Tyrants and their temper tantrums: The Establishment Party sues WikiLeaks right after Julian Assange's voice is silenced. Yeah, those nasty old relics keep playing dirty as they try to talk you out of using social media.

Tyrants are a very ugly subspecies of animals. 2000px-DemocraticLogo.svg

The Establishment Party, otherwise known as the Democratic Party are the sorest losers in the history of mankind.

Suing WikiLeaks for exposing their rot during the 2016 US Presidential Election is a new low even for those fossils.

It is very convenient to play this game as Julian Assange's ability to speak out was quashed.

And this psychopathic propaganda campaign to get rid of Facebook and social media is also no coincidence.

The Establishment lost control, and now they are playing dirty to get it back.

Anyone who plays control freak games like that doesn't deserve power.

They ought to earn their keep, not be self-entitled snowflake rulers behaving like spoiled brats in soggy underpants.

It is all-out war on democracy and free speech, and the Democrats have now proven why they weren't worthy of power in the first place...

Julian Assange loses his Internet. Facebook under attack. This is a tintinnabulation for Internet power. Is #MeToo going to be next?

You can feel a tide turning. First Facebook gets smeared in a targeted and coordinated media and government assault with other Big Tech distancing themselves from them, and now Julian Assange has been grounded. Freedom and liberty are being made to be bad things, as if the truth, and the obedient middle classes will be given a scary story about bogeymen, as if their own governments aren't spying on their citizens (that's right, China: we have human trafficking and illegal arms dealing, but let's make sure those jaywalkers are put in their place!).

I do not agree with Apple's Tim Cook's assertion that Facebook should have regulated itself. It would not have mattered. They allowed anyone to have a presence to a global platform to say or show whatever they wished, and their success placed that target sign on their backs.

Assange is a spoiler. He is both cunning and naive. I do believe he is a chess master, but never realized it was a game of Go he was playing -- he may have honestly believed that if he showed the world how they are being lied to, abused, and subjugated by their governments, people will revolt.

No, sorry, Julian, they are way too busy gossiping about the creepy Game of Thrones and making kissy faces in their selfies to get up and march in the streets, and when they do march in the streets, it is to demand the government has given them too many rights and should nanny them as they take their rights away.

You will not hear me bad-mouth Assange or WikiLeaks, as that is the closest thing we have to journalism left, and I do believe he has planted seeds that is too late for the governments or media to pull out and kill, despite their best efforts, but he will pay a dear price for it.

The problem is there is a crackdown on liberties in the Western world -- idea-shaming didn't work. Journalism didn't work. Trying to get people to retreat won't work because the Internet wasn't something people did strictly for work -- it was always about fun and adventure without the effort that hinges on vanity and greed. Take that away, and people will become angry at those who spoiled their fun and games, and will retaliate in a devastatingly passive aggressive way. They waited about a decade too long to strike, and it will get away from them.


Because social media shortened attention spans and loyalties. The world has become more mercurial. Remember how loyal people were to the Clintons after Trump's victory? Then came #MeToo and made them seem bitter and icky -- and Hillary is no longer a rallying cry, just a crybaby.

The wavelengths around the world have shifted and changed -- and you have old schoolers trying to wrest control with outdated sensibilities. The pendulum keeps swinging wildly with a world that is both perpetually self-entitled and offended, and that creates an unstable environment.

I would not be surprised if wars and skirmishes break out. It is already beginning to get ugly in Kosovo, for instance, and with a connected world, people become inspired faster than they ever did before. All it takes is One to bring chaos to the Infinite, and all order is lost.

Assange is being punished for kicking the hornet's nest. Facebook is being punished for unleashing an entire hornet's nest to sting whoever they desire. Both are being demonized with dread tales about their alliances and "sinister deeds". Unfortunately, those doing the smearing and accusing are doing a lot worse than both put together.

WikiLeaks, Facebook, and #MeToo are all threats to the old order, and so far, two thirds are under attack, meaning expect #MeToo to be under fire as well.

It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out, but that Assange is still standing for over five years is shocking...

The Warlords

Welcome to the All Boys Club. image

Once upon a time, the Warlords called newspaper owners ruled the roost with impunity.

And then came a new set of Warlords. First radio.


Then television that was the giant of the three whose narratives controlled the rules of engagement for decades. journalism-tv-studio

It defined what to think and how to think it.


Your childhood fantasies were controlled by them. How you saw justice, coolness, wisdom, beauty, and morality.

The career choices and the what you saw in a spouse were defined by the flickering screen that you had in your living room.

For decades, there were always battles, but battles within the medium.




And then the battleground began to stretch.




And then everything began to change when the Internet came roaring to life.

And the new Warlords destroyed the old guard.




Some were seen as friendly, but not all of them were.




The ones who owned the platform did far better than the ones who produced the content.

The new Warlords liberated the world, by smashing the gates the old ones built to control the message.

And the old warlords were seething, licking their wounds, hoping one of the new guard made a misstep to attack.


And it did, and the old broken warlords tried to grab their old power back.

Even some of the new warlords tried to take advantage of the smell of blood.

But there is a war going on.

One where the currency is propaganda that pedals in paranoia and fear.

And the spoils of war is not data, but control of the flow of information.

Data is cheap.

But controlling the gates is priceless...

Memo to Gizmodo: You know nothing, and spew whatever partisans tell you to spew; so stop using a narrative that suggests you know anything.

The Internet meltdown is just beginning. Journalism is feeling the rot of its own demise, but their slayers have been infected with the same virus they used to fell their old school rivals.

Power struggles for ideological control are never pleasant wars.

Julian Assange is the much maligned face of WikiLeaks, and I have said repeatedly, they are what journalism should and could have been if they weren't owned by sheltered relics.

Journalism faltered when it began to use market research and focus groups to get a feel for their public, and the Big Brother/Big Data equivalent of social media is also doing them in. For all the bluster of using AI and algorithms to "read" people's minds, there are huge holes with this narrative, and this will not be the forum where I address them.

But back to Assange.

Twitter played censor and temporarily deleted his account because Assange is very much a spoiler: people want to play make pretend and brag as they show off at cocktail parties how brilliant and successful they are, even if their lives are a train wreck -- and people such as Assange find the dirty laundry and air them.

He has ruined countless obnoxious narratives, particularly for Stepford candidate Hillary Clinton, an empty shell who tried to use bluster and a façade of fated queen to win a silly race.

All WikiLeaks did was air some dirty laundry.

She then instructed the faithful little people who are always looking for a sure thing and now were scared, that WikiLeaks was in a collusion with Russia, and the airheads parroted this as if this were fact.

There was a huge confirmation bias: WikiLeaks has also aired Russian dirty laundry. They are equal opportunity offenders.

But don't tell that to Gizmodo.


Their stenography of partisan propaganda was amusing, particularly this authoritative little jab:

For reasons unknown the official Twitter account of Julian Assange, the leader of disgraced transparency organization Wikileaks, has been deleted.

No, they were not disgraced: they were smeared by the Man and there is a huge difference. The Democrats, who were so lazy and arrogant that they honestly believed they could vote-shame an entire country to dance to their tune, got introduced to a dose of reality.

Once upon a time, if you were a thorn in the Establishment's side, you would get smeared with labels such as heathen and heretic -- or Commie. Then that trick no longer worked, and that brand was tainted -- so the Establishment put on a different mask, but played the same tune, just altering a few of the words, and changing the key.

But the actual tactics didn't change. If you do not march lockstep and refuse to accept an authority's decree by asking hard questions, you still get a villain's label.

Gizmodo is merely marching to a falling Establishment's orders.

Using the phrase "disgraced" makes too many unwarranted assumptions. It never questions whether the shaming label is accurate, or a war propaganda tactic. It states something with the cocky air of authority, but with no proof.

Assange has been an enemy to many Establishment types in an era where people think they are rebels, when they are actual dutiful followers. The entire "Resistance" movement is a sham -- resisting what? A democratic result that did not go your way?

You do realize there are more elections coming up, right?

And you have to get off your backside and vote for the candidate you want because following someone on Twitter or liking their Facebook page doesn't mean anything.

And for all those howling the loudest about "resisting" -- I bet the majority of those tantrum throwing brats never bothered to vote in November 2016.

Resist is a very good idea.

Resist your own laziness. That would be great for starters. Start resisting your arrogance, as well. Stupidly following someone's else narrative is a great thing to resist. Your lack of skepticism is also on the list of things you need to actively and enthusiastically  resist. Resist your compulsion to be manipulated by partisan propaganda. Resist littering your social media feeds with agitprop, and go look for independently verified primary sources, you lazy cowards.

Resist your own shortcomings first before you go resisting the result of an election.

This is the first resistance movement where the resisters have themselves as their own oppressors and enemies. Well played, children.

And Gizmodo should also resist their own horrid shortcomings before furthering someone else's self-serving smear-campaigns.

Who "gets" journalism in 2017?

Most journalists do not, but there are a few who still do. rubon32

This is journalism if journalism had a pair of ovaries to go deep into the heart of power and expose it.

The "Russia" angle is pure nonsense, but it is easy to tell Middle Class America anything. Read it in its entirety and no country is safe -- including Russia -- from their methods.

The Left are as much targets as the Right, and the reason they are under fire -- if you want acceptance, you have to pick a side.

I do not. I am not on some high school dodge ball team. I am a Radical Centrist -- someone who looks at the facts and knows there is no one ideology that keep always keep out corrupt and tyrannical elements. History has shown that regimes like to frighten and shake down the masses all in the name of looking after them, and the second the masses want some rights, magically a big bad enemy is out to get them and they need to swallow abuse from their old masters lest the new threat enslave them.

Not buying what you are selling, thank you. As I am fond of saying, I may have been born yesterday, but I stayed up all night.

WikiLeaks are radical centrists so far. They don't play favourites, and that is the reason they are viewed with suspicion, but their work is worthy.

Then there is Drudge.


I find this site utterly fascinating. Even as journalism is going up in flames, this site is still going strong. Every media outlet goes through more transformation changes than underwear changes, and yet the simple style of Drudge outclasses them all.

As a news editor, Drudge is without peer. He is the global news editor, and that he is still without competition proves how absolutely out of touch journalism is with their own business. You would think they could learn and co-opt, but Drudge knows their own stories better than they do. He gets traffic and has shaped public discourse by riding on the wavelengths of the zeitgeist and making sense of what it means.

The Guardian newspaper still produces journalism, notwithstanding trying to figure out Susan Sarandon. Ronan Farrow also seems to have a clue how to produce real journalism that makes damage to people who have a fortress of power. Whether he keeps it up remains to be seen, but he is a rarity these days.

And there is also The Intercept.


There is still logic in the product, and still important information coming through.

It is sadly, an all boys' club. We don't have female-led hard news vehicles. The #MeToo should have taken a completely different trajectory, and it would have had there been a matriarchal-based hard news outlet.

But in 2017, that's pretty much it.

It's not about the advertising model: it's about sophistry fatigue: Mashable and Buzzfeed's woes show the need for a new model of journalism.

Mashable and Buzzfeed are fast becoming yesterday's reads. The received funding from investors and thought they could buck a trend plaguing traditional media. No dice. mashable-logo

Because they have the same problems of the traditional press.

They are filled with sophistry, opinion, and filler. The facts are sprinkled here and there to maintain a façade of legitimacy.

The press has diluted the products so much, that they have lost their mandates, and most online news outfits (The Intercept being a noted exception as is WikiLeaks), roared on to the scene with a model that was all filler and sophistry because they were going to wow the crowds with attitude.

Attitude doesn't cut it. Attitude is cheap and it is usually a feint to disguise the fact that you're not all that. It is a form of misdirection, and no matter how sassy you are, your product speaks louder than your sass.

The advertising model is being blamed, but really, if the crowds were there, advertisers wouldn't even care. They would not turn up their nose at the rush. The Drudge Report could not be simpler, but its elegance in presentation ensures that people will come frequently to get a pulse of what's going down in the world. No one in the news world has managed to clue in to the its structure's significance.

So it is not about the finding model. It is about trying to stretch the tiny attention spans of audiences who are trained to point and click by the way tablets and smartphones have been set-up.

People come to a site, determine tl;dr, and then leave. No investment, and why not?

Because the Internet is all about fragmentation.

It is about reacting, not reflecting.

That is the problem that has to be addressed just as news producers have to relearn how to understand their atom of their existence: the fact.

They have to understand reality and truth, and Buzzfeed and Mashable never got any of it.

The model of journalism needs to change. The new media and the old are both equally clueless that their structure is flawed and unworkable.

Figure out the news part, and everything else begins to fall into place.