Patrick Brown sues CTV for $8 million.

He'll never win it, however. It will be dragged through the courts for years, and the other, less savoury things will come out about him that will make his head spin.

And nothing will change.

CTV has little worry about. The PC Party was a little too happy to rid themselves of him for a reason, and they have moved on to the point that the Liberals are genuinely terrified for their fortunes. Their previous snickering and smug smirks vanished the day Doug Ford won, and they reek of fear. Brown should take a careful note and realize that Ford has what doesn't, and he's taking that with him on this doomed battle.

Brown's Alpha Male chest-thumping is meaningless, and if he is trying to salvage his dignity, that ship has sailed a long time ago...


The Washington Post's ABC Afterschool Special Logic.

Once upon a time, when I was a kid, they made us watching morality plays in school to tell us how to think and behave. And then you'd run home, turn on the television, and then you'd be stuck with yet another morality play.


This article in the Washington Post is one of those things that reeks of that kind of childish indoctrination.

#MeToo bothers journalists because it exposed their immortality to the world.

And because it is a profession that puts more currency on narrative than reality, it is always trying to spin things into neat little packages, and this is an enormous disservice to people trying to improve their surroundings.

You win battles, you have setbacks, you keep fighting until you win the war. You do not have one victory, and then expect the people who defeated to now congratulate you for putting them in their place.

#MeToo is an army of sorts, and the battle is to go to work in peace, yet it is always being spun as some sort of "witch hunt", which it never was.

It was a mass reaction to a problem Western society still has not dealt with adequately, if at all.

So you have a woman who created a list of men who abused women on the job, and it was leaked out and her identity exposed. She believes she was naive, but she wasn't naive: she took on a fight that went on longer than it should have.

When you speak your mind out in public, you will get abused. It doesn't matter if you expose a child molester, people who also molest children, their enablers, and those who got a pay check from said molester and now are out of a job will slag you in public because you tore down their façade.

If you expose that a so-called reality show is fake -- people will do the same thing.

People abuse people in their own homes -- their own children, parents, and spouses -- so it is to be expected that they bluster and insult strangers.

It doesn't mean that it should have been exposed.

There is always a trade-off: the problem is Western thought has been trained to believe you can squirt something on a dirty stain -- and the stain will erase itself, and you can go back on the sofa and drink beer and watch television.

That's journalistic narrative. 

Life is not about convenience -- it is about pushing forward and understanding there will always be resistance -- but you have to push forward, even when others try to push you back.

If life was wonderful, there would have been no #MeToo. It wasn't as if people were bored and then decided to make themselves vulnerable and reveal they were powerless at work and scared. They confessed in order to make those problems go away.

It worked, but that was one battle -- it was not the end of the war.

Except the Washington Post doesn't comprehend what the movement was all about.

The column offers no reality and no context.

But journalism was never about either...

Canadian opinionists spew partisan narrative on Provincial usual, no one knows what they are talking about.

Opinionists in Canada are less flashy than their US counterparts, and as hard as it is to believe, less informed. Reading the babble about the Ontario election is particularly painful, because it seems as if everything is on auto-pilot.

Ho hum.

The Toronto Star, oblivious to reality as usual, has a silly piece about sexism in election campaigns. It is very whiny with a whiny headline:

Mediocre men walk their way through political campaigns. It is time to end the double standard facing women on the campaign trail

Except of all the sexism to point out, the opinionist picks one that isn't true.

That headline is essentially her hypothesis, but it's wrong, and NYU had a very surprising experiment right after November 2016.

They had two actors -- a man and a woman -- who switched roles -- the man mimicked Hillary Clinton in words and demeanour, while the woman took on Trump's role.

The point of the exercise was to prove that if women behaved like men, that everyone would jump down her throat.

Except that didn't happen.

Subjects preferred the female Trump -- and much more than the real-life male counterpart.

And they disliked the male Clinton, seeing him as smug and arrogant.

I had said in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst pseudo-feminist candidate the Democrats could have possibly chosen. They didn't a firebrand maverick who was over-the-top. This is America, and Americans love someone who is large and in charge. If women were waiting for the moment to be crown a queen instead of a king all those decades, then, for pity's sake, show it like you mean it.


I have always said that the problem isn't that there aren't wild female eccentrics -- I am not the only one on the planet, thank you very much -- but they are deliberately silenced -- not because people wouldn't like them -- but they would love them just a little too much, and that would bruise those tyrannical male narcissists who hoard power and keep everyone else -- including other men -- back.

As I write stories with nothing but idiosyncratic women -- I have a hard time getting attention, but when people read it, I do get wonderful feedback -- so the problem isn't the the world isn't ready for a wild woman -- women just make assumptions and restrain themselves unnecessarily.

So the Toronto Star is just spewing folksy logic that isn't true. Kathleen Wynne won a majority in the last election -- and considering she is openly gay and has radical ideas that frighten Jordan Peterson -- she was given public goodwill the first time around. The Liberals had a minority and a lot of illiill with the public, and they went solidly behind Wynne's regime.

But her penchant to throw money the province doesn't have to nanny the people is wearing thin with the public. It has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman.

And the election isn't over. As I have said before, if she won another majority, I wouldn't be surprised. She is a survivor and is that way because she has a working brain and knows how to use it instead of following other people's scripts.

If Wynne loses, it will be because she earned her loss, just the way Clinton spectacularly earned her defeat. Sometimes you lose -- not because you are a woman -- but because you think you are owed because you are a woman. Get that chip off your shoulder. People do not vote in women -- they vote for the person who seems like they are willing to listen to their constituents, will fight for them, and will make things happen. Politics is not an arena for social engineering -- it is a gladiatorial fight and people want to see candidates fight tooth and nail for the right to make their lives easier -- and if you think that sounds silly, you really didn't get the memo on democracy.

Don't take it up with me because if it were up to me, we'd be governing ourselves by referendum and by electoral conscription.

Oh, and by the way, Toronto Star, Clinton had more votes than the victor. Remember that? There may be sexism, but we have come a long way, baby.

But the Globe and Mail has a different -- but equally silly take on the election:

Why is Doug Ford giving Kathleen Wynne a chance to invoke Donald Trump?

That's right! Shame on Doug Ford who obviously forgot to tape Wynne's mouth shut so she couldn't invoke Donald Trump. He should have hired a chaperone for the little lady to supervise her. Jordan Peterson warned the world how dangerous she is and everything.

Do you honestly think he could stop her or her operatives from saying it -- regardless of what he said and did?

It is a campaign, people: it is all about using dirty tricks, and then using the meta-dirty trick of accusing the other guy of negative stuff as you paint him in a negative light, like Justin Trudeau recently did.

There is so much to discuss when there is an election: platforms, current situation, problems to be solved, qualifications, track records, needs, wants -- and yet we have babble from opinionists who have no idea what to say.

We are as ill-informed as we were before. We need facts to make sensible decisions, but what we get is the same old script that is always devoid of any real data...

CBC has gender pay disparity? You don't say, Globe and Mail! Canadian journalism was always a misogynistic mess. And still is.

The Globe and Mail is tattling on the CBC for its penchant for paying the boys more than the girls. No kidding.

For all the blustering and moral masturbating from legacy media for their various pseudo-Leftish decrees, it was and still is highly prejudicial against women, and pay is just one factor.

Sexual harassment is another factor.

But there are more factors: women do not get treated very seriously. I can speak of my own personal experiences, for instance. I would pitch very serious stories, and just be shooed away, as if gang warfare was some silly thing to get hysterical over. Art crimes in Canada are also a serious problem, but I could not get that published in any Canadian media outlet.

Then there was about the political ramifications of street graffiti, cult recruitment at various university campuses, sentencing disparities between convicted male and female prisoners, and how social media was going to make journalism obsolete.

Those were all rejected -- and there were others, as well.

I had the ability, the sources, the evidence, you name it, but every time I pitched something, particularly to a male Canadian editor, it wasn't just shot down -- but always with some sort of jab that I was wildly exaggerating.

And then the problem would explode in the future, and then my concerns were proven to be spot on.

If I were a male, that would have never been an issue. If you don't take hard news pitches from a female journalist seriously, you will not be paying her as much as you pay your male reporters. I once had an editor who did a profile on me be absolutely baffled that I didn't have a higher profile, given my credentials and accomplishments. He didn't get that it was pure sexism that had held me back in my career -- and I still managed to do a lot of important work despite it.

And nothing has changed in the business, except it has been destroyed -- but that toxic mindset is still firmly in place...


A newspaper pays women and minorities less than its white males? No kidding.

In 2018. This is not an anomaly. This is business as usual in journalism. For an industry that pretends to be progressive, they are anything but. When I worked as a journalist, the matter-of-fact sexism was rampant. I had editors who thought I would flip for the chance to cover bridesmaids' dresses. The implied reasoning was that as a young, single female, I was in journalism to find myself a rich husband and trick him into marrying me. The job was part of the master plan: I had a legitimate excuse for getting in contact with these fabulously wealthy bachelors, or least unhappily married man covertly, but actively on the prowl for a younger model.

That wasn't happening. I was there because that was my career. 

But it is a sexist business -- and a bigoted one. It is that skewed perspective that impacts ob coverage -- from the stories that are covered to the narratives used to tell them.

These stats do not surprise me -- nor that it is still happening in this day and age...

Paul Bliss sues CTV and others. Does #MeToo's power extend to the courtroom?

Former CTV reporter Paul Bliss is suing CTV, his initial accuser, and those who covered the story. #MeToo has proven to be a powerful movement in the US. In Canada, its results have been mixed. The courtroom's rigging is one of the factors that triggered the movement in the first place.

What happens now? It remains to be seen, but the strategy is the old He-said/She-said defence, which was always a problem; on the other hand, the multi-million dollar amount isn't just a pipe dream; it is a big turn-off to Canadians who do not like those kinds of numbers in the first place...

When stupid media stunts go awry

Juli Briskman, known throughout the world of losing her job for showing the president that she knows the digital phallic symbol, is suing her bosses for kicking her to the curb. I wrote about her antics before, but while some people think she is some sort of hero, she really didn't actually do anything of value. The guy she flipped the bird to still has his lofty job. She is suing on nit-picky and shaky grounds.

Meaningless gestures are a life sink and misdirection making you feel as if you are doing something when you are just doing nothing as the Establishment rolls over you. She had a nice job with perks, and now she's reduced to hashing it out with an employer who didn't want the stench of her juvey stunt all over them.

Her stunt bothered me then, and it bothers me now. Make your moments count -- there was an opportunity, and there better ways to take advantage of it...

The National Post's Woman Problem

Nothing is perfect, including #MeToo, but #MeToo forcefully addressed the issue of what happens to women when they are sexually harassed and abused in such a way that it is difficult to prove it. Predators have practice and prey are ambushed. The United States was always Canada's bolder and braver counterpart. The Americans fight for what they believe in. Canadians try to maneuver and appease to steal away what they can. When Donald Trump called Canadians "smooth", he was letting them know he sees the gambit, and isn't impressed by it.

#MeToo is an un-Canadian movement, and that is unfortunate. Canadians do not like confrontation. They do not like to admit there is a problem. If everyone just shuts up and endures, then the façade is good enough.

#MeToo was the admission in the United States that all was not well. You have highly educated women in positions of real power who were cornered the same way the high school drop-out waitress was cornered by a superior. The women who who spoke out did not want to do so. They did not want people who wished them ill to get any pleasure knowing they were down because those same people are going to gleefully make jabs that the story is either a lie, or the woman did something to earn her abuse.

No civilized society can tolerate that.

#MeToo used social media in a novel way, and it did so because the courts are rigged in such a way that victims and accusers are not even afterthoughts. Most of the measures of guilt or innocence are not even scientific or empirical. There are a lot of assumptions based on folksy logic, nothing more, and there is also the assumption that the only way to determine guilt or innocence is for an accused to be innocent until proven guilty.

If you object, then, of course, people jump down your throat, and assume you want people to be assumed guilty until proven innocent, and that isn't the case.

We need a system that makes no assumptions one way or the other. We have never quite gotten out of our binary reflexes.

#MeToo's longevity is thanks in part to the fact women are not served in the justice system, and nothing has changed.

But to the National Post, the women who dare challenge an Establishment is a horrible, terrible thing.

As soon as there was a tiny lull, they pounced again, trying to reclaim the narrative that the status quo is glorious because women cannot be trusted to tell the truth, using the UK as an example.

Who cares what another country does? We are dealing with our country. Canadian women do not file reports or press charges over there.

It is an attempt at misdirection: let's look everywhere else but our own nation. We have a justice system that has no understanding of the dynamics of abuse.

For starters, there is a base assumption that if a woman goes back to an abuser, there was no abuse. There was no crime.

If that is the case, then husbands who murder the wives they have beaten shouldn't get charged because, hey, she lived with the guy; ergo there was no abuse or crime.

Of course there was abuse and crime. I don't care if someone goes back. We need to establish why people go back, and we do have clues. We see it with cults. We know there are economic factors. We know about grooming and priming. We know about cultural expectations. We know about habit formation.

We have to stop focussing on irrelevant details and start asking simple questions: did you hit her at this point in time? 

And then start asking more questions from there.

We cannot have a functional justice system unless we have a better understanding of human behaviour, and we don't.

Because we have journalists who aren't schooled in psychology. You cannot proclaim to study people and then be utterly clueless to how people actually think and behave.

The National Post is a depressing read: there is no connect to humanity in its pages. It is pure seething sophistry trying to prop up things that need to be questioned.

You do not have a static system and then expect progress or improvement. Women are dealing with the same basic justice system that was around when they were still considered properties of their husbands.

And that's a serious problem.

But the Post has decided to be apologists for rot and ignorance. They have a serious women issue because of it.

If you are going to proclaim to be a chronicler of reality, then you have to start dealing with the whole of reality.

And the reality is you have too many people who are being abused with no true recourse to correct it...

Is journalism racist? It's sexist. And racist. Look how MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes is being treated. How many -isms do we put up with before we concede that we need an alternative to it?

Robert Fife from the Globe and Mail got called out for thinking the Canadian government shouldn't study "systemic racism" because "kids of all ethnic backgrounds are hanging around with each other." Okay!

One MP, Celina Caesar-Chavannes, did not like his remarks and retorted that his remarks made her question his "ability to investigate stories of the Canadian experience without bias."

For her observations, Canadian Right-wing commentators branded her a racist as well as "seeing racism everywhere", with her supporters countering the charge.

Now, I am a Caucasian female, but I can tell you that I have also studied media coverage for a couple of decades, and can see very clearly not only a sexist bent, but also a racist one. Not all sins are by commission. It is also by omission.

I don't see hard news stories specifically addressing youth or immigrant unemployment as it relates to those subgroups, for instance. I don't see stories about how black women who have been victimized fare in the court system, let alone what has been going on to First Nations women.

And should a reporter do such a story, it will not become a beat, nor will it speak directly to those people who feel the impact of the issue directly. There is a whiff of Those People. 

It's still Us. Journalism is supposed to address Us. We need to know about things, but the soul of a story should focus on the subset of Us first, but then radiate so the rest of Us can understand the issue, person, event, or problem.

But journalism keep screwing it up. They never do relevant stories. If they target Those People Way Over There, it is some advertorial feel good Yayness! dreck that doesn't actually give pertinent information that can be used to as a map.

So while it is fine that we have people who have accomplished great things, it doesn't provide anything of value if you are an immigrant who runs a store, and suddenly, the neighbourhood thugs start shaking you down for "protection money." Is this just happening to you? The entire neighbourhood? Or just because you are an immigrant?

Good journalism should be a form of Spread of Activation: make a connection with a certain subset, and then let the rest of Us understand the issue. It should always be You-focussed, and serious, not some silly cheering giving out little paper crowns to people.

People need facts. They need to know if they are falling behind. They need to know if they are safe. They need to know if there is a solution, and if there none, there has to be a way to let people know why not.

We pour billions of dollars into healthcare. We have no shortage of civil servants making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year -- how many patients were cured under their care?

Not given drugs to make them go away with an illness to nurse, but actually cured, as in, they can leave alive and healthier than they were going in and do not have to keep going back.

Every person who isn't cured is a system's failure.

And the same holds true for homelessness. Every person who is homeless is a city's failure. 

Let's not forget about the crime rate. How many people were robbed, beaten, raped, abducted, or murdered today? Every person not saved and every criminal not held accountable is a justice system's failure.

No spinning it so people making an upper class wage can keep a status quo rigged in their favour without them ever having to produce anything of value.

Every news report should be how many people were failed today? How many people have fallen under the cracks or behind? How many people were held back? How many people wandered away too far for too long and nothing was resolved in a timely manner?

How many university students graduated without being able to land a decent job? What is the institution's failure rate?

The success rate is advertising.

The failure rate is news.

Journalism has become propaganda -- always spinning things to happy news, and that is the precise reason it is racist and sexist.

Because to acknowledge failure means we are inclusive in our coverage: and we know very well how many groups are in over their heads through no fault of their own. Because they have been failed, and then made to feel like failures, and they run and hide in shame.

The patronizing efforts of doing a happy piece here and there is the equivalent of a doctor giving a happy pill so the patient is left sick, but just goes away thinking something substantial was accomplished. It is nothing but a sham.

Racism can be completely eradicated. Sexism, too. If you do not like news about failure, then start thinking in terms of how to create a higher success rate, aiming for not just 100%, but 1000%, so no one will be facing that edge.

So the Honourable Caesar-Chavannes doesn't need me to tell her that she is right. I will not patronize her in any way.

But those masquerading as journalists do need to be told that by someone who had studied them for years because she was in their ranks, and so, I am saying it.

We live in an oppressively sexist and racist world. Journalism helps perpetrate that sexism and racism with how they see the world, and how they cover news.

Let's get our act together, people. It's time to start assessing our society's failure rates and begin to plan from there...

When a sex scandal bores: 60 Minutes interviews Stormy Daniels, but why don't they ask who is footing the bills?

This is by-the-numbers. Porn drudge has a fling with a rich white guy. A non-disclosure agreement is signed as is usual for all the hired help. Enemies of rich white guy hope to see an opening, and jump on it. Porn drudge will get used by both sides of the war, and then discarded because women are disposable. Stormy Daniels admitted to being dishonest during the critical timeline, making her lawyer's assertion that she is credible very questionable. Who is footing her bills is also left out.

Once upon a time, a politician who had an affair would have been devastating. 60 Minutes mentions John Edwards, but Gary Hart is a better example.


Trump's philandering is nothing new. Wife #2 Marla Maples was once his mistress. No one actually cares. People are going to be angry at Daniels in this entire mess. This interview will not sink Trump, but it will not go well for Daniels, even though it shouldn't.

Who is footing her legal bills? It would be interesting to know the logistics behind this story. This won't touch Trump or make supporters turn on a man they knew going in was self-indulgent, and even his foot soldiers have little to fret about.

In Canada, we had a comparable, if sex-free scandal with the Stephen Harper government: Nigel Wright has been embroiled in a scandal involving Senator Mike Duffy, and all three men got off without too much fuss. It is naive to think that scandals have the same currency these days as they did in the past.

Here is a story that is supposed to, in theory, have it all: a made-up blonde who knows her way around a bedroom, a rich white married guy in power who falls madly in lust with her, some sketchy deals are made, soon goons menace somebody, and then it all comes out to take him down.

Well, this is 2018, and this is a re-run, and it gets harder to take a puritanical view in the world of Ashley Madison television ads.

This is war going on right now, and the outrage is contrived: the end game is to grab power away from someone else as you hoard your own. It is one thing to be wronged, and quite another exploiting those who were wronged, and we are living in a landscape where victims make the perfect pigeons who those in power to manipulate their suffering for personal gain.

It is the reason so much is ringing hollow these days: we have bad acting and faux anger littering the information stream. 60 Minutes was not earth-shattering by any stretch. It was filled with conjecture, gossip, and that worldly blonde whose claim to fame is denying, then admitting to a meaningless fling with a married man who would go on to be president.

BBC has just put on a "breaking news" alert on it, playing up the goon aspect, and despite all of the hype, this is a sex scandal that bores to the point it would be a rejected reality show...

Is #MeToo making any changes? No. Why? Because you cannot change a system. You can only build a fresh from from scratch.

Contrary to ABC After School Special indoctrinated opinion, you cannot actually change a system. It creates unnatural habits, takes advantage of the weaknesses you are not savvy or strong enough to admit you have, and it establishes rigs that favour those on top of the pecking order. It will always snap back to the status quo because the content is driven by the silent structure of thought. Western society is Patriarchal in thought. It is not egalitarian in thought. It is not Matriarchal in thought.

It is all about the One, and the One in this society will always be the white male.

It is the reason why you need a replacement for journalism. It is so entrenched in Patriarchal spin that it is very oppressive to anyone who is outside this stratified system.

Look at the New York Times' profile on Barry Diller:

Barry Diller knows your weaknesses.
He knows how to intimidate you, if he wants to, or charm you, if he chooses. Because he is a taskmaster and a visionary and a billionaire, people in Hollywood and Silicon Valley pay close attention when he speaks.
He has so many vests from Herb Allen’s Sun Valley retreats for global elites that they’re taking over his closets.
“There is so much fleece,” says the chairman of IAC, laughing. “I’ve been going for 30 years.”
On this rainy afternoon, by the fireplace in the Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired stone and wood living room of his dreamy mansion, Mr. Diller is all charm, with a healthy dose of self-deprecation. He’s dressed in a red checked flannel shirt, a burgundy Hermès hoodie, baggy jeans and black Tods loafers.

Spy magazine made fun of him. The New York Times defers to him as if his word was God's. Guess which publication is still allowed to exist. And this was written by Maureen Down, the Grey Lady's highest ranking female scribe.

#MeToo has changed nothing. We now have a movement that has youth and their fears being exploited in them begging for their rights and freedoms be revoked because they don't see the simplicity of their own solution. They have their future in their hands alone, but somehow it seems easier to ask the Establishment to think for them as they restrict them.

#MeToo may be about unleashing women from the shackles of workplace abuse and rigs, but #NeverAgain is about deferring to authority. It is a conscious decision to be reactionary in mindset, meaning it seeks a Patriarchal solution to a problem that requires an alternative approach.

And who better else to be the "breakout star" to a Patriarchal movement than the white boy who swaggers and speaks in an authoritative voice.

Daniel Hogg's surname is eerily appropriate as he reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm. The lad could not be less original with his words and voguing, but he is the one getting to be the face and the voice -- something that #MeToo never truly had.

He is mistaken if he thinks the "people in power are shaking" -- no, Mr. Hogg, they are salivating at taking away personal freedoms of their citizens, especially when they are demanding to be enslaved just to have a mere perception of security.

This is textbook propaganda: find the white boy who wants to be the centre of attention, and then let him rant as if he were qualified to know something. Humanity has been down this path repeatedly. Nothing has changed.

And that should worry feminists. #MeToo did nothing to challenge the structure of thought -- the very rigs that always was a trapped to spring on challengers when the timing was just right, and make no mistake: it was been set off.

The Great Men are still seen as Great Men whose opinions matter -- notice that Maureen Dowd didn't interview a Great Woman about #MeToo because such an entity does not exist in Western culture.

And now, who gets the attention to an well-orchestrated trap to take away the rights and freedoms of a future generation?

The Great Man in Training.

The dead profession of journalism hasn't changed one bit. Women's battle tactics are failing their future. The propaganda hasn't budged one inch to give way to the truth and reality of an issue.

And it cannot change. If you want a better system, build a new one from scratch. Keep the rot away. Social media destroyed the gates, and now there is a void -- a perfect time to begin something new to move away from the same old stories that are nothing more than lies of convenience...

Yes, journalism covers the Elite. That is not news. That the elite still managed to destroy journalism despite their best rigs and advantages is newsworthy.

FAIR has a very interesting -- and thoughtful -- article worth reading about how journalists from publications such as the New York Times are elites themselves, meaning they walk lockstep with the robber barons they drool over as they lick their boots. This is the suffocation theory of journalism: you never allow the fresh air of new or novel theories, facts, or ideas to ever make it over the airwaves or in print; therefore you suffocate people's critical thinking skills, and they accept the staleness of bad ideas as being a natural and divine mindset that is logical, moral, and normal.

It isn't, of course, and we have seen these rigs throughout history: who had rich men decree that women were property -- and that it was God's will; so to question this very convenient power grab was just horrific and ridiculous.

And women marched to this scam for centuries, until you had enough women see the men have all the fun, money, and power, and snapped right back to their senses and then had to fight for something they should have never had to fight for in the first place.

We celebrate women who were forced to be distracted on removing rigs, when we really should be livid that these women could have spent their brains and focus on something better -- like, finding a better way to do journalism, finding the cure for cancer that doesn't involve poisoning, butchering, and torturing the sick, or improve the way we live our lives in general.

We will now be forever denied those innovations because those same women had to dedicate their entire lives on a stupid game.

To be Elite is to be a hoarder of power, control, and health. The central problem of capitalism has always been turning a blind eye on people who could bypass right based on their psychological weaknesses of (a) hoarding, and (b) pathological selfishness that manifests itself through deceptions, trickery, bullying, narcissism, anger control, cheating, and being an out and out psychopath.

Had capitalism taken mental health into consideration from the get-go, we would have a very different outcome. Capitalism rewards bad behaviour and penalizes the good.

But that was not the intent of capitalism. That was the oversight that was its unintentional flaw.

It also didn't anticipate a press who would cheerlead these kinds of destructive behaviours, and spin them to look as if these were Great Men, and visionaries.

The problem with rigs is that they are dependent on accepting rules. If someone turns over the rule, it become fragile and breaks. Break too many rules, and the rigs collapse, exposing the true nature of a system's flaws.

That's why it is important to constantly question and improve a system instead of accepting it as gospel.

The Elites, despite their every advantage, screwed their prime vehicle to spin propaganda to the masses. Journalism still collapsed because people would rather admire their social media feeds than admire people who have more money than they do.

Advantages are only there so long as everyone agrees what you possess is an advantage: dilute it or make it mundane, and then the advantage turns to a liability.

It is the reason journalism has collapsed: its intentions were corrupted from informing the people to pacifying them so that they don't start asking hard questions about those Elites.

The article brings up a few good points, but that Elites control old school journalism isn't news.

What is news is that they messed up playing their own game, anyway, and that calls the competency of an profession into question...

Deconstructing Propaganda, Part Four: sycophantic narrative dishonesty.

Two seemingly unrelated propaganda pieces: one from Canada. One from the US. Both about multiple deaths. And both so badly mangled that they are truly propagandistic in nature.

I have always maintained that narrative has no place in journalism. None. I have had grand old fights with editors over the years over it. I dug and found facts that were not just important -- but almost impossible to find, and believe me, it took more than just finesse and doggedness to find them. Those facts told the story more than my spinning ever could, and that was the reason I didn't spin.

Then I had editors want that spin instead, saying what I was presenting was "mere reportage."

They wanted colour. They wanted filler. Never mind I had found something that others missed that was extremely important to the public discourse. In every case, I pulled my story because if it was a case of getting published with junk, or not getting published at all, I would rather hold back then tell a fairytale that didn't exist.

It was a pathology I noticed time and again. I had pitched to one Toronto editor a story about that city's increasing gang problem, and how it was inevitable that civilians would be gunned down in the streets. I was accused of being some sort of hysterical female...and then came one Boxing Day where civilians were getting gunned down in the streets, with a teenaged corpse in the aftermath.

I had facts and troubling ones. The graffiti on the walls, for instance, hinted that things were coming to a head. That alone should have gotten attention -- you had someone fluent in it, and could decipher it, but editors did not want to hear it because it clashed with their sycophantic narrative that Toronto was a "world-class city" filled with well-to-do sophisticates who held dinner parties and had their Botoxed mugs plastered in the society pages of government-funded magazines.

That narrative may have flattered the denizens of Hogtown, but it wasn't the truth.

A few years later, some of those same gang members were revealed to hang around Toronto mayor Rob Ford -- showing a link between a politician and a street gang -- everyone was so obsessed with a mayor doing crack that the fact that you had politicians familiar with these urban soldiers seemed to slip everyone's notice. Journalists were so bent on destroying the mayor that they failed to ask how many other politicians could have also had ties to violent elements and groups.

Gangs are unsanctioned armies fighting a war in peacetime (and often, during times of war, those same gang members become war lords). They don't just attack without a financial reason. Graffiti is their coded communication...

And yet, the Toronto media refuses to open their eyes to it.

Because it spoils the narrative that Toronto is the centre of the universe.

Which means narrative drives the news. Facts do not play into the product.

The propaganda model is a simple one: Us Versus Them. Them may be Devils, but Us are the Angels, and possibly even Gods. You do not question Us on any account.

The trouble is Us Versus Them rarely actually exists. Not all of Them are evil, and not all of Us can be trusted.

The National Post is using such a ruse in their article about Toronto serial killer Bruce McArthur.

In this piece, it is a real Us Versus Him narrative with McArthur being falsely portrayed as some evil genius who covered all of his tracks...

Which implies the default Good Guys -- the police -- were stymied, and of course, they couldn't have known...

The big kissy to the police is interesting as they have been criticized for not acting on finding a serial killer sooner -- so now the Post has spun a pleasing narrative to authority by making the case that the Evil Genius took all sorts of precautions to avoid detection.

Except he was not all that good at it. He had a criminal record and was questioned by police multiple times over the years. That means the narrative itself is a fraud. You are imposing a story to drown out what the facts truly mean.

It's propaganda because the narrative does not align with reality.

But when you rely on narratives, you are faced with a problem: you designate a hero and a villain -- and it is not enough that the hero has some good qualities, and the villain some bad -- somehow, in each retelling, the hero has no faults, while the villain has no redeeming qualities. It becomes a farce.

For example, I have talked at length about #MeToo -- and while I have said it was necessary and has done good in many cases, I still have issues with it. Nothing is perfect. No one is perfect...

But sometimes you see problems and you outline them not to dismiss, but to correct -- or at least be mindful of it when you are planning your next steps.

#MeToo does have its faults, and one of the biggest ones is that it is not exactly an inclusive issue. It's not about all women. It is about upper middle class to wealthy white women, and there have been numerous commentators who have pointed this out -- quite rightly -- as in, I will not defend or justify the omission.

Journalism only knows Big Issues as being suburban white. It is Eurocentric, and pathologically so -- even if there is a token Person of Colour, it is insincere, and the representation will not reflect that subset of the demographic as a whole.

When a serial killer or wife killer target Caucasian females, it is plastered all over the news as being America's problem. If the race is anything other than white, it gets buried and ignored.

#MeToo has not faced the same scrutiny and disdain as, say Black Lives Matter.

It is not just a US problem -- in Canada, we have had a subtle genocide of First Nations women in this country -- but it is never personalized. Have a bunch of white women vanish into the abyss, and the reaction would be completely different.

Because that is an attack on Us.

I am not comfortable with the racism of omission from #MeToo for many reasons, and one of those reasons is that I do not want to be discriminated against just because I am female -- but I am not so self-absorbed that I don't think everyone else in the same boat should be included. Of course they should.

It is not supposed to be getting attention for people, but a systemic problem.

At first, it didn't matter how inclusive #MeToo was for one reason: one group reached the spotlight first and that was fine, but it should become more inclusive immediately after that as other groups reached the same spot and had a light to see where to come to expose their realities. It never quite happened that way.

Journalism was in a bind as a disportioncate number of men on the Hitlist came from their own profession. There was a lot of naysaying about it, but the consensus was that this issue was about women in general...when it really wasn't.

It was about some women. The problem was the first who reached the spotlight set the terms of the narrative right off the bat, and made no effort to go beyond the scope that was being rewarded with attention and the firings of men who made the dubious list.

In many ways, #MeToo coverage become propaganda itself. Not the cause per se, but how it was treated in the news media.

But not as bad propaganda as #NeverAgain.


Time magazine's story is probably one of the most deceptive propaganda pieces I have seen in a long time.

Gun Control is one of those empty causes that cannot solve the problem. Countries such as China, have strict gun control laws, and yet, it is those smuggled weapons that end up in many a murderer's hands globally. Canada, for all its smugness, has a serious violence problem, despite having very strict gun control.

In the UK, you have had numerous terrorist attacks and vitriol-throwing. There is gun control there, and yet there is plenty of violence. Most of Europe does as well, from France to Germany. Let's not pretend.

And now you have a group of teenagers waste their time voguing (yes, voguing) on a cover of a magazine demanding gun control...

It is a sycophantic narrative deception. We have decided the teenagers are Us, and...the guns are the Them.

Which says a lot about the emotional disconnection a new generation has to humanity -- they have chosen an inanimate object for an enemy, and it is not a step up from having people as one instead.

It was a fellow teenager who slaughtered students, just as you had a young adult male in Texas set off bombs. It is not Us Versus Them. It is Us versus Us. The end.

The United States has a very serious violence problem, and it isn't triggered by holding a gun.

But the narrative does not offend parents who may be raising a future homicidal maniac and do not have the courage to face that reality, nor the teenagers who are the ones snapping and slaughtering fellow students with chilling ease.

It is the reason why the narrative is propaganda.

Because it does not align with reality.

A more helpful and accurate approach is to find facts.

For instance, we know very little about most of these killers. They are not personalized, and they have to be personalized. Not to excuse them or make people feel sorry for them, but to see the ugly truth that these are not monsters -- these are normal-looking teenagers who look no different than the teens they are murdering.

When the Austin bomber's picture was released, an anchor on Newstalk 1010 in Toronto kept mentioning how the killer looked average and normal -- as if killers all looked like the devil complete with horns, a disfigured face, and a maniacal laugh.

That is narrative.

The true horror of school shootings isn't the guns because if you leave the gun alone, no one gets killed.

If you leave the killer alone, he may very well murder you anyway.

What makes school shootings terrifying is you are in a building filled with teenagers.

And some of them will be murdered.

And at least one will be their murderer.

Now walk in and guess who will fall in one camp and who will end up in the other.

The terrifying thing is you cannot tell on first glance, but journalism is nothing but about first glances and ruses.

Kiss up to one side of an issue, and then demonize the side who cannot fight back. People will hold on to that narrative structure and will not let go because arrogance prevents people from ever admitting that they were wrong.

Except for social media, where divergent voices can interject, as I am interjecting right now.

Gun control is a waste of time and resources.

Violence control will save lives.

So why do we pick the one that will not produce results?

Is it because we are that stupid and unteachable as a species?

Or perhaps we don't really want to solve the problem?

It is precisely because people do not actually want to solve the problem: they may be required to alter something major in their routine, be held partially accountable, or lose a job that hinges on a problem continuing to plague their world.

I find it funny that the latest whitebread social issue's hashtag is #NeverAgain.

And then another school shooting happened right after that unkeepable promise was made.

So the name is a lie right from the start.

If we had real journalism, we wouldn't be making decrees or deciding who we should cheer like empty heads.

We would be finding facts. We would be finding facts without narrative. We wouldn't be having teens posing like they are from a Gap ad on Time -- but the dead bodies of those teens killed in Florida.

But journalism was always insincere about who they were, what they did, how they did it, and why they were doing it.

They want an easy narrative instead of facts...and that is why we are still groping in the dark in 2018 the same way our earliest ancestors did before they discovered fire...

Memo to the National Post: #MeToo was a positive development in the workplace. But thinking there are instant solutions is childish.

There is a column in the Financial Post that walks lockstep with the Post's narrative that #MeToo is a bad thing. #MeToo opened up a crypt of horrors: it exposed that even female CEOs faced abuse from their male colleagues in the workplace.

It was a movement that is flawed, but long overdue.


Because women endured, and it didn't make it go away. They broke glass ceilings, but it didn't go away. They filed complaints with HR, it didn't go away. They sued in court, it didn't go away.

So, for the first time, women decided to air this problem and then they decided they, too just weren't going to go away.

That is not a minor victory. That is a major key breakthrough victory of a major battle in the war against workplace terrorism.

But it wasn't the end of the war, and the columnist -- who is a workplace lawyer who is usually more sensible -- treats the next battle as proof that #MeToo was a bad thing for the workplace.

No, women couldn't get to this stage unless they won a key battle of exposing the serious problem out in public, the place where the workplace terrorists were revealed to be as such, and didn't have lawyers who could make the problem go away or, have the boor in question pay anyone off.

Now, it is a new battle, which is part of that victory.

A war is fought in battles. You do not fight once, and then everything works out perfectly as everyone Learns A Valuable Lesson and stops being a predator.

So now there is a new battle, and this is one that women can win -- and win far easier than the one before it.

First, it is illegal to discriminate against gender in the workplace -- so if a corporation doesn't mentor its female employees and doesn't groom and promote them to be CEOs, there are resources to penalize their illegal and oppressive behavior. They cannot use fear as an excuse for withholding what an employee has earned.

We can expose these companies, and demand that they make public the percentage and proportion of women who get trained, groomed, and promoted -- if it is anything less than 50%, we can take them to court, and as women are the driving force in the economy, they can boycott those businesses.

We can demand that women be trained and mentored effectively -- so the excuse that men are too afraid is hogwash.

What you have is a passive aggressive retaliation tactic to prevent women from giving them what they have earned -- with interest.

And unlike #MeToo, this battle is easier to win.

So if the executives and board of directors are too male and too white, I have the recourse of not doing business with them -- and making my reasons for my boycott public.

Women have and can buy stocks for the specific purpose of demanding that executive bonuses be directly tied in to the number of women (minorities, what have you) that are mentored and promoted.

So far from this being a bad thing, it is a great thing to happen to workforces. We can hold HR accountable for methods of dealing with workplace terrorism. We can strategically spend our money to favour those whose power structure reflects the real world.

You don't retreat after you won a battle -- you move forward ready to win the next one.

And if there is a setback, you regroup, learn from your mistakes, and fight again and again until you win.

You do not earn a major victory and then surrender to the forces you humbled. That is patently ridiculous, and there is no time for being afraid when there is a legitimate chance of turning bad workplaces into good ones that progress and thrive...

Armani for the wife; Versace for the mistress: Why #MeToo only goes so far and how those Great Men really treat women.

There is a saying I have heard from people in high-end fashion: it is Armani for the wife, but Versace for the mistress. There is an actual reason for the expression.

Listening to Middle Class America talk about Donald Trump's Stormy Daniels problem is comical to me. It is not as if middle class middle managers don't fool around, but they don't do it right. It is crude and they hide it from their spouses.

They are doing it all wrong.

When I worked as a journalist, I would strike up conversations with the power players' support staff: nannies, maids, janitors, hairdressers, and anyone who had to clean up messes and groom those fabulously wealthy tycoons, their wives, and their various mistresses.

Mistresses were the cost of doing business. The more mistresses a power player had, the higher up the pecking order he was.

And there were strict protocols. Each mistress had a shopping allowance for clothes, for instance. Bottom-rung mistresses might get a measly $10,000 a season for grooming, and one higher up could get $100,000 a season.

There were certain boutiques one would go to -- and you had pricey shops where customers had to make appointments to shop.

So that wives or mistresses did not run into each other at the store and have a catfight.

It was literally Armani for the wife, and Versace for the mistress. Each had a role to play, and they had to dress the part.

Mind you, I have had people ask me rather pointedly if I wore Armani or Versace, to which I truthfully replied, Moschino.

I had friends who were support staff to wealthy, and in our outings were always a hoot -- we'd drive by certain buildings and businesses, and I would get the low-down on the tycoon who owned it, and his various mistresses. It always would give me a better idea of a power player's fortunes than what was going around at the office.

Middle managers also have affairs, but there is none of the strategy with it. It was just to stick it to the wife or reclaim feelings of a swaggering youth or relieve urges or feel affection.

That was misapplying the odious concept. It was a way to show prowess and power just as it showed the other tycoons that the man could create a structure or deals where he got the best deal.

Hey, what's love got to do with it?

It was a business transaction.

So men like Trump or Bill Clinton have their share of mistresses, and it isn't about love or vows.

It is the art of the deal. It is not a Trump problem or a Clinton problem.

It's a problem with the structure of power that has never been addressed for what it truly is.

I deal with that kind of sexist caste system in my fiction works, particularly The World's Most Dangerous Woman, where knowledge of those games can give the heroine a roadmap to other secrets those robber barons keep hidden, and reveal the way the power player thinks and strategizes.

That ugly truth about power is the roadblock facing #MeToo. Having mistresses was always a form of currency. Kings had their mistresses, and the point of having paramours is to show strength, potency, and even shrewdness.

Women are still seen as props, trophies, and possessions. It is not enough to combat sexual harassment, but to take on an entire structure of power.

Especially one where women are objects not desired for their intelligence, expertise, or even their beauty.

But because they are willing to sell out for a clothing allowance and have dirt thrown in their faces.

It is a rig in the system that has to be confronted, and it isn't pretty...


Michael Ferro is out at Tronc.

In an era of #MeToo, we discover that female CEOs can be placed in the same untenable situations as unpaid interns. It is truly baffling. But Michael Ferro, chairman of Tronc for barely two years has stepped down. Fortune has the latest #MeToo article.


Tronc, formerly known by a less obnoxious name of Tribune Publishing, has had its share of problems, and now there seems to be one less, even if the scandal opens many more...

Exclusionary messages: Listening to political babble reveals more by omission than commission.

I was listening to Kathleen Wynne talking on Newstalk 1010 this morning, and found it very interesting. She may have had a you-centred message, but it was aimed clearly at a certain demographic. She talked about "your parents" and "your children", meaning those two groups were not being addressed themselves. She is not talking directly to older voters at all. She is avoiding talking to youth, talking to their parents, instead.

She isn't talking about older voters with a you-message. They are auxiliary headaches for their adult children to endure. She is also skipping the new generation as they, too, are some sort of burden that has to be addressed to their parents.

Auxiliary voters are never directly addressed -- they are seen as having less power or control, even if they have more power than the targeted voting block. Youth are the future. Older voters have savings and experience of skills.

In any case, when you do not address segments directly, your policies will not be made with those groups in mind, meaning whatever you give them will be ill-fitting, and let them know in no uncertain terms that they do not have the power -- but the group you are targeting. This hints that the policies will be ineffective from the get-go.

Wynne is 64 years old -- she is ignoring her own demographic in Ontario's provincial election. If you are going to have a hard Left agenda, then you are supposed to be about equality -- and subtle ageism is as exclusionary as it gets...

Gracious, what a tintinnabulation! Jordan Peterson, do not call Kathleen Wynne Canada's "Most Dangerous Woman" because it makes you sound, well...sheltered...

It is very untrue, for starters, because if she were, what a total letdown that would be for Canadian women if that is considered the "most dangerous" our gender could muster. She is not starting wars. She is not violating people's rights. She is merely wasting taxpayer money on unhelpful things that voters gave her permission to do in the last election. The Human Rights Commission is frivolous, and doesn't do much to help the sick or disabled in this country, for instance. Do not build her up to be a monster. She is a pandering strategist who knows how to play the game as she always comes up with shockingly similar campaign promises to Andrea Horwath's right after the NDP leader offers them first, and there is quite a few of those kind of players around.

Besides, she is hardly Canada's "most dangerous woman," and considering I have been writing about the World's Most Dangerous Woman since 2013, (actually, 2012, before here and here) I am in a better position to know than you...


Terry Gilliam's rant and why the #MeToo mob was the backlash to the original terrorist mob.

Director Terry Gilliam thinks #MeToo is mob behaviour. I think a lot of rich and powerful men don't get what happened; so let me explain it.

For decades, the communications industry was run by a mob mentality of bosses who ganged up, abused underlings, and then smeared their names and blacklisted them if they refused to give in.

They called these women crazy, disgruntled, gold diggers, you name it.

That was the original mob mentality.

A terrorist mob who made it clear that if a woman wanted that glamorous job, she had better put out with a smile on her face, and take it.

Sooner or later, there will be a backlash, and #MeToo was it.

No wonder the traditional communications industry despises the Internet: it gave an outlet for all those abused underlings to make public their grievances.

If Hollywood didn't want #MeToo to happen, then it should have learned to treat employees with dignity and respect.

People fight fire with fire.

And mob with mob.

The pendulum just swung the other a wrecking ball, destroying old structures in its wake.

It would be more helpful if people stopped seeing this movement as a "mob" or "witch hunt", and more like a reaction.

It's like stepping on someone's foot, and then whining about them screaming at you, and then pushing you off their foot, accusing them of being drama queens for it...

If you need any more proof that media owners are incapable of innovation...

This article should illuminate:

Meredith moves to sell Time, Fortune and Sports Illustrated titles: sources

Meredith just bought Time and Fortune and other rags for almost two billion; so why try to divest itself of them? Because of this silly logic:

The move illustrates how Meredith sees some of Time Inc’s titles that attract primarily male readership as not playing to its core strength in women’s magazines, which include Better Homes & Gardens, Family Circle and Martha Stewart Living.

So instead of re-setting these publications to have hard news and business stories that would also attract over half the population, just sell them off...

Because women, to them, just do not care about real things in the world.


You have a slot, and you just shove the preset scripts into each slot.

If it doesn't fit, get rid of it. This is the binary thinking that actively helped destroy journalism.

So do not be shocked that it collapsed...