Trojan Horse Alert: NewsGuard is old school journalists trying to fool the public by doing the same thing, only under a different label.

Steven Brill once had a very mediocre magazine about journalism called Brill's Content. It was a bust and folded. Now he is trying again, this time with a self-styled alleged "fake news hotline" called NewsGuard.

NewsGuard_Logo-2

It is nothing but a Trojan horse of a dead profession trying to regain power by means of a feint.

tgabeiwwth-e1524422184814.jpeg

Nice try.

The description of this self-appointed police state of news is a real knee-slapper:

NewsGuard, a new service that uses trained journalists to rate thousands of news and information sites, will announce that it has launched a secure, encrypted digital and telephone hotline for political candidates and members of the public to report suspected fake news sites.

"Trained" journalists? You mean the very people who destroyed their own profession and all corrupted themselves out of jobs? Those people? What? They couldn't get a job in a PR firm; so now they are going to tell the little people what to believe? Really?

You are the people who alienated millions of people with your narrative, propaganda, and personal vendettas -- we don't need you telling people what to think.

But the lunacy only goes downhill from there:

A "SWAT team of NewsGuard analysts will operate 24/7 to identify suddenly trending news sites that NewsGuard has not yet rated and assure — or warn — internet users about them in real time."

A SWAT team? Just how deluded and tyrannical are you? What are you? Some sort of whacko militia going to force people into believing you?

Who put you deluded meddlers in charge? No one.

And ratings? Based on what empirical criteria? Oh, I see, just partisan ones.

This is as deceptive as an organization can get: the reason there was a proliferation of fake news was that legacy news was so shoddy that no one could tell the difference.

And I have proof.

dbi

And more coming this summer:

jhp59ccaa956d599-2

These are the same people who polluted the information stream -- and now they want to continue meddling and social engineering by telling you what to believe. I do not care what side of that linear divide you are -- you have a right to have those beliefs. Campaign ads should be ignored -- and the best course of action is to directly visit each candidate and ask them point blank what will they do when they are elected -- and see where they stand on what you need the most.

This is just trying to get a foot in the backdoor.

Notice the violent and divisive subtext of this entire farce: they present themselves as "experts", and then set up a snitch line -- dividing people with spin, rather than merely informing with facts.

It is a Trojan horse, nothing more, and it won't work -- social media has given people the freedom to believe or not believe without anyone playing Big Brother -- or "SWAT".

Really, children? Just keep your Orwellian creepiness to yourselves...

The inherent violence of journalism: It was always about war. It is time to create the communications of peace.

The Monkees had it right with the song Zor and Zam. [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13sR8SlyOXs?rel=0]

It is an astute song of two little kings who decide to declare war on each other; except no one shows up to fight.

Because the only people who benefit from war are those who call it.

The song could very well be the anthem for the radical centrist -- and political atheist.

The one who doesn't pick sides because it is a rig and a ruse with the same end result of dragging you into a battle where you lose your free will and then are discarded.

Politics is a form of war, but so, too is journalism.

It has always thrived in wars, even if the coverage is pure propaganda.

Especially if the coverage is pure propaganda.

Journalists love a patriarchal narrative the breeds wars: good guy up against the faceless enemy who has no redeeming qualities, and victory is the complete submission and subjugation of the villain.

Look how journalists are going after Facebook and Russia -- would you think either had a single positive trait if you went by the news stories?

Or that journalists ever did anything wrong?

We are now seeing the most extremist coverage in journalism in the history of its existence. I study propaganda and have since I was an undergraduate psych student, and I have read hundreds of journalistic war stories over the decades.

And nothing compares to the extremist narrative journalists are churning out every single day.

The question is why.

Simple: because journalists know their fortunes tend to rise when the use that patriarchal and antagonistic coverage that sparks wars, suppresses common sense, and incites people to cheer the destruction of complete strangers who never did any harm to anyone.

But a very weird thing has been happening: the war cries aren't doing it.

Their secret deadly weapon suddenly isn't doing its trick. At all.

Which presents a very interesting shift in the world that hints at some sort of evolutionary upgrade: that old method is now out of tune with us, making journalism obsolete.

But it doesn't make information obsolete.

The problem is we now have a void where we need some other structure and form to get informed.

And journalism isn't it anymore.

Because journalism itself is inherently violent. It discriminates, demonizes, manipulates, and forces rigged choices and outcomes.

Like Zor and Zam, their influence is gone and their spell is broken.

Because it is time for a communications based in peace, not war.

One where war is exposed as are all of its tricks so that we all can benefit from the bounty that comes from the tranquil chaos of peace instead, of being at the mercy of the greedy who thrive in secret order of war...

 

The new beggars: How journalists try to exploit their own incompetence.

If you look at many journalism sites and their various barnacles known as "organizations", you will see a lot of begging for money. A lot.

Not just obnoxiously begging for money, but a manipulative little sob story how giving your money is absolutely essential for democracy to survive.

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 8.06.40 PM

And if it isn't begging for donations, it is a demand and threat to subscribe.

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 8.11.35 PM

This is a gambit: if they cannot get funding through advertising and people wanting to subscribe, then instead of making the necessary changes, passively take out your tin can and howl for cash.

And despite the circulation and viewership declines, the profession thinks a non-profit model will save them.

The New York Times certainly thinks so, making it a habit of musing about it here about the Guardian, openly cheerleading it here, and now doing free advertising for Report for America here.

These methods aren't working because the same corrupt elements are at play. The non-profit is a retreat strategy: they want to do the same thing, but trying to spin the optics to make it seem they are some sort of noble civil servants, and not broke and inept blowhards who still do not see what they have done to the profession.

It is obvious that this is a ruse to exploit their own incompetence into something noble, but to a dead profession, they will play any trick to pretend an archaic system to information corruption can be brought back to life...

In an Age of Propaganda, everyone is a fascist.

Yes, you are a fascist. 1fbpbl

And you, too.

fascism-politics-congress-obama-president-fascist-marxist-ta-demotivational-poster-12395171321

The Age of Propaganda created a political sphere of a dysfunctional married couple whose fights are reduced to victory being who gets the last f-you.

There is no progression. There is no resolution, let alone negotiation. Both sides intellectually and emotionally degrade at the exact same rate as the other.

Because an Age of Propaganda masks the fear and the frustration.

And both come from the lack of facts and knowledge.

That is the precise moment when you realize journalism has actually collapsed.

This is an age where supposedly "influential media" types drool over the lawyer of a porn drudge.

There is no more influence because everyone is deemed to be a fascist.

And you cannot morally get through to a fascist.

It becomes a wall that is built by both sides of a linear divide willingly.

And it is not impressive to denigrate a term.

We have people labelling others a fascist who have no idea what the term actually means.

They have no idea that real fascists had concentration camps for children.

It becomes a childish game of silly conspiracy theories and petty pseudo-righteousness.

And none of it is rational because rationality is seen as a horrible quality.

When we become primed to believe propaganda over logic, we can no longer tell a lie from a truth.

That is journalism's greatest failure and shame: that they never studied the mechanisms of propaganda to prevent it into creeping into their product.

Instead, they chose to air propaganda instead of facts.

And lost their sense of reality.

It is the reason an alternative is needed: to restore sensibility and kindness as well as tolerance and intelligence.

Because when everyone is deemed a fascist, there can be no trust or sense of perspective.

There are real fascists who are ignored so we can traumatize and demonize people who have different life requirements than we do.

Ideological bigotry is the hallmark of propaganda.

And we are there right now, and it is time to challenge it without stooping to its methods to open up new paths that actually take us to productive and meaningful places...

Ideological Cleansing in an Age of Propaganda

During the Civil War in the former Yugoslavia, there was a PR-spawned and media-happy buzzword used to describe the fighting: ethnic cleansing. The term was meant to show that the region had become intolerant of other ethnicities: an area that had mixed groups would were rushing to "purify" the region. We don't use the term anymore despite other international conflicts. It never actually caught on: once the optics front was won, the term faded from our lexicon.

Except the concept itself is alive and well, and thriving on various communications platforms, from legacy media to social media.

There is no tolerance. There is no diversity. There isn't even plurality.

It is Us versus Them.

With no notion of in-between whatsoever.

It is an ideological war going on, and one with the mental maturity of a spoiled and indulged two year-old in soggy underpants. Suddenly, there is no skepticism, looking at evidence, rationality, or case-by-case examination of the facts. It pure, seething, and manipulative propaganda from both the Left and the Right, nullifying both schools of thought in the bargain.

On the one side of this little game, are men such as Tony Robbins who has decided #MeToo is a bad thing, and everyone who has claimed to have experienced workplace terrorism is doing it for self-serving reasons. There is no looking at facts. He issues an opinion as if it were divine decree, and that's that.

Anyone who disagrees must be removed from our space because they are defective -- and less than human. Hence, ideological cleansing seems like a moral and rational choice. Of course, it is irrational cowardice: we fear our beliefs will crumble; and so, we build fortresses so that we do not have to perceive the reality and truth of our weaknesses. If we do not face it, then perhaps it does not exist.

The irrationality doesn't stop there. The Atlantic decides Donald Trump -- the man who beat journalists and won the White House -- is still too stupid to have his own ideas; so naturally it is not his experience with institutions that makes him skeptical of them -- he is just a hapless and passive conduit of the 1970s.

But the New York Times opines that it is a good thing that the Denver Post is skeptical of the institution that owns them, and there is not a chance those editorial writers are a mere vessel of the decade they grew up in.

Hedge funds are bad when they own decaying newspapers and have to deal with plunging readerships and advertising revenue, but hedge fund owner Madeline Albright is just fine when she writes an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, openly plotting to "stop Trump before it's too late" -- that's up to the citizens of the US to do at the ballot when the next election comes.

Ms Albright, you may have gotten away with those barbaric games with the Serbs, but your disgusting notions of ideological cleansing are off-putting to say the least.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FaPuBUY558?rel=0]

But in an Age of Propaganda, people behave like robber barons: greed it good, and we must buy up as much ideological property as we can to dominate the marketplace of ideas. Monopoly of thought seems like a foolproof plan: if no one objects, then truth and reality of our ideological flaws cannot possibly exist.

Except, of course, they do exist. You cannot cleanse away truth or reality. It is the reason empiricism is essential as is the never-ending search for facts: there is always a flaw that must be discovered and dealt with. Our theories must always be tested as the world changes and expands. Not everyone's life requirements are alike, and no, one ideology does not fit all.

Journalism was supposed to prevent propaganda from overtaking publicity discourse, but then it became infected and spread the disease, corrupting ideological and political debate to the point it has become useless.

There can be no right answer when the goal is ideological cleansing. It nullifies every argument on either side of the linear divide.

It is the reason why an alternative to journalism is needed: in a world filled with fanaticism, political atheism brings common sense back into visible reality, tearing down narrative, and exposing facts, no matter how upsetting those facts happen to be.

People with billions of dollars to their name are now openly clamouring for a civil war during prosperous peace times. This is no longer moral or rational thought. It is fascism.

And there is no hack or solution from either side of the line in the sand. A map is needed, but one the ignores the narratives and finds the facts to chart a productive route to better -- and more emotionally stable places...

Memo to iPolitics: Why aren’t we more freaked out about the Russians? Because we're not stupid.

The Cold War should be over by now, yet the press always loved a bogeyman to justify their paranoia. iPolitics is openly wondering why the propaganda campaign is a bust. Well, here's the thing: the whole Trump-Russia-Facebook angle is just a narrative used by the deluded journalists into explaining away why their profession collapsed. They do not want to look at their dismal numbers or their self-serving methods as the culprits.

Second, people in power always meddle in everyone else's affairs; so they can ignore their own incompetency. London can rage about Russia and ignore their Brexit woes and that their murder rate eclipses New York City. People aren't stupid: they know the ramifications of Brexit. They know they aren't safe to walk home from work or school -- and they are getting tired of the misdirection.

If journalism was credible, they would find facts, not narratives or scary monsters. It gets tiresome, but the perpetual denial is hiding the real horrors with scary ghost stories that in the end, mean nothing...

Going after Facebook: Advertisers and Media Outlets knew about Facebook's methods -- why do you think they used that platform to shill their own products?

If No News, Send Rumors (1991) by Stephen Bates is probably one of the greatest books about journalism ever written, and I highly recommend reading it if you want to understand why journalism collapsed. 51QFkIwI83L._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_

I have both the hardcover and paperback versions of it, and have recommended this book for years.

It doesn't provide the thesis that journalism had troubles. What it does is very simple: it chronicles the world of journalism across the decades, including ethics. These are well-research vignettes, and I consider it essential reading.

It showed the profound lack of morals in the profession: how one journalist planted evidence to make an innocent woman look guilty of murder (spoiler alert: it worked so well that she was sentenced to death; though she wasn't executed). It showed how reporters pushed for wars over the decades, essentially advocating death.

So when I read the continued propaganda campaign against Facebook from both The Guardian, but especially BuzzFeed, I am reminded just how hilarious the fear-mongering has become.

Facebook was always about algorithms and giving advertisers tailor-made campaigns and readers to them. That was the attraction of Facebook in the first place. These advertisers pulling out now is a real knee-slapper -- as if they didn't know or take advantage of it. They would have to know it, and tweak their campaigns to take advantage of it.

Of course they knew and traditional media did not keep up, and lost out.

I knew it, too. I never assumed the Internet was private, or that advertisers wouldn't salivate at the idea. That's rubbish.

Live Out Loud was the acknowledgement that privacy was less important than self-expression. People knew the risks, they just didn't care.

So why the shift in narrative?

For journalists, they are trying to reclaim ground they lost based on their own methods. They never kept up, and paid the price.

Will it work?

No.

It will not encourage people to go back to legacy media. After all, media outlets also used Facebook to get specialized audiences to migrate to their own platforms. So they took advantage of the same technology and morals to try to benefit from it.

I do foresee another medium coming in, however. It is inevitable. The Internet was transformative, but it is also transitory: it is the in-between transition merging the previous three media into one -- that there will be another that takes the best of all four is a given.

The world spins. It is not static, and why journalists can never see the obvious is the reason they fell behind and disconnected from the very audiences they are now manipulating for their own benefit...

Memo to Los Angeles Review of Books: Journalism couldn't be saved. It was done a long time ago. What destroyed journalism is what is destroying social media as we speak.

Western thought is one that is in perpetual state of denial. No problem should be taken seriously because magically It Will All Work Out In The End. The mysterious benevolent organization known as They will save us from the mysterious villains knowns as Them. The Los Angeles Review of Books has an illiterate article Can Journalism Be Saved?

Oh, you have to be kidding me.

Journalism is dead.

You have newspapers, but they do not churn out news, but propaganda. The sophistry, opinion, and cheerleading discredited them a long time ago.

Facebook is in the crosshairs because tis architects thought that just because they had a spiffier vehicle, they could drive to the same abyss their predecessors did and not feel any consequences.

And now journalism has been trying to explain away their death in a way that reassures them it will work out to their favour.

Trump could not have won because people ignored legacy media -- it had to be a trick! Russia! Facebook! Somebody else!

No, people voted for Trump because they were Republicans, put-off by Hillary Clinton, and/or genuinely liked Donald Trump. He has been in the public eye for decades.

The over-thinking is absurd: people do not actually inform themselves when they cast their ballot: they go by gut, and usually vote people out rather than vote people in.

In the US, a president usually gets two terms, and then the switch to the other party. Voters also usually give a president a pass by voting in the same party in both Houses.

Then people get impatient, and then the ruling party lose their majority in both houses, but the president gets a second term.

And then cycle begins.

There are very few deviations, meaning any "mind-reading" campaign that gives you the same result as all the other elections means it was all for nothing.

And that's what journalism has always failed to grasp. They were never leaders. They followed trends, meaning they reflect rather than shape.

Their image of power is largely a delusion. They bought their own hype, and Trump called their bluff, and they learned something I have known long ago: journalism is a mirage.

As is social media. People flocked to it because it was new and made promises it couldn't keep, and when those promises failed to materialized, people turned on it.

Journalism -- and Facebook -- survived on public goodwill alone, but when they tried to exert that illusionary power, they lost that goodwill. It was never the facts because journalism never actually provided them; it was the promise of seeming informed and smart -- and having the acceptable opinion -- that was the real draw.

Journalism didn't live up to their promise and collapsed. Facebook is doing the same.

That is the reason journalism couldn't be saved: it discredited itself, and then people moved away. People will flock to something new -- and it's not going to be journalism. Their ship sailed a long time ago...

Deconstructing Propaganda, Part Three: Rigging structures to nullify content. You think you think differently than your ideological opponent? Think again.

When you are a radical centrist, you become one because you become aware that content of thought is only part of the message. When I began A Dangerous Woman Story Studio, I did so because the Patriarchal structure of all Western stories bored me. It is manipulative and full of itself. Every Jesus needs a Judas. Every Devil needs a God.

What is in the middle are those people to shepherd on one side of the line or the other.

This structure confines your choices; so I came up with a Matriarchal structure because in the Patriarchal, there is no room for women to grow in their own natural ways.

I was keenly aware of story structures because as a journalist, I often butted heads with editors who wanted to impose a narrative where one didn't fit. When I wrote my first fiction novel, many stories used an epistolary style where there was no narrative. It was bits and pieces readers had to pull the story from on their own, the same way I got raw facts as a reporter and then had to put the puzzle pieces together myself.

But I clearly saw the rigs. They were the silent propaganda that would override the content of the story. The Patriarchal decreed the hero and villain, but the Matriarchal made readers have to find facts to see a more realistic picture.

Journalists always use the Patriarchal to shade a story. It is also The standard form for Western fiction.

Why does it matter?

Because structure constricts outcomes and guides content. It is a rig.

So you can preach peace, tolerance, and freedom all you want in your content, if you use an authoritative structure to deliver that message, the content turns into bait to sucker people seeking freedom to walk into the confines of cages.

If you talk about morality, innovation, or even experimentation but use the same manipulative, static, and rote structure, you bring insincerity into your message, making you no different than your ideological opponent.

Worse, at least those who want a status quo and authoratative measures have sincerity you lack as their content is in sync with the structure.

So you have opposite sides of the same trick coin. Left or Right, your content is a mere façade.

You say volumes with structure, more so than content.

Patriarchal is the propagandists' choice of delivery. It constricts debate, sounds intellectually superior and authoratative without proof. It makes decrees. It treats those whose life requirements need a different approach with contempt and disrespect, and expects people to just give up their hopes, dreams, free will, and beliefs to settle for a life that is beneath them.

Journalism failed. It never broke away from the propagandistic structure because it seemed to like the power it once wielded. That was their greatest sin, and the reason a new method is needed to ensure tyrants never grab control from the Infinite and then confine them into the cage known as The One...

Deconstructing Propaganda, Part One: There is They. There is Them. They are very different, but neither One exists. There is only Us in the Infinite.

Propaganda works because it offers two seemingly desirable things: (a) someone to blame for all of your screw-ups, and (b) someone to clean up your messes and save you from yourself. It works because it uses intellectual sleight of hand, and does it effectively, but when you think about it, even though its results end up bloodshed and destruction, how it tricks people is very funny.

How so?

Propaganda thrives in Us versus Them. Us is good. Them is bad.

It sounds simple.

But Them and They are not the same groups in propaganda.

Them we blame, but They will save us.

They should do something about it. They ought to make a law. 

So while we see Them as the enemy, They are a benevolent and hyper competent and efficient organization whose sole purpose is to fix everything so that we do not have to do it ourselves.

We have no responsibilities. We are without blame or fault.

We see this faulty and self-serving theory all the time in the news. We can look at US students protesting for gun control. They should take gun away from Them.

Notice that there is no Us in this equation. Us aren't shooting guns. Us are not the ones to do the heavy lifting to make things safer.

In this case, it is a Divine Us: it's everyone else's fault and everyone else's responsibility.

There is no why are we killing each other? It's Them. They are the killers. There is no what can we do to reduce violence?

We used to ask about the Us and even the We. It doesn't happen. We have lots of Me's out there, as in #MeToo. It is not Us, however. It is not We. That implies no solidarity.

It is all about the Me. That is the reason #MeToo never had a face or an official spokesperson. It is a selfie-spawned movement. Leave the face blank and insert-your-own-face-here.

Just like Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year.

220px-Time_youcover01

But there are plenty of Them. Harvey Weinstein was the first one of Them. Kevin Spacey was one of Them. We had many lesser-known Them's.

But no Us. Just MeToo.

Why is this happening?

Because it is the Age of Propaganda.

People are divided by every imaginable factor, from race, gender, and political affiliation.

And while every one of these splinter groups have different Them's to blame, fear, and hate, strangely enough, these same groups have the identical They that is expected to change everything to the in-group's vision of Utopia.

Propaganda seemingly thrives in the Manichean universe of binary groups. Us. Them. Propaganda works precisely because it forces all of our attention away from Us, and strictly on Them.

But there is also They. They will change things based on our demands so it is absolutely what We demand, and we vanish as we no longer have the power to improve or solve, but must be dependent on They to do it for us.

Yet They and Them have lots in common. For starters, They are all walking lockstep to the demands of Us. Them are also all alike and all out to get Us. Even though They and Them imply plurality, both are seen as One.

A patriarchal narrative.

Which means They and Them do not actually exist. There is no They to clean up your messes. There is no Them out to get everyone.

There is only Us.

And We are Infinite.

We are the architects of our society. We live in society, not outside of it, even if We believe We are a fringe group.

The allure of They and Them is a mirage -- a defence mechanism we have so that we do not have to admit any wrongdoing, as we can expect someone else to correct things for us.

And that is a childish and unrealistic assumption.

You want change? You have to stop thinking in terms of They and Them.

And understand it is about Us.

We are Infinite, but we are sharing the same planet.

Every one of us needs to carry our own weight to ensure we are not at risk of getting overburdened by those who mistake us for They, and then pile their demands and dictates onto us.

When we think in those terms, we do not create artificial linear divides.

But most importantly of all, we regain control of our lives, learn from our mistakes as we change and improve -- and we do not fall for propaganda that pretends it is all about Them, when it is a question of Us turning on each other for some nonexistent gain...

 

Memo to the CBC: Journalism prompts no closer look at anything. If it did, it would be questioning the very propaganda it is now so gleefully pushing.

CBC has a very deceptive piece here about BuzzFeed UK's yarns about the fate of dead Russians in the UK. It is worth tearing apart not just because journalists are arrogant sots, but because the piece tries to spin a narrative that doesn't align with reality. Let's go back to the very flawed "dossier" BuzzFeed published. They got themselves in trouble in more ways than one -- and then ran to a former senior FBI official to try to verify that dossier because they were not capable to do any actual fact-checking themselves. The dossier itself was written by Christopher David Steele, a former MI6 agent. That it came from the UK and not the US matters for reasons I will explain below.

The provenance of the original dossier should be a red flag that BuzzFeed has caught the eye of people in the optic manipulation business. BuzzFeed is not like Jane's Intelligence Review. It is not a publication that can handle any sort of "deep" investigative journalism. It can be a proxy for special interests, but it cannot be taken as real investigative journalism.

Because BuzzFeed's stories leave a lot to be desired. There are a lot of questions, such as why would Russia bother killing ex-pats whose best before dates expired years ago, or who had something to gain by making it look like there is a Big Bad enemy to fear. The smell test for the narrative fails. When we focus on fearing an enemy, we do not focus on scrutinizing those who either pretend to be our allies, or are neutral and hiding in plain sight.

But these kinds of games are nothing new. Magicians make a living of using misdirection to get attention away from the obvious and towards lies. In fact, one stage magician, John Mulholland, wrote the CIA's manual on trickery and deception decades ago, but was finally declassified and is freely available for a long while now.

But CBC refuses to question the narratives proffered by BuzzFeed -- or how accurate their stories actually are.

But then again, CBC is the same network that had one of its foreign correspondents in a war zone in the middle of the night, pretending to quiet her camera crew so they wouldn't be detected, but then had glaring lights all around them as if soldiers had super-hearing, but were utterly blind. Yeah, you weren't in any real danger, were you, kids? Nice try.

What the CBC piece does prove, beyond a doubt, is that journalism is still seen as a place to pollute the information stream to frighten middle class people into giving up their rights in the name of freedom. The problem is that it really isn't working.

Another problem is that journalism isn't actually what it pretends to be. Finding sources and stories takes effort, but journalists go to (a) authorities in government, and (b) public relations firms to get information. Whenever they try to go one step more, they always have to walk back because the story turned out to be false (you can read Don't Believe It!, the upcoming When Journalism was a Thing, or earlier entries on this web site if you want proof from me).

Social media became a real threat to those who wish to quash free speech and democracy; and so, an online publication is an ideal place for a vested interest to spin a yarn -- particularly one whose base is not the United States -- not because the UK is some horrid place, but because the US has an inconvenient measure in place that the UK does not.

Because BuzzFeed's narrative is pure war propaganda, I find it very interesting that these stories are originating from Britain, a nation that has no equivalent to FARA in the US.

If you do not know what FARA is, then shame on you. I mean it. Shame on you. Whenever a foreign agent or country wishes to seek the services of an American law firm, lobbyist, or public relations firm, those firms have to register with the US government. This has been law since 1938. So really, shame on you for not knowing that.

Why it is shameful not to know is simple: whenever a group of foreigners are suddenly seen as "good folks" or "bad guys" in the press, that means that a foreign agent has paid a PR firm to make their people look good while making their rivals or targets look bad, and reporters, being the lazy and deceptive slackers that they are, cribbed the press release. That means that there is a paper trail in the US...but not in other countries. UK has unbelievably effective public relations firms -- and they do not have to let anyone know who is footing their bills. If you are particularly dense, the year 1938 should give you a clue why FARA was created in the first place -- because it was about preventing Nazis from infecting the US information stream.

The UK government is now openly talking about meddling in journalism -- and a government that is already in a weakened position thanks to their own election bungling, they are not exactly disinterested parties. May's government will find ways to make it seem indispensable anyway it knows how. There is nothing impressive with BuzzFeed because they are giving a floundering government the perfect narrative to deflect attention away from their own troubles as they try to make themselves look strong.

Contrary to the spin that it was "highly likely" that the Russian regime ordered hits (notice there is never any definitive proof) -- using a method that would be immediately associated with them -- and then pretending these deaths were not hits -- sounds like a theory Inspector Lestrade would offer to Sherlock Holmes -- or Sheriff Amos Tupper would offer to Jessica Fletcher. The underlying logic is more aligned with what an uninitiated and sheltered middle class Westerner would think Soviets would do than be what an actual Soviet would do because the mindsets are nothing alike. Either the Soviets are cunning strategists -- or bumbling buffoons. They cannot be both at the same time, and this working theory reeks of someone who is both culturally illiterate and has a severe bigoted view of Orthodox Christians.

If you are going to malign an entire group of people with a paranoid conspiracy theory, have the good sense to at least look up a few things on Wikipedia to get your story semi-straight.

The loopy and fear-mongering narrative makes little sense: those Soviet ex-pat spies have already spilled everything they knew to their new hosts long ago. Their use or threat would be extremely limited given they have been out of the loop for as long as they have been. So the propaganda here makes little sense.

Do nations meddle in the affairs of other nations? Of course they do, but that is the unfortunate byproduct of allowing bored control freaks to be leaders of nations. Americans have been meddling in the elections of foreign countries for decades, and they get indignant and huffy if you point out the obvious to them.

And through all of these ghost stories to frighten the gullible middle class, this yarn does suffer from a huge confirmation bias: that if the Soviets -- who aren't all that powerful globally -- would be doing such things, then which other more powerful countries are doing it, too?

For instance, I have noticed quite a few high-level hackers have wound up dead lately. Why aren't we questioning those very, very coincidental deaths?

Because they would reveal that those who point fingers at others have three fingers pointing straight back at them.

Contrary to the article's assertion that journalism "prompted a closer look" at 14 deaths -- journalists were fed information from a source with vested interests to spin a certain narrative a certain way, allowing various institutions to use it as an excuse to push their own narrative that they are needed to Save Humanity from the Bad Guys.

It was done in precisely the same way during the first Gulf War when the PR firm Hill and Knowlton was hired to bring public support to Kuwait. Their secret weapon was a teenaged girl -- but you had a couple of reporters back then, who had thinking caps -- and they found out the story of Iraqi soldiers killing Kuwaiti newborns was a lie.

The structures of both stories played identically; however, the mandatory FARA filings gave savvier people a lead that perhaps the story was a fraud. Unfortunately, the stunt did its trick and the war was already over.

And make no mistake, the purpose of this propaganda dread tale is to prime people to support a war they should absolutely avoid at all costs, but this time, someone was smart enough to use an Internet era to avoid having to file with FARA and do it in an English-speaking country that has superior PR without the pesky foreign agent registration act. They still reach a global audience, but through the backdoor.

Far from journalism prompting a "closer look", what it is trying to do is resurrect itself at the cost of human lives. It is a psychopathic and desperate gambit, that blinds with fear, not see with rational calm and critical thinking. We have gone through this scheme before over the decades, but this time, with journalism being a dead profession. It is not doing what it is supposed to do. BuzzFeed may be a digital-only outlet, but its fortunes have tumbled, and its reach is not sparking what it is supposed to be sparking. It would be something that someone who doesn't actually understand this whole Internet thing would assume is some hip place where all the Young People surf, and leak it to them.

It will be interesting to see what the next move will be when it didn't do what traditional outlets could have done even 20 years ago.

The former Yugoslavia this is not, when people bought whatever CNN told them to believe.

And it reminds me of all those Dateline/48 Hours/ 20/20 stories about how the police go after innocent people because they form a theory, and then just look at who they believe is guilty without asking hard questions or creating alternative theories you need to confirm or refute.  BuzzFeed didn't do that, and that calls into question their methods, motives, but most importantly of all, their sources.

That is not journalism. It is partisan propaganda, and we are living in an age of propaganda.

When news stories pick bogeymen, it is usually a preface to a needless war. It never fails.

If we had genuine journalism, the real impetus for the resurrected Red Scare would have been exposed, the same way the real impetus for the first Gulf War was exposed, albeit a little too late.

But we don't. We have stenographers whose partisan pseudo-journalistic outlets spew propaganda to dwindling audiences. The theatre of patriarchal narrative is the same, but the seats are still empty.

Because while this may be an Age of Propaganda, but also an age out Outrage Passivity and slacktivism where people think marching in the streets and ranting on Twitter will make all the problems go away. When people ignore it and stand their ground, nothing actually changes.

So the CBC is doing what the rest of journalism is trying to do -- use hyperbole to pretend that journalism still matters. It doesn't, kids. It cannot compete with selfies or memes.

You know, something like this...

6ed97f37ee71de2c11d27b43750c0f38

Meta-Propaganda: How the word Weaponize is actual propaganda itself. Learning the tricks of grifters in an Internet Age.

An interesting word is now cropping up that reminds me of the dynamics of the grifter's game of Find the Lady. 62596103e4b1b7fa423cb7095705719c

And that weasel word is Weaponize.

It is referring to propaganda and "fake news", but the word weaponize, is a form of meta-propaganda.

That is, someone who is seemingly pointing out an enemy's propaganda so that you do not notice they are playing the same con on you.

It is double-speak, of course, and is a very deceptive tactic used to frighten people, and then offer them a solution.

Cults do this: they scare people, warning them about a group of people, and then the solution is to submit to the cult, allow them to dictate your thoughts as they confine your actions -- all while ensuring that you do not believe anyone who speaks against the cult because they are not to be trusted.

Perhaps that other side isn't trustworthy, but that doesn't make the cult trustworthy by default.

If you have ever been in the middle of grifter's card game, such as Find the Peanut or Find the Lady, you may know that there will usually be a confederate who warns you that the game is rigged.

You are supposed to trust this person because, in fact, they are telling you a truth.

But then they will offer to "team up" with you to have your back so that you two can beat the game.

He is a confederate of the dealer, and will make certain you lose as well. You have a false sense of feeling as if you are smarter than the dealer, and have someone you think you recruited to have your back.

And you don't.

The confederate is telling you the Internet is becoming "weaponized". You think you are being given a head's up, but it isn't that way at all. You are supposed to go along with the false protector -- and usually will be shaking you down for donations to keep his website up and running for his Very Important Work for Truth and Democracy.

And don't listen to any alternative points of view because those are Weapons.

Just like those Weapons of Mass Destruction that dragged a lot of people into a needless war all those years ago.

It is a scam -- but also a meta-scam.

It is a fight to reclaim a patriarchal narrative of a single right person who is The One.

It is rubbish, of course. It is feint in itself.

Now that we have people realize that the Internet can allow all sorts of points of view to be viewed to everyone, it is scaring a lot of people who are control freaks, and just want their point of view to be taken as the gospel truth.

It is the reason we need facts. We need to be exposed to all sorts of perspectives, even the ones that we do not like. Life is not about being comfortable.

It is about facing reality, and dealing with it.

Not everyone will applaud your stupidity. Not everyone will accept your untested life theories.

And they shouldn't. Their life requirements are not the same as yours.

The term weaponize is just a sneaky way of trying to shame and frighten people into believing a single perspective.

There are lies out there and plenty of them. There is misinformation and propaganda.

But we always had it. Propaganda has always been with us.

And it only works if we blindly follow a patriarchal script that is polluted with logical fallacies.

Look for facts, and there is no weapon to worry about. Seek truth in reality, and you have nothing to fear.

Bravery finds answers, but fear never does.

You do not resist. You do not accept. You look for facts, and then start to think.

Not fall for meta-propaganda as you think you found the life hack that will save you from the monsters in your own head.

I do not care for Marine Le Pen's politics. I do care that the French government's manipulative charges for her disseminating reality are being used to distort reality -- and that journalists see nothing wrong with it.

The Washington Post is a useless publication, and this article shows their banality of evil with this headline alone:

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen charged for tweeting gruesome ISIS images

We have people who commit murder who do not get charged, but the French government criminally charges someone for showing evidence of murder? The charges are disturbing, but those on the Left will justify it, never thinking that tides shift, and that it is inevitable that they will also be charged for showing evidence of abuse, torture, and murder, and they will be cast as villains for it.

Do I agree with Le Pen's views? No, but I do believe in forcing people to see both reality and truth unfiltered. I do not believe in sheltering people so they believe their untested life theories are correct. That's how industries and societies implode.

Le Pen, regardless of her beliefs, had every right to show what murderers do. I believe those vile and sickening images are necessary for the sheltered middle class to see. You have to have people see the ugly side of life because you have industries such as Hollywood that are immoral enough to glamourize and glorify some very sick things.

Quentin Tarantino is making a movie about human trash Charlie Manson with all sort of aging A-list white men attached to it.

And for all the arguments that Le Pen is exploiting death, remember, so is Tarantino.

If we, for instance, revealed how brutal Manson's machinations truly were, you wouldn't have the Tarantinos of the world be able to co-opt that story and then spin that gore into something entertaining. Sharon Tate was pregnant when she was slaughtered. Everyone that night was terrorized and slaughtered. Manson was a cult leader, woman abuser, and a manipulator so adroit, that decades later, he could manipulate female professors who studied him, knowing who he was (as I had discovered firsthand when I was working on a story for Elle Canada about the phenomenon of women who broke the law to please a boyfriend).

You can never find solutions unless you deal with truth and reality.

Le Pen is an extremist, but the images she showed were truth and reality that showed that there is a real element of hate out there that thinks nothing of slaughtering people. One extreme is reacting to another. I find it very interesting that the French government does what governments have been doing for hundreds of years: when you have two conflicting sides, you whack the one led by a woman.

To charge her for showing evidence of barbarity is the greater act of barbarity. They just proved her point for her by doing so. The French government merely showed itself to condone violence by punishing those who expose it.

Under no circumstances can one use the excuse of morality to charge someone for showing genuine images of an atrocity. As someone whose own family were annihilated by fascists in the Second World War, I believe you have to show just how sick those sorts of being can be.

Over the years, I have seen videos of extremist's torture and murder of soldiers, hostages, and civilians in war and in concentration camps. The perpetrators were not always Muslim, but sometimes they were. Some of those sadists were Christians, such as Catholics. As someone who studies propaganda, I have seen highly disturbing images to understand a point in time as it is. I may not be able to sleep for nights after, but it also ensures that I am not deluded when I confront problems of psychological manipulation.

The French government's own extremist actions are being spun as being patriarchal: Daddy Government has to protect those little children known as the middle class. It's not, of course: it is meant to hide reality from them so when it comes time to make decisions at the ballot, those who are the least informed vote for them, thinking that they know something.

The infantilization of the middle class is deliberate. It is a form of propaganda itself. If we are not exposed to reality, then we do not know how bad it is, and a government can impose any narrative it wishes. That is a social group that holds no true position of power, has no expertise, and their knowledge of complex concepts is shallow at best. They are educated just enough for competency in the workplace, but not enough to be able to understand the jargon and nuances of anything that can make a true impact of industry or governance.

It is not as if those people couldn't understand it. Their minds are not inferior by any stretch, and there are many that would be superior to those running the show. But when information is skewed and censored, their lack of experience and exposure prevents them from seeing how dire a situation truly is.

Shielding Western citizens from the mindset of ISIL has nothing to do with combatting Islamophobia. In fact, the primary victims of these terrorists have overwhelmingly been the Muslim population native to those regions. So to suddenly suppress this information is itself an act of Islamophobia and revisionism. The French government's ignorant logic is truly shocking. ISIL is not about Islam. That is a blind, and the excuse. This is about a cabal of brutes who wear the cloak of religion to take the spoils of war for themselves and to gain power.

Besides, every religion and political group ever created has its extremists. That is a given, but many governments truly fear that if one group's dark deeds are exposed, they are then free to retaliate -- not by violence -- but exposing comparable acts of the other group, showing them to be hypocrites trying to misuse the confirmation bias to their advantage.

Shutting down people such of Le Pen proves that the French government is an anti-democratic one, trying to oppress free speech and truth. She did not manufacture those images. She merely showed a literal snapshot of reality.

I am a diehard believer in free speech, regardless of a person's worldview, opinions, and delusions. I believe in finding truths by allowing the free distribution of facts, data, and evidence. You have to be aware of the true nature of reality. I do not believe in shielding liars, control freaks, the gullible, or cowards from it.

The French government has much to be ashamed of, and not just this barbaric act of pure self-interest. It is itself a form of propaganda: slander and distract a political opponent for your own personal gain. They are worse than Le Pen with this one act, and now have proven themselves to have a fascist bent themselves.

I am a radical centrist: you are not going to recruit me to mindlessly cheerlead your deluded agenda, Left or Right. It's not all about making life convenient for your conniving majesty at mine and everyone else's expense. The incessant nose-tweaking and manipulations from both the Left and the Right is obnoxious and completely unnecessary, distracting everyone from finding a solution that does not exclusively benefit those in power.

Because those disturbing images should be exposed so we can finally be able to ask the right questions: who are these people? Where did they come from? Who trained them? How did their victims cross their paths? How much do these terrorists know about our government's not-so-noble methods? How does this game stop?

Those images are fair game. The suppression of history serves no purpose other than to lie to a frightened public. Had we dealt with the ugliness right from the start because the world had a real and honest news media, no one political side would be able to co-opt those images to serve their own political aspirations. We wouldn't be running to Mommy and Daddy Government to tell us how to think or save ourselves; we'd be forming functional and rational plans to deal with it.

Better still, if we always dealt with reality with a real and honest news media, we would have seen the danger signs long before the formation of the cabals of hatred and fear, and we could have intervened to ensure that no group's own wrathful agendas did not take root and grow, ruining the lives of millions for absolutely no good reason at all.

The French government's absolute tyranny is also proof that governments have no place in information dissemination -- or what was once called journalism. They cannot be trusted not to meddle and then set their narratives why they are suppressing information that is unflattering and inconvenient to them.

It is the reason why we need an alternative to journalism: one that defies tyrannical regimes who think of nothing to misuse the law to silence truth and reality for their own political ends so that everyone knows exactly who and what they are dealing with so they can find solutions to their problems that will actually work, and not place their faith in corrupt governments that make decrees with no shred of proof that their methods do what they purport to do.

That the Washington Post completely missed the point and sided with the oppressors of free speech shows that US journalism has lost its sense and purpose. The shallow and superficial political dividing line that dictates that people who believe things that are different from what we believe can never have the facts we need to know.

It is a feint, of course. Truth and reality applies to everyone equally, regardless of their beliefs, and it is time to face that truth as we create a method of finding those truths from everyone.

The Meme Propagandists and how they corrupted journalism.

So much propaganda that the Internet has turned into a literal propaganda mill. 27992958_411878309247122_738535445732415068_o.png

I would disagree with that poster vehemently as all three have had their share of all sorts of murders, massacres, and even terrorist attacks.

The United States has more than average, but it is not as if we don't have emotionally disturbed people killing other people.

The Left in the US would love nothing more than to pretend that guns cause their angry and disturbed teenagers to kill. Imagine: take away the guns, and no parents have to be responsible for their parenting lapses. No school has to be accountable for not seeing or reporting an escalation in a troubled student's demeanour. No social services or law enforcement agency has to do any self-assessment. No media outlet would have to explain why the latest episode of The Bachelor or Saturday Night Live took more space in their news reports than what was going down in the local schools.

Because it's just the guns. The end. It's all good, no worries, and all that jazz.

Except we have people making bombs, throwing acid, ramming trucks, and sending powder through the mail.

But that murder has nothing to do with this murder because murder is just an icky topic to discuss, unless it's a fake murder on a police procedural program.

We no longer look for facts. We scour the Internet for the newish kind of propaganda.

The Meme.

The meme is the smug, all-knowing, simplistic wrap-up to shut down the search for facts.

11ybd5

The anonymous writer spews and insults, and that's it; he knows better than anyone else; so kindly put up his handiwork on your social media site for free.

Do the propagandist's work for him.

And when snark and smugness seems superior to verifying facts -- or at least finding them -- you don't need a free press.

All you need is a meme.

As ill-informed and wrong as the memegandist is.

So long as you can find an easy solution, and have other people take the blame and clean up the mess.

And hope you don't have to lift a finger or be responsible as the troubles get worse, and as the world moves on without you...

10974729_10153100004662387_4235940600959182111_o

Why fooling journalists has always been child's play

The Hijab hoax is yet another black eye for journalists. CNN reported the story as fact.

So did the BBC.

And the Guardian.

Newsweek did.

The New York Times did.

The Toronto Star did.

The Globe and Mail did.

BuzzFeed did before their cleansing.

The CBC did, linking it to other hate crimes.

Oh dear, and a 11-year-old can fool the international press with ease.

No wonder people no longer believe the press.

How can such a hoax be believed by "seasoned" reporters?

In this case, the "hate crime" was part of a convenient narrative for the press in their never-ending feud with the American president.

It is the reason #MeToo took off so rapidly. It was part of connecting the dots.

Or removing liberties in a game of Go.

Except there were way too many red flags to ignore.

There are real cases of things happening, except the crimes are not palatable for the press. Here is a cute little kid who is eloquent, and the crime was PG-13 friendly.

Real-life attacks are not so clean and sanitary.

So the press rolled with it with a roar, without asking hard questions.

You ask about the surveillance footage. You walk the same path with a stopwatch, and take notes of possible witnesses and possible inconsistencies.

That was the problem from the get-go. The media didn't look at all for corroborating evidence. You talk to neighbours and teachers. You talk to the local gossips. You talk to the crossing guards and schoolmates.

You find out who is the victim. You work toward finding the culprit. Even as a journalist, you have to do the legwork. Why would this girl be a target, rather than another girl. Was it convenience, for instance, or something else?

This was a classic case of journalism by stenography. Grab a press release and roll with it.

And then other media crib the notes, amplifying the story that was never, even if it were true, been overplayed as it did, considering the number of real hate crimes that never make it into the news that were far more violent, severe, and persistent. It did not warrant that kind of coverage it got. I can see the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun making a mention of it without naming the victim to protect her identity...and ensure what was reported was, you know, true, and a couple of local stations, but that's it.

Hate crime hoaxes are a murky area: people feel uncomfortable with them, and they are on the outskirts of being a more hardcore version of a hoax: it is a form, inventional or otherwise, of propaganda, and even war propaganda.

Because it incites and takes advantage of the already established line in the sand.

This will set back a lot of real hate crimes. It will play into the hands of those who think these are not real cases. The press had the duty to pull back. They could have said there was a report of an attack, but instead of giving the girl's identity and then speculate whether it was a hate crime or not, they should have given the details of what they had -- and didn't have. Was there surveillance? Witnesses? Evidence?

That's what good journalism needed to be -- but as usual, we didn't get that at all.

And that is the reason a world of grown-ups got fooled by a child.

 

The Age of Propaganda

Making posters is so much easier than gathering information.  

Some anonymous stranger tells you what to think, and then you are supposed to believe them.

 

The visual memo.

Politics has not changed, contrary to what the propaganda poster says.

aXwBmXz_700b

What has changed is the desire to choose propaganda over facts.

Social media shortened those attention spans.

And facts do not come quickly or cheaply.

But propaganda is cheap, quick, and destructive.

Journalism is gone, and in its place is shrill propaganda.

Sink or swim. Appeal to authority. Appeal to fear. Appeal to mob. Confirmation bias.

Every logical fallacy rushing people into a snap judgement.

We do not need another propaganda poster.

We need facts.

Without the barnacles of narrative or spin attached.

We must reflect. Not react.

And make demands that posters be pushed aside for something that takes genuine effort and skill...

The Propagandist's Heaven: Fighting for information literacy on the Internet.

I became a journalist when I discovered, as a teenager that news media coverage was dictated by not facts, but paid spin delivered by public relations firms. And that it wasn't a one-off, but a part of the machine.

480329

I realized how naive I was, and that was the day I learned how to question the information I received.

It wasn't just the first Gulf War that had PR firms spewing paid war propaganda.

I eventually learned that it was all out in the open.

But not all of it is out in the open, for example. There were many ways to pay to manipulate coverage.

Not by some super-secret organizations, but by image consultants, focus groups, crisis management teams, and their ilk.

So I decided to become a journalist to see how someone can find ways to present something other than reality and truth to a public through the news media.

It was absolutely easy as pie.

Because there aren't laws or regulations stopping it.

And most news organizations didn't exactly forbid it, either.

When I was in j-school, we had a database of news standards from various media outlets we could read.

And I read every single one.

From beginning to end.

While some media outlets forbade accepting gifts and graft from sources or firms, the actual use of PR in lieu of primary research wasn't explicitly prohibited.

Nor did any outlet have a mechanism to deal with it.

That was not a minor vulnerability. It meant anyone with any money or savvy could hire someone to manipulate the message.

They could be trained to dress and talk differently than what their natural truth was. They were trained how to bridge and dodge, or present misinformation convincingly.

Firms employed former news producers, making their effectiveness complete.

But everyday, people were reading the news and just assuming what they consumed was fact, and not spin, or propaganda.

When social media took over, the problem became worse. 

Because firms no longer required the journalist middleman to disseminate information.

They could just do it themselves directly, and light up Twitter and Facebook with whatever they wanted because people would not question where the information came from, who paid for it, or why.

And this medium is filled with inaccurate information.

Let me give one minor example.

4af522a42de67bc3db94c21f58247dd4--idea-quotes-good-quotes

That's a famous quote...except there is no actual proof Gandhi ever said that or that this exchange ever took place.

It is a good, pithy quote, but where it truly came from, well, we actually have no clue.

But we can say with absolute certainty that Alexandra Kitty wrote, Demanding information literacy for the Internet would be a very good idea.

So the Internet has a bigger problem than mainstream journalism ever did.

People assume their opinion is fact and any meme poster saying something they believe is absolute truth, even if it is absolute rubbish.

If lies are exposed one time too many, this medium will have the same credibility problem as their predecessors.

Democrats cried Russia during the 2016 election, which is rich.

Because this medium is completely vulnerable to any sort of misinformation from any savvy group or individual.

It has become a Machiavellian paradise.

Facebook, Twitter, and Google are absolutely helpless to stop it.

They never took propaganda into consideration.

And there was no excuse for it.

We live in an age where we have credible academic studies, for instance, that show that misinformation has serious consequences. Our beliefs and action alter, and change for the worse.

And yet these organizations did not consider the importance of having mechanisms to verify information.

Algorithms will not cut it. AI will not cut it. Both those filters can be gamed with ease to both reject truth and accept lies.

These sites were not created by people who understood what information verification entailed or why it is critical to know how to do it. They appealed to vanity and laziness, nothing more.

Allowing people access to information is essential. Allowing people to contribute facts and logic is also essential.

But it is like giving everyone keys to a car, regardless if they know how to drive or not.

Or ignoring the fact that there a people who want to use that vehicle to run down as many people as they can.

The Internet is folksy logic gone out of control.

And while there are truths here, but when lies are given the same weight, the product becomes useless.

And that's where 2018 brings us: a propagandist's heaven with no method to prevent misinformation from contaminating our beliefs. It already took down the once mighty profession of journalism, and it is real reason to worry. All it takes is one Cry Wolf campaign to make the Twitter-ragers look like fools, and the seed of permanent damage will be planted.

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.

621559144e974f2e8f713419846f887a_orig

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.

Truth doesn't die

When journalism can no longer be taken at its word, people then believe anything and everything is true. 1101921005_400

People then think whatever they believe is truth, even if what they believe is a lie.

truth-final-cover

People do not question themselves, only those who say I want facts.

The facts are not found on propaganda posters uploaded on your Facebook page.

Or in your Twitter rants.

Truth is everywhere, but only if you choose to see it.

Every fact must be verified independently with primary sources.

Not what some partisan propaganda mill tells you is true.

You are not stronger or more cunning than the truth.

You cannot kill it with lies.

Or propaganda.

Truth has the last word, the final say, and the last laugh.

It seems that fact-gathering is down, but not out.

Old journalism got psyched out by social media.

Because they did not understand how the house of cards was built.

A new way for fact-gathering can be achieved.

Even if lies seem better than truth.

But a lie about lies is still nothing but a lie.

And a better way is being made...

Podcast 10: The Internet is a poisoned well

I am a technophile, but nobody's fool. The Internet is a poisoned well designed to be toxic to your intellectual health: How cult think, magical thinking, astrology, addiction, and quack medicine got rolled into the giant vanity publisher known as the Internet, and why this medium's message is rigged to deceive you.

If you want to know why journalism died, the seeds of its destruction are staring right in front of you as you are fuming at me, and yes, the lol cats were an accidental part of the world's greatest con game of them all.

Podcast is here.

Transcript is here.

The articles and video I am referencing are herehere, here, here, here, here, and here.

Not included in the podcast was Facebook's odious announcement here, or this tidbit.

If you have never tried the mind reading card trick, a good one with an explanation is right here.

And worst of all, is the number of libraries and databases that no longer have back issues, databases, or even microfilm of older publications, while the Internet doesn't keep a record of these, either. The Internet is not forever. Records of past chronicles are actually disappearing, or becoming less accessible to the public, like eroding grains of sand.

And what are you doing about it?

Before I sign off...

Memo to Buzzfeed: Comrades, you have been throwing temper tantrums accusing the American president of being in collusion with Russia, but are always pining for their governance system of communism. Grow up, children. You are the reason why the Internet is corrupted beyond repair, even if your pigeons don't see it.

National Post and Toronto Star: No, the Lindsay Shepherd affair's report wasn't a vindication, and the Star's pseudo-wrap-up doesn't answer why she was targeted or how her supervisors came to know about the class. Why would her supervisor care if there was no complaints, and hence, no motive? What was the point of creating that power imbalance where a young female student and employee is shamed and put in the power of her male boss? This was potential ruination of her career, and it has already been seriously damaged as whistleblowers get blacklisted. If the department was not facing any sort of optics problem, then what was the real motive for this case of blatant workplace terrorism? This goes beyond "abuse": why was a false crisis created in the first place? Do not merely regurgitate a report/press release, speculate, or drop hints. Why this young woman was the target is where the real story lies. Grow a pair of ovaries and do your jobs for once.

Vox: Workplace harassment didn't drive women out of journalism: it was mediocre men who knew war strategy and used it against women who were perpetually unprepared who should now stop whining and #MeToo-ing, and start making the strategy to combat those games once and for all. Do not use workplace abuse as an excuse for not succeeding in life. People triumph during wars. Stop portraying women as foregone and innate victims, you horrible people.

The time for tears is over.

20171215_133115662821613.jpg