Why journalism's patriarchal narrative structures keep distorting our perceptions of realty.

The Economist has a very distorted chart worth noting here:

White nationalism after Christchurch

The new face of terror, much like the old

Violent white nationalists increasingly resemble the jihadists they hate

This is a very stupid chart and a stupider hypothesis, but not for the reasons that you think.

In my 2005 book, Don’t Believe It!: How lies become news, I go over a very important method of dealing with hate crime stories, terror stories, and war stories: erase the ethnicity or race of the players. Just forget them entirely.

Look at the facts. Look at the logic. See if Group or Person A could possibly do this to Group or Person B.

Many times, just by removing ethnic or racial designations, the story completely falls apart.

Because the distorting lens is removed, and the emotional triggers are gone.

Why is this method effective?

Because our own personal biases and prejudices are gone, and we have no idea who is suppose to be the hero or villain. We are looking at actions because we don’t have the hacks of ethnicity to cloud our judgement.

But it goes one step deeper: it kicks away our props and supports and we are forced to judge people as people.

But journalism cannot do this because its entirely existence is based in a Patriarchal Narrative where there can be only one good guy, and anyone else is a bad guy.

It cannot deal with Matriarchal realities of intersecting lives. It does not compute. If journalism was a calculator, it would be one that could not do math. It would have just two numbers: 1 and 0.

It would know that 1≠0, and that’s about it.

And 0=bad and 1=good.

That’s a pretty shitty calculator.

So what the Economist is trying to do is present an inaccurate truth of 0 and 1, and that’s not true.

White supremacists were always terrorists. They lynched people who were not like them. There is no “increasing” here. We just cherry-pick certain events and then try to paint a narrative how we should now see these people are bigger bad guys than the ones who are bad guys of a different in-group.

No, they are the same. These are both racist cabals who are violent. The end.

The world is full of violent people. The press wants to somehow knock Trump by proclaiming one violent group is worse than another violent.

No, you have two violent groups. They aren’t just racist, but misogynistic.

So your chart is garbage and so is your hypothesis.

The world was always violent. It always had cabals who terrorize people and cause harm to innocents. There is no narrative. I don’t want to deal with any of them. The Ustashi slaughtered my grandmother’s family just because they were Serbs. The Nazis slaughtered Jews. They both were violent, and both got away with far too much.

And any other group that wants to kill people is a bad group. No worse, no better. If your mandate includes extermination, you suck. The end.

And if journalists were truly “progressive” as all the cool kids try to convince me, they wouldn’t be making racist charts or bringing up race: they would say that there are various clusters of violent people targeting innocent people for slaughter. They would not indulge the excuses. They would name names and put faces to the names. You wouldn’t be employing the faceless techniques of war propaganda.

Because in the end, race doesn’t make you a murderer. It’s your lack of character, ability to see truths, emotional illiteracy, and cowardice.

If we held individuals accountable and didn’t indulge their excuses, they would not be able to hide in numbers. They could not pretend they had a cause, because they don’t.

But that takes breaking away from patriarchal narratives and stop distorting reality just to make silly charts and nonexistent points…

Read More

Clowns to the Left; Jokers to the Right: Moving away from the war in the Age of Propaganda.

Western thought has mutated to the primitive binary where you either dance to the Left or the Right, and truth be told, neither side is at all appealing. 

They are both spectacularly wrong, but in polar ways, and literally there are clowns to the Left, and jokers to the Right.

We have a life theory that we are too afraid to actually test; so we look for strength in numbers to validate that theory, but then we want everyone to walk lockstep with that theory, regardless of whether or not that theory would hold others back and ruin their lives.

Journalism became the enabler for both sides of that Linear Divide and it work because they were blessed with having a rig of being in control of the public message.

And then came the Internet which liberated people by allowing them to broadcast their own propaganda without the middleman, and journalism became a relic of the past.

Instead of taking stock of this new reality and changing their mandate, journalism decided to stop pretending they were objective, and went into full propaganda mode.

Some sucking up to the Left. Some sucking up to the Right.

They became the annoying little minion to cartoon villains who need a sidekick to slobber all over them.

But journalism's destruction is a fait accompli with no clever answer from those who can make billions of dollars with ease.

We see Project Veritas is a holding pattern after they were made by the Washington Post. If it is true that James O'Keefe is upset that he cannot get respect from those he is trying to expose, he has nothing to worry about: getting respect from journalists is the kiss of death. Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were once media darlings. It didn't do a thing for them except lull them into a false sense of invincibility and intellectual superiority.

And O'Keefe should remember the Washington Post had their own slip ups with Janet Cooke and spreading misinformation in the Private Jessica Lynch Affair, not to mention they appealed to a no-name web site about the veracity of information regarding fake news. They are hardly in a position of superiority themselves.

O'Keefe is clearly Right of Centre, and it is easy for the Left to dismiss him, but he is not the only one from that side of the line in the sand who doesn't get it.

Digiday decided to play PR flunkie to the Economist by touting how they use their "data journalists" to drum up support for their subscriptions as if that were a new thing. That sort of circulation and editorial collusion has been going on for years, and I had even written a story about it in the early aughts for Presstime magazine -- and it didn't help newspapers save themselves back then, either. The piece reads as pure advertorial -- but it is supposed to preach to the Right how clever they are and are thriving when others are not, even if the facts do not align with reality.

But the Left are just as delusional in their own bubbles they use to shield themselves from reality. Lefty propaganda spewfest the Jacobin has a knee slapper of a piece about Karl Marx "the journalist."

Marx's ideology caused death and confinement to millions of people over the decades, and is one of the most destructive ideologies ever created. It held back people because it is an ideology that appeals to greed and doesn't not take human nature into consideration. The notion of someone in power being your nanny who pays for you appeals to many people without ambition, but wish to still live a comfortable life. They do not want to face the reality of their consequences, and want the government to pay their way without wondering where the money will come from. Wealthy people will either get tagged and depleted of their wealth -- or they will flee from the clutches of their predators. Either way, there is only so much money a few wealthy people can give before their well runs dry -- and that will not be enough to sustain any sort of comfortable existence.

Sooner or later, that kind of regime will have to borrow money -- and will have no way of paying it back, meaning they are at the mercy of their creditors. Very few communist governments can survive for a prolonged period of time without eventually incorporating some sort of capitalist measure into their own matrix -- or having some sort of larger sugar daddy providing some buffer.

In any case, there must always be an element of social engineering to keep unnatural habits and beliefs in place.

Marx may have been some sort of journalist, but he wasn't a good one. He envisioned a world of self-entitlement, by convincing people they were all royalty of some sort who were owed something just by their birth, and you cannot have a nation of kings and queens who have no incentive to drive for progress and innovation.

Marx is a prime example of how a single journalist can wear blinders to both psychological reality and physical reality to create a despotic system of oppression, while indoctrinating people with propaganda insisting it is the opposite. He may very well be the proof that people in journalism should never create systems of governance.

But so are others working as journalists with their heinous conclusions based on distorted facts.

The Globe and Mail has been working overtime with its own brand of social engineering lately, that it makes me wonder whose gotten their ear lately. Worse, they are whining to the Canadian government to give them free money to continue spewing propaganda and tell the little people how to think and what to do.

This week has been a new low for them, outlining the "horrors" of not giving psychologically traumatized people free weed, as if this were the equivalent of not giving cancer patients free cancer drugs -- which, by the way, Canadians don't get unless they are in the hospital, but the Globe chooses to ignore that.

Weed is a recreational drug that cannot heal you physically or emotionally. Cancer drugs stop the growth of cancer, and many can shrink it. There is no comparison, and yet the Globe has wade in and decided denying fragile people mind-altering drugs is the moral thing to do.

Drugs are the Febreeze of the mind: it temporarily masks your subconscious knowledge of your reality from your conscious mind. It does not clean up the actual source of your rot, nor does it truly separate your real knowledge of reality from your conscious self. It merely temporarily makes you not care and deflect your attention away from your problems. It solves nothing, and is the reason why people keep having to use more instead of take it once, and then reset their brains.


Giving free drugs to people with problems will solve nothing, and worse, make those people become both dependent and feel entitled to having their own crumbling mental house be held up with duct tape. The Globe and Mail enabled this irresponsible Left-wing narrative by making it seem taking away the duct tape was a horrible thing: not considering these troubled souls need something far more expensive and labour intensive than marijuana.

Instead, the misplaced hand-holding made a group of destitute people who have severe psychological issues come off as the spoiled brat whose mother cut off her five thousand dollars a month allowance to a "mere" one thousand dollars a month on Dr. Phil. No, vets with PTSD: you are not owed free drugs by anyone. Not your mommies, and not even the nanny state.

As someone who cares for someone with PSTD, I can tell you right now, weed is not a solution because PTSD seeps into your subconscious, and will not go away with the psychological equivalent of spraying air freshener in a room full of rotten meat, or putting a bandage on a wound stemming from gangrene. Anyone who thinks pot is a solution doesn't understand the severity of PTSD -- and that includes people with it who also now have addiction to drugs. The government has now allowed a dangerous misconception that these people have one problem and one solution instead of no solution and two problems -- and I am speaking as someone who thinks drugs shouldn't be made illegal. If people want to waste their lives away with drugs, it is their right to self-destruct. They wouldn't get it for free -- but if they want to run away chemically, let them run away.

But there would be no enabling from the government's end.

I do not expect traumatized veterans to know that smoking weed is actually not doing a thing to heal them. It just makes them believe that they do not care for a short time. After all, drugs are chemically-induced delusions.

I do expect a government to know it, and act responsibly by not throwing a bag full of pot to broken people just to make them go away and giving them the very drug that induces apathy.

And neither is an enabling propaganda spew from the Globe and Mail.

That journalists do not know it and have become willing shills for the pot industry is proof that the profession no longer exists.

You may have Right-wing media paint drugs as a scourge. What they are is chemical courage. It is easier to get high, then find the right psychologist who is going to make you confront the ugliness of your reality, admit to being in many ways, weak, deficient, and wrong -- and come to grips with the fact that the trauma you carry will always be there -- but you have to work hard to change unnatural habits and speak the truth regardless of the consequences. That course of action takes years, and is messy and uncomfortable. And there is no Hollywood narrative that you can use as a crutch. It is what it is and that's all there is to it.

Life isn't easy. Mine isn't. Often, if I had honest and brave people who provided me with the facts I demanded, it would have been easier. Many times, it took fighting, groping in the dark, experimenting, demanding, negotiating, and working hard to get those facts to help me along.

That's what journalism should have been: that brave and honest soul who gave you facts without some sort of propagandistic spin attached to it. What are my chances? What can I do? Is there a better solution? A better way? Where do I go from here? When did it go wrong? How did it happen? Who is in charge?

That's what the world needs. Journalism decided to play advocate, and spun melodrama instead of giving facts. They decided social engineering was a moral thing that was superior to mere reportage.

It's not a moral thing. It is a very odious and presumptuous thing to do. How dare you tell me what to think and feel? Who are you to decide what my values ought to be? Are you the ones calling me every month to make sure I am safe from harm and can pay my bills?

Of course not. You are the paupers with your hands out, begging for free money as you try to force people to believe in things that are not true. 

That was never your job. Your job was to inform. Period.

And when you thought you were too good for that was the day journalism was doomed to fail and rightfully so.

It is the Age of Propaganda where there has been a war of clowns and jokers in that profession, and for those of us who are tired of that infinite loop, there is a way to leave them both behind. It is by falling for anyone's forced choice, and learning to truly follow our own instincts on our own -- without looking to force others to follow our decrees just to make ourselves feel better without questioning whether we are becoming better as a result...