Why do we have snowflakes throw fits at universities? Simple: they aren't offended. They are just conning you.

I don’t just write books. I teach, and have taught in various venues for years. One thing I learned very early on was that there are students and their parents who will play every dirty trick in the book to get an A with no effort. They are the ones who are perpetually offended. They thump their chests and make big threats. Don’t give in, and make them prove their intellectual mettle, and they always crumble because the scam hinges on the pigeon professor getting afraid and caving in.

I never did. I knew how scams worked and if I had to study to earn my creds, then so did they. No exceptions. No meddling mommies to lobby, whine, or bluster to getting their brats something that they did not earn. You cannot enable kids just so you can brag to your fake friends how gifted and genius they were. Let them study, practice, and work.

So what you have are parents you bully teachers and wear them down, making Big Threats if Billy doesn’t get an A on a failing paper his parents wrote (yes, we teachers can tell), and then you have students with diluted knowledge and big egos think they can bypass the system. Lori Loughlin bribed her airheaded daughters into university, and she is hardly the only one. It is always a scam.

And the faux righteous offendedness is just a mere misdirection: put the heat on the university so they are too afraid to kick you to the curb. I remember when I was an undergrad at Mac, someone I knew went there in their first year and failed seven out of eight courses. The dean told this person that they were not smart enough to go there.

Back then when universities still had merit and didn’t water down things not to be seen as politically incorrect.

Just grow a pair of ovaries, and call them on their bluff.

There are enough YouTube videos showing just how stupid university students are — they don’t know what language British people speak. They cannot do math — a skill that builds logic and is an absolute essential — and then skip the math and then still want to pretend they have intelligence.

No knowledge. No skill. No respect for those who do. You have manufactured grifters who think offence is the best defence.

Sorry, suckers, it is among the worst: do it too many times and people can figure out that you are bluffing because if they took a look at you, they’d see an empty-head trying to pass as a genius.

But universities often have people on their roster who are just as shaky with their knowledge, so they cannot push back and risk being exposed as charlatans. They have to keep quality out, and enable their fellow scammers.

If you had to earn that degree the hard way, there is no way in hell that you are going to give in to a temper tantrum or threats.

Which leads to this knee-slapper column in the National Post that doesn’t quite seem to get it.

People like Camille Paglia are actually highly and solidly smart. She is the real deal. The scumbags trying to remove her are not doing it for moral reasons: that’s an old ruse.

These simpletons have memorized one or two things and do not want to reveal the extent of their ignorance and now inability to learn: they could never compete with Paglia — so have her removed and the contrast is no longer glaring. They have memorized a script by rote means and do not want to have to learn anything new.

Especially not something that proves their shitty theory to be hopelessly wrong.

The problem with the Youth Grifter Movement is that sooner or later, one of two things happen: they try to oust a street smart person who can outfox them, such as Jordan Peterson. His theories aren’t all that, but he is cunning enough to read his marks and play them for fools. The Youth Grifters handed him his fame on a silver platter because he knew how to play them. They are not smart, let alone experienced. Peterson is a psychologist by trade, and he managed to exploit his detractors for a mainstream career and book deals — things his haters will never accomplish because they are neither intelligent nor original. He wiped the floor with their faces, and laughs all the way to the bank.

Then you have people such as Paglia who actually has a serious body of work and made it despite a slew of bigotry serving as barriers. She is tough as she is smart. She can handle these nobodies who are empty shells. She has substance, and she can eat these twits for breakfast.

So what you are beginning to see is a backlash against the moral masturbators who try to deflect criticism by pretending to be moral, just like the Catholic priests did when people started wondering if the clergy were diddling with their kids. The gambit works so far because this is a mob with little substance.

And it is the reason universities will either have to develop a backbone and call out these poseurs for who they really are — or they continue to give in and then an alternative to universities will replace them. There has already been talk for the last few years.

When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much. Those were the words from another smart person Walter Lippmann. When people don’t think and are too lazy to do so, they throw fits, hoping people go on the defensive and back down. You hit back much harder. You expose the grifters for who they really are — and then you go after their enablers twice as hard and make them accountable for their con games.

The University of Alexandra Kitty would be a place somewhere far away in nature with no contact with the outside world for two years — and then the next two years, you’d be having your classes in the streets, walking among your fellow man in the boardroom and homeless shelters. There would be no rest. There would be no time to think up excuses or be offended.

You’d have to justify why you alone didn’t stop the greed in the boardrooms or why you didn’t do anything but walk over the homeless when you were staring at your godphone with earphones on making Corporate America rich. You’d be in trouble for faking wanting socialism. You’d learn to be a genuine human being with emotional intelligence who could stand alone.

We have a shameful generation on cons who are just a bunch of loud-mouthed schnooks. Nothing more.

And it is a needless waste of a generation who never understood the reasons why you sit back and learn before you make lofty decrees and try to disguise self-interest lobbying as wokeness. It’s not. You are just trying to rig the board so that you can frighten people up the food chain into giving you a piece of the pie you never earned — too bad there isn’t any pie left for you — those who made it already had their share, and there are crumbs left.

You have to go make your own pie with your own knowledge and labor, just like every generation before you did.

Imagine that.

Your games won’t work on those who had to earn their keep. They have respect for themselves and their knowledge.

And lies cannot stand up to the Truth…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Three: Chaser was the Feminist Intercept before the Intercept. Remember that.

Open Democracy once whined that there was no feminist Intercept, which I called out as bullshit because there was Chaser Investigative News Services, that was a feminist-based hard news site that was geared for people under 30 and I ran it a decade ago. It was to bring investigative methods that were superior to the standard of the profession to people through social media. I had a hellacious time with it. I did all sorts of stories that had a common touch of things were relevant to everyday people, from how unsafe schools were to a missing woman who turned up at a Take Back the Night Rally and was accidentally photographed by a newspaper photographer to women who were doing hard time for first offences that were minor, and I even was working on cult recruitment on university campuses.


It got some attention. Not enough, but considering how little resources I had at the time, it did get talked about.


I had even gone as far as to have talks with former 60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt, but as I recounted elsewhere, we did not part on good terms.

But it was not its time or place. The ideas of a hard news outlet founded by a woman wasn’t going to fly.

You either give in to male tropes of what women are — or what females idealize themselves to be. Going hard after women in power a certain way is still taboo.

But it is necessary as women do not have any playbooks or war manuals designed with their realities and rhythms in mind. That’s why women are always having to claw and on foreign territory, never ones of their making. It is why qualified women get pushed aside and the ones who appeal to sexist sensibilities often usurp those positions, and then make things worse because they are in over their heads because while their shallow windrow-dressing seems right, they have no deep core to actually see the job through.

And that is why so much of what happens in the world is an enigma. Rex Murphy mused in the National Post wondering why the Brett Kavanaugh hate just vanished.

Simple: because those women were pawns exploited by the Democrats in a game of chess, and they lost; ergo, do not draw attention to that failure, drop what isn’t working, and use another set of pigeons to do your dirty work.

I have wondered for a long time why feminists still bother with the Left when it is more than obvious that alliance is garbage that isn’t doing what could be done in days, let alone decades.

We have professional blunderer Chrystia Freeland make a big, old mess out of NAFTA that — had she had what it took do to the job — would have done it months ago without fuss or muss, all while having it fly under the radar. Instead, she is actually trying to spin this debacle as not a big deal, when it was a disaster of the worst sort. When you turn a nation into a vassal state, you fucked up.

The detractors are not “wrong”, they were wronged. There is a big difference. When you are a child, you always spin and deny responsibility, trying to pull one over mommy’s eyes because you have little respect for her or understanding of your own cunning. Adults own up, and are brave enough to be blunt.

If you can never admit you are wrong, then you are never right.

Just look at Hillary Clinton, who wanted to be president, but never learned to own up to her failings, always behaving like a child who has no control, so she can blame others for her missteps.

Not only did she lose a race where she was the odds-on favourite to win, she is learning now, that the Left see her as a problem.

So, to be clear, the Left were never behind her.

And here she goes, blaming Russia for not winning.

And if you spin a narrative that you weren’t making mistakes, then you never change, and keep doing the same thing, expecting a different outcome.

When I stopped Chaser Investigative News Services, I did so because I wasn’t gaining traction. I pulled back, and then explored and modified, coming up with A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, which I still do as well as publish books with traditional publishers.

But when I decided to resurrect Chaser, I wasn’t going to make the same mistakes.

I did a lot right, but not everything. A lot of external factors not of my own making caused problems, but some worked in my favour, and others had no impact, either.

I like when things are my fault: it means I have the control to right and modify things.

If it is out of my hands, then there isn’t much I can do.

But it didn’t stop me from trying again.

And I can do traditional publishing ADWSS, and Chaser News.

I am not the same woman I was when I started.

I am a far better woman now than I was back then.

And that is reason to celebrate. It will not be the same old story, or the same old escapade and adventure.

Women who have some sort of attitude problem are fairy princesses who always need some man to install them in their position.

Women who don’t have that problem, can create their own worlds on their own. They aren’t fairy princesses, but warrior and philosopher queens who become eccentric and enigmatic empresses who live life on their own terms.

And we need a new generation of women to strive to be empresses who grow and change as they learn and evolve.

Women have no yet unleashed themselves, and this has become some putrid Victorian Age of prudes and judgemental ninnies who never create something new.

I am not playing into that rigged con, and it is the reason I am eager to start something new that pays homage to the old — but always with the future in mind and at heart…

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

The Toronto Star is a newspaper that has used the feint and ruse of gravitas and bravado to seem more enlightened than it ever has actually been.

It never learned humility or reality. Just take this advertorial packaged as a column:

A new era of ethics for journalism

It is pretentious and over-the-top hard sell, and is quite amusing as it does not align with reality in the slightest:

Most important, in this new era of misinformation and dwindling trust, when journalists must work harder than ever to earn the trust of our readers, I believe strongly in the accountability and transparency of having a well-thought out guide to journalism standards – and of making it easily accessible to readers. To that end, a link to the guide is now embedded on every piece of content on thestar.com. Links to the guide are also published on all other Torstar news sites

There is no “new era of misinformation.” We have always had the same misinformation, and more importantly, the same kinds of misinformation. I wrote the book on journalistic misinformation in 2005, and I covered decades of ground. It is not as if the Internet is actually any different than a wire service or a PR firm disseminating a press release — both reach hundreds and even thousands of outlets globally, and they in turn disseminated that information to a worldwide audience.

The first Gulf War was predicated on a lie. The entire planet was fed this lie. Journalists were wholly responsible for disseminating that lie without question.

The civil war in the former Yugoslavia had multiple PR firms spreading lies and misinformation, and the entire planet of journalists parroted those lies without question.

So where is this “new era”?

There isn’t. That itself is a deception meant to fear-monger and uses both a sink or swim logical fallacy, as well as an appeal to authority: Trust the Toronto Star, little people, because there is the same old dreck coming from us, but we are going to repackage it as we try to convince you to give up your freedoms and mindlessly defer to us.

There is no “new era” of journalism ethics. It’s a dead and antiquated profession that wore out its welcome, and some in the profession have finally clued in why, though they could have just read my latest book that already outlined that reason.

The Star likes to strut and crow as it marvels at its own inflated sense of worth. If there truly had been a “new era”, there would be radical educational overhauls, governing bodies, empirical methods, and a whole slew of other things, but as nothing has changed in the profession, it is just trash talk.

But the Star thinks that if bluffs and decrees it so, people will buy the hype.

And that is a highly unethical gambit to play.

Journalists have become partisan propagandists who pretend to be activist crusaders, even though they are uninformed, untrained, and unskilled. They are shallow and are reactionary, issuing stern and puritanical Victorian decrees without evidence or context.

That is precisely why they have lost all sense and credibility.

The alternative is not about chest thumping or pretending that you are superior to your audience. It is about being First Among Equals in terms of fact-gathering.

There is no “crusading” or “activism”. That is a poor man’s form of lobbying, and lobbying was never an ethical profession. Telling people what to think and how to think is the stuff of egomaniacal and exploitative cult leaders and war-mongers, not information disseminators.

Keep your self-serving and partisan opinions to yourself. No one cares. Just find the facts as you understand their atomic essence.

That is where journalism utterly failed: they never understood the currency or lifeblood of their own profession. They have zero understanding of what is a fact, let alone truth, reality, perception, and interpretation.

So no, there is no “new era” in the ethics of journalism.

But there is new era of an alternative to journalism: one that is molecular at its core, as it builds and expands to the Infinite…