be wrong, lazy, corrupt.

Or perhaps one of those attackers is the mayor's kid, and he knew where to attack you without being seen.

Now, suppose someone who sees the video starts to ask questions, and gets flayed by those naysayers, but persists. They start to do research, ask questions, and discovers that, yes, you were attacked, and helps you get to a town where the doctors are thorough and the police do their jobs.

So, did it happen more so because one other person chose to believe you by verifying what you said was true?

No, the past is the past. It happened regardless if no one believed you, one person believed you, or all 7.4 billion people believed you.

It just happened.

So 7.4 billion people turn into white noise. Mass opinion does not actually count for anything at all. It is a red herring and a misdirection. Reality operates independently of our beliefs and so does the truth.

Now, let's suppose you were vindicated, and people who threw stones at your reputation were called on the carpet and got a taste of their own vile medicine. You sued the lot of people who could have cost you your life, including the busybody who filmed your suffering and made fun of it on social media, and your case made textbooks, history, feature films, and the like.

And someone thought you had it made, and decided to say it also happened to them, even though that is a lie.

If no one believes them, is it a lie?

If one person believes it, is it a lie?

If all 7.4 billion people -- including you believed it, is it a lie?

Of course it is. The beliefs and opinions have no relevance on the veracity of the fact that someone fibbed for whatever reason(s) they had.

Egotism and insecurity has infected the information stream. We look for validation from people who in no way have any way of making a point true or false. It doesn't matter whether they are patronizing with a smile or a sneer, opinion is not relevant to a point's veracity.

If humans, as a collective, were a realistic species, they would cease to look for like-minded people to validate their beliefs.

But they got into an unnatural habit of looking for shortcuts and then once they stumble upon a script that suits their worldview, do not let go of it.

People such as Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and Nicola Tesla, for instance, were disbelieved, with Semmelweis getting committed for telling what turned out to be a fact.

Yet people fight all their lives to have other people believe them, envy them, admire them, love them, deify them, worship them...but right or wrong, lie or truth, people waste their lives looking for validation and vindication.

Even Mother Theresa ain't Mother Theresa.

But truth is truth. It doesn't need your drooling accolades to prop it up -- nor is your disdain of its existence going to make a single dent in it. Get over yourself.

It is why I never understood the Great Men goobers who think their opinions have worth. Their prattle is prattle. Their insults are meaningless. Their flocks have no minds, hearts, or souls: those suckers just hedge their bets that their leader will be The One who saves them from life.

And you cannot have one grain of respect for that cowardly lot.

Religions promised to save their followers who complied without question, but now in the West, people are walking away from the notion of a Santa God.

Right now, the News Gods are political ideology and the Internet -- and both are not going to last very long as deities.

But there was one Deity that had a relative short stint at the top: Journalism.

It managed to fool a lot of people for years, but it lost its clout, but while it had it, it could get away with it by manipulating the optics in a certain way, and for many years, the pigeons fell for it hook, line, and sinker.


But it wasn't a church where the cult of Journalism preached to its flock: it was an invisible gladiatorial arena. 

The most striking example of it was on the Fox News Channel and it was a simple show called The O'Reilly Factor.

The arena even had a name: The No Spin Zone.

Bill O'Reilly had real success of it for years, and I had chronicled just how he rigged the game in my book OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism. I had devoted an entire chapter to how that game was played.

The idea wasn't new. Journalism's fake arena was an absolute staple that gullible people went on in the mistaken belief that they absolutely had to go to the fight they were invited to attend or else they were cowards, liars, un-American, whatever con job was needed to lure a pigeon into the arena.

Public relations firms and image consultants made a very good living training people to be able to handle themselves in these fake arenas. Publicists and agents would issue a list of demands to soften the abuse.

However, what most people didn't understand was there was no actual reason to enter the arena. It wasn't real. It wasn't innate, natural, essential, or anything of the sort.

It was a scam.

It was a way of getting mileage on the cheap. Media outlets didn't have to pay these suckers to come on their shows, studios, or newsrooms to "defend" themselves. There was no value to it. 

And worst of all, these "newsmakers" were goaded to it by being chased by scrums of reporter who stalked and chased them in public. That was symbolic to let this person know who was the predator and who was the prey -- only the prey was labelled predator by the press who then shook these people down for interviews: well, if you are right, you will subjugate yourself to our demands that you give us free fodder for our outlets. We will be hostile to you, and you will look bad regardless of what you say or do because we stick on the labels and we set the terms of engagement that are rigged against you...

However, in all of these gladiatorial games, none of these interviews had much value: a reporter could uncover someone's wrongdoing without ever speaking to that person. Ronan Farrow did not have to corner Harvey Weinstein to talk to him at all, for instance.

You find facts that both confirm and refute, and then weigh them. You do not need to demonize or deify anyone. The truth is the truth.

But people bought the hype. They thought Mike Wallace and Sam Donaldson running after people meant something. It didn't. It was just for show -- optics, really, of how the valiant reporter was hunting down The Bad Guy.

Never mind that even now, some of these alleged Good Guys use racial slurs and did untoward things to others, but even as they are being exposed, they still try to wear the Hero label with babbling how they must sacrifice themselves for the little people as not to “become a threat to the mission ....of healthy independent journalism.”

They never take off the masks of deceit.

And yet proclaim that unless you go into their rigged arenas, you are deficient.

No, you're not.

There is no logical reason to play the game, especially not on their terms.

Because there is no empirical foundation to justify the need for that fake arena.

It is as if a fox browbeat a lamb into coming into his den to prove it is brave and honest -- has nothing to hide.

The lamb has nothing to hide, but has nothing to gain, either, by becoming the fox's next meal.

What is truth is truth. What is reality is reality.

Journalism's success absolutely hinged on having the monopoly of the public narrative, and it meant being the gate-keepers of information.

But then along came the Internet as technology did not have to get journalism's blessing or approval.

And then people could bypass journalism entirely.

Donald Trump used Twitter to get his message out.

Even in Ontario, the PC Party wisely ditched not only the fake arena of journalism, but also the other fake arena of debates, winning a decisive majority without ever subjugating themselves to anyone's decrees or dictates.

You do not need to justify or explain yourself.

More and more people have hit upon this revelation: you do not have to answer to anyone in that kind of forum. It is contrived, based on no empirical foundation, and is self-serving and rigged to favour those running the arena.

But it is not the death of the gambit.

Twitter -- the troll scroll and the sewer of social media -- is trying to pick up that mantle, but not with the success many of the rage pukers are hoping it will.


The entire premise of Twitter has become: My insults make it so! My disapproval is the last word and final say because I called it! Nyah! Nyah!

You are not Alpha and Omega. Stop deluding yourself.

The ruse works only if the sucker you are targeting backs down.

If the person is not a sucker or fooled by games such as Got Your Nose, they can ignore you, and do, think, or say whatever they wish without your approval.

And you are left shouting into nothing as your disapproval is emasculated and proven to be impotent.

And in fact, those who rebel against the tidal wave of tweets by ignoring the bait and continuing to do and say whatever they want and need, are proven to be stronger.

Imagine being the person who is unfazed and unmoved by the old biddy outrage of millions.

They prove to be weaker than the one person who knows truth is truth and reality is reality, and opinion's meddling is worthless.

Twitter is a life sink and a time-waster. It didn't have to be, but it drifted into the ideological gutter because it cribbed from a failed industry. Well played!

Journalism failed because it played those games, and then outsmarted itself. Sooner or later, you clue in that there is a certain fun in giving the troll scrollers something to talk about.

It's like watching those helmet haired old ladies look as if someone shoved manure deep into their nostrils just because you wore a red shirt to church.

People can nag you on Twitter, and you go on living your life, not needing to validate or justify a thing.

Because whether people agree with the truth or not isn't relevant.

It is facts that show us the reality to get us to the truth that counts.

Twitter is not built to last. If more people ignore tweets (and they will because sooner or later, reality points out the obvious), it loses its appeal. It tries to intimidate, bully, and shame people into backing down.

Just ignore it and don't back down. The end. It is not as if ideologues are open-minded and reasonable people who will ever admit to being wrong, manipulative, or controlling.

If someone cannot get a gang to bully you into submission or change what you do or believe, then they will abandon it because it gives them no power, but it does wonders for the person who can stand up to brainless mobs who have more free time than common sense.

Snubbing those invitations to degrade yourself with a slap fight that will not prove a thing is liberating.

Which brings us to F.R.E.E.D.


Why the old and antiquated gladiatorial arena is failing civilization is simple: it is patriarchal, binary, deceptive, antagonistic, and rarely, if ever aligns with reality. It is one of the worst ways to gather relevant information.

Even the phrase L'esprit de l'escalier is a de facto admission that even seemingly "winning" an argument is meaningless: if you can think of a rebuttal after the fact, then what is the point of a fight?

To vent? To control others? To force people to follow you? To destroy? To harm? To hide your fear?

We can always justify anger. It is not hard to wear a halo as you are chasing people around with your pitchfork. People getting chased are not going to see you as an angel, and they certainly will not see themselves as a villain based on your say-so.

We let things go, however. We don't question things. We don't do our homework by doing legwork (and no, scouring Facebook propaganda meme posters is not homework). We don't find facts that refute our theories, let alone find the ones that confirm it.

Journalism made it seem it got the facts, and in the days when print ruled, it very often did. 

Television came along and it need to hook viewers -- and its showmanship brought in a very unstable and troubling factor into its calculations: the ambush interview.

Notice, however, it was not that ambushing of television that brought us Watergate. It was print, and the reporters who did it were not resorting to using a fake gladiatorial arena.

I find it very interesting how the profession conflated fact-finding with ambush carny. The former takes work and skill, while the latter is mere smoke and mirrors.

F.R.E.E.D. is the system that has reality at its core and truth as its mandate. You can throw all sorts of words out there, but it is a very different thing to have those words have meaning and value.

Journalism was all about cruelty and sensationalism. I find it interesting that post-Trump, the industry hitched its ride on #MeToo, even while their own were being exposed, and sobbing over those people who want entry into the US without going through the regular channels, even if the situation is nothing as it is being portrayed -- and that other Western nations are having the same breakdowns because the migration of tens of millions of displaced people is overwhelming various countries who were never equipped to handle an influx of people who have no resources, skills, education, guarantors, or plan.

Many of these people need serious medical attention that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the healthcare systems aren't even equipped to handle aging populations such as the Baby Boomers.

The traditional model of fake combat has the Left screaming we must let everyone in without a plan, while the Right are screaming it cannot be done.

Who's right?

Neither side, of course. You have a series of hard, serious questions to ask. You do not just throw a temper tantrum one second after something has happened.

What is the situation? What are the resources on hand? What is the investment -- and what is the return? What are the consequences of the actions? Even well-meaning actions can be disastrous one way or another.

Say, you let people in and the economy collapses -- perhaps as a result of a flighty and impetuous strategy, or perhaps some other factor, and as a result, there is a debilitating disease outbreak and the refugees that were taken in were hit the hardest, and then they blame the policy for their woes, and it causes serious problems later on with never-ending lawsuits and "solutions" that may bankrupt the country, making it vulnerable to outsiders who will exploit it, causing further weakening.

Or, you keep people out, and they congregate near the border, and desperate and disillusioned, they become prime pickings for terrorist cells who recruit them, and there is carnage and instability to the point where personal freedoms are curtailed as a "solution."

And you can never bank on any "best case scenario" because it has yet to happen in the history of mankind.

So here we are, in 2018, where people think tantrums on Twitter can solve the world's problems.

We didn't solve problems with journalism: it was made to seem as if they were because there is always a sunny ending where the reporter swoops in and saves the day for democracy...except it didn't.

It didn't stop crime. It didn't even stop certain criminals from re-offending.

So what to do with an influx of migrants?

If you have been reading up until now and expect me to spew out some opinion off the top of my head, then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Or were hoping I was some flighty hypocrite.

I don't know, but with F.R.E.E.D. we start to find out.

We don't "duke it out." We find facts. We don't paint people as victims, villains, heroes, or heretics. We find facts. We get information. We will most likely not like what we discover. We start to formulate plans we can begin to test.

We don't act like asses on the Troll Scroll. We don't try to shut down people who point out problems that go against our opinions. We find facts.

People will raise concerns. They are not to be dismissed. If you want to let in an influx of people and someone raises concerns about the affordability of such a massive move, you do not try to demonize them as being bigots and then hope a personal attack will make them go away so you can impose your will on them.

You find facts about costs. You find facts about people already citizens who are up the queue and how much they are going to cost you. You find facts about the resources you already have. Then you find facts on how much it will cost to bring people in.

Then you find facts on alternatives, such as sending foreign or peacekeepers to destitute nations.

And then you line up your facts and get to work.

But you also find facts about other potential issues regarding culture, assimilation, housing, healthcare, mental health, education, employment, and the like.

In other words, we do not fly by the seat of our pants. We do not try to play the propaganda card by putting out "a face" on the story: one deemed a saint and the other a sinner.

We do not use narrative.

We line up our facts.

And then the solutions begin to emerge -- the ones that have the best chance of success and consensus will present themselves.

There is no need to waste your life on Twitter, raging about things you know bupkes about.

Journalism kept trying to rig outcomes with increasing frequency, and it harmed society as new and innovative solutions that weren't obvious were suppressed.

It is time society grew up and stop acting like children who have no idea where and how money comes to pay for things.

Liberation comes from facing reality to find truths.

Not by wasting your life trying to boss people around because it will not turn your lies into truths.

That is just playing a con job, and trying to bait me into your fake arena won't change that truth -- or me...