If you cannot stand the humiliation of defeat, then don't play sports. Competition has its price.

I am an author for a living. That is not an easy job because it is a public one. I get insulted a lot. People with no clue or expertise loftily decide what my book is or isn’t doing right, completely ignoring the amount of research I do.

That is their right. I don’t care about them. It is a price I am willing to pay for doing what I love to do.

And then there are people who praise me, but have an agenda to do so. The praise is false.

If you are the kind of person who is in it for the praise and adoration, do not be an author. Period.

This is not the career for those who need constant applause and validation. Praise is always nice, but it’s not why you should be writing in the first place.

But that is not the only career where people make demands and decrees without a shred of understanding of the essence of the job.

The Women’s World Cup is a place where all sorts of yokels have decreed that the US Women’s Soccer Team were Very Bad for wildly cheering every time they made a goal against their competitors — who cried because they lost.

Twitter is a troll scroll filled with people with no sense or expertise. They try to fire people, yet are upset because people cheer their own accomplishments.

Seriously?

And for Thailand players to cry? Come on: you know the risks of every match where you can get whipped by even a weak rival. Grow a pair of ovaries and deal with defeat with grace.

Men who play sports are not called on the carpet for cheering their victories; so the women should be able to do it without the misogynistic lecture. I do not know why happy and successful women are so reviled, but there you go. Sports is competitive and your adrenaline gets pumped to extremes as you have to remain focussed: of course you are going to go out of your gourd in celebration after every goal you make. Relish the moment because, you know, YOLO.

Oh, that’s right. Remember the generation who coined YOLO? Yeah, things didn’t turn out too great for them, so they are completely against it for other people. Too bad for them.

So I am completely supportive of victors celebrating victory. That is the reason you are in the game. That’s the entire point of the exercise. If you do not like people being happy for their hard-achieved accomplishments, go away. Sports is not for you — it’s for other people who have every right to it.

And since when do we side with sore losers who cry when they lose? What’s up with that? The time for tears is over the moment you enter an arena. Cry on your own time, and be stoic.

If you cannot handle losing as your rival celebrates winning, don’t do sports. Your mood is irrelevant to their mood. You would be doing a jig, too, if you won and they lost.

This neo-Victorian mindset is pathological, of course. People are always scheming and thinking up ways to keep successful people from enjoying their successes. If it bothers you that people are accomplishing things and you are not, then the problem is you, and not them.

I have no problem with people relishing their victories. I am not into sports because the dynamics of competition never appealed to me, but I am not going to meddle and lecture those whose essence gravitates toward it.

For all the talk of diversity, people do not actually like diversity. They want everyone to think like they do, and behave like they do without question. Enough is enough.

So, congratulations to those who win their matches at the Women’s World Cup. That takes time, effort, energy, strategy, stamina, practice, criticism, and courage. You have paid a price that you are willing to pay, and good on you for it. Keep it up.

I do the same thing with no apologies in a different way. I do not back down because someone doesn’t approve of the way I do things or the way I think. Too bad for them, but they have never spoiled my mood or impacted my self-esteem or life choices, and that’s just the way I roll in this spinning world…

Watching the dominos fall in Ottawa.

I

Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 12.57.01 PM.png

II

When the Public Prosecution Service of Canada tweets how there should be no “improper influence — including political influence”, you know

To say the federal Liberal Party is in disarray is an understatement. The Prime Minister’s claim that there was miscommunications has now been completely undermined by a branch of government in a single tweet. Improper…political influence on a single line pretty much connects the dots.

The Grits are bungling outside the country as they are imploding on the inside.

The big question is what’s next?

I guess we are running out of living people to offend us. Let's go after the dead people now.

I

II

I always find it strange what people find offensive.

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 9.39.16 PM.png

Johny Cage ripping up a man and then smiling as he says something snarky is just dandy.

He can even do this to his own daughter Cassie Cage.

Screen+Shot+2019-02-19+at+12.10.23+PM.jpg

Arcade mode can be a real psychopath.

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 12.10.36 PM.png

Mind you, it can run in the family, too!

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 12.20.47 PM.png

And how many of us are looking forward to Mortal Kombat 11 this year?

Yay! I can’t wait to plaster my children’s faces on my murderous fantasies!

Let’s just pretend this is just good, clean fun.

But the rage needs an outlet because dealing with problems head-on may require an admission of flaw, and we can’t have that because they may require some effort and work.

So let’s go out and shame someone else!

Hmm, but so many living people might tell us off…

Why don’t we go after dead people!

Like John Wayne.

This old Playboy interview is getting the neo-Victorian blowhards all in a tizzy on the Twitter.

He’s dead; so he can’t tell people to go fuck themselves. A safe choice to nag.

I don’t care what a dead actor spewed in 1971. Not only did I not even exist back then (poor, poor world back then not being blessed with my presence), I do not live in 1971.

I don’t remember what people said to me this morning.

There is human trafficking going on right now. There are homeless children who need a lifeline. People can’t afford to pay their bills or can’t escape an abusive spouse. We have corruption at all levels of government. We have people in power who are neglecting their duties. We have people dropping dead of drug overdoses and the best solution people cling on to is enabling them with injection sites, which is like telling a battered wife or husband to stay with their mate under supervision for stretches of time as they are beaten under someone else’s watch. Oh, gee, what a great solution! Supervised psychic enslavement!

And why dig up your dad’s old Playboys? The entire magazine objectified women as its mandate.

Wayne spewed what was typical at that time the way people spew what is acceptable now, but will be seen as bigoted hate puke fifty years from now.

Societies shift and change. They evolve and grow, or decline and fall.

We tolerate one set of offensive rigged garbage as we choose to look at someone else’s offensive rigged garbage with contempt.

Oh, please.

I never cared for John Wayne as a person. I knew about the interview decades ago, and it is old news. Move on.

Next up, I hear someone on the Twitter will be outraged because of the sexism on the cave walls scribbled by Neanderthals while ignoring their children who tell them their coaches are molesting them.

This is how societies crumble and become inert. It’s the kiss of death.

Or should I say, Fatality?

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 1.01.10 PM.png

Actrivism, Part Five: A long and complicated journey into Mindwild.

I

giphy (1).gif

II

2201990351_0cf9321d55_o.jpg

III

I was extremely fortunate that I was photographed by Villiam Hrubovcak and the picture is one of several from that photoshoot. He has shot everyone from Bjork, Elvis Costello, Billy Idol, to John Waters, and if I recall correctly, Ollie North.

I have this one he shot of me hanging in my living room.

757903794_551de7ebee_o.jpg

It is still my favourite photograph of me.

Because I usually do not pose that way. I like my face in front, but he suggested it to show off my distinctive nose; so I did, never thinking that would have been the photograph I would have selected after. I like to break my own rules, decrees, truisms, routines, and theories, but in this case, someone made the suggestion.

I do take advise. I do take chances.

Because I am not afraid to question things or people, including myself.

I test my own theories, but every once in a while, someone shows you a place where you didn’t think of testing your own rules.

But when you are intellectually uninhibited, you can question everything and eventually figure out that’s how you find the facts of reality to find the truth.

IV

Percentage-wise, Twitter brings me very little traffic to this site. I can easily deactivate my account, and my numbers would remain untouched. I have a modest, but steadily-increasing international base here, if I believe what the analytics are saying to me.

Wordpress wasn’t as accurate, and there were strange things happening. For long stretches, it would claim I had no traffic from Google searches, which I did not believe, and tested it myself on my other devices, and lo and behold, those didn’t register, either. Nice try. I cannot say the same for my current host Squarespace. So far, I am very happy with them. They are helpful, prompt, thorough, and I have never been left frustrated or have something I could not figure out on my own unresolved. I wish I came aboard sooner.

But I cannot say the same for Twitter. Is there shadow-banning of me? I don’t know why there would be, but it wouldn’t surprise me, either.

I have been on Twitter for years, and I have been hover at 1790 followers for as long as I can remember, according to them, which is low. I am also on Ello, a smaller social media site, and though I have not been there as long and don’t post as often, my followers have increased steadily to over 3600, more than double what the Twit nets me.

And I do not make the first move to gain followers. People come to me first. So that’s quite a difference where the pool in one site is far greater than the other. By mere chance alone, I should have more than double on Twitter than I do on Ello.

Maybe the difference is that I don’t trust Twitter. There is no proof that any organized groundswell of reaction is organic, spontaneous, or genuine, and I doubt that it is any of the above. It is way too easy to game the system. It has become social propaganda for various advertisers and political groups that is intermingled with naive people who are followers by design, and believe everything they see on the Troll Scroll.

There is no respect for people. They don’t call it Twitter for nothing.

And there is nothing more deceptive than that Blue Checkmark. It does not signal what is being said is true. It does guarantee that the person writing that tweet is actually there person, it could and most likely is an assistant or PR firm.

Nor does it guarantee that the person isn’t being paid by an outside party to shill.

It doesn’t have any safeguards. The same can be said of Wikipedia, and I do not see it as a credible source of information, either.

And often who gets the blue checkmark mystifies me. They aren’t actually well-known. You can do a basic search on them and virtually come up empty-handed. They are not always people of note, let alone “social influencers.”

Screen Shot 2019-02-01 at 1.52.02 AM.png

Google has my verified profile, however.

My Twitter profile is there, even though I am an author of several books and do not have the little blue checkmark. I didn’t put my Twitter account there. People do look me up by name because Google’s own analytics let me know.

So across various platforms, there is a real inconsistency. Google has me verified, and directs people to my Twitter feed, yet Twitter will not give me the verified status, even though I worked as a journalist, and have several books under my belt. I had one late last year, and one coming out next year.

By all accounts, that should be more than enough, especially considering how low the bar is.

But it is hard to justify lobbying for something that I know is rigged and filled with propaganda spewed from behind a curtain.

It is more than fake news. It is fake followers. It is just fake.

It is not an informational portal. It is an advertising vehicle to push ideologies just as Facebook is amateur press release.

And whenever you challenge something on that platform, the vipers come out to intimidate with insults.

Don’t give me lip.

Give me proof.

But when you cannot verify who is writing the tweet is who they say they are, nor whether or not they are being paid to say it, you won’t find any proof there at all.

V

Twitter wasn’t build to prove. It was built to bully. It was built to foster groupthink. It was made to prime, groom, and deliver audiences with the right mindset to build clusters of thought.

The word count is too low for anything rational to transpire. At least Facebook talks about connections as “friends” and LinkedIn uses the word “connection.” Twitter was the one who used the trigger word “follower.”

It is brazen enough. They might as well use a pigeon over the Mountain Bluebird they have as their logo.

But it gives the illusion of control and genuine interaction. You think you know what you see, and that is its strength. You don’t know what’s on the other side of that missive or the motive for it being there.

It makes it a prime breeding ground for manipulation.

But it also weakens and devalues words and opinion. There is too much clutter.

Because everything is virtual, the impact is not as great as it appears. The turnover is fast for anything to take root and grow. People let off steam with slacktivism. People try to one-up others. There is petty rivalry, but few real tangible results that hit their targets.

For example, #MeToo. It seemed as if it did its job, but what did the faceless movement actually net?

It took down a lot of men on the Left because they could not live up to the book of rules. They were done in by a misfiring of Alinksy’s Gun.

But that’s not who that gun was meant to shoot: it was men on the Right who were supposed to crumble and fall.

Brent Kavanaugh was supposed to have fallen. While the damsels-in-distress marched in their cosplay red robes, he ultimately got issued a Supreme Court black robe.

Twitter is not a precise weapon. So far, Donald Trump seems to have known how to use it.

Digital media doesn’t know how to use it. They crashed. Traditional media also was clueless and collapsed.

For a social media site that is all about communications, it doesn’t actually work the way people think it does.

Just one septuagenarian. This quadragenarian has no use for it.

Because Twitter is like a bad psychic: you can see the rigs a mile away.

It’s that transparent.

And the motives for people’s continued gullibility when using it.

It doesn’t interest me.

I prefer a more instructive challenge.

Which brings me to Mindwild.

VI

I always thrived with a challenge. I like puzzles. I like when things are not obvious to me.

I when I can challenge my own rules, turn them over, see them break, and then find the atom of truth.

Knowledge is flexible, not static. It evolves, changes, and grows, and why I like to revisit past knowledge and update what I know.

So when I decided to go into journalism to study it, I had to think about a lot of things very carefully.

I had to define what I was doing, and if I didn’t reach certain milestones, or things didn’t go to plan, I needed plans and counter-plans.

I called it Method Research. I was taking my laboratory into the real world. It was like a scientist placing herself into an atom to study it.

My job? Being an actrivist — being actively inside the world I was studying.

These terms were my shorthand to remind me what I was doing. It is very easy to get lost in the moment and forget what to do. It’s like sparring with someone in the boxing ring and then forgetting to keep your guard up.

And what about the experiments I was conducting?

I dubbed those Mindwild. The point was not to think I was confined. I was out in the wild. I was part cavewoman fighting for survival naturally, and part android, carefully analyzing the natural elements to process information empirically.

And my experiments had to reflect these two extremes, bringing them to the radical centre: don’t take sides. Take notes. Take facts.

That meant my experiments could be as wild as I come up, but my analysis had to be as disciplined as they could be. Chaos and order at the same time.

I was methodical but took advantage of any opportunity presented to me.

It was all about taking snapshots of reality, all while remembering who I was and what I was doing. It is not as if there was a roadmap.

I was the cartographer, and I wasn’t just mapping out the profession, but who I was in it because as much as I was an experimenter, I was also the test subject.

And I learn a lot about journalism, myself, how to conduct experiments, and also the nature of truth, reality, perception, and interpretation.

For example, I learned how we define out terms confines the outcomes of what we reap from its definition. The more ill-defined it is, the less we get out of it.

And journalism is a profession with no desire to define any of its terms.

How do you define “fact-check”, for instance? It is doublespeak and a nonsense word that is suppose to give false reassurance to the believers and shut down and psych out detractors.

How can you even have an imprecise and folksy term for something that dictates specialization and precision?

It’s a scam. Worse, it is a patronizing scam.

It’s no different than saying someone is a doctor: what kind of doctor? What is their area of expertise? An oncologist or internist? And even then, they have their specialized area.

Or lawyer. What kind of lawyer? Criminal? Divorce? Real Estate? Corporate?

So the word “fact-check” is pure bullshit.

It’s just an arrogant bunch who use the word to snow people who don’t know the industry.

But that doesn’t work on people who know because they worked in the business, never falling for its alleged prestige and bragging rights.

While society moves towards AI and conducting research with cold arbitrary logic, they are losing the wild part of the equation.

The part the develops instincts. You can teach someone to box with a textbook, but put them in the ring, and they will lose to the person who had to fight in real life for their survival without a trainer.

But, have someone fight in the real world for their survival as they have a trainer and a textbook and war manual, and they understand the theory and the practice.

That’s what I called Mindwild.

I didn’t just use it working as a journalist. I still use it to this day. I can look at something, and see the rigid thinking and assumptions its structure and content is based on.

And it can do a lot to your thinking.

I became a political atheist.

I believe in peace. I believe in progress. Neither can be found using an antiquated model of governance or journalism.

I also became a radical feminist, but not in the traditional sloppy definition of it.

But that means that (a) you do not expect an Establishment will change because you shamed them, and (b) you have to have active strategies to building new systems and not rely on old patriarchal models.

Most importantly, I learned as much about myself as I did about the world around me.

The world chose to stagnate and to old on to toxic security blankets.

I chose to flourish and grow without worrying about myself because I know who I am.

Someone who doesn’t worry about memorizing a script.

Because I don’t hide behind a script, I have allowed myself to mature and blossom, and I know who I am.

And it’s not any established role someone else has rigged up to keep people from succeeding.

I have learned to challenge the rules of anarchy and enigmas because I become both, and broke more barriers because I knew that even anarchy masks something beyond it.

And that means there are new frontiers we haven’t even seen yet.

The world is never a bore — there is always some new thrilling truth to learn, and yet people still cling on to the same old boring lies.

The world is beautiful. The future is exciting.

But you’ll never know it until you explore it, study it, nurture it, love it, listen to it, and unleash yourself in it.

That’s Method Research.

That’s Actrivism.

And that’s Mindwild.

Every atom is an omniverse of excitement and thrills just ready to be unleashed itself.

If only you are brave enough, loving enough, and truth enough to open it…

They really need to issue blue checkmarks for genuine and unpaid outrage...

That people still believe that Twitter rage is some homegrown and organic response is interesting.

But when the press still falls for it and doesn’t try to expose the political propaganda that runs there amok, you really have to wonder.

There is an article from the New York Post how Twitter attacks “protect” people.

No, it merely exposes the paid political skulduggery going on unchallenged.

Why aren’t you questioning who is attacking or what is their real incentive?

We already know how much fraudulent activity and fake accounts there are on Twitter. There is no way to stop it unless people stopped using Twitter and then there would be no benefit to wasting resources of dispatching mass propagandists.

Don’t bother with trying to take on a paid mob.

Find out who is footing the bill, and cut off that source.

Dangle a piece of meat, get the paid hordes to react on cue, and then work from behind the curtain and expose that.

We know paid fans exist at events and it a part of the manufactured celebrity machine. We know there are fake followers on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

So why are we still not critically looking at fake outrage on Twitter?

What? You don’t think politicians build up a fake base or deflect criticism using Twitter?

Don’t buy into the fairytale. As there are absolutely no checks and balances, anyone can create any fake mass response they want.

There are no laws or regulations. You don’t know what is on the other side. Underlings, cyber goons, political operatives, bots, the politician’s mommy or daddy, anyone.

That is the way you incite emptyheads and fool the press into thinking something is genuine.

It is why I don’t stare at Twitter: other people ghost write the tweets with blue checkmarks and foot the bill for fake responses.

Let’s as a few real questions before we buy into some fake narrative…

Journalism is this era's phenakistiscope: an antiquated one-trick wonder hamster wheel.

Perpetual denial.

That is the life blood of journalists and j-school educators.

They remind me of Penny and the “check engine light” schtick on the Big Bang Theory.

People in the profession still think it was just the Internet who were the Bugs Meany and stole their power way.

It gave people an alternative that they liked better because it gave them control.

There is a long and rambling piece of sophistry on Twitter making countless excuses and it’s bullshit.

Craigslist did it better than classifieds, yes, but then you have to rethink your strategy. Facebook and Google took in a lot of revenue, but remember: the Internet has not just news articles. They have everything, and other industries are flourishing and booming.

Why?

Because they adapted their product and structure to accommodate the superior structure of the Internet.

So that excuse doesn’t fly. The end.

Then there is the excuse the old school media outlets didn’t spend money on innovation or change the business structure.

That’s another bad excuse that doesn’t fly.

Vice, Vox, Mic, BuzzFeed, Gawker, and a whole slew of other news outlets didn’t have a legacy background (Vice is something of an exception, except its print, but it expanded and established itself online) and no one tethering them. BuzzFeed wants to merge as it axes its staff, just like the old guard because they aren’t any different in structure, just worse in execution. They could have done things differently…

Except they didn’t. What was their excuse?

So, this whole narrative where journalism product is beyond reproach and is some faultless damsel in distress is nonsense.

It is absolutely worthless analysis.

The profession didn’t progress with the times. They did a lot of bad things that they got away with, and then it got exposed. It made enemies of the audiences it still talks down to and doesn’t see that its j-schools failed, its models failed, its owners failed, and its employees failed.

It’s not the Internet’s fault. It was an advance in technological innovation. It is like blaming electricity for your industry’s problems.

Here’s an idea: take advantage of the spanking new invention.

Stop using the phenakistiscope when there are more convenient technology available.

cLtNBhJ.gif

And when you use the new technology, don’t use the same thing you did with the phenakistiscope.

SlowInfantileCusimanse-size_restricted.gif

You can do more. People will be expecting more. They don’t want the hamster wheel.

japanese-woodblock-gifs-atsuki-segawa-designboom-500.gif

So stop giving them things people no longer want or need.

It’s 2019. Get off the wheel once already…

SecondhandEasyAzurevase-small.gif

New York Times is afraid of Twitter: Op-Ed encourages reporters to run away.

If you can’t beat them, hide from them.

The New York Times seems to think so with this Op-Ed piece:

Never Tweet

The controversy over the Covington students shows why American journalism should disengage from Twitter.

The reasoning is quite instructive:

The Covington saga illustrates how every day the media’s favorite social network tugs journalists deeper into the rip currents of tribal melodrama, short-circuiting our better instincts in favor of mob- and bot-driven groupthink. In the process, it helps bolster the most damaging stereotypes of our profession. Instead of curious, intellectually honest chroniclers of human affairs, Twitter regularly turns many in the news — myself included — into knee-jerk outrage-bots reflexively set off by this or that hash-tagged cause, misspelled presidential missive or targeted-influence campaign.

But Twitter isn’t just ruining the media’s image. It’s also skewing our journalism. Everything about Twitter’s interface encourages a mind-set antithetical to journalistic inquiry: It prizes image over substance and cheap dunks over reasoned debate, all the while severely abridging the temporal scope of the press.

Memo to Farhad Manjoo: Twitter did not ruin the media’s image. They did that all by themselves with doing the same thing I chronicled in my first book.

The book that showed way back in 2005 exactly one year before Twitter debuted that this kind of behaviour was a problem that destroyed the profession’s credibility.

What Twitter does is expose the groupthink that was always there. You are merely telling colleagues to hide their ugly side, not confront things.

And no, Twitter isn’t “helping [to] bolster the most damaging stereotypes of our profession” — that is your profession.

Deal with it.

The Divine They: When people complain about the status quo, notice they never think of lifting a finger or looking at their own actions.

You have seen them on the Troll Scroll: endless tweets how some They, be it the government or corporations should do something — or should stop doing them. The decree that They ought to do something — or be harmed because what they are doing isn’t “right”, “moral”, whatever.

It is always some divine “They”: there is never anything the complainer does to try to change the course of things other than bitch and whine. No one thinks to get up off their ass and do something.

What this is an act of self-absolution: you’re not to blame, you have nothing to do with it, and let someone else be active.

Because it has nothing to do with you.

No, you too.

What are you doing about it, as it real action?

A poor citizen just tweets. A poor citizens marches in the streets or just goes and vote.

That’s lazy.

That’s passive.

What are you building? What are you creating? What are you fixing? What are you doing?

Making propaganda memes? Passing along some PR firms’s paid tweet?

Action counts.

The flaming out of the Mob Decrees is here.

The reason is simple: there is no Divine They.

There is only the mortal Us.

And life is too short for passivity…

In a neo-Victorian world, priorities are based on lies.

I

II

We are in an Age of Propaganda. Up is presented as down and down as up. We keep everything and everyone at arm’s length, and it is the reason we have people mistake apathy and ignorance with expertise and objectivity.

And the ignorance is on the outside, but also the inside. Ask the opinionists about the deepest layers of a single grain of an issue, and they think they can fake it with a show of a big, melodramatic tirade.

And they can’t.

But almost no one really sees it.

Take The Hill with this silly article, for example:

Only a matter of time before the social media mob comes for you

And what happens? The world ends? The sun is too scared to rise up tomorrow?

Who are these automaton mobs on the Troll Scroll? Paid agitators and PR flunkies? Political operatives? Bots? In that sea of offended assholes, we have no standards: they could be liars who like to be shit-disturbers. There are psychopaths, schizophrenics, stoned people, followers, ignorants, and people with vested interests. Rapists, child molesters, and murderers could be raging in that toxic stew along with the people they harmed along the way. We don’t actually know the qualifications of those mobs. They could harbour prejudice or puke misplaced rage to something safer.

Among people with legitimate beefs are people who just spew. What do these people know? Their qualifications? Their understanding of the issue?

Do they pay your bills? Do they worry if you stray out too far for too long?

Have they made up their opinions regardless of the facts?

The Troll Scroll is the great tool of political misdirection of the modern age.

The priority to care what social media decrees is a sink of life, time, emotion, resources, money, and everything else.

We have more important problems that a few discontent yelpers.

Canada is in a secret recession, but we have people deny it, yet

46% of Canadians on the brink of insolvency as rates rise: Survey

I am willing to bet the number is much higher than 46%. If our tools of measurement of economic health does not factor debt (net versus gross), then there is a problem. If something happened where just enough people would have to file for bankruptcy, what would happen?

And judging by the number of homeless people around the Golden Horseshoe, that’s actually happening.

They just aren’t being factored in.

But in a neo-Victorian world, we just don’t talk about that.

We focus on trivialities because dealing with the serious structural problems are too terrifying to contemplate.

Because it goes against the narrative.

Open-mindedness gets lost when everyone cribs from pre-set scripts. Virtue-signalling isn’t actual virtue. Troll Scroll is a playground where the bullies do what bullies to best.

And problems get worse because they get ignored.

People don’t have control over their deteriorating circumstances, but they can  browbeat strangers to modify they behaviour — or ruin their lives by demonizing them in a public forum.

If people allow that sort of b-mod.

But if people still live their lives, and stand their ground, they gain power over mob mentalities.

And when more and more people say, “You don’t know me; you do not  understand, and you do not have my best interests at heart,” the mob groups’ power dwindles.

Then the balance of focus shifts, and when the howling problems begin to demand attention, and mob-rule doesn’t work, what we have is a new wrinkle society is not accustomed to — and it is coming.

And then a new era begins…one where propaganda is no protection to that enigmatic force known to all as reality…

Troll Scroll's dumb fuckery continues: Do not blame Beyonce for people not voting for your candidate. Blame democracy.

The New York Post had a ridiculous article:

Fans blame Beyoncé for Beto O’Rourke’s loss to Ted Cruz

This quote takes the cake:

“You have such a huge, influential voice and you wait until Election Day to post this?!” one flummoxed fan wrote. “Beto needed you sooner. Maybe you could’ve actually made a difference.”

“Lol these posts a week ago could have made the difference in young voters,” someone else noted.

Memo to the dumb fucks trolling social media: if someone needs a celebrity to nag them into voting, then please, let them stay home. You don’t need a dumber fuck voting because they Appeal to Celebrity and have no idea of what a Ted or Beto are.

And if your logic is to blame a celebrity for your candidate’s loss, you also are a worthless voter who has no idea how this whole reality thing works. Fuck you, asshole.

People have a right to vote for whichever candidate they want, and if they think both suck, they can refrain from voting. I am not going to vote for a garbage candidate or a garbage party.

And if I chose not to vote, do not assume I am lazy, stupid, or would have voted for your shitty candidate if I went out to vote.

People voted for Tony Clement, and he turned out to be a gullible perv. People who voted for him did not vote for him because they thought he had the best dick pics of the people running for the same job, and that was what they were looking for in a candidate.

You know squat about Beto O’Rourke. You know squat about Ted Cruz. You go into the polling stations and vote blind. None of you went to the candidates or asked questions. Some faded celebrity told you to vote for a Democrat and that was good enough for you.

That is a fucked up way to vote and guide your country.

And now you have the Troll Scroll where the moronic can nag the apathetic.

Oh, how we evolve so brilliantly in a democracy.

I would have a quiz at the polling station for every voter to give five reasons why they are picking one candidate over another, and anyone who cited their family tradition, nationality, or celebrity endorsement as the reason would be sentenced to wearing a dunce cap for an entire political term, and be forced to take a few brutal classes in Reality and Sensibility to get their voting privileges back…

Journalism lived in the present, and never evolved. F.R.E.E.D. pays attention to all the chords of time.

I

This is an ignorant tweet.

44168586_2197734970549384_3114944925712515072_o.jpg

No, it’s not where the US is "at.”

It is in the 1990s when Democratic President Bill Clinton was accused of having truckloads of people whacked on his climb to the White House as if he were Tony Soprano only with a saxophone and a Southern accent, according to Republicans with their various vast and diabolical conspiracy theories and the Democrats correctly thought that the GOP were hysterical loons who were just reaching.

We just flipped the roles now where it is the Democrats who are the conspiracy-spewing hysterical loons saying the same childish thing about Trump that the Republicans said about the Clintons.

It is just sour grapes.

The middle class live in the now. The wealthy live in the future. The poor are stuck in the past.

And as journalism always pandered to the middle class, they stuck themselves in the now.

But never actually saw that obvious truth.

Prey live in the now. Predators think steps ahead. Prey and predators who were taken down are stuck in the past.

But when a predatory profession such as journalism emulates prey like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing, and begins to assimilate to whom they are pandering, they lose their advantage and get hunted down.

And in this case, the wilier predator was Big Tech.

They bamboozled credulous journalists who live in the now that the future was strictly “video.” They took this decree to be Divine Truth and changed what they did to be hip, with bad results, and Nieman Labs honestly asking stupid questions:

Did Facebook’s faulty data push news publishers to make terrible decisions on video?

Publishers’ “pivot to video” was driven largely by a belief that if Facebook was seeing users, in massive numbers, shift to video from text, the trend must be real.

And then recalling the fateful moment when the profession got played:

“It will probably be all video.”

In June 2016, Nicola Mendelsohn, Facebook’s VP for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, spent several minutes of a panel at a Fortune conferencetalking about how Facebook was witnessing video overtake text.

“We’re seeing a year-on-year decline on text,” Mendelsohn answered. “We’re seeing a massive increase, as I’ve said, on both pictures and video. So I think, yeah, if I was having a bet, I would say: Video, video, video.”

“Wow,” the moderator, Pattie Sellers, responded.

“The best way to tell stories, in this world where so much information is coming at us, actually is video,” Mendelsohn continued. “It commands so much more information in a much quicker period. So actually, the trend helps us to digest more of the information, in a quicker way.”

I also recounted this very episode in A Dangerous Woman Story Studio essay entitled Word in 2016:

mfttobw.JPG

I called it out as bullshit then, and in other places as well.

But journalists didn’t call it out as anything but the gospel, and dutifully followed someone else’s decrees, even though Facebook is hardly an honest corporation.

And still, the Associated Press gives them yet another journalistic free pass with this piece of PR baloney:

Facebook’s election ‘war room’ takes aim at fake information

As if they were qualified or credible. They throw money and algorithms at the problem, never considering their shoddy methods will do nothing but provide some ineffectual window-dressing to make their PR problems go away and have proven to be as credible as the now defunct journalism profession.

My favourite part of this photo op is the picture with the photocopy sign of “War room” taped on the wall. Gee, that makes it real if you post the sign on the door.

And you buy what they are selling yet again? Are you teachable?

When you live in the now, you have no purpose or meaning in your individual or collective existence.

II

Here is another ignorant meme, this time on Facebook:

44262521_246204896049651_6438081257157951488_n.jpg

Yes, there are plenty of gay animals. One of my cats, Davy Jones, is one of them. He has never had any attraction to female cats, but the male who doesn’t reciprocate. They are all fixed, but it doesn’t change the fact that many animals in nature are gay, or that Davy Jones is the kindest, most responsible, loving, and well-behaved cat I’ve ever known.

IMG_0335.JPG

But the second part that animals do not practice religion is bullshit.

It is a real phenomena, and one I studied as a psych student. We do not know what goes on in the hearts and minds of animals; so do not speak on their behalf.

But this meme is classic middle class logic: there is just black and white and we assume that we have to have 100% occurrences for it to be real and definitive. This is primitive and patriarchal binary rote thinking or The One Rule That Explains Everything.

No intelligent person would say no animals have religion. That would be to ignore a wealth of data that says otherwise.

An intelligent person would say, it is more than possible, but probable, and look for confirming and refuting proof.

But in order to do that, you cannot just live in the now.

You have to be living in the past, present, and future simultaneously.

In other words, you have to be in tune with reality.

So no, religion is not only not “against nature”, it is a biological drive.

It is innate and natural.

Even atheists treat their atheism as a religion without a god with their incessant need to preach and hold on to their unscientific beliefs as they create pecking orders and using othering to separate themselves from those who do believe.

They have not found the loophole that places them higher on any real intellectual pecking order. They are just disguising their primitive thinking.

Because religion occurs in every single nation and civilization. Neanderthals practiced it. Animals practice it.

So what we have is a lie and a piece of propaganda spewed by atheists who want to rig public opinion to force everyone to think just like them, and they will lie and ignore facts to do it.

Just like a religious fanatic. No difference in structure or motive to control others, but just choosing different content of thought.

So atheists spew untested and unscientific garbage just like those who use the bible to try to control people.

People hedge their bets going for whatever seems posh or safe to believe and follow it with no regards to past history or the consequences of their actions.

They way people who live in the now operate.

The way so-called “middle class avengers” are throwing temper tantrums in public, beating up on people who have different beliefs than they do — but try to spin a narrative that their violence and aggression is moral.

No, it isn’t. You’re just an air-headed thug who is morally masturbating in public using misdirection to hide your own wickedness, except you are doing wicked things.

Just like those who burned women at the stake at Salem and said they were doing a public service.

But when you live in the now, whatever garbage someone else pops in your empty head seems great and glorious.

These are not anarchists: these are spoiled and sheltered followers who were trained by social media to throw tantrums and do nothing but complain when things do not conform 100% to their sheltered and unscientific beliefs.

People are using ideology to use virtue-signalling as a Trojan Horse in order to gain control of other people.

But when you want 100% compliance, not only do others spit in your face and do whatever they want to do, but reality and truth do the same thing.

The middle class can never grasp it because the past and future are foreign concepts to them. Whatever they see on television or online is what they are thinking.

It reminds me of one of Nora Dunn’s classic skits when she was on Saturday Night Live (which I have mentioned before, but here it is again):

Well, you caught me doing my favorite thing -- reading a good book! You know, I like to think of my mind as a big, empty bucket, just waiting to be filled with pictures and words and...whatever. Surprise me! That's why Vogue is my favorite book...and you know, I have my own library -- volumes and volumes of Vogue. You know, I can just refer to them. What was I thinking last October? Well, I can look, and it's right her, between September and November!

Except there is no library of previous thoughts.

But not only does the middle class not think about tomorrow, let alone yesterday, journalists are the same, as this ridiculous and arrogant Think Progress drivel spews:

As ‘news deserts’ widen across America, communities and civic engagement fray

A new study has researchers worried about the future of our democracy.

Not at all, and a bad study with no context proves nothing.

The myth of a “news desert” is just that — a myth. It is no different than the myth that animals cannot be gay, that animals cannot be religious, that religion is unnatural, or that the president you did not vote for is a real-life Vito Corleone.

Get a grip, children.

Social media has replaced journalism for now. It is the place holder, and what is happening is the same thing that happened during the Pre-Penny Press Era, when everything was partisan and there were many newspapers shilling and manipulating people trying to gain dominance, destroy the competition, and gain patronage appointments from those in power.

This article is just another way of trying to scare people into going back into their cages where it is journalists alone who tell them what to think and how to think it.

The 1980s had more honesty, not just from Nora Dunn, but from Diane Sawyer whose Letterman film short from 1986 is also worth repeating.

That was always journalism’s default goal: to do or say whatever they want, and the crowd they called their own all happily marched behind them, cheering them on.

Now that they lost their grip of tomorrow as they forgot their past, other like-minded people are trying to cut in on their bit.

That is why future generations will call this era the Dark Ages where sophistry and temper tantrums were coming from everyone, including those with doctorates.

Because they all chose willingly — and willfully — to live in the now.

That is the reason the middle class are jittery by nature: because they are not visionaries. They follow whatever an Establishment tells them to do, even when they try to “do their own thing.”

Instead of Vogue, they scour the Troll Scroll or Liebook for clues.

Because the majority of people in the Western world identify as middle class, they are the ones trying to break out to be the next intellectual dictator and messiah, giving the impression that things are unravelling, when the opposite is happening.

If they are all behaving alike, there may be content incongruity, but not structural incongruity.

Meaning they are all walking lockstep.

And sooner or later, that lockstepping will trip up their plans.

Big Tech will not be able to do anything about it. Journalism won’t, either.

But when you have an alternative to journalism that can do something none of the other structures can do, that’s when things begin to change.

And that something else is not to merely live in the now with no respect for yesterday or tomorrow…

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Nine.

We are now at the stage of the evolution of social media where people have become disillusioned that they are not world-famous by now.

An excerpt interview in the Idler has social media declared a scam, which is not quite true.

It delivered, but made no promises. People overestimated what social media could do.

It cannot force people to think the way you do.

It cannot turn you into a wealthy, rich god or legend.

It does not make content providers rich.

It cannot ensure your business was do well, especially if people do not have money to spend.

It will not change people's political affiliation.

So the perceived over-promises thanks to the bombast and carny isn't the fault of social media, but people's desire for an easy and effortlessly. It is not the path to the Promised Land.

There is one other thing social media cannot do on its own: stop corruption.

Tony Blair's wealth from Saudi patronage all as he conveniently shills for their interests should set off alarm bells.

He was always the war mongering hawk, yet always got sterling Western press coverage while he served at UK Prime Minister regardless.

The press never bothered questioning him, and it cost people their lives.

The ideal of the Internet was all of this would be exposed, and in many cases, it has, but the apathy was never factored in.

But it is apathy created by an over-focus thanks to the misdirection of an implied over-promise that social media was going Fix Everything Forever And Always.

Everyone is so intent on making other people think just like they do, they do not see their own ideological flaws, or that not everyone's life requirements would thrive under that political regiment.

They miss anything that does not fit into their own narratives, meaning corruption either is ignored, or becomes accepted as people are immune to the never-ending rage puke.

Journalism used to be able to shine a light on scandal because there were are fewer streams of communication. These days, everyone is following that antiquated script, and it is not working anymore.

The alternative to journalism cannot rely on those same bag of tricks, nor can they hedge their bets on a single medium doing all of their work for them.

We have now relied too much on the vehicle, and nothing on the destination, the drivers, or what the messenger is bringing us...

Starting over in a Post-Journalism World, Part Eight.

The Troll Scroll is the warehouse of ignorance from both the Right, but also the Left.

36384636_1406280362850641_935066499767336960_n.jpg

Of course you can be fiscally conservative and socially progressive.

The person above may want the government to give free money to the poor and sink it all into a black hole, but that linear, script-following narrative presented above ignore the fact that if you are fiscally conservative , you don't give out corporation welfare to the rich, either.

Why do we assume the government's place is to just throw money at a problem when we have already seen throughout history that doesn't work in the long-term?

In fact, you cannot be socially liberal if you are not fiscally conservative. If you truly believe in equality, then you believe that people are capable of making their own way in the world. There are other ways of fostering progress and equality other than spending money.

You do not put people in a box by giving them a bit of money to subsist on that they become so dependent and afraid of taking risks, that they never actually apply themselves.

Hamilton is throwing epic hissy fits that the provincial government is discontinuing the Basic Income Project; however, we see quite a few on the project labelling themselves as "activists", and we have a lawsuit -- if you can go out and be an activist, and have the means and the time to sue, you also have the time to create a job or apply for one.

You also have the time to lobby the government to pass laws for a better wage. If you have time to give media interviews, and make sad faces at the camera, you have time to do other things, such as pull yourself together and not expect some They to save you.

But we have a holding pattern where people think they are owed made-up garbage. Toronto wants to keep its bloated city council. Why? To keep a few more ninnies employed by a government as they don't do anything, not even bothering to attend meetings?

Politics is no longer politics: it is two groups of self-entitled brats throwing temper tantrums at each other, either expecting the right to hoard and rig the board to give them money, or expecting the right to live like leeches on the taxpayer dime. 

We need a radical centre. The fiscally conservatives who do not show disrespect for having to earn your keep by buying your votes, and the socially progressive who are not going to meddle in your personal life, but are not going to bail you out, either, when your shortsighted life theory proves to be as rubbish as your attitude.

Governments can do many things to be in the radical centre.

For one, they can make homelessness illegal.

They can fine local governments for every person who falls through the cracks. They do not have to arrest the homeless person, who is the victim of the crime, but they can fine cities and towns for sleepwalking.

They can also fine companies who do not pay their workers a livable wage. They can heavily tax those who rely on automation instead of using human workers.

And they can make it mandatory to have a job.

Because we have focussed on rights for far too long, making everyone feel entitled and devour whatever they think they are owed.

And that goes for the Right as much as the Left. They are both guilty of thinking some They owes them something, and they don't.

There is also something called responsibility. Every citizen has responsibilities.

You cannot expect rights if you do not give something in return. No deposit, no return.

Pierre Trudeau brought in a Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- but forgot to add Responsibilities.

It is a balance.

Journalism, just like governments, spent far too time pandering, unlike governments who bribe voters with their own, or worse,  borrowed money, journalists pander to the reigning Establishment.

That means information from the get-go has a very binary and static spin.

Then you have the middle class trying to follow the script to hide the fact they do not have the knowledge or expertise to make an informed opinion; so the run to Twitter just to vent and make up rules they hope and against hope become a sanctioned decree.

It is the reason we no longer have an informed electorate. Just brats stewing as they are blinded to both facts and reason.

Of course, this cannot last forever. Sooner or later, something people ignore explodes, and becomes unfixable.

We do not have a journalism keeping a sensible watch. We, in fact, have nothing.

In an Internet Age, we have nothing to be any sort of reliable lens on what we need to know.

And its replacement always has to be mindful that truth comes from a radical centre that weaves whatever natural pattern comes from the information given.

It won't follow the Left Script or the Right Script -- they, at most, can be only half right.

And in a world of all or none, it adds up to nothing at all...

Twitter censors twaddle.

Imagine buying a refrigerator that rejected storing certain foods because it deemed it "bad" for you, like the cake your mom made for you because it was fattening, and not made from organic ingredients, oh, and because the bakery chain in the area lobbied to reject any homemade food.

You would not be happy. Your basic rights and freedoms are being dictated by people who have never seen you in their lives, but now have decreed what you should and shouldn't be keeping in your fridge.

Cake is meant to be shared with others, too, and so they are forcing their beliefs and demands on everyone around you. They know better than you.

Those billionaire meddlers having nothing better to do than dictate what you are going to keep in your own home.

Twitter is an appliance. It is an appliance people use on their own time in their own home, and if people stopped using Twitter, Twitter would cease to exist. It is absolutely dependent on public goodwill to exist.

Twitter is censoring twaddle, as is Facebook, and they have now crossed a line, deciding what ideas and thoughts you are allowed to store and share.

The value of the written word has been greatly devalued because everyone is storing their thoughts online in their fridge, and now the storage manufacturer is meddling because they don't approve.

And censoring is one of those things that can be hijacked by governments or corporations. They can make laws to decide what is stored and shared. Corporations can pay Twitter to ensure their products are stored and shared, and any homegrown ideas or those of their enemies and rivals are removed.

That's what has happened, and for Twitter, stopping to rooting in their users' fridge is a huge step down.

Troubling, in one way, but also a sign that the Internet is more desperate than their swagger and patronizing attitude suggests...

Tweak and Troll: Political debating in an Age of Propaganda.

We no longer have political debates. We have childish sibling rivalry where people tweak and troll each other, and then use memes to stick out their tongues at other people.

2g7eid.jpg

The Left have been acting villainous of late with their tantrums demanding anyone who doesn't march lockstep with their commoner decrees be censored, and now it seems that the truth about Big Tech is finally coming out.

Big Tech are the small-town boys who ran away from their villages to make it in the Big City. They looked down at their uncouth and rough-edged relatives of whom they are embarrassed exist, and now in this glorious Promised Land, they can find sophisticated grown-up to play with at cocktail parties and all nod with each other as they scrub their humble roots and hide their rustic relatives from the world.

Big Tech assumed because they were young and educated that they were brilliant were going to build the perfect Death Machine to get rid of that cloying Grandpaw Willy who babbles about how the government is too lax with criminals, by gum. Create this hip, edgy Cool Kids clubhouse called social media, and you have built a wall to keep those pesky people out because they are just too stupid to know how to use one of them computers to go on the Twitter and the Facebook.

And then everyone will vote Democrat, and we will all live in Progressive Paradise. The End.

Yes, bad guys always want to take over the world. They can never allow diversity, and they must confine and subjugate outsiders.

But our plucky hero, Grandpaw Willy, despite living in his Florida condo or trailer park -- figured out how this whole Internet thing worked, and the Death Machine that was supposed to keep him out, turned out to be a great tool for him to complain about the government to all of his other friends.

And now that glorious clubhouse is revealing the very roots the Left always tries desperately to hide and avoid.

And so now, they are stooping to the cowardly act of censorship because their original theory that people on the Right are a bunch of intellectually-inferior Luddites has not only been disproven, but it was someone on the Right who took the Left-rigged Twitter and won a presidency.

And there is always such a "good reason" to oppress and stifle, because, of course, anyone who is not aligned with the Left is a evil Neo-Nazi.

Of course not. I am not a Leftie. I have seen their hypocrisy up close and personal, telling the Middle Class what they want to hear, but then doing the same things their ideological rivals do. Don't tell me your lies, and expect to be believed. It is no more a compassionate or sophisticated ideology than the Right-leaning ones.

Because when you must build walls to keep people who do not applaud your every sentiment out, you have already admitted that your ideology is wrong and inferior to the one that you cannot stand up to with facts and reason.

But in an Age of Propaganda, people run away from facts as they shut down opposing viewpoints. They want to pretend they are smarter and morally superior to their rivals; and so they twist and distort their words and images as they suppress those voices so people can judge for themselves.

Journalism hedged their bets, and picked the Cocktail Party Side, which is a hack for rubes who do not actually have a deep understanding of reality, but want the sure thing script to get them to be envied and more importantly, obeyed.

The truth is there will never be consensus among 7,400,000,000+ people. There can never be a monolithic solution that will work for all of them, and it is the reason we allow freedom of expression to find the solutions that work for as many people as we can because we all have different life requirements, and to keep a balance, we have to know how things are progressing or breaking down.

It will not be things you want to hear. A rich person may not want to know that he doesn't have the right to grow wealthy at his employees' backs just as those employees do not want to hear that they are not owed a pay check even if they don't want to show up to work. Reality and life are not your personal servants or apologists for your selfishness.

But you need to hear them, even if it spoils your little cocktail party.

The tweaking and trolling passing as debate and moral crusading is making ideological intolerance the norm. No, it is neither normal, nor healthy, but it cannot hide the truth people do not want to face: sometimes your reality is different than other people's realities, and they are not wrong for having different concerns, problems, observations, beliefs, and solutions.

This is how you hammer out solutions and progress: not by hiding or running away as you build fortresses, but by walking into the eye of the storm and facing it.

Big Tech has now made the conscious decision to hide inside a rabbit hole, and now every predator can hijack them and take over.

They built a defective death machine that now is primed to turn on them, all while people have now gotten into the unnatural habit of tweaking and trolling to deal with reality -- and reality doesn't care about your temper tantrums -- is goes on without you...

Social media and journalism: how the younger medium just turned into the relics they supplanted.

Twitter is a hot mess.

It is a troll scroll that appeals to Western middle class truisms: knee-jerk reactions in a few words, and with all sorts of easy solutions form people who have no expertise or knowledge on the matters presented before them.

It doesn't matter if it is on the Left or Right: Twitter made a fantasy of issuing royal decrees to the entire world for free real.

You can gang up and bully other people with your arrogant ignorance. Snarky comebacks and taunts that are moronic can be applauded by other people who form opinions before educating themselves on a topic.

The social media titan certainly put the Twit in Twitter.

And then came the obvious victory of Donald Trump that was an absolute shock for the Left.

They thought all you had to do is morally masturbate in pubic and shame people into believing your script as you pretend you are young and hip to those old relics who do not march to your marching orders, and that's it.

Social media always presented itself as progressive and the future -- never mind all of it is run by rich white men.

Just the way old media is run by rich white men.

Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss, as the old white boy's song plays.

Everyone in the world can now be fooled into thinking they are doing their own independent thinking, was those who wear the Left-winged masks believed.

And then cams along those on the Right who are not computer illiterate, and thumbed their nose at their political rivals, and beat them at their own game.

That women who fancy themselves as feminists kept with the Left is an enigma to me.

You finally have a chance to forge your own path, and you take the road over-travelled?

Just how lazy and incompetent are you?

And socialism? Are you really that historically illiterate?

People who were rich before socialist and communist regimes were still rich, you idiots.

The only differences were (a) the government had secret police to terrorize the poor in socialist regimes to keep them down, and (b) the government lied to the people telling them how their poverty wasn't poverty.

If you think you can get something for nothing, you are a gullible pigeon, and if you do not get the concept that the wealthy are rich because their minds are calculating and can find loopholes and ignore the lines in the sand you draw, then you are oblivious to reality and are unteachable.

In other words, you have people so stupid (yes, stupid) that they want to use an old patriarchal system (and yes, socialism is patriarchal and even more so than capitalism), that is unoriginal, flawed, and easy to exploit by the very rich people who are flourishing under capitalism.

That's what you want?

Who told you to want it?

Yeah, some yahoo on the Twitter, and then it makes it all okay.

And no one seems to notice all of these political players are all rich white men.

Bernie Sanders as some sort of progressive icon?

And it's floundering, anyway, much to the Left's perpetual chagrin.

And these slacktivist pseudo-political aware thinkers are now licking their wounds, trying to re-rig the system to favour them.

So now let's force Big Tech to censor people for not applauding obvious faulty and flawed theories that history has repeatedly shown does not work.

Twitter was always a puritanical sewer. It was not made to inform and educate because you can't know things based on a few words. Western middle-class thinking was raised on television, where advertisers constantly lied to them that all of their problems would vanish with zero effort if they sprayed or squirted goop on something because some mysterious They developed this magical panacea.

That's the thinking controlling modern thought. It is not coming from academia. It is coming from people like Vince Offer shilling plastic in an infomercial or those Ginsu ads that convinced millions of people that knives that cut running shoes are as so good as a fairy godmother's wand.

This is what political thought in North American is based on.

Nothing else.

To engage in any sort of debate is a waste of life. It is a shackle meant to drain people and deflect their focus and energies on creating something new that the old guard doesn't already know the cheats to win.

Rich people are rich regardless if there are communists in power or socialists or capitalists. They wrote those rule books, and they want to have to learn a new playbook.

Poor people are poor because those rulebooks don't work in their favour.

Middle Class are the only ones whose fortunes are somewhat dependent on who their masters will be because they have no expertise or are privy to a system's Shibboleths, and their fortunes rest on whether they have the necessary work skills to be of any use.

Twitter was just supposed to be a harmless outlet for the little people to vent. It is far less personal than Facebook, which is amateur press release.

But the grains of genuine frustrations and selfish entitlements got mixed in together. People had things they wished to express, and they started to vent more and more, finding other like-minded people.

The idea that grandpa would be computer illiterate or some hillbilly from the South wouldn't be attracted to the forum or be able to use it was a real assumption by Big Tech. They were full of themselves with their Ivy League degrees and billionaire lifestyle that sheltered them from reality.

But people are people. If the young Harvard-educated white collar executive can use Twitter, so can the high school drop out from living in the trailer park. It is a great equalizer, and considering there are more poor people than rich people, guess what?

The poor people will have a bigger voice by nature of their numbers.

The middle class will hedge their bets and follow whatever rich people say because they are deluded into believing that at least their children may have a chance to be wealthy if they support the system and suck up to those overlords.

The trouble is Twitter is hot air. Disposable hot air. You have pockets of success here and there, and why Twitter's power is exaggerated.

It is the same as winning the lottery. You have less than one percent of the population win huge jackpots, but everyone plays just in case they end up in that coveted minority.

As long as it looks like some non-expert mundane random person has a hope in Hell, the scam is in no danger of being completely abandoned.

The problem for the Left is they have a single semi-victory of #MeToo, which, ironically, has taken down more of their white boys than those on the Right.

But the Right seemingly has more luck, and Twitter thinks it can rig the board. They have become the Thought Police, dictating who is allowed to be broadcast and who cannot.

The Right, not surprising are having fits.

But Big Tech is playing a game they are going to lose. They have just created a rallying point for a political ideology who can abandon those platforms, and create their own, breaking their dominance. The selling point of Big Tech was its neutrality: by letting anyone use it -- regardless of their lack of knowledge, expertise, educational level, and even sanity, it gave people a voice. If they wanted someone else's voice, they would have stuck to the old model of journalism.

If Big Tech is just like journalism, and journalism was rejected, then the hook of Big Tech is gone, and so is there clout. They were quietly amassing power and wealth in the background, and now that they are showing themselves as being control freaks who pick sides and are meddling in people's opinion-spewing, they are no different than the old boss, and the spell has been broken.

If you are openly rigging a board you control, you have already lost the war. You are no . longer the young cool kids you pretended to be: you are the dictators who were unelected to office, and if you preached all this time that everyone's voice was equal, but yours suddenly becomes more equal than others, you have revealed yourself to be one of the pigs in an Orwellian Animal Farm.

And you can't walk back from it or spin it. The damage is done and those who you decreed are inferior to your opinions will neither forgive nor forget. You made an open clubhouse with no restrictions, you have to live with the consequences of fit.

This is the year where Big Tech has made a series of colossally fatal flaws because they had built a myth of being friendly to the world, and being everyone's buddy. Now that those façades have been exposed, those super-rich are panicking and behaving like those scared and jittery Western middle-class minions who think painting-by-numbers makes them cultured and they follow whatever someone else tells them to follow without considering radical new ideas or revolutionary thoughts.

So they are playing it safe, trying to appease the Left because isn't that what the young people all believe, right? We have to seem with it and cool, right?

Big Tech's midlife crisis is now in full play.

And they are raging rapidly as they appease the rich old white guys who are making demands of them with various threats.

We still have a void of information and facts. Journalism is just biding its time in its coffin, thinking it will all blow over, but they should be prepared to move over in those pine boxes to make room for the new kid in town.

We won't see socialism as a ruling ideology. That is a mere flirtation of someone with that aforementioned midlife crisis.

Something new is coming up. A new way of thinking and a new structure.

Something that fits with the new mindset that social media created, but never understood, let alone capitalized on before they got themselves into a horrible mess.

And Twitter can censor anything it wants; it's too late to stop those dominos that are falling as we speak...

Why I am not deleting all of my old Tweets: because you are never actually deleting them.

Wired is a technology magazine that does not understand how this whole Internet thing works.

They have an article that borders on infantile moronic:

I'm Deleting All My Old Tweets Because Nothing Matters

So stupid is this nincompoopity that I seriously wonder if all white people should be legally required to take a common sense test before they get a license write or speak professionally in a public forum.

The article is pure fear-mongering and cowardice that is as short-sighted as it can get. If this is some sort of advertorial for a Tweet-deleting service, or just trying to sound in-the-know and aware, I don't actually care.

There is brainless meta-propaganda with the word "weaponize" which all of the hick reporters use to reveal their intellectual limitations. In this case, tweets can be weaponized.

Nagging mommy-speak, but one that makes no sense.

This is a writer who has obviously not reached Level Four of Jean Piaget's hierarchy of cognitive development.

Because if this person did reach it and understood how this whole Internet thing worked, the writer in question would know that you can delete your Tweet..and it is still out there.

People will download everything you write, for starters. If you think your ex-boyfriend or rival isn't downloading your garbage, rest assured that you are gullible.

Governments save everything you write, too. For example, Homeland Security paid little visits to both my LinkedIn page and Facebook page...and left a calling card each time. If you can buy anyone's Facebook information on the Dark Web for a couple of bucks, then you can buy their Twitter junk, too.

I don't care because I am not a coward, but I can delete and deactivate, and I know it is still there somewhere.

Big Data companies save that information. Monitoring services save it, too, let alone online archiving services where people put in links; so you delete it, and someone saves it before you hit delete.

Even companies that crow about deleting tweets could very well keep a copy as well.

Foreign governments and domestic governments keep records. Big Tech keep records, even when they deny it. They allow other to keep records. Hackers keep records.

So if you think deleting your tweets means you have done something other than a engage in a waste-of-life activity, you are not smart enough to be left unsupervised with social media.

This is a classic example of a Middle Class Whitebread Easy Answer To Life article.

Even if the Internet vanished tomorrow, many someone's out there will keep your tweets on the record.

If someone is going to throw your words in your face, they will do it, even if it means making junk up.

Do people actually stand their ground with what they say anymore?

As in, "Yes, I said it. Deal with it, and grow a pair of ovaries because I will keep doing it."

If you are expecting universal applause for your every thought, you have some serious reality, maturity, and ego issues.

But what is most telling of this narrative is how journalists are now seeing finding contradictory evidence through research as bad thing. Do not go back and look at who a person happens to be? Really?

I have had interviews recently because of my new book -- and each time, the interviewer took the words that I wrote from twenty years ago and brought them up during the interview. They also looked at my old posts here and read them.

That is what you are suppose to do, not go around deleting your tweets and then tell the little people to do the same. That is why I put links to everything I know is out there about me, and I am planning on scanning every print article in my collection and create repository here.

Wired does not get how this whole Internet thing works anymore...they got too old and too scared, and now shake in their boots as they shake their fingers at no one in particular...

 

How to kill the dreamers and visionaries? Just misuse social media.

I

When I took Political Sociology as an undergrad, my professor made a very interesting point: when we try to equalize unequal entities, what happens is not that the weaker or poorer element elevates, but the stronger or wealthier entity demotes.

The harmonization does not move up. It harmonizes down.

Of course, she didn't just make an opinion. She had case study after case study proving the point.

If your attempt to elevate the fortunes of the dispossessed hinges on opening the floodgates and making everything accessible to everyone equally, you are going to fail.

You will pull down those who had an advantage of a rig, but in no way are you going to help those people who were once denied it.

Why?

It is very simple: the people who had the rig will always assume it is their natural/innate superior that makes them better, and they are used to the rig that serves as their invisible crutch. Kick away the rig, and their reality changes -- a reality they are no longer in tune with, and they will keep doing the same thing, but expecting the old outcome.

But then why do the people on the lower rung fare no better?

Because they never had the opportunity to understand the nuances of the old rig and the limitations imposed on them, they believe their limited worldview is reality. The blinders of their confined world trick them into believing they need no further refinement or understanding. Worse, they will do the same thing, but the new rig at first rewards them, and then they will believe they are making progress, even if they stuck in the same rut as cannot move upwards or forwards.

It is no different than someone with a gambling addiction who got hooked on beginner's luck: they think they are special/smart/lucky when they got their first "win", not thinking that jackpot may have been rigged to sucker in new players.

Stimulus-response takes over, and you have instilled an unnatural habit in the person for life.

You cannot just "liberate". Lotteries now give classes to big winners because society has learned the hard way that you can't just give a big sum of money to previously poor people and honestly expect them to know what to do with it.

And yes, that includes you personally.

It includes all 7.4 billion people, so get over yourself.

II

What happened to journalism is simple: it got demoted after their rig was taken out of their exclusive control and given to billions of people.

Now the people who wrest control away from old media companies pretty much gave a jackpot to people who once had no way to broadcasting to publishing their own views.

People who had no experience in many different critical things. People who did not understand the concept of sophistry. People who think logical fallacies make definitive crushing arguments. People who never bother to verify information, nor would know how to do it if their lives depended on it.

I used to liken it to amateur writers who got an article published in their local paper. They would crow and compare what they were doing to how I was making a living, and they'd show me the article in question.

Sometimes it would be a "profile" on a friend of theirs that had a business or was a local athlete or artist -- and there wasn't even an interview or a single quote from the subject, and me being me, would make a comment about how it would have been interesting to see a quote from the person and other people who had dealings with them.

The blanched and shocked faces never failed to amuse me. "I hadn't thought about that!" more than one would tell me.

No kidding.

You can read hundreds of articles, but if you had to make one, you would be shocked at all the things you would miss.

Writing is not just slopping words together and then sophistry and insult is going to forever crush opposition. It is about facts. It is about avoiding the confirmation bias, appeal to authority, sink or swim, and a long list of other logical fallacies.

It is a long, complex, and complicated undertaking.

But social media made none of those requirements of broadcasting or publishing to a mass audience.

Journalism was dragged down in quality and power as a result, and the profession collapsed because of this mass equalization. Content providers were decimated because anyone anywhere can write anything they want and billions of people have access to it.

Journalism is trying to scare people into reclaiming their former glory. They still don't get it.

Communications has been harmonized down. People just babble and spew these days because they can get away with it.

And journalism is also just babbling and spewing, too, making them indistinguishable from the amateur babblers and spewers.

But now there has been a shift, and another group of people are suddenly getting harmonized down: the dreamers and visionaries.

III

Dreamers and visionaries do not function in the same plane as most other people. They have a vision of the future, and they have grand plans. 

And understanding that realm is not simple. Not everyone's level of cognitive development is the same. Jean Piaget's fourth and final stage, is the stage where visionaries do the best: in the world of hypotheticals, and unless you have the right mindset, you are not fluent in the language.

Pre-social media, these people had a barrier, keeping them shielded from those who were not imaginative, sensitive, flexible, or forgiving of their eccentricities.

It was the gift of learning Shibboleths and nuances that help elevate them and get them into the history books.

The rich white men had the money and means to build their fortresses and got to do many epic things that the rest of the world got already prepackaged.

But social media is tearing down those walls -- and many of companies who reaped the benefits of these creative big thinkers -- are backstabbing those people at the first sign of controversy, and throwing them under the bus.

Old Tweets are suddenly cause for firing bankable directors. Heartless corporations -- in a bid to pander to complainers who probably never lined their coffers to begin with -- are being equally heartless to not just the unpaid interns they are exploiting, but also the very people who consistently put them in the black.

It is not as if the sentiments weren't known to these companies in the first place. They were merely could ignore them and give in because the returns outstripped the cringeworthy behaviour.

But it is still a harmonizing down.

Elon Musk was once seen as a visionary, and now people who have never done a thing in their lives are decreeing him a fraud.

What happened?

That's an interesting question because we don't actually know the real answer.

IV

I find it very interesting how certain things are being framed in regards to social media -- but selectively so.

On the one hand, we have a admission that there are literally millions of fake followers on Twitter. Leftie Americans are blaming Russians for disseminating fake news on Twitter...

But they are not actually questioning whether or not the faux-rage on Twitter may be less organic and more, Machiavellian in nature?

Who is not to say that a rival person, group, company, or even nation didn't hire a PR firm or secret operatives is deliberately smear certain targets with fake Twitter rage?

And companies are just falling for it without investigating or asking the most basic of questions.

The harmonizing down allows it to happen.

We have fewer visionaries and when that happens, we stop progressing.

The problem was the honour was given to a very confined demographic, and one would think if social media was a true equalizer, we would see other groups produce their own visionaries, which is something that is depserately needed.

Except that is not the case.

The very structure of incubating visionary thought is being dismantled, meaning we are harmonizing down, not up.

This will prove to be detrimental to progress -- both technological, but also social progress.

Because once that buffer is gone, you don't have anything to work with, nor do you have experienced people passing that knowledge to the next generation.

What we are seeing is the dismantling of progress. When you get a hold of things and try to salvage them, you are starting from scratch, and you are doomed to make errors that you could have avoided if you had some veteran to teach you.

Journalism made this fatal error, and that's why it does nothing but spew hate and babble lunacy.

It has no ideas of its own anymore.

Journalism needed visionaries and dreamers to push it forward, but the industry decided to shove them away.

Social media is a shell game on many levels, and one that is not trustworthy. I am certain a little digging will show that many of these supposed citizen mob attacks were choreographed and had some rival behind it to sabotage some other entity.

It is a Troll Scroll for a reason.

But the damage it is doing to social discourse and progress is not to be ignored, either...

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

I

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

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

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

1. We have 7.4 BILLION people on the planet. 

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

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

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

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

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

Got it?

Have these Truths penetrated your mind?

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

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

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

So, did it happen?

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

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

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

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

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

It just happened.

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

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

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

If no one believes them, is it a lie?

If one person believes it, is it a lie?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even Mother Theresa ain't Mother Theresa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a scam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

They never take off the masks of deceit.

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

No, you're not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then people could bypass journalism entirely.

Donald Trump used Twitter to get his message out.

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

You do not need to justify or explain yourself.

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

But it is not the death of the gambit.

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

III

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

You are not Alpha and Omega. Stop deluding yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who's right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what to do with an influx of migrants?

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

Or were hoping I was some flighty hypocrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do not use narrative.

We line up our facts.

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

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

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

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

Liberation comes from facing reality to find truths.

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

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

How Twitter turned into a Troll Scroll: PR, Fake Followers, and a whole lot of knee-jerk rage. But it's free!

Social media changed a lot of things, but human nature it could not. I never was a fan of Twitter (though I am a fan of Ello), and I mostly just repost things from this web site and my Ello page where my focus has been on fiction and Matriarchal Storytelling: the way it is set up is subtle, but fundamentally different and more productive than it first appears.

Twitter is a hybrid of tribalism and a schoolyard playground where people bully people who do not think or act like them. It breeds ideological bigotry, and reaction without proof or reflection. We have blue checkmarks to verify people, but none to verify what it said has any truth or merit to it. I am not impressed.

But it's free and an easy way to dump your rage, hoping that it gets validated.

It is a real Troll Scroll, however. People congregate into little groups and vent -- or hawk their stuff.

But to feed that beast takes a lot of effort, and the returns aren't as glorious as it first appears.

For one, you need to get your friends to cheerlead you incessantly to get the ball rolling. Finding like-minded people to applaud you is time-consuming. Like a Ponzi scheme, you keep having to recruit new suckers to play along, except people either spend all of their free time on it, or eventually realize it is a life sink and drift away back to Facebook.

Twitter is a great place for PR shills to post under various accounts as celebrities outsource their Tweets to assistants and ghost writers.

But mostly, it's those pesky bots and fake followers that inflate Twitter's influence. People look at the number of "followers" someone claims to have, and then assume that person has clout.

Cult-hopping, as it were, never realizing most of the flock are just mannequins propped up for show.

It's one of the reasons I never cared for Twitter: it is mostly by-the-numbers drowning-out shouts that prove nothing. It is driven by fear and hatred. I always wondered what would happen if people couldn't choose to follow who they wanted -- they would sign up, be placed in a pool of 10,000 random followers, and then every few months, the clique would dissolve and you get thrown in with a new batch of 10,000 people. It would be more nomadic and unpredictable. Left, Right, Rich, Poor, Black, White, Famous, Mundane -- you never would know the configuration, and you'd be exposed to different thoughts and views, and before you had the chance to break in a group, the group would no longer exist.

That's what the idealistic view of Twitter was once upon a time: exposure to a greater audience that you once had to way of accessing. Social media was the way to expand our knowledge and experience, but there were no actual rigs to ensure it.

The advanced technology forgot about those inner cavemen and cavewomen who became afraid of that vast frontier called planet Earth and then started building their various ideological colonies in the caves.

Twitter reminds me a lot of the evolution of religious beliefs: the ancient world had an endless list of deities, and then the modern age just threw those gods aside and went to a single deity.

Millions of people on Twitter, but the focus has now been on The One.

The One who won the White House using Twitter.

7.4 billion people, and the monomania took over in only a decade. That is quite a feat.

No wonder there is frustration and stagnation: tweets are cheap.

We could have had the rise of all sorts of new political ideology, for instance. We could have opened up new ways of telling stories, a new way of doing journalism.

We have apps that invade our privacy, and we have a billion permutations of Bejewelled. Uber did change the way we get around town as we find a way to earn a few extra dollars playing chauffeur to strangers.

But Twitter never did what it could have done. It is repetitive and didn't actually evolve or progress thought. It gave the illusion that your opinion matters, even if it doesn't. It is a mirage.

And I have no uses for things that do not actually exist...