CBC's propaganda paranoia: Now, let's not read old new stories. That's scary.

The CBC wants everyone to march lockstep with their beliefs, and it shows. The “old country” media outlets do not want people to get information from anywhere else…including old news stories.

This knee-slapper of a propaganda piece is warning the little people that there can be old news stories circulating, and that people aren’t checking the date.

Except that is not exactly true, either.

People look on Snopes, for instance, and think that is somehow enough verification.

But there are other reasons why old news stories come back: to remind people of sins from the past.

The Guardian, for instance, marks its stories as being old ones; so this isn’t an actual thing. Journalists are control freaks, and if they cannot meddle or have their work used as intended, they implode.

But that’s just life. Deal with it.

And their base assumption that the entire planet are helpless and gullible rubes who could not survive without them sounds just like an abusive parent or spouse’s narrative. Nice try.

But what the article doesn’t mention is the little problem of how many outlets have contracts that want a content provider to sign away their moral rights. This problem has been around for a long while now — and this is the intellectual equivalent of a deep fake video; an outlet often has the right to alter the work, which is far more deceptive than someone posting an old article from an outlet’s archives.

And considering that an increasing number of media outlets that even have or allow old articles to be shared without a paywall is shrinking.

So this is not an actual problem. People have the right to post and comment on things any way they wish. When I used to post on Metafilter, every once in a while, someone would accidentally post an older article to discuss, in which people would immediately and gleefully point out. This article is an absolute stretch, and is a pathetic attempt to make people think they are too stupid to find information unless a journalist pierces their nose with a ring, loops a rope through it, and then drags them where they need to be.

And as the article itself is nothing but self-serving misinformation that is one-sided and patronizingly demeaning to its readers, they are not ones to puke and spew…

Memo to the National Post and the Guardian: Maybe you idiots don't see things coming, but I called both.

Canadian journalists are idiots. They willfully ignore the blaring signs, and then when it all comes out, they put on their fake shock face and scream, “Nobody saw this coming!”

Fuck you. I did.

Here is a piece of garbage propaganda from The Guardian written a by tool:

Justin Trudeau’s disgrace is like watching a unicorn get run over

The political scandal engulfing the Canadian prime minister has outed him as not quite the hero we all believed he was

Who is this “we”?

I saw it from day one. He is a classic grifter. The end.

And I am a political atheist. I am not a Tory hack, or any kind of hack. You had to be brain dead not to see the content of this man’s character, especially as many of you hung around him for years and hobnobbed with him. Give me a break.

And the Financial Post also is oblivious:

Canada’s economy practically grinds to a halt — and nobody saw it coming

Data reveals much bleaker picture than anyone anticipated with weakness extending well beyond the energy sector

No, Alexandra Kitty saw it coming and wrote about this for a long time. Read the past entries here for proof. Do you people all live in caves?

Or you just hid the facts and now that it is out in the open, you have to pretend you didn’t see the obvious that I have been writing about repeatedly.

So do not use the word “no one.” I am not a “no one.”

I am not some hysterical loon. I just see reality and keep myself up to code. Not like you, children, who never learned to use your eyes to see or your ears to listen…

Jill Abramson getting pummelled by corrupt hypocrites: Just another day in the trash can called journalism.

For a profession that criticizes people viciously, journalists certainly do not like when people criticize them.

Oh, what a shock.

They either suppress information or try to tear into someone if their profile is high enough.

So when former New York Times editor Jill Abramson dissed on the corrupt and dead profession of journalism, the book couldn’t be ignored; so journalists went to attack her credibility like a rapist attacks the victim, blaming her and saying she deserved it.


Make no mistake: the level of vitriol has more to do that a woman dared call them out for their sins than the actual content.

Also note, it was the white boys who instigated this very coordinated hit.

So before discussing the guts of the allegations, let me point out that Jill Abramson made it all the way to News York Times editor.

A very lofty position in the profession. That’s as prestigious as you can get. 60 Minutes correspondent or head of a network news outfit possibly trump it.

Back then, she was doing the basic same things she did for her entire journalistic career, and she was employed and got promoted.

And that was just dandy keen for years.

But then she was a cheerleader on Team Journalism.

Now she isn’t.

I wrote a book on journalism’s ethics last year and that book was exhaustively researched.


I had no assistant. I did the entire researching and writing all by myself up in a cottage in Selkirk right on Lake Erie in the winter in the middle of nowhere because it was always my dream to write a book that way.


For five months, that is what I woke up to seeing every morning while drinking Turkish coffee. I wanted absolute solitude, but The Fabulous Ladies drove up every Sunday for brunch and mischief, and I am grateful. I did take some time out to go to Chicago to get semi-precious stones for my jewelry-making. I stayed at the fun and posh Virgin Hotel and dined at Miss Ricky’s and The Gage, but still brought my laptop to work on my book. I still have my little shower lamb from the Virgin Hotel


My book was ignored by journalists in public, though people are still buying it, despite the shut out. So much for free speech. As usual, word of mouth can break through any blacklist.

I still did an interview here and a funky one here.

But journalists couldn’t do that with Abramson. They had to stomp on her and stone her to discredit her work.

You cannot discredit mine, however. I did not go into journalism with stars in my eyes, and then turned into a bitter and disgruntled failure. I went in knowing exactly who they were, and wanted to study the profession by being a journalist for real. I conducted unprecedented and exhaustive experiments. My beat was the business of journalism and my audience were people in the profession.

When I had enough information to write an informed and empirically-sound exposé, I walked away.


I also wrote one on Fox News, and then over a decade later came When Journalism was a Thing.

Abramson was in deep, and as much as she knows about the people in that sketchy profession, those in the profession know all about her.

So those trolls knew where to look and how to strike.

And then went batshit crazy on her in a frenzy tirade, hoping to nullify her revealing of their disgusting dirt.

They nitpicked on a few facts, but even that is under debate. Journalists fuck up on facts all the time. They do not use empirical methods.

But then came the “chargeofplagiarism! Oh, no! Run for your lives! Don’t listen to the scary woman with the book that exposes us!

giphy (2).gif

It is a pathetic ruse.

The poseur “journalists” at the garbage publication Paste really overplayed the melodramatics:

Jill Abramson Is a Disgrace to Journalism

Yeah, as if you grifters know what this “journalism” is. You are not fooling anybody, you twits. Stop using the movie Reefer Madness as a guide on how to behave. You come off as disingenuous nerds.

The only publication with any sense here is the National Review that has a more accurate take:

Jill Abramson Is a Hack, Not a Thief

I am currently reading the book. She knows who she is dealing with. It is kind of a stretch to call it “plagiarism” because the writing for both are so banal and unoriginal, that really, it is like writing, “Bob likes his new job” and then someone else writes “Robert has positive feelings toward his most recent career” and then make some over-the-top tirade because you both are writing about the same damn thing.

Seriously, no winners here. I would not classify it as a “sourcing error”, either. I would classify this as typical journalism nincompoopity, and it needs to be replaced with a more responsible alternative.

Vice is pure garbage. Sexist pretentious trolls with one who got nabbed for being a drug dealer, and Vice got Canadian government money to boot. What does Vice know about journalistic ethics?

I wrote about Vice in my latest book. They are to journalism what a soiled jock strap is to journalism.

And they’re ranting about Abramson?

And other outlets are parroting their meltdown?

I can tell you straight up my book is exhaustively researched, and I didn’t plagiarize. I don’t need to because my writing is superior to Vice hacks or anyone else in that dead profession. It would be a serious step down from my own abilities.

So yes, the pot is calling the kettle black, but who is the pot and who is the kettle is your choice.

If you want to read a book that tells it like it is that doesn’t pull any punches and fears no angry mob of hacks, read When Journalism was a Thing.

You can even read while enjoying a cup of Turkish coffee — because you haven’t lived until you had a cup…

The Guardian is a sheltered newspaper...

This paragraph in The Guardian is the epitome of outrage:

An 11-year-old boy called Joshua Trump who was invited by his presidential namesake to his State of the Union speech fell asleep and has been hailed as a hero of the anti-Trump resistance.

If that is a resistance to you, you truly have lived in a bubble your entire existence.

What this is are a bunch of sore losers.

No of these “resistance” folk got off their duffs, and put their lives on the line to help others for freedom or democracy.

They bitch on the Troll Scroll. Whoop-di-fucking-do.

Serbs, on the other hand, resisted Nazis in the Second World War.

They fought against the “bad guys” in the First World War, too, losing one third of their population.

How many “Trump resistors” lost theirs to the cause?

Stop trivializing valiant concepts to give to spoiled slackers, because you’re just coming off as a cabal of oblivious assholes…

Of gravy trains and ouroboros: Watching the implosion of US politics.




I remember when Rob Ford ran for mayor of Toronto. I predicted that he would win, and that there was going to be a rude awakening from a subset of middle class voters who were truly oblivious to their own reality.

Ford ran on the platform that he would “stop the gravy train.” I knew people in Toronto who were all gung-ho for this platform. I had a very good chuckle because they were all snooty about it, too. They were middle class people who were very provincial and short-sighted in their thinking, probably at Stage Two of Piaget’s scale. They did not see that they were the freeloaders on the gravy train, using the city’s various services to babysit and entertain their children on the cheap, and if it weren’t for that blessed gravy train, they wouldn’t be middle class, but poor.

They were subsidized lower class people who got to pretend to be higher up the pay scale because of the gravy train.

They had their sights set on the city’s poorest people and thought those icky unwashed welfare moms shouldn’t get any ride on the gravy train. There was no pointing out anything because when you say certain things, people talk over you very loudly as if that was going to prevent the inevitable.

Ford won. They cheered.

Then the gravy train no longer made stops to their front door.

And then the requisite howling. The outrage! The tyranny!


Yeah, just because you were on this amazing “gravy train” and got your ass kicked off, doesn’t mean anything. You damn well know what city services you need to keep yourself at a certain economic level — what did you think the “gravy train” was made for?

People who are just out of reach of middle class status, and getting them on board secures their votes.

You forget that it is not your brilliant strategy that got you where you are: it is government graft that gives you just enough to squeak into a higher standard of living so you don’t have to count your pennies. That is the reason governments bribe people during elections because when it comes to those voters, a little goes a long way.

Even people who weren’t on the razor’s edge had to tighten their belts and the incessant whining about the Big Meany Rob Ford annoyed me, and I did not sit there in sympathy. No, he isn’t a monster. You were just a little too full of yourself and let it all go to your fat head. So you can brag a little less, get over it. That’s not on him; it’s on you and your grandiose sense of self.

The funny thing was when it was the election, I was the one warning people about the consequences of a Ford vote, but once he got his fabulous victory, I didn’t slag him, and kept challenging his naysayers.

Stop throwing a temper tantrum. Grow up. Get rid of that obnoxious chip on your shoulder. Learn to look at your situation using reality, not fantasy because if you think I am buying it, here is the memo: I’m not.

But the electorate in Toronto never learned. They abandoned the Liberals in the provincial election, and went with the NDP who couldn’t win, burning their bridges and losing their stranglehold of the cabinet and the ruling party.

You cannot afford to go more left when the tide is turning right, and your province is in serious debt. What you can do is size yourself up, feel the winds of change, vote strategically as you negotiate and lobby for your interests.

Hamilton never learns a thing, either. The city has a mayor who throws tantrums and doesn’t know his place. The city just has one MPP in the ruling party, and the mayor hasn’t spoken to her once. Even the city’s newspaper is howling at him to grow up, but he has wasted six months in not pushing the city’s interests, and now as the government’s agenda has been set for its reigning term as Doug Ford did not waste a minute of his own victory, Hamilton once again is shut out. It is not about your ego or holding childish personal vendettas. It is about doing your job.

But the city didn’t align its municipal rulers with the provincial one, and, as usual, the city is on the bottom rung just as Basic Income is coming to an end. You can pout for the CBC all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t actually know how to vote in your best interests.

Ideology is a feint and a ruse: it is just the misdirection used to gain votes. It is meaningless. What counts is momentum and the ability to negotiate with blocs to ensure your interests are met.

We can see the implosion on the federal level in Canada. Justin Trudeau made the worst series of tactical errors in the worst place. He was voted as a luxury brand name to show off on the world stage. He was supposed to impress the world leaders of Canadians’ various homelands and make the world green with envy. That, and legalize weed so wayward children of middle class parents wouldn’t shame the family with arrest records.

The cannabis is legalized. We don’t need Grits anymore, but when the Prime Minister made a fool of himself in India, he broke a spell with the electorate. Lots of luxury brand labels become passé and go belly up. And now that the list of foreign countries who detest Canada is growing, he is no longer a source of pride, but shame. Everyone seems to think the NDP won’t eat away at the left’s voting base, but there are always the Greens.

Or anyone else who isn’t going to humiliate the national interest.

Shallow voting nets you shallow leaders. The Globe and Mail see Trudeau as someone who injected life back into the federal Liberals, but that’s too generous. It was merely the name and the people thinking they will get the same kind of leader through familial osmosis, and then the left-leaning electorate plastering Pierre Trudeau's son’s face on their fantasies, making wild assumptions that had a snowball’s chance of coming true.

Because when you have an electorate that thinks image and ideology has a place in governance, they will never see the bottom line, and misdirection can be used time and again to manipulate the vote.

When you lobby for specific things, you get specific things and you know exactly how much there is, how much you are entitled to get, what you may need to trade off to get it, and competing interests that you may have to negotiate with to ensure your own interests are met. When you lobby on lofty self-romanticization, you get sweet nothings and empty promises, nothing more.

When the electorate is always posturing and looking for some They to do their bidding, they do not have the centre of gravity. They are the suckers to be played, and there are countless ways to play them.

The Silent Political Meltdown in Canada came when the trauma of the ill-fated India trip happened and the rest of the world caught wind of it. Journalists are desperately trying to spin it, knowing full well that if the Grits are voted out, there is no free money for them, but it is only getting more desperate. When the situation is this bitter and volatile, no one has control, or can use predictable tricks to get back on track.

You can’t unsee one narcissistic act of cultural appropriation.


You had a middle class electorate vote by using The One Rule That Explains Everything that is the key to Winning At Life, and it backfired spectacularly.

It is not as if people won’t make the same structural mistake, but the content of the rule changes, and when you were voted in as a Luxury Brand Candidate, and you proved to be defective, the updated rule will be rigged against your hack.

But that’s already underway in Canada. The Grits in Ontario tried to rejig things by taking a hard turn to the left, which meant bribing people, but all it did was radicalize the NDP vote and they cancelled out the Liberals.

And remember, Andrea Horwath wasn’t a contender prior to the election. She wasn’t much better off than Jagmeet Singh at the time. All it takes is one pleasing policy of “free” something, and the NDP are back n the game. For the provincial NDP, the magic phrase was “free dental”. The left cannibalized itself in Ontario, pandering to the shallow, and it cost them their power base that won’t be so easy to get back.

But the US left is having their own cannibalization, and like the Ontario NDP, it looks like it is a winning strategy.

Too bad for them that feasting on yourself feels like you’re getting somewhere.


The Left in the US have been having conniptions ever since they thought they figured Americans out. A Middle Class Mindset is a Zero-Risk one, always looking for (a) a simple, convenient, and easy solution that has TORTEE they can memorize, (b) a moralizing and patriarchal fantasy-based script to stick to in order to shut out any facts or logic that refutes TORTEE, (c) a They who will come up with all of the answers and do all of the work.

This Sophistry Triad will never deviate.

If you can sell these three lies, you are in business.

The only difference between the US version and the Canadian version is that in the US, the candidate who looks like he’d be the most fun at the cocktail party will win the White House.

That also is a given.

But the political left had the shock of their lives because they thought they had it covered with Hillary Clinton, who is (a) not fun at parties, (b) is not comfortable with facts that refute her theories, and her strategies always suffered from a fatal confirmation bias, and (c) she never gave goodies to the electorate: she wanted to be the first woman president, and that’s not the right answer.

I’m running for the people!, on the other hand, is the answer people want to hear. Don’t be a nerd.

This I’m-Doing-It-For-America angle doesn’t just apply to politics. Bill Cosby got away with truckloads of shit because he was “America’s Dad.”

I used to teach business communications, and one of the first rules is Know Your Audience.

The problem is that the audience never bother to Know The Messenger. This is why con artists keep getting away with anything and everything. The Sophistry Triad is the shackles that imprison collective thought.

And you can be educated and still shackled to this thinking. The Guardian doesn’t get it when they got all giddy with this headline:

'This is about saving capitalism': the Dutch historian who savaged Davos elite

Rutger Bregman never intended to take billionaires to task over tax at World Economic Forum

You can tell off billionaires, but you better be schooled in their strategic thinking before you speak. They want globalization so they can have an entire planet rigged for their monolithic hamster wheel, and it is the left who are helping that happen.

The Democrats seem to think they can bribe voters with socialism, and spew nincompoopity every chance they get:

Rep. Ilhan Omar calls for sharp tax increases on the wealthy: 'We've had it as high as 90 percent'

As if the wealthy are just going to sit and take it. With a planet of 195 nations, they can negotiate with one open for business. They can just automate everything, and there will be nothing to tax. Tax avoidance isn’t hard.

You have a jealous generation who think they are going to get all sorts of free things. They don’t think what happens when the super-rich and the measly millionaires have the freedom to literally up and go: who will be defined as wealthy then?

The Middle Class.

The people cheering the loudest are the ones who will be footing this bill, and see nothing for it. The government will squander the money. There will be no goodies, because once you start taxing the super-rich, you are signalling to your country’s creditors that your source of income has just dried up — and those collectors are going to start demanding repayment of those trillions of dollars. The people who are being beguiled by the come-ons, ironically, have the most to lose.

We have a gross inequity of wealth because the rich thought ahead and the middle class, being the Zero-Risk people that they are, refused to be more political active because they thought they or their children would become one of the “super-rich.”

Don’t deny it. I don’t do drugs and my brain isn’t fried. I have a long-term memory and heard the bragging in the mid-1990s. I had acquaintances try to psyche me out, first saying they were going to make me eat their dust along with their parents, and then when that didn’t happen, their kids would vindicate them and I would eat their children’s dust.

Considering I wasn’t in any race with anyone, the trash talk wasn’t just rude; it was stupid.

Well, their kids didn’t give me dust to eat, either…so now, let’s all demand that super-rich people give us free money and we do nothing to earn it because we are special!

When I was pointing out income disparities, people were abusive and laughing at me, making sexist comments, but when it actually kicked their own backsides, it is a different story.

I think it was an episode of Matt Houston in the mid-1980s that had a one-off character who, with $75 million dollars, was America’s Richest Man.

Now, that’s laughable. In thirty-plus years, the Middle Class fantasied and let the sharks circle them because they imagined they, too, were sharks.

The ship has sailed. The rich aren’t rich because they follow a Middle Class mindset. They can walk out of any trap.

There is an interesting book on Internet trolls.

And they remind me a lot of the goons during Machiavelli’s day. They are seemingly unrelated and have no vested interest, but are organized — and an organized mob is a sign of a paid mob used to intimate critics and threats, make it seem as if there some sort of genuine and natural swelling of public opinion, and trick Zero-Risk followers into falling into line.

Who organizes them? How much do they get paid?

And who has the money to pay them?

Twitter gives a false impression of genuine public discourse. It has been co-opted years ago. Any PR firm can spew bots and pay people to post, bully, and gang up on the naive who still think that cesspool is real.

It is why I don’t buy the “socialism” narrative. It is also why I don’t buy much of what I read on Twitter. It’s a sham.

If you are taking your cues from Facebook memes and Twitter rants, you are deluding yourself. Tweets have ghostwriters and paid instigators.

It is also the reason why the Internet is not as powerful nor enduring as the hype leads us to believe.

What matters is facts.

People want free things, without asking how would this money get there, what about national debt repayment, what strings are attached, what alternatives are out there, or anything that would show the reality that there is no such thing as something for nothing.

People want a gravy train all to themselves as they want to kick off everyone else.

And they are fighting over fantasies as they cannibalize themselves.

There is no sensibility out there right now — aside from this space, that is.

It is quite the tintinnabulation.

Because Ouroboros is a symbol in alchemy — but alchemy isn’t about taking, but giving.

So we have a desperate party trying to bribe people with other people’s money.

And when they fail to deliver, because there is no other conclusion, things will get ugly because people would have been ungrateful and demanding even more if the promise was kept.

And it won’t be kept. No creditor would allow other people to get a dime at the creditor’s expense.

If that happens, there will no Middle Class America because they do not realize how dependent they already are on others for their lifestyle. All it would take is one pissed-off creditor, and the house of cards crumbles, and then the Middle Class can bitch to their heart’s content in the gutter: no one will hear them nor want to, either.

The Middle Class still think some They will give them free things because they are special. You have to fight and steal your knowledge, and then go test it under various and rigorous conditions.

I have had Middle Class people turn up their noses in horror when I suggest that they take their children and grandchildren to city hall to meet their local representative.

You’ll take them to a movie or an amusement park where they get nothing, but think you’re too good to take them to see their elected official who has control over your life?

Are you serious?

And maybe if you didn’t post propaganda posters on your social media accounts, you’d find the free time to improve your part of the world.

Life is too short to expect other people to live your life for you…

The Chaser Solution: Chapter Nine: Let 7.4 billion people focus on Trump. I have a life.






ctr copy.JPG




Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 1.03.16 PM.png






The unworldly motherfuckers over at the Guardian make me laugh:

The US is on the edge of the economic precipice – Trump may push it over

Oh, you crazy kids. That’s the whole point.

He plays Go. How many times do I have to tell you dumbass knuckle-draggers? The point of Go is to surround your enemy and drown him in your swirl of stones.

If you are stuck in quicksand, you don’t fight. The more you struggle, the faster you sink.

The Left are spoiled brats who are not used to doing their own thinking. Mom and dad did it all for them. They threw fits, and there is a penalty for it.

7.4 billion people and the majority don’t get it.

I knew he was going to win, and I prepared. I didn’t get upset. I got to work.

Because it really doesn’t matter who is elected in office. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Yet the press doesn’t report on that. People would get distressed if they came to grips with the fact that they will die on a hamster wheel.

I had to make a decision when I decided to resurrect Chaser: who is my audience, and what do I actually cover?

With 7.4 billion people on the planet pretty much fixated on one man.

Imagine that. That is one hell of a lockstep.

One person I will always be covering is Alexandra Kitty.

You will get to know me. There is a person here, and it is important to know who you are dealing with. Society has lost its ability to connect, and in order to foster connection, I am the conduit for this site, just as I am a conduit for A Dangerous Woman Studio.

I do hear snarky remarks about my choice of subject. I have had people say, “You always talk about yourself,” to which I answer, “And you always talk about Trump, and I am much more interesting.”

People focus on his typos more than they do on anything or anyone else. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Fuck you.

But people do not like when a woman talks about herself without trying to appease some guy, put herself down, or is eccentric.

A woman can have hundred of DC action figures all over her house like a museum, thousands of comic books, and an entire room of Lego with working trains and cars that are made into a city, no one notices.

A man plays with dolls to cope with life, and they make a documentary and movie about him.

I can’t even say not every man gets attention because the Atlantic gave a platform to a former journalist who now delivers for Amazon. Even a down-on-his-luck guy gets more attention than a woman who had the world collapse around her.

A man created the Intercept, and even woman who think they are feminists wonder why there is no feminist Intercept when there was long before the Intercept.

I can tell you about the Blue Beetle or about the jewelry of Josef Hoffmann. You want to know about various Japanese playing cards? I am your woman. I can tell you about female magicians, rabbits, metalworking, and Clarice Cliff, among other things.

It is not as if I think I am the only person who does her own thing, but how many woman do their own thing and no one gives them any notice?

So when I decided to launch Chaser, I made a few big decisions: the focus will not be on what the locksteppers are obsessed with. Fuck that shit.

It will always be on information and stories that are important to know.

It will be the place where you find out about mindsets and rigs.

It will be the tools you need to navigate through information so you do not fall for propaganda of any sort.

And it will be from someone who has a life!


A system with a thousand things wrong with it: journalists shouldn't be fact-checkers for Facebook. Facebook shouldn't be in the fact-checking business, either.

The Guardian has an oblivious article about how journalists who “fact-check” their own by working for Facebook are upset with Facebook.

First of all, Facebook is a Middle Class, amateur vanity press release site. They have no business being any sort of “fact-checkers”. They know zero about news. They are not structured for it. Facebook fact-checking news is like Victoria’s Secret fact-checking news.

Or Harley Davidson.

Or Walmart.

Or Wheel of Fortune.


So right off the bat, the entire idea is ludicrous.

Facebook should have just put a disclaimer. We see it in broadcasting when they tell you the following is paid advertising or for “entertainment purposes only.”

That was the answer: to let the Middle Class people know that the pink spongey mass inside their motherfucking skull has a purpose, and they should use it themselves. Fuck the hell off. Facebook gave the stay-at-mall moms a platform to post pictures of their brats in tutus and superhero costumes, what the fuck more do they want?

For all Facebook knows, that’s not even their kid.

But Facebook wants to be an authority; so they gave in and hastily cobbled together “fact-checkers.”

Journalists should not have been the fact-checkers because that is a conflict-of-interest, and if you are going to do things differently, then you have to be more scientific about it, and not drink from a poisoned well.

Get fresh eyes and expertise, not the same old guard who cannot be trusted to get quotes in the proper context. The end.

And now journalists are griping that Facebook isn’t being responsive to them.

Why would they? They are not a news outlet. That is not their mandate. They just stuck your ass in that chair to appease the jittery classes who have a Zero Risk Mindset. You messed up your own profession, let Facebook mess up their own. They do not need your worthless input.

They needed to tell the little people that Facebook is like chewing gum: it’s a sweet distraction you can favour as you chew, but don’t swallow it…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Thirty-Four: If you are babbling about "truth sandwiches", you really don't know truth.

Western civilization is one that infantilizes adults.

It is the reason why those over-thinking and over-educated sheltered souls keep missing the mark.

We have a linguistics professors actually going on record, thinking that he is more cunning than Donald Trump, and babbling and spewing about truth sandwiches.

Are you serious?

Do you honestly think this is some high school debate?

Memo to George Lakeoff: this isn’t your classroom, this is real life, and you obviously have lived a very sheltered life.

So, let me give you a little lesson in reality.

People will marry ugly slobs who will eventually steal their money, isolate them from their family, and when they get what they want, off them.

No non-existent, ABC Afterschool Special “truth sandwich” will convince them of anything. They have their fairy princess narrative, people who are not in love with the scum bucket will be painted as jealous, and they will be ignored.

And do not instruct the moronic press with lessons because they are as corrupt as the president.

And that’s why people do not believe them, either.

It’s all just a line in the sand, and when you have a linear divide, people will see their superiority, and then that’s it.

Psychologist Brett Silverstein showed that creating two random groups was all it took.

So save your lectures for your captive audience of students.

But don’t buy your own hype.

Trump is more cunning than you, and more cunning than journalists.

And anyone who talks about truth sandwiches with a straight face is asking for a knuckle sandwich instead.

I will not be treating adults as children.

Come February, the dynamics of this web site will change.

I have been busy lately, and among other things, I have three weeks to go on my course, and a move to make.

I will be writing a book for a US publisher as well; so things are picking up here, but I promised a few things, and they will be coming.

I never talked down to people — not back then, not now.

And I don’t defer to authority, either.

If some people thought they didn’t like what I had to say before, they have not seen anything yet…

The Cult of the Enterprising Chicken Littles: It's the end of the world...unless you do what we tell you.

The Guardian has been brazen in begging for money, and it shouldn’t be surprising that to force people to use their product, they are now stooping to doomsday propaganda to give an impression that the world cannot survive with the Guardian.

Take a look at this column for instance:

The Earth is in a death spiral. It will take radical action to save us

And let me guess: we have to do what a wealthy Leftist cabal decrees is right.

Big Brother, you are relentless in trying to scare us into compliance.

And this is brazen.

We know how the “iGen” cohort are fragile and dependent on their godphones, and we have shameless news outlets trying to frighten them into being dependent on them and the masters they serve.

Humans cannot help their manipulative little selves: if it isn’t gods and devils who are going to destroy the Earth, it is foreigners, and if it is’t foreigners, it’s Mother Nature.

Just stop.

Stop trying to manipulate people with fear-mongering. No wonder this generation have become timid, dysfunctional, and defeated. They think there is no tomorrow.

And journalists should remember if there is a generation who think there is no tomorrow, they are not going to buy your product because there is no point.

And stop being exploiters, Guardian. Your stealth paranoia isn’t going to save your tomorrow, either…

Memo to French President Emmanuel Macron: Fuck you.

Politco’s propaganda may babble about Macron’s pathetic “containment” of Donald Trump, but the French government have shown their true immoral colours.

It was Armistice Day, and the swinish boors of Western European “leadership” did the same bigoted things they always do: walk all over Eastern Europeans because that’s what inferior people do to create false pecking orders, and it is a sham.

So what happened?

France placed Serbia in a no man’s land during its Armistice ceremony:

At the November 11 Armistice ceremony in Paris, which brought together leaders from numerous countries, Kosovar President Hashim Thaci was behind the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and the United States, while Vucic was placed in a separate stand on the opposite side.

Serbian media quoted Vucic as saying , "You can imagine how I felt," and adding that he had "a lump in the throat."

"I couldn't believe what I was seeing before me, knowing the sacrifice that the Serbian people made in World War I," he said.

Historians say that Serbia suffered more losses as a proportion of its population in World War I than any other country embroiled in the conflict.

To put this in perspective to the culturally and historically illiterate, during the First World War, Serbs were slaughtered and had their population slashed by a third. They fought hard and won, and were allies who had been traumatized the most — and France repaid Serbs with a big fuck you, and it is not the only fuck you.

And this was not a minor oversight:

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade Professor Dr. Dragan Simic told Prva TV on Monday that a truly big scandal had occurred in Paris when it comes to the seating of the invitees. 

As he added, this is in some way a revision of history, because in 1918 "some other victors were sitting in the front row." 

"When it comes to the First World War, Serbia deserves the first row, along with France, Great Britain, the countries who won the First World War. And maybe three, four countries in the first row, and then everyone else. Maybe there was no place for anybody there. Some really did not exist as a state at that time," Simic said. 

In other words, Serbia lost the most people and fought along Western European allies, and they are treated as nothing.

And just to be clear: the “excuse” is no excuse. You cannot try to find some sort of loophole and then pretend it wasn’t. This is Armistice Day where the seating counts — you do not have wedding parties where the bride’s family is placed in the back of the room because of some clinical categorizing arrangement. It is pure, cowardly and psychopathic bullshit.

This is bigoted, disgusting, disrespectful — and a sign that Serbs are being deliberately marginalized as a revisionist history is being spun by France. This act is a willful ruse of deceit, propaganda, and fascism.

And the nationalism Macron pretends to abhor. You are not fooling everyone, you arrogant asshole.

A French Ambassador tried to smooth this spit in the face with acknowledging just how horrific the gaffe was and why:

"We are very close to Serbia. Serbia lost almost a third of its population in the First World War, 62 percent of all men. I don't know what happened (in Paris.) I say it was a regrettable mistake and we plead with President Vucic and the Serb people to accept an apology," he said. 

And you did that to the Serbs on Armistice Day.

Fuck you, France.

Fuck you for treating Serbian life as unimportant.

It is easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. This was a cowardly act meant to demonize and degrade Serbs, and there are people like me who will neither forgive France nor ever forget what they did.

Trump mocked Macron for his empty words and virtue-signalling, and good.

That makes Trump the morally superior leader in this bout. 

And memo to the Guardian: fuck you, too. You get all huffy that Trump didn’t take the dog and pony show seriously — and yet where the fuck were you ignorant sleepwalkers when Serbs got bullied and degraded once again?

Trump did not have a meltdown: he just knows what dumb fuck incompetent leadership Western Europe has, and has no respect for Eurotrash.

All the Guardian does these days is fellate people in positions of power as they beg their readers for money and ignore real stories.

Scum defending scum, and completely missing the bigger story of a Western European country humiliating an Eastern European one for political gain: Serbs are being told in no uncertain terms that whatever valiant things they did in the past are not respected, and that they will be forced to abide by whatever political gang rape Western Europe decrees with regards to Kosovo.

France showed their true colours, and how worthless they are as allies. If one third of your family was wiped out saving another, and those others relegated you into the broom closet, you would not be happy, either.

This sin is unforgivable and shows just far down the gutter Europe has fallen… and no, Mr. Macron, nothing you say against Trump can hide your own lack of decency and moral compass…


Propagandists' minions are all alike, Left or Right. The Default Delusion is just another argument fallacy, not a loophole.

Politicians love to vogue in photo ops as they spew. and today was no different.

We had a false linear divide presented by President Emmanuel Macron who pretended he was somehow superior to Donald Trump and his patriotism was superior to Trump’s nationalism.

Nah, you didn’t make it up a corrupt food chain being a choir boy, so fuck you.

Remembrance Day is a token holiday where disposable pawns get a pat on the head from the grave.

It is politicians who create wars, and it is naive foot soldiers who have to die.

And then those politicians get to exploit it so they can tell the little people how moral they are so people would be willing to sacrifice their own children when a power-hungry war-monger needs fresh meat.

If you truly want to honour the fallen, stop lording over people.

Patriotism is no better than nationalism.

Both are sanctioned insanity used to exploit the naive middle class into telling them how to be moral in such a way that they will be primed, groomed, and lured into being pawns when the politicians and robber barons need to expand their territory and their chosen victims put up a fuss.

Left is Right and Right is Left. They are both binary. They are both Patriarchal. They both function on linear divides.

They both are beguiled by the Default Delusion.

In its simplest terms, a Default Delusion happens when you do not like someone, and you think you have found a loophole to make you superior to them by merely doing the opposite they are doing.

So if you hate your boss and he smokes, then you don’t smoke and then get all self-righteous about it.

Never mind that you are embezzling from him and fucking his daughter behind his back.

No, you are not superior to him.

He may be a scuzzball, but so are you, just another variety of it.

There is more than one type of cancer, kids.

So listening to the Victorian howling from the Left that Paypal is wisely calling Antifa and Proud Boys destructive motherfuckers by banning them is a riot.

Pardon the pun.

Both of them are tyrants using pseudo-moralistic argument to justify their thuggery. Both are ideological fanatics in tune with DAESH. Both are minions doing the dirt work for some rich asshole who uses them as proxies.

Both are worthless groups are pretend to be crusaders, but are just psychopathic hypocrites.

They are this era’s bible-thumpers and cultists who think they are so smart, that they can even pretend to be atheists and not be fanatics.

Uh, no.

If it walks like a bible-thumper, and talks like a bible-thumper, it is a bible-thumper.

That is a Default Delusion: you see religious freaks preach, and you think you found a loophole: if they believe in god, and you don’t; ergo, you are superior.

No, you’re just an asshole who is ideologically appropriating from script-following loons and then plagiarizing their lunacy into your unoriginal schtick.

Fuck you.

That’s the Age of Propaganda for you: without facts and logic, people have no idea how far they have fallen into the gutter.

They may feel superior to people on the other side of a line drawn in the sand, but they are not.

They fell into a pit, and then thought they stumbled upon a loophole.


You are as petty and jealous as the assholes on the other side of the fence.

So PayPal had a good idea of banning ideologues and control freaks who want everything their own way because they have to rig the board to win because they know they are not capable of doing it now.

Memo to the assholes: you can rig it 100% your own way, you will still fail.

The problem isn’t society.

It’s you.

Take a look inward to see where you went wrong and stop blaming people on the other side of the line for failing at life…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Seventeen: It is the Era of the Coward. The level of fear has made people afraid of their own shadow. Not me. I fear no journalist, and no troll.

Never have we had a weaker and more ineffectual news media, and yet the absolute fear people have these days over confronting reality is staggering.

And the results have been a dead profession spewing propaganda.

The Guardian has done it with an article about how Right-leaning corporations are doing dirty deeds, while ignoring that the Left-leaning ones, such as Facebook have been doing things such as manipulation and surveillance, but let us skew to rig political results rather than question how robber barons of all political stripes are controlling a cowardly population.

Cowards want scripts and guarantees. They want other people to take the risks, as they reap the benefits. They are passive, whiny, and tribal, always coming up with excuses rather than results because they do not want to be shunned in public.

Journalists are cowardly by nature, and they manipulate the optics to seem graver than they are. They are vindictive whenever someone stands up to them, and many who try are too weak to stand their ground.

Journalists have their war against truth, but like the Catholic priests who molested children but pretended to be more moral than the people they were abusing, it is all for show, nothing more.

Jon Stewart told the truth when he said the press were narcissists, but then a member of the narcissist club tried to pretend they were morally superior to cowards of other varieties, but unlike most, Stewart held his ground.

But we are in an Era of the Coward: people who cling to little tribes as they prove their ignorance on the Troll Scroll, spewing nincompoopity and openly admitting they are ignorant and close-minded. They try to rig the world to prove their unworkable ideas are the Truth.

But they learned those bad habits from journalists.

I gave a recent talk about my book and one of the attendees asked what what Canadian outlets were reliable. I said none. She stared at me as if I had said she had a terminal illness.

But why this would be a surprise is beyond me.

The group had seen themselves as well informed, but the amount of critical information they did not know was dangerous. They weren’t stupid. They just settled for bad journalism, and then thought that going through the middle class motions alone would guarantee that they would be savvy and informed.

But nothing sticks anymore. People cherry-pick scandals, bully a target with their obsessive posts about it as well as their meme posters, and have no idea what is actually happening around them, let alone their world.

But it is fear. People have become afraid of the monsters because deep down, they know they are living in the dark and the Dark Ages.

People are thumping their chests to hid the fact that they are living in cold terror.

And that’s not how I roll.

I don’t care about journalists they way I do not care about any other group of dishonest narcissists.

What I care is that universities have no stepped up to the plate. I care that we have an information void.

Chaser News was about filling voids.

Chaser will be about showing that what we see as voids are illusions brought about by cowardice.

Nothing else.

The white noise of rage, is in fact, the screams of fear.

And that happens when our soul knows we are being lied to and we stand around and take that abuse.

I am not afraid of journalists. I pity them.

Because their fear destroyed their own discipline one cowardly act at a time…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Nine: Journalists were always Lestrades with short-term memories.

It is very hard to have respect for a profession when that profession behave like collective headless chickens running around, and yet still maintain the miracle of squawking. Just as you wonder how headless wonders can squawk, you also wonder how the hell those headless chickens wound up being messengers in the first place.

They all want to pretend to be “in the know”, but never bother with investing in knowledge or doing basic research.

Let us take the fate of Jamal Khashoggi, for instance.

Where is the Western media getting their intel?

They are all parroting whatever Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan without question.


He has not ever been a friend to journalists, so why does he care about Khashoggi?

And why aren’t journalists questioning that discredited source of information?

What a short memory journalists have. I guess doing all those drugs gave them all dementia.

And then you have bimbos the National Post wonder why was Khashoggi killed when he was opining benign criticism against Saudi Arabia.

Maybe it’s because it had nothing to do with journalism, you moron. Obviously, you are dealing with players, and one of whom got in over his head.

But so intellectually lazy are journalists as a collective and individuals that they absolutely cannot process information unless it is in a binary dynamic of good guy-bad guy.

They cannot fathom the idea that there are no good guys, and everyone in a certain situation is a villain — including themselves.

And spewing the propaganda of a president who has labelled peaceful people terrorists as he had imprisoned people and stomped on their rights makes you a villain. The end.

Thousands of regular citizens have lost their jobs and freedoms thanks to this man, and you just puke out what he says without question?

Shame on you.

What’s in it for Erdoğan? And why would the Saudis care for Khashoggi’s writing? Others have said a lot worse about that regime, including Canada, and those people were not lured and executed in such a horrific manner.

Something else happened, and is happening still. When one tyrant calls the other tyrant a tyrant, that is the point when critical thinking skills should go into overdrive, and neither one can be trusted.

There are no “sides” here. This isn’t a Hollywood movie or a fairytale. This is reality, and I worked as a journalist and I know from my own experience you have more than just one “good guy/bad guy” situation. Sometimes two very nice groups or people clash: it does not give the journalist the right to demonize one at the expense of the other. Sometimes one or both parties are a mix of both. And many times, both sides are equally putrid, and they would both destroy you in a heartbeat, even if you appease them.

Especially if you appease them.

That is why journalists were never supposed to take sides in the first place.

But it doesn’t mean you sit on the fence or not ask hard questions.

Or stick to narratives.

I have noted on this web site before, for instance, how many Canadian politicians have been heavily invested in cannabis companies long before it was legalized. This should have sounded alarm bells if we had a real journalism product, but then again, which media players are themselves invested in them, too?

But it has been all political parties at all levels. How did they, for instance, come into contact with these companies, get the funds to do so, and have any of these companies done lobbying or some shadier form of persuasion?

We don’t know.

We don’t know what kind of financial influence these companies have had, but it has sort of dawned on the CBC this late in the game that, gee, there are a lot of people who railed against pot in their political careers who are now cashing in on it.

Except they aren’t really asking questions. It’s all about the money and all that, right?

Yes, but how come so many of them got into the game long before this point? What kind of influence did this lobby have on every level of government?

This is a serious problem. How did drug dealers get such an influence on the government?

And who else has their grubby little fingers in our politicians?

On all sides of the political spectrum?

So why vote when it doesn’t matter who gets elected?

The old scripts obviously do not align with reality.

And the middle class can snap out of their slumber and get over themselves. They make no demands, and get no information despite their incessant temper tantrums when someone challenges their rote thinking.

There are no easy or simple answer or nice, neat scripts.

Meat doesn’t come in a sterilized little cardboard box with colourful patterns on it.

It comes from the slaughtering of animal life.

And that why journalism is garbage: it constantly looks at that perky little cardboard box and staring at the dressed-up piece of meat instead of going to the abattoir and seeing up close how that cheery meal got started.

Chaser is not going to present that little box.

It is not going to ignore truths or reality.

It will challenge beliefs — all of them.

But first, it will show you just how faulty perceptions can be in the first place…

Sanctioned Insanity: Why you think the loopy things you do.

I absolutely love, love, love this article from The Guardian:

Overwhelming majority of Australians believe federal politicians are corrupt

New survey shows 85% believe most or all MPs corrupt, and two-thirds support the creation of a federal anti-corruption body

This is typical Middle Class lunacy.

So, most of you know your government is corrupt, and not only do you still keep voting for them, and becoming estranged from family, friends, and strangers because they support a corrupt person that isn't the corrupt person you are supporting, you want some They to create a federal anti-corruption body.

Who is going to set this up for you, kids? The federal government you know is corrupt?

Somehow, that plan is doomed to fail, and no Political Fairy Godmother is going to have the magic to make that stupid plan work.


But that is Sanctioned Insanity.

In psychology, there is a term call folie à deux: the insanity of two. Have one sane person captive and isolated with one insane person, and the sane person begins to share the same delusional thinking.

But there is also folie en masse: the insanity of the collective.

People follow things from others, and then form an unnatural habit. 

They do not think; they just mindlessly mimic others as the memorize the scripts and rituals that are not only useless, but irrelevant to the actual problem, and thus, provide no solution.

We do this at every waking moment. We dress up for Halloween. We carry good luck charms. We post nonsense on social media feeds.

It is all forms of sanctioned insanity. It begins as an Appeal to Authority that mutates into an Appeal by Mob.

You look to others to validate the insane action. Some insane actions are not sanctioned by Authority or Collective, and when you indulge in them, you are ostracized.

But if the Authority or Collective decree it the norm, you are ostracized for pointing out its uselessness.

Doing the same thing, but expecting a different outcome is at the heart of sanctioned insanity.

If you are poor, and keep supporting a system that keeps you poor, that is a form of sanctioned insanity.

If you are plagued by violence and think taking away guns will stop the violent actions, that is a form of sanctioned insanity.

We go through the motions without actual thought.

You have people who say their regime is corrupt, but want someone else to set up the system to feed out corruption -- and the falls to the very regime they say is corrupt.

Sanctioned insanity.

It isn't normal. It is merely the norm.

You look at the bottom line: does the action actually solve a problem for the long term in the best, most equitable, most effective, and most efficient way?

Yes or no.

If yes, it doesn't matter if the action is sanctioned or not, it is rational, practical, and sensible.

If no, it doesn't matter if the action is sanctioned or not: it is insanity.

There is no rational or logical explanation. It's just loopy.

Sophistry is also a form of sanctioned insanity: denying the dysfunction as it continues to wreak havoc and make problems is a waste of time, resources, energy, and life.

So the next time you post a meme poster or partake in some action, ask yourself does it actually directly confront what ails?

I am doing this because someone told me to do it or because everyone else is doing it, and I am just copying off someone else's test paper?

It is sanctioned insanity, no matter how out of joint your nose gets...

Journalism's Lockstep Propaganda Fest: A pathetic self-lovefest that ignores their ugly reality.

Oh, those coordinated press attacks are very childish.

And propaganda.

When you have three hundred and fifty newspapers all write about the same thing in the same way, well, that's called skewed coverage.

And it is meaningless.

It reminds me of the recent flap over NYU professor NYU Philosophy professor Avitall Ronnell who was suspended after a male student accused her of sexual harassment. There was an open letter signed by all sorts of other professors who thought just because they socialized with her and she was book smart, that no way could she be a predator.

Yes, a authority mob ganging up on someone speaking out and protecting the one accused of misusing authority.

There was an investigation done by the university, and Ronnell was suspended. Her ways were found to be predator, and you could have had reams of signatures supporting her...and it would amount to nothing.

Because one has nothing to do with the other. It is classic PR firm-type strategy of getting people to sing your praises to deflect attention away from your rot.

And editorials today were playing the same game.

Journalism never had to be in this position. If they made changes they needed to do, oh say a quarter century ago, this wouldn't be happening.

Instead, like slacker students who crib from other test-takers' papers to pass a test, this choreographed spectacle is just a PR stunt, nothing more.

It is all about virtue-signalling and halo-wearing all while pretending to be knights who somehow are also damsels-in-distress and they need audiences to play knights to rescue them from an ogre meany.

No, journalism needed to be saved from itself.

If you just did your jobs and reported on facts on the things that actually mattered, you would still be relevant.

Get over yourselves...

Explaining away failure is still spin. And it is denial of reality.

The Guardian is picking up some very bad habits, such as explaining away failure. Because of the politically correct pseudo-culture that is a form of cold terror, people never can look at reality. They either explain it away or justify if, or deny there is a problem.

People want to pretend they are prefect and being called on the carpet for their wickedness is some sort of horrific act of terror.

The Guardian has completely misread the tensions between Saudi Arabia and Canada, coming to the conclusion this spat has nothing to do with Canada, when it does. This was entirely preventable, but the federal regime has now had an established history of virtue-signalling by their own meddling in other country's affairs. The Guardian is sounding like one of those stay-at-mall moms who want to brag about the lazy ne'er-do-well brat, but as brat skips classes and gets bad mark, she has to spin some kind of ridiculous canard how it is everyone else's fault but her kid -- and her. (And as someone who has worked as an educator since 2000, you never see this kind of parental behaviour of students who do well on their own).

But the narrative of excuses The Guardian piles on never ends:

Soon after Donald Trump took office, it became clear that the longstanding relationship between the United States and its northern neighbour was about to change: there were terse renegotiations of Nafta, thousands of asylum seekers walking across the shared border and attacks on against Canada’s protectionist trade policies.

It began when Trudeau was having his photo op "bromance fest" with an outgoing president, who, for the record, has been too busy living his life to weigh in on the matter in public. That was the first slight and a manipulative play of optics to let the incoming president know where he stood in the schoolyard pecking order. I knew then that was going to cost my country a pretty penny. This isn't high school, and even if it were, Canada should have looked to the defunct Spy magazine to a clue about what was in store for them.


But when you have a prime minister whose playbook comes from what works in private school, you know he is going to stick to that juvenile script no matter how badly he will fail with it.

And Trudeau is playing by that book and has been for a very long time. He has been tweaking Trump's nose -- and when you are the leader in charge of the lives of millions of people, it is not about you. That is the agreement: people give you goodwill and power. In return of getting those precious gifts, you give them a better life as you guide them because realistically, you are no match against millions of people. They indulge you.

But the Guardian doesn't get it:

Canada’s lonely stance was swiftly noticed north of the border. “We do not have a single friend in the whole entire world,” Rachel Curran, a policy director under former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, lamented on Twitter.

And that should be a sign. Why isn't anyone publicly showing a modicum of support? Why has the International Bank of Goodwill closed this country's account?

I am certain if Donald Trump was in the same position, journalists would gleefully jump up and down and dutifully explain in excruciating detail all of the reasons why Trump caused the US's isolation, and yet that it is Canada in the hot seat, the Guardian doesn't consider it. 

Their silliosity continued:

The United Kingdom was similarly muted in its response, noted Bob Rae, a former leader of the federal Liberal party. “The Brits and the Trumpians run for cover and say ‘we’re friends with both the Saudis and the Canadians,’” Rae wrote on Twitter. “Thanks for the support for human rights, guys, and we’ll remember this one for sure.”

Perhaps Canada should remember all of the times it did the same to other nations and wonder if the silence has a more troublesome reason behind it.

The lack of awareness permeates throughout the article, and the arrogance is never questioned:

In this particular dispute, Canada did not need US help, said Thomas Juneau, a professor at the University of Ottawa. “Saudi Arabia-Canada relations are very limited, so there’s not a lot of damage being done to Canada right now,” he said. “But this should be a source of major anxiety: when a real crisis comes and we are alone, what do we do?”

The relations were hardly limited, and this unfounded assertion should have been disproven. In Ontario alone, the exodus of Saudi interns and students are having a direct impact on hospitals who now have huge holes to fill. Saudis bought our food. The invested in our companies. They had contracts to purchase more controversial things. They could cut off the oil supply, and it would cause serious problems.

This is not a minor spat, and considering Canada already unnecessarily made one with NAFTA, the list of countries who are having their fill of our government's antics are piling up.

But the article's worst flaw is here:

The week’s events have added impetus to a conversation that is slowly getting underway in Canada, Juneau said. “We are starting some serious soul-searching in the sense of what does it mean for Canada to have a US that is much more unilateral, much more dismissive of the rules and the norms and of its leadership role in the international order that it has played for 70 years?”

Notice the blame is being placed on the US -- not on Canada. That means that Canada sees its regime as ineffectual, and hence, a façade. If you are the one who made the error, you have control to correct it by altering the course.

If what you do makes no difference, then you stick to the same script.

And the federal regime has said in public it will keep doing the same things, but expect a different outcome.

The very definition of insanity.

Canada will take a series of serious hits in the coming months, and there will be consequences.

I am optimistic, though. While our journalism industry is unteachable, the rest of the country has an actual learning curve, and has a very good sense of when to change course. 

And it will change course, but right now, it is stuck with a government that behave as if it were in private school, and playing conniving games that usually result in mommy and daddy having to bribe school officials into making the problem go away by means of a large charitable donation.

Except now there is no mommy and daddy to clean up the mess caused by a government of knuckleheads who are way too old to be sticking to juvey scripts when the stakes require original and active thinking that reflects reality -- not selfies...


July, 2018: The Summer where Reality Roared.

Toronto's uppity attitude is finally being revealed as a cover trying to hide a very dysfunctional mess.

Just this morning, another shooting.

Leftie America, you may be surprised to find out that despite our very strict gun control laws, we have people shot to death in Canada.

A lot of them.

And people in Toronto having officially having meltdowns about it.

Worse, The Drudge Report is talking about it for days, won't he just shut up?

Foreign newspapers, such as the Guardian in the UK are all over it, too.

Toronto wondering if their city is "unravelling"?

Kids, you were undone years ago. You just thought picking on Hamilton by calling it the "armpit" of Canada was enough of a misdirection to make yourselves seem superior in the bargain.

Remember Jane Creba? Or Georgina "Vivi" Leimonis? How about those two little girls shot in the playground in broad dalylight? Ephraim Brown? John O’Keefe?

The Eaton's Centre in Toronto had that 2012 incident of having a gunfight right in the mall.

How about  Anne Marie D'Amico? Dorothy Sewell? Renuka Amarasingha? Munir Najjar? Chul Min "Eddie" Kang? Betty Forsyth? Sohe Chung? Andrea Bradden? Geraldine Brady? Ji Hun Kim? You know, all those people hit by a van this year?

Every time some big implosion happens, a sunny spin is put on it by the press, always looking for the "positive" while glossing over the negative that gets more serious over time. It's okay, little people of Toronto! You still live in a World Class City! Your siblings are still jealous of you!

Reality is roaring a very different message, and one that is becoming impossible to ignore.

But Toronto isn't the only place where delusions are being trampled on.

We have the cult NXIVM being more than just being unmasked as a misogynistic enslaver of women: it is one where little Judas fairy princesses were appeasing their man and enslaving their own gender and now facing charges of being an criminal organization, with Rich Thanks To Daddy's Money Clare Bronfman getting charged for drooling over some loser and doing his sketchy and disgusting bidding instead of, you know, being productive on her own merits.

If men can be feminists, then women can be self-loathing of their own sex.

So for all those knuckleheads who think throwing a woman in front of their gynophobic enterprise has some sort of patina of legitimacy has their lies being drowned out by that roaring reality.

You can't just prop up some chick up and think you have shut down opposition.

Journalism's denials are being tore away from those reality roars, too. The destruction of a former big titan, the New York Daily News is the biggest blow to their hypothesis that it will all magically turn around, and shows that their woes are even worse than what was originally reported.

Reality is roaring. It has messages for a lot of people who got off easy for a very long time.

Toronto is not a safe city and it hasn't been safe for years. It was racism that helped fuel the denials because deep down, those rich white folk just figured it's gangs killing each other, and it will never hit them.

And then bullying billionaire Barry Sherman and his wife Honey got slaughtered in their mansion in their posh neighbourhood and the killer is still unknown and uncaught.

Then a van rams innocent bystanders.

And now a shooting in a nice part of town where innocents were snuffed out just like that.

Now that it is starting to hit to those privileged backsides because when they could have done something for the city's dispossessed, they ignored it because they thought they were superior to everyone else.

Good luck with that.

Not all women are created equal, and to those who run after men like faithful little doggie as they clean up their messes and do their vile bidding, are also finding out being maids to sexist pigs will serve as no protection when their house of cards get blown down -- and for those lazy boors who employ their female moral equivalents and think you can build a fortress with those scummy broads, you are not as smart as you delude yourselves to believe.

But for journalism, the gutting of the New York Daily News is pure trauma. It was bad when those little yokel-fest small town papers folded. But a New York City newspaper? That is serious business. The whining how journalists are victims in some vast conspiracy theory of "class warfare" is pure nonsense.

Journalism was blind to reality for a very long time, and reality roared the truth.

But the worst thing of all, they still refuse to face it.

Reality is not finished roaring. Not by a long shot.

In never does, but it all depends on whether you have respect for reality or not. Reality can also sing love songs to you, but only if you choose to respect reality and truth.

Not always, but even with the fiercest roars, there is always truths to be learned along with the lessons.

And reality does roar solutions, even when it is its angriest with you.

Delusions are no protection. Neither are lies or excuses.

Why people keep choosing to ignore reality's messages is a very peculiar mystery.

Because had these people paid attention, their fortunes would be far better than they are now...

Why is journalism dead? Because they truly have no guidance or sense to resurrect themselves.


It is an Age of Propaganda where you have journalists becoming paupers relying on their various regimes to financially support them. The Guardian got all happy because New Jersey will throw some pennies to prevent journalists from facing the consequences of their own ineptitude. ($5 million for an entire state's print media? That won't do anything but make the taxpayers of the state five million dollars poorer).

The moralizing spin that newspapers are important for "civic health" is rubbish. Journalism is a business and not a public service.

And the Internet has taken over what journalism did when they controlled the flow of information. The idea obviously stems from a bygone era -- and when you think in the past, you have no future because you have no idea about the state of your present reality.

Worse still, why are you forcing taxpayers to pay for a product that -- if they wanted to support -- could do it directly?

And why throw money in a black hole -- you are just encouraging the same bad behaviour that brought a profession to its ruin?

What will change? Nothing because you cannot throw money at a problem and expect a miracle.

You need fundamental changes -- and it is easier to start fresh with a game plan and expertise going in, than part with taxpayers's money on a lost cause.

And with strings attached, those paupers are not going to reporting on anything that will threaten their sugar-daddies.

Start fresh. Have a plan. Get expertise.

And see the reality of the situation.

If journalism was functioning, it wouldn't have died. It was sick for a real, and it got sicker because people in it never thought they had any flaws.

But reality and journalism have been on the outs for a long time now.


The stupidity does not end there.

Vox, the partisan online site that drowns itself in sophistry, has this oblivious review:

Journalism has a trust problem. The podcast In the Dark proposes a compellling solution.

The terrific series, examining flaws in the criminal justice system, stands up for old-fashioned reporting.

Todd VanDerWerff's puerile ramblings begin with the same perpetually oblivious and profound lack of industry self-awareness:

In an era when the media isn’t trusted by huge swathes of people and when the president himself cries “fake news” at every opportunity about stories he doesn’t like or finds inconvenient, I’m fascinated by how different outlets are trying to navigate the shoals of reader distrust and confusion.

It could not possibly be because journalists did many things to undermine their own credibility.

And of course, arrogance as the next utterance proves:

I frequently find myself wondering if many publications are written less for their readers than for other journalists. They rely heavily on a certain amount of savvy not just with the subjects journalists cover, but with the mechanics of journalism itself.

Of course, journalists are too smart for the dumb rubes they are forced to rely on for their living.

Memo to Todd VanDerWerff: you do realize some of those audiences you alienated have graduate degrees, have white collar jobs, and are doctors, professors, researchers, lawyers, engineers, judges, psychologists, authors, teachers, accountants, pilots, and other educated professionals who are not stupid?

You obvious lack the savvy you have fooled yourself into thinking you have. Get over yourself.

It gets worse:

In my chosen field of entertainment journalism, there are certainly publications where the intended audience is incredibly savvy about these things. A piece I write about the economics of the television industry will have to cover more of the nuts-and-bolts basics than one in, say, Variety, because the presumed audience of Variety is made up predominantly of people already in that industry, whereas my presumed audience probably doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about who’s going to get the streaming rights to Killing Eve.

First, "entertainment journalism" is not hard news. It is soft news. And Variety is a trade publication, which has a completely different mandate than general outlets. I wrote for both.

Second, your job in both cases is to speak to your audiences and inform them, not down to them. There is no excuse not to do it.

I had no trouble taking an audience's experiences into my equations. How hard is it to tell the people that certain diseases have no cures? Or that a law will cost taxpayers's more money? Or that a country has no laws against a certain danger?

Where is this nonsense coming from?

I laughed at this part:

This is one of the reasons the podcast In the Dark works so well. Each season tackles a new unsolved crime as a window into problems with the American justice system. The show’s reporters are invested not just in presenting their findings to the audience, but in showing the audience all of the work that went into them — sometimes quite literally.

You mean how I did Chaser News way back in 2007?

You mean like that? Except in this case, there seems to be a lot of filler unimportant ambient sound effects that have no purpose except to pretend that people are doing work and want applause for it.

No real facts.

There is some serious disconnect from reality here because this is nothing but cheerleading advertising for a journalism product, making it rank propaganda.

And none of it would remotely have saved journalism. The structure of the podcast is no different than anyone else.

To the author of this fluff piece, the solution is to go back in time when we have technology that makes that obsolete.

Just how credulous is Vox?

Credulous enough to have no clue who this journalism thing was supposed to work.


Perhaps the worst opinion piece I have ever read on the matter is Nelanthi Hewa's drivel from The Hamilton Spectator with this oblivious headline:

The search for truth in journalism must also consider humanity

As consumers, our eyes are incredibly valuable. Maybe it’s important to know when to close them.

Are you actually serious?

The beginning of the article is absolutely shocking in its tone deafness to reality:

"You're exploiting me," she said. "You're trying to dig something out of me." She didn't hang up. Instead, there were the sounds of the key in her office door, her loud, shaky breathing. 

I whispered an apology and ended the call.

I had been a journalism student at Western University for less than a year, but I was already used to feeling nervous as I planned my questions before an interview, or feeling elated during one when I heard the perfect quote. I was wholly unused to feeling ashamed for doing exactly what I was taught.

Do you actually understand what journalism is supposed to be about?

No, obviously. No, there is no humanity in willfully shutting your eyes.

Memo to Nelanthi Hewa: when you are a chronicler of reality, many people will become angry at you. You are not there to get a pat on the head. That is a highly unethical and immoral expectation. (This is no different than this misguided article suggesting that previous published allegations should be off limits unless a victim signs off on it, regardless of the consequences. Reality rarely is a comfortable experience, and those who comes from the snowflake school of life make things worse by suggesting that people should be weakened. You publish something, you have it on the public record. The end, and it is about time that the Victorian notion of victim's being weakling children be put to rest.)

People throw up the Moral Outrage facade in a bid to hide unflattering things from a public. People do not want the neighbours to know, for instance, that mommy and daddy may have, you know, let the uncle molest the kids and did nothing about it.

And should that kid's screams for help go ignored and that same kid takes his or her own life because of it -- do you really think mommy and daddy are going to answer honestly to a reporter who will destroy their image of being a good mommy and daddy?

No. They will get angry that someone cracked their code. They are going to be enraged to discover they are not the most cunning liars on the planet who can fool all seven-point-four billion of us.

I have dealt with people who pulled that stunt -- yelling at me, insulting my intelligence, you name it. It didn't make them in the right because every one had something they wanted hidden -- something the rest of the world needed to hear.

I once interviewed someone who kept things hidden during the interview, and as I tried to verify each fact I was told, something funny happened: things didn't add up. Every fact did not add up. I went back to check old yearbooks. I discovered a timeline I was presented did not add up. This was supposed to be a minor point in what I was researching -- a throwaway point.

When I found out that there was a deviation and managed to fill in the gap myself, I discovered why it was: because in that gap there was hidden information that put the story in a completely different light.

It was unflattering information, but it went a long way to explaining the story, and how a very bad event got to that level over a decade later.

There is zero humanity in keeping your eyes shut. 

Only people who want to corrupt the information stream with lies and get pats on the head go for that garbage.

When you do that job right, people think you are rude. They yell at you. They threaten to sue you, hurt you, and even kill you. I have gotten all of that when I worked as a journalist. I had executives call me stupid. I have people try to imply their morals trumped mine.

And you know what?

Every single person had something to hide.

On the other hand, I interviewed people in jail who broke the law. Those people got caught, discovered their lies were paper thin, and they outsmarted themselves.

They had lots of time to sit and think as they had to face the fact that they got broken by life.

Those interviews were always more honest.

For the exception of one, they all gave me a brutal assessment of reality. Every feint and ruse betrayed them, and the funny thing was, every fact they relayed to me was both embarrassing for them, but always checked out under the toughest scrutiny.

If a journalist had done their job earlier on, those same people would be throwing fits, playing the Moral Card, pulling every stunt in the book to hide the truth from being made public.

But those journalists could have gotten that emotional thrashing, printed the truth, and prevented many of those people from ending up in jail, separated from their children, losing their careers, and their freedoms.

And there would be people reading those facts who, for the first time in their sheltered lives, would be exposed to something that refuted their life theory that they could get away with very bad things, and give them an alternative.

Humanity is not shutting your eyes. People already do that.

If you are a true humanist, you expose the ugliest of truths by asking the cruelest of questions.

Because angels are demons to the wicked.

This is written by someone who obviously has no idea how this whole journalist thing is supposed to work.

To answer the question you posed:

As I turned to peers and professors for advice, I started to wonder: is journalism exploitative?

Yes, it has been exploitative. And do you know why?

1. It had people pretend to look for facts when they relied on press releases for information.

2. It deified and demonized people to suit their narrative ends without ever actually interviewing everyone they needed or asking the hard questions of those who had something to gain by spinning reality.

3. It let inconsistencies go without pressing people who yelled at them.

4. You had gullible rubes who fell for feints of interviewees who pulled the Morality Card instead of wonder why is this person getting uncomfortable with the questions.

And journalism -- the dead profession -- still thinks it can figure out without any expertise how to save itself?

Not a chance.

Not a chance when you have tripe like this:

We're told that the job of a journalist is to seek the truth. While that search is often glamorized as demanding tough questions of people in power, it also involves asking people with very little power — even over themselves — to reveal ugly, painful parts of their lives. 

Even people who have "very little power" can exploit that power and leverage it to shelter themselves from being forced to answer for their unethical ways. Do not kid yourself.

It is these kinds of cowardices that destroyed journalism. It is not about getting accolades and applause. People prefer comforting lies that will destroy them over the disturbing truths that will compel them to admit wrongdoing, force active thinking, and then make big and small changes to improve the situation.

It is an Age of Propaganda where people are trying to find hacks and easy outs, but still expect to build a solid foundation.

But this is why journalism cannot resurrect itself: it has no idea how badly they messed up. It has no clue what went wrong, and then listen to those who have no expertise or research tell them what they want to hear.

It is a vile mindset that got corrupted by the rot of its own death.

Journalism has no idea what it is doing and how it could have corrected itself. None. It doesn't look for critical voices because as the Spec column cheerily suggests, we should all not ask tough questions and shut our eyes to reality.

No expertise. No research. Just beg for money and make no changes as you spew garbage, and then wonder why your fortunes stink...

Journalism made its own crisis. F.R.E.E.D. is the clean slate

Bob Schieffer has a lot of nerve with a temper tantrum disguised as a speech.

He is behaving as if journalism was a divine and godly profession that could never be replaced or that democracy is threatened if it must suffer the consequences of its own follies:

The crisis in American journalism, Schieffer says, is really a national security issue. "If people don't understand why the government takes the policies that it takes, it's very difficult to build support for those policies.

Journalism cribs from press releases. It does not verify information. It reports on trivialities with greater importance than the most pressing issues it gleefully ignores.

Yes, the public needs information, but journalism is the antiquated way of giving it to them.

It is a monopoly model that remained static and it has sparked wars, meaning journalism is a threat to national security.

The Guardian is still stuck in the same rut. They are the first spouse who cannot believe their mate upped and walked away, thinking people cannot live without them. People do not need a free press: they need a superior method of getting information.

We have all sorts of crying about how journalism is under attack and it is all a Very Bad Thing.

And all the rumours, innuendoes, propaganda, lies, hoaxes, and the like that were reported as news was a Very Worse Thing.

The Toronto Star is throwing the biggest and most melodramatic hissy fit of them all, claiming journalists are being demonized leading to a toxic atmosphere.

Yes, Toronto Star, you should know all about demonizing people all sorts of people of various nationalities, religions, and the like. What goes around comes around.

Journalism is a profession filled with clueless people who think they are beyond reproach. They are used to being king-makers and telling people what to think and how to think about it.

That's not today's reality.

It is very much like an old sexist ad that no longer plays.

sexist ad.jpg

Show news consumers that it is a journalist's world.

This delusional thinking will never change. The habit was set, and those in the profession were rewarded for far too long to see that once a shift has happened, there is no going back.

They are stuck in the past. 

But the world has moved on, and it needs a form of information dissemination that reflects that new world.

F.R.E.E.D. was created in this era. It is not beholden to the glory days and the rules created by it..

Journalism never had to be in crisis. It willfully chose it. It was a series of conscious decisions to ignore the reality and truths of the world. No one tricked them. No one forced those choices. No one kept them in the dark about.

Now they want not just a bailout, but they want to go on being oblivious, and even frighten people into sticking with their broken system.

There is no need to '"demonize" journalists: they created their own demons all by themselves, never listening to people who warned them, and never looking past their own wicked egos.

F.R.E.E.D. has none of that baggage or stench to impede it. It is a tabula rasa and a method created with the innovations and breakthroughs that have unfolded -- the same ones that journalism looked down on and ignored.

Their loss is F.R.E.E.D.'s gain...

Memo to the Hollywood's Establishment Actresses: You are not owed sunny reviews for bottom-feeder dreck.

People do not applaud you for making a photocopy from a photocopy as you make millions of dollars from it?

Gee, how sad.

The movie Ocean's Eight is cheap and disposable entertainment. It is not feminism. It is an Establishment studio making an Establishment movie using an Establishment cast using a re-hashed patriarchal script with no surprises. Pretty ladies in pretty clothes sashaying in a highly processed and choreographed manner.

It is as bottom-feeder as you can get.

So The Guardian's silly article about how the female cast is whining (yes, whining) that reviewers were not all that impressed with by-the-numbers stuff that comes from a re-used storyline is just indulging spoiled Hollywood babies who should grow a pair of ovaries, not think that there should be more female reviewers who would give them a free pass.

Please, spare me. When you are raking in millions of dollars and been doing so for years, do not pretend you are part of some resistance: you are Establishment. You arrived. Be grateful. No one owes you a good review.

As an author, reviews are something I am very familiar with, and I take no stock of them because people have every right not to like your work -- or just as frustrating, like it for the wrong reasons. It is not up to you.

When my first book came out, I had someone give me an atrocious review on Amazon that I asked to be removed for the simple reasons that (a) the person admitted he never read it in his review, and (b) he thought a book called Don't Believe It!: How lies become news was a book about music producers.

I kid you not.

When OutFoxed came out, I asked Amazon to remove one positive review because the person was praising the book -- but said there were things in it that were not. It would have deceived people into getting a book that did not include what the reviewer claimed it did.

After that, I no longer bothered with policing reviews. People have every right to love or hate your work.

Most reviews are opinion-pieces, not actual reviews with no commentary -- it should tell you genre, content, style, structure, unifying theme, and whether this is something that is based on established conventions, or deviates from it.

It is not easy to write a helpful review. I have written them, but it is not a genre that appeals to me.

But if you are looking for applause or a reviewer understanding the amount of work you put in it, forget it. You are in the wrong profession.

I had a recent amateur review of my latest book that wasn't all that -- and the criticism was peculiar, to put it politely. Here is a book that took years to research, months to write, and laid out countless examples of journalistic rot...and the reviewer dismisses it all because, despite the overwhelming verified real examples written from a veteran in the profession, it couldn't possibly be "that bad."

What do you mean? Do you think those examples I crammed in one book weren't real? Do you think I could possibly put every single case of journalistic incompetence in a single book?

Meaning, no, it is far worse than what I can absolutely physically chronicle in a single book.

And it was a woman who reviewed it.

She has every right not to like my book. She doesn't like the thesis, obviously, because it goes against the Middle Class narrative that self-described authorities and established institutions could not possibly be dysfunctional. Those They must know what they are doing and the little people can go on worrying about the next episode of Game of Thrones instead of wondering whether there is crucial information being suppressed, distorted, and mishandled.

It is the same when a doctor gives a patient the diagnosis that he is terminally ill and there is no recourse. The person can see the test results, but may not want to believe he is really that bad. That means that all of his enemies and people he wishes to make jealous will outlive him. 

And he will be in denial, hoping his narrative will be the one where he bucked all of the odds and survived.

Not if you got to it too late.

Journalism got to it too late. I will have an uphill battle for the simple reason that such a serious message coming from a woman gets dismissed.

But that is the reality of the situation. I am not going to kvetch and to wallow, demanding different reviewers because that is not who my psychographic happens to be.

People who do not look to reviews and think for themselves gravitate toward my work.

You have to be emotionally and intellectually ready to even consider the possibility that something once so powerful and titanic is dead.

And that is not everyone, nor will it ever be everyone.

That's fine by me.

The Ocean's Eight cast is behaving like crybabies: stop gnashing your teeth because not every reviewer gave you a lollipop.

That's life -- and to openly demand rigs that distort in your favour is absolutely heinous.

Get over yourself.

The crowd called Planet Earth is a tough, tough crowd. You either have the mettle to deal with the scathing reviews -- because no one owes you a pat on the head -- or you don't.

And if you don't, find yourself another profession.

Just deal with the reality that no one is obliged to love your work, and for the record, I am a radical feminist, and I find the idea of women being so devoid of talent and originality that they must stoop to starring in old mediocre movies nauseating -- and believe me, you wouldn't want me to review your movie, either...