The Chaser Dilemma, Part Six: Writing while female. Writing while eccentric. Writing while radical centrist.

We have no female equivalent to Steve Jobs.

We have no female equivalent to all sorts of other Great Men.

How many Great Women with grit and gravitas do we really have out there that are labelled as such?

We have great women, but not Great Women.

The truth is we also have Great Women, but they don’t get their due or labelled as such.

We are starting to see a shift, and thank goodness for that, but it is still not natural or automatic. Grant Morrison can be seen as a Great Man for comic books, for instance, or David Lynch or Quentin Tarantino for movies, but they can forge a new path, rather than have to get distracted from having obstacles being thrown at them in the first place.

We can glorify men, such as Witty Ticcy Ray, the musician with Tourettes as recounted by Dr. Oliver Saks in his book The Man Who Mistook his wife for a Hat.

In 2014, Ray inspired a show about him.

That is the reason Ray is #27 on the List of People Everyone Should Know because much of his identity came from having TS.

And he was celebrated for it. He became depressed when his meds prevented him from his improvisations as a drummer, and the solution was not to take medication to suppress his tics on the weekends.

But Ray was a man. We don’t exactly celebrate women whose idiosyncrasies stand out and are used to an advantage. We just don’t give women that chance — not even other women.

It is the reason I went ahead and forged my own paths with both Matriarchal Storytelling with A Dangerous Woman Story Studio (created long before the Ariana Grande song, thank you very much, motherfuckers), and F.R.E.E.D. with the soon-to-be relaunched Chaser (the feminist Intercept before the Intercept, Open Democracy).

I am someone who has specific ideas that are well-researched on multiple levels, including me running myself as a test subject.

Something you do not see in either fiction writing nor journalism.

But I am writing while female. I am not writing patriarchal stories about a male Chosen One like J.K. Rowling.

I am writing matriarchal stories about The World’s Most Dangerous Woman, The Doyenne Assassin, Dr. Verity Lake and her sister Holly, the Mothers of the Mosaic, the Goddess Una et Dilectos, the Sparrow: Dream Detective, the hacktivist graffiti artist Danni La Croix, the Goditor, and many others.

All interconnected. They are standalone, or you can read them in conjunction with other stories, and the order you read them alter the effects of the stories.

I am not inventing stories, but re-inventing them.

The same goes for journalism and its education. It is not a matter of invention, but re-invention.

And I am not an armchair analyst.

We forget how much we need to update and re-invent things. The world recently said goodbye to a hero of mine, and #28 on the List of People Everyone Should Know — Chuck Harrison.

chuck_0.jpg

He reinvented many everyday conveniences for Sears, from the riding lawnmower to the see-through measuring cup. His book A Life’s Design is a must-read.

He was behind the scenes for many years, but he was a Great Man.

Because he saw where there were places for improvements.

That’s what journalism always needed: embracing a re-designers.

That’s what I am doing all on my own.

Even while female.

Even while Radical Centrist.

And even while eccentric.

On my own.

But it needs to be done, and I might as well do it…

The "Harvey Weinstein" Strategy: Everyone is lying! Really? A vast politically-correct conspiracy?

The “All Victims Are Lying!” defence is a really bad one, but Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer is using that gambit.

It is a desperate one that hinges on a mindset that is no longer in mainstream play.

And this is not the first time in history that it was a defence that backfired.

I will be writing about such a case soon enough for Chaser. Suffice to say the case I will be writing about was well-known, and in the decades since, not a single witness recanted or was challenged in her testimony. The balance of power was grossly unequal then as it is now — even more so — but in the end, the jury sided with the dispossessed females who took the stand.

The smearing of victims before the trial is mostly likely meant to taint the jury pool and set a narrative rigged to favour Weinstein, but these days, it is more likely to condemn him than give him a “get out of jail free” card…

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Three: A little F.R.E.E.D. would have gone a long way. But there is always another path if you choose to take another step.

Chaser News had an ongoing story about this missing woman on the right who turned up at a rally, but no one at the rally seemed to know the truth about her.

scan0018.jpg

I found out a lot about her that other people missed. Someone who was supposedly out of her life knew a critical, but hidden detail (hidden from even me) that could only be known if the person had contact with her after the night she vanished.

There were sightings of her, once at a bookstore. I interviewed that person, the photographer of that fateful picture, her mother and brother, former classmates, people who had been at the rally, and a former boyfriend.

It was a slow, long-form piece, but when your operating budget is next to zero, you can go so far.

Nevertheless I got much further ahead than one would expect of someone who was doing a full-time investigation on her own dime.

But even so, I should have realized that the traditional methods of journalism were too clunky. Of course it is very expensive to do it: I am going about it in an inefficient way.

I will pick up this story again once I get to the F.R.E.E.D. part of Chaser.

And let’s see if we can’t resolve this one this time…

The World's Most Dangerous Woman Presents: The Time "Person of the Year" Experiment.

The narcissists over at Time magazine decreed journalists to be Person of the Year.

Thinking they were being sneaky about it, the narrative has them as righteous crusaders who are soldiers.

Uh-huh. Tell it to the PR firms who have you as their well-trained lapdogs.

Whitney Houston would have been proud of Time.

Destroy your own profession until you have to fire scores of your employees and shut down your properties as your online clicks waste away, even if you are bashing Trump as your only trick.

But let’s give ourselves a paper crown! Yay!

And let’s exploit ourselves to do it.

Madonna would be proud of you all as well.

What exactly did the journalists accomplish this year?

Nada, but let’s take a look of how their decree comes off in a little experiment here.

I am going to decree People Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty to be “Person of the Year” in 2018, too!

Let’s see how that also comes off, shall we?

Of course, I am not calling myself Person of the Year.

Because that would make me sound too full of myself and be way too obvious.

Just everyone who is exactly like Alexandra Kitty; so it is totally objective and unbiased, which makes it real news.

So…

The World Most Dangerous Woman Presents

Person of the Year!

People Who Are Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty

photofunny.net__final_866482824979995819_.jpg

People exactly like Alexandra Kitty are exceptionally intelligent, stunningly gorgeous, brave, and modest, as if no one else was ever intelligent, gorgeous, brave, and modest. It is not as if other people didn’t risk their lives for things they believe in, it’s just people exactly like Alexandra Kitty have, and that’s what matters.

Soldiers, police officers, firefighters, mothers, fathers may give up a lot of comforts, but it is people exactly like Alexandra Kitty who do with a certain je ne sais quoi.

Sure, there are people like Altavious Powell, who risked his life to save his neighbour from a burning house all while wearing an arm cast that he used to break open a window,

man.jpg

But can he play the theremin like people who are exactly like Alexandra Kitty?

I’m guessing not.

And the problems of people who are not exactly like Alexandra Kitty are not as newsworthy.

Like the woman in Ottawa who was rescued by police as she was a victim of human trafficking.

Because who cares about the serious human trafficking problem in Canada when there are people exactly like Alexandra Kitty living in Canada?

I mean, come on, people exactly like Alexandra Kitty deserve all of the attention, anyway.

And don’t just take my word for it.

Dushica Puharic, who is not only Person #25 on the List of People Everyone Should Know (more on that in a later post), is the mother of someone Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty, and has this completely unbiased and objective genuine quote, “People Exactly like Alexandra Kitty are great because they have great mothers.”

39753271_10156597556882387_6215643105601781760_o.jpg

That is a crushing argument in favour of giving all of your attention to people exactly like Alexandra Kitty.

It is great to be someone who is Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty because you have impeccable taste in Swedish punk and blue costumed bug-themed comic book superheroes created by Steve Ditko. That is the reason you should buy every book ever authored by People Who Are Exactly Like Alexandra Kitty, and several copies of each, even if you have no intention of reading them because they are not relevant to your life.

How’s that?

I was going to write more snark, but then I lost interest in the whole thing…

Journalism's Propagandistic Self-Love Out of Control: Time magazine names its kind Person of the Year.

Journalism’s narcissism and self-adoring propaganda is out of control again.

Time magazine’s Person of the Year? Journalists. I guess this is their last push for legitimacy.

Their full frontal propaganda campaign call themselves Guardians on the War on Truth.

Yes, they are a bunch of egotistical liars.

time-person-of-the-year-2018.jpg

Is this unethical? Yes.

Is this advertising for the profession? You betcha.

Is it propaganda? Boy, is it ever.

Is this a conflict of interest? Absolutely.

My books and this web site have chronicled the countless lies, distortions, and out and out propaganda the profession spews.

And this is nothing different.

Time’s circulation has been going downhill for years. They lost their relevancy and clout, and now they are conniving enough to try to shore up their fortunes as they try once again to stick it to the object of their hateful obsession.

All because a single man won a presidency without their blessing.

I will not be surprised to see Time magazine fold in a couple of years. This truly is a desperate last push to go back in time, so to speak to the days where they dictated the thoughts of the masses.

These covers are obnoxious, but as I said, it is the final push of a decaying industry that would have been strong had they been not-so-full of themselves, and made the simple and logical necessary tweaks and modifications to their models to stay relevant.

They will do absolutely everything but the actual things they needed to do to be of true value to democracy.

Go fuck yourselves, Time.

You flat-out lied about Serbs during the Civil War, and when I wrote a four-page letter to you as a teen, outlining them, you not only refused to make any corrections, admitted you were lying, and then lied again by violating my moral rights, printing some unrecognizable version of my letter without my permission.

You wouldn’t know truth if you woke up in bed next to her…

Are Google and the Washington Post run by bratty five-year-olds?

Seriously.

Here is a memo: Just because someone does not applaud your rigs and does not believe in exactly everything that you do, does not give you the right to destroy, confine, or censor the other person. Not everyone’s life requirements are like yours.

Maybe your parents were too busy having affairs to bother with you during your formative years. Maybe “willful intellectual neglect of children” was on their bucket list. Maybe ideological OCD is a real thing. Maybe you were just born an asshole. I don’t actually care about the why.

Really, I don’t.

But why on Earth do people, still in 2018, resort to childish measure when it comes to trying to impose their thoughts on others?

not-listening-gif.gif

That’s essentially what some knuckle-draggers at Google tried to do to Breitbart.

Yeah, it’s partisan and biased, just like you.

And inaccurate, just like you were with your little blurb about me for years that never got corrected even as I was sending feedback.

It’s much better now, but it took me getting it verified for that to happen.

Screen Shot 2018-11-11 at 11.23.14 AM.png

Besides, kids, the Internet is big enough for everyone!

47481674_2413201908751834_5042253629403168768_n.jpg

So share that space, Googlers!

But I am sad to say that the brats over at the Washington Post are petty and mean.

Read this bullshit bullying disguised as a piece of news:

Meet the Bottomless Pinocchio, a new rating for a false claim repeated over and over again

You Posties have been known to tell fibs on many occasions, as in, over and over again.

You blame Trump for the demise of newspapers, even though the industry was in trouble long before that.

You had Janet Cooke, the whole Jessica Lynch is Rambo fiasco, the whole giving legitimacy to a dubious web site about fake news, and that thought thieving reporter you fired.

You guys have a very large nose you pick, too!

Memo to the motherfuckers at the Washington Post: We got the memo that you do not like the President of the United States because he said you were no longer the “cool” kids, but a bunch of nerds who tell fibs to make yourselves sound important.

Yes, it is very sad for you that you can no longer be kingmakers and tell the little people how to think.

That wasn’t a lie. He told an inconvenient truth that you cannot accept and that denial destroyed your profession. If you had the courage to face that reality years ago, you wouldn’t be throwing temper tantrums in the gutter.

You are so vindictive that you are trying to manipulate the public hoping they do not believe anything Trump says because he said you were fake and a bunch of scheming liars — so if you discredit him, then maybe people will be tricked into reading your bullshit again.

But life for 7.4 billion people have gone on without you long before the November 2016 US federal election, and they will go on without you no matter who is the president because you did not keep up to code.

That is on you, not the president.

So get over it, children. Adulting is a powerful technique you should try.

So your “fact-checking” ruse is a pile of garbage.

And fake news, too, because it is war propaganda disguised as information — and people with brains aren’t buying what you are selling…

The Chaser Dilemma, Part Two: I was never a regional girl. Not even in a global village.

I

II

III

IV

V

I was born and raised in Hamilton, Ontario, and I am the old school version: we work hard, play hard, laugh hard, will handily whip your ass and then have a beer with you. This was a scrappy city where even the nerdy kids were tough, and yet were friendly, open, and proud.

That version doesn’t really exist anymore. From being tough as nails steel workers who spoke by eloquently turning over cars during a strike to the town where a failed Basic Income project was parachuted in is a tumble in fortunes.

You know it was bad when the CBC was brave enough to open a digital location in downtown Hamilton a few years ago.

I can always tell who’s old school. Those are the tough, but perky survivors who always know how to land on their feet. There is never a thought of being nannied by a government. If you can get up and more parts on you work than don’t, you’re good enough to get back in the ring and beat the shit out of some obnoxious pantywaist who has confused voguing with fighting.

And fucking wipe the floor with them. Like nothing because you’re made of piss and vinegar.

By all accounts, Hamilton should have dominated Ontario. It is situated in a prime location, in the centre between the US border and Toronto. We have space, plenty of roads, a sterling university, top-notch hospitals, and had real and viable industry here. The unions were strong. Businesses were strong. We had cabinet ministers in the government. It could have been on par with Toronto, but Hogtown psyched this popsicle stand out, free trade turned our industries weak, and there was a real and serious brain drain because the children of steelworkers got educated in universities and left the first chance they could.

Then Hamilton started to panic and voted NDP who never win, meaning there wasn’t a cabinet minister who could infuse the city with, let’s be blunt, graft. Outside smaller towns voted shrewdly, and they got the perks that Hamilton could have had if they thought a few steps ahead.

Small-town Grimsby voted PC in the last provincial election, had a small, but viable hospital that was on the Liberal regime’s hit list, but when Doug Ford won, those worries were over.

Hamilton voted NDP and lost their Basic Income project.

Grimsby knows how to take care of itself. Hamilton use to be of the same ilk, but not anymore.

But Toronto has fallen under the same spell as Hamilton. They bought their own hype and thought by sheer numbers alone, they could always play kingmaker, and could always rig the board to their favour.

That’s not how elections actually work.

The provincial Liberals held the same delusion: they always pandered to Toronto, thinking that’s all they needed to cruise to victory.

Except when you pander too much for too long, the person or group you are pandering to starts to see themselves as kings, not kingmakers, and then will look for some better servant to appease them.

The NDP usurped those votes, and then thought they were brilliant, except they don’t actually have a feel for political strategy.

The NDP, like the Liberals, are antiquated, and believe journalists who call their bungling buffoons brilliant.

Don’t look at journalists: they fucked up their own profession.

The old playbooks don’t work any more.

Doug Ford figured that one out and won a majority.

Without Hamilton or Toronto. Or Windsor or St. Catharines.

Andrea Horwath and Kathleen Wynne blew the election because they are, at heart, regional women. They play to Hamilton and to Toronto, respectively.

I am not a regional woman. I was never a regional girl. I am of true Steel City grit, but the world ain’t Hamilton.

And it is the reason I have had columns, articles, and books published in multiple countries over the last quarter century.

It is a global village, but I am not a regional player.

My brain was always wired to be global. I see the waves that bring the big picture into focus.

I can see a single grain and extrapolate, and vice versa.

Because I am an emotional learner, not a script-memorizer.

VI

Regional boys and girls can play certain crowds, but they cannot adopt. The ones who can do it can expand their base and refine and modify their strategies, When we had strong local newspapers, the journalists who could adapt went on to daily metros before going national and even international.

But local got decimated, and now we have a generation of journalists who can’t play it local, national, or global. They can play to a regional crowd, on the Left or Right, but they don’t have the ability to build to form a sustainable base because they always fall on stunts and tricks that work regionally and hinge on impressing the crowd by knowing their Shibboleths, but when they can no longer crack the code of the bigger crowd that plays completely differently than the smaller partisan venues, they tank.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May and Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel are regional women. They pandered until it blew up in their faces. French President Emmanuel Macron is finding out just how not “centrist” he actually is. Only months before, the Independent praised him silly with this opinion piece:

Emmanuel Macron is the centrist that Europe deserves – and so desperately needs

His speech at the European Parliament has earmarked him as the voice of sense that we are lacking in the UK and across the world

Only if Europe deserves to be set on fire and have rioters tear down the street.

Speeches mean nothing. Those are pacifiers for the middle class to reassure them and make them feel smart and important.

Mastering various regions is a hard game to play, and that is the reason so many politicians and robber barons are desperately pushing globalism.

Pseudo-globalism, that is.

Not the real mosaic.

But creating a global village where the variety of regionalism they mastered applies to everyone; so they can rig the board, always win, and always predict things and look smart and right.

This is not real globalism: this is just like the Mean Girls who make up rules in high school, and then try to shame, bully, bribe, blackmail, and otherwise terrorize all the other students to agree that they are “popular” and superior to them.

It’s total bullshit.

A global village is nothing more than regionalism.

Force the whole world to wear cheap H&M garbage and shop through Amazon as you forsake cars and are dependent on the government sticking you on some smelly bus with a bunch of pervs that cannot be shamed because they don’t read the Troll Scroll.

Governments do not want people to have cars. They don’t want them to drive around and experience the Big Picture.

What if you see that what you thought was a great life was shit?

Or that there is crime and poverty three blocks over?

We can’t have that; so let’s say cars are bad for the environment; so down with cars!

As if we can’t make clean cars cheaply.

But the rigs of pseudo-globalism aren’t going the way those overlords wanted.

They are trying to put a genie back in the bottle, and they are rapidly making the situation worse.

Because both their regionalism and their global village are fake, their solutions don’t work.

They managed to piss off the French. They managed to unseat more and more European Establishment types who kept trying to paint their detractors as fascists, but to no avail.

VII

It was simpler times when Europe and the US could bully Serbia during the Civil War. They held all of the cards, after all, and controlled the message coming through the press. They could paint Serbs as killers, monsters, and rapists with no opposition or questioning the giant holes in their canards.

Yes, there was war, and there were a few Serbs who were free out of prison did bad things as did everyone else there. Fuck you.

And because the focus was entirely on Serbs, organized criminal elements in Albania could do whatever they wanted, and get rewarded by Western Europe. The beginnings of Al-Qaeda started then because the US and Europe inadvertently helped train and fund those terrorist operatives.

It didn’t matter because everything was rigged. Systems were cracked and those loopholes were easy to exploit. Serbs didn’t know what hit them.

I knew, however.

I was a teenager and I could easily figure it out because my brain is set to Global.

Not Global Village, but Global.

It is a quirk. When I volunteered as a recreationist at a psychiatric ward when I was a teenager, I noticed people watched a lot of soap operas. I brought art supplies and new magazines for diversions for patients, and I also started buying Soap Opera Digest, and read about every single soap’s storylines past and present so that I could instantly converse with people because it was a nonthreatening topic of conversation.

I could tell you what was unfolding on the Y&R as easily as what went down on Loving. I knew who was the head writer, and every actor’s name. I knew how many actors played a certain role and in what order, and for how long. I became the encyclopedia of soaps. I even knew about soaps cancelled long ago, such as Capitol or Search for Tomorrow.

My grandmother loved one soap: As the World Turns, and I used to schedule my university classes so I could come home at 2 PM to watch it with her. I appreciated the complexities of the stories, and thought Douglas Marland was a genius.

But that was the only one I knew from actually watching it.

The rest I read the recaps as if I were studying for a history or English lit class.

It came in extremely handy. I could make small talk and break the tension.

But soaps may have taken place in fictional small towns, but they weren’t regional. They were global.

Because they appealed to multiple generations of viewers across North America (and beyond) as well as multiple socioeconomic levels. There was nothing remotely regional — or patriarchal about them.

Like comic books, soaps were matriarchal in structure. They were epic, and spanned generations with storylines from decades ago still in play and impacting current and future storylines.

But patriarchal social structures consistently put down soaps as being “girly”, and comics as being “childish”. Both were dismissed as being unsophisticated.

And that’s bullshit.

Patriarchal is regional. Matriarchal is global.

The Global Village is Patriarchal. Globalism is Matriarchal.

I can see that very clearly. You are not going to try some misdirection on me by trying to claim that I am too stupid, nerdy, or regional to know what’s what. Jеби се, говно једно.

But in a world that has the global medium of the Internet, how can it be so…regional?

That’s a dilemma that is an enigma to solve.

VIII

The confines of regionalism and its mask the global village have made people feel crowded and frustrated. Global regionalism is now facing a real pushback. People do not want to indulge someone else’s regionalism that takes away their liberties as the ways of others surrounds them. The game of go is like quicksand, and people are drowning in the homogenization of structure and content of thought.

But I am not a regional girl. I don’t do a globe village. I believe in true globalism where there are multiple accepted structures and contents of thought. I believe in ideological flexibility that is sensitive to the zeitgeist and ortgeist.

I believe that rigs are cheats used to hold back natural ideological evolution.

The trouble with the Internet is that is can be rigged to be Patriarchal, when its natural, default structure is Matriarchal. Like #MeToo, the Internet was hijacked and co-opted by the Establishment, which is both Patriarchal and Regional, and now that the shit has hit the fan, people are getting angrier.

But they do not actually know where their illusions of anger are actually coming from.

Chaser is the curator of emotions. It is not just about intellectual facts, but the neglected emotional ones.

Because emotions are more than just global: they are universal, and I am willing to bet omniversal.

Yet we don’t explore that realm. Journalism shunned it outright by claiming to be “objective”, but any system that mimics a psychopathic mindset has a shitty filter to look at reality.

Not happening with Chaser.

We have people who go nuclear on a drop of a hat. We have cheaters who use fear-mongering to keep a fake status quo in place.

The war in the former Yugoslavia showed the deficiencies of journalism because it exposed that they had no feel to cover the raw emotions that explode during anarchy. They had their little preset scripts and narratives and stuck to them like glue.

How to finesse this model is something I am refining at the moment. Emotional reportage isn’t a thing, but it will be very shortly…

Stay tuned…

Kevin Hart, Justin Trudeau, social media, the Middle Class, Abraham Maslow, and the strange and destructive mindset of a Zero-Risk World.

I

Kevin Hart lost a not-so-lucrative gig of hosting Hollywood’s hours-long advertorial farce called the Oscars.

Over tweets he made almost nine years ago that he has long ago expressed remorse for and took ownership of his own insecurities.

Not everyone is condemning Hart, however.

I am not for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that I have no way of knowing who is behind this very well-choreographed campaign. It does not have a grassroots vibe to it, and for all I know, a rival, a racist, a disgruntled acquaintance, or some other group has paid a firm to execute a take-down campaign.

We know social media crawls with bots, PR firms, saboteurs, and fake followers: so why do we automatically accept every troll campaign that pukes out rage from Twitter?

At what point do we ask, Okay, who is behind this latest smear campaign, and can we establish provenance for it? How many “offended” users are real and legitimate human beings? Are they being paid? What are their motives? Who are they? How many of their followers are real or purchased figments?

And why do we expect purity and flawlessness from human beings who are the epitome of deficiencies and deficits?

But the childlike innocence prevents critical thinking, and there is a reason for the societal cowardice, and it is one of the unintended consequences of social media.

The Western world is in a Zero-Risk mindset.

It is why you have spoiled do-nothing Millennials suddenly want the safety of communism. They want to get paid taking zero risks. It is the reason why Facebook and Tumblr are banning sex talk. They want a pristine image and will be fascists in order to achieve it.

When social media first came on the scene, it promised hedonism without effort that would bring instant fame, fortune, and fun. The just a selfie of your lumpy ass and post it to Instagram, and maybe you will be the next Kardashian!

Only if you have rich and connected parents, of course.

Read the fine print, kids!

No one wants to take risks. What if I post my lumpy ass on the Facebook and people call me out for having a lumpy butt? Well then, that’s body-shaming!

Well, yes, it is, and people who do not like to stare at your ass have the right to express their offensive opinions. You are not going to force 7.4 billion people to applaud your butt selfie because I will never be one of them, but I am not going to forbid you from doing it. It’s your damn ass, do with it whatever you want.

What people never realized is that being in the public eye is very risky. People like me know this risk, understand the risks, and will accept the risks. I write excruciatingly well-researched books, knowing some knuckle-dragger who never actually read it will dismiss it as rambling and boring because they are not willing to invest in learning facts that tell them that fame means nothing.

That’s the risk. They are allowed to be openly ignorant. I will not congratulate them, but I am not going to try to destroy them, either. That book wasn’t written for people like that in the first place.

But the Internet’s beginnings showed no sign of this problem. It was an insider’s club. I know because I had a modem before it was mundane, and it was a very different atmosphere.

But then the MIddle Class started wading into those waters, and that posed a huge dilemma that could have been cut off at the pass if tech wasn’t so greedy and impatient.

For all of the bitching how the wealthy are horrible, it is the Middle Class who are mostly responsible for the troubles society has. For one, there are more of them than there are rich people. If it wasn’t for the wealthy, the Middle Class would be poor.

Why?

Because the Middle Class have a single phobia.

They fear risk.

This is the risk-averse class. They take gambles, and huge ones, all in the name of avoiding risks because what if they mess up in front of someone who makes fun of them?

The trouble is there is no progress without risk, but there is an inversely proportional relationship between a risk and a gamble: the less risk you take, the bigger the gamble.

And gambles are based on superstition, ignorance, arrogance, passivity, and hope that fate likes you.

The best discussion between risks and gambles I have ever read comes from Robert Greene in two of his books, which I highly recommend.

The problem is the Middle Class have a confirmation bias and tendency to look at half a landscape.

After all, Left-wing, Right-wing is a middle class invention.

So what you have is a large group of people who look for sure things and do not want to take any risk. They will gamble, to be sure, all in the name of avoiding calculated risk.

And journalism used to have all of the power because they disseminated information with authority, and that gravitas played up on the erroneous assumption that there was no risk in believing news stories.

Then came the swaggering new kids of the Internet who upped the ante.

Journalism manipulated their gravitas to promise what they disseminated was true, 100%. No risk. They were the gate-keepers who ensured no risk by deciding what people, issues, events, and stories were worthy of being covered. That was their fail-safe.

But then the new kids laughed at the gate, broke it open, and promised everyone a risk-free good time to the Promised Land if they trusted them instead.

These were two incompatible media.

And truly for the first time, the Middle Class had to make a judgement call.

Not a risk, but a call.

Who do they believe? The stodgy journalists who ignored their little precious cupcake’s winning of Miss Small Potatoes at the county fair?

Or YouTube where they could upload a video of the sacred moment for the whole world to see?

It was an easy call, and journalism lost out, but never humbled or learned why their old model became antiquated.

The Middle Class just assumed that all they had to do was mug and make fish faces on their smartphones, and they would be “discovered.”

That’s all it would take, The End.

And it was a young generation who bought into it in the late 1990s.

And now that they are too old to be “discovered”, are broke, have the same tats and neon-coloured hair as everyone else, and never got what they wanted from the Internet, they suddenly want champagne socialism as a consolation prize.

But then things got weird.

II

The Internet is not a tough steak at a restaurant that gives you an excuse to abuse a waiter with a temper tantrum and demand freebies: once you are out there, you can’t take it back or be compensated.

If we went back to the first postings of Facebook, and then followed the progression of the middle class youth who honestly thought they were superior to their parents and would set the world on fire with their decrees and selfies, we’d see cocky and smug young turks telling everyone they were musicians, artists, actors, models, and software gurus.

Facebook’s biggest mistake was throwing those memories in their user’s faces with their “On this Day” section. That is the daily reminder that these middle class kids didn’t get the brass ring.

It was a tactical error, and the idea was most likely from some successful and well-heeled charmed executive who achieved his or her own dreams and ambitions, and didn’t think the idea through with empathy. When we say people are “woke”, we merely mean they have been divorced from their dreams of success and now are ready to pulverize anyone who may end up reaching their own dreams. How dare they!

We cannot allow that to happen! Let’s take away their success! Let’s move the goalposts so far away that no one can actually reach them, and if they do, we’ll declare them evil cheaters, and take the spoils for ourselves.

Because we were always too cowardly to take risks, and social media promised us to reap the benefits of risk without ever having to take a single one. We want safe, sure things, and then brag to our siblings all about it.

It isn’t happening, and now bored people think they are enraged and righteous, when they are neither.

III

My mother grew up in socialist former Yugoslavia, and there is a story she is fond of telling that I think about a lot these days.

When she was in grade school, she did a lot of creative writing, and one day, a school official was coming, and the school decided to have an assembly and recital with students reading their stories and poems.

And it turned out that every one chosen was written by my mom.

So, she did all of the work, and if the school was fair, they would have recognized her talents, allow her the entire recital, and praise her for being an able writer at such a tender age.

But that’s not what happened.

At first, the understanding was that she would read all of her work. Fine, she said.

But a little later, the rules had changed: because it wouldn’t “be fair” for her to get all of the attention (not that was getting positive attention before that, mind you) — but it was fair for the school to exploit all of her work — other students would read it, but she would get credit.

She did not like this idea, but agreed.

But then a little later, it wouldn’t “be fair” to mention her name, and no names would be mentioned.

And it just so happened that the kids chosen were the ones various teachers liked the best.

Would you assume the kid reading the poem or story was the one who wrote it? Of course you would.

At this, my mother balked, and pulled out all of her work, a brave thing for a kid to do in the early 1960s.

And the night was cancelled, the teachers and principal got angry at her, calling her “selfish”, but she wasn’t going to be a chump or a dupe.

If her work was good enough to be used in a recital, then she was good enough to get the credit for it. I am certain the plan all along was to move the goal posts with a foot-in-the-door technique. The trouble is my mother doesn’t play. She is easygoing enough, but cross a line, and she lets you have it. The school overplayed their hand.

I am the same way. When I was looking for a publisher for my first book, I thought I had found one university publisher who would go for it. They did it by peer review, and the reviews were mixed: some said yay, others said nay; so the publisher decided to get more feedback.

Then came one that made snide remarks about my credentials, as if writing for media trade publications was some sort of deficit, but I should “team up” with a veteran columnist in Chicago, who had no background in doing stories about journalism.

Now, if you looked at a book and saw a “veteran” columnist’s name first and a younger journalist’s name after his — who would you think thought up the idea and wrote the book?

I guarantee you that you would think I was just there to fetch the coffee and give him blow jobs just to get some pity credit.

So, I said no, surprising the publisher who re-iterated that I had a good idea, but wouldn’t get a book deal all by myself.

Ha!

dbi.jpg

And without an agent.

I took a series of risks. How I studied journalism was risky. The critical approach I took to the all-mighty news media was risky because they would ignore it. Going it alone was risky. Going with a controversial publisher was risky.

I took multiple risks on every imaginable level, but I have no regrets. I would do it again with the same book, approach, and publisher.

I have had no shortage of middle class people look at me funny asking how it is that I got a book published, and multiple times, as if I was someone incapable of putting together a book (but not from people from either side of the economic spectrum, oddly enough).

Easy: because I am a smart, thorough, hard-working, uncompromising, honest, patient, and persistent risk-taker. The end.

I didn’t wait to be discovered on the Internet. I didn’t look for sure things. I still don’t.

But when you have a society that first decides the Internet is a sure thing with a swagger, and then finds out it isn’t, they retreat, but as they never want to admit flaw or miscalculation, they don’t want anyone else to succeed, either. It is the reason I have had some very rude and cruel comments made to me when people find out that I am a publisher author. Everyone wants to have a book published, yet there are people who don’t want their circle of acquaintances to be the ones who do it, even though I have always been happy to show other people how to do it themselves.

But the shift in the air has brought out an ugly mood in people who are wounded because the Internet didn’t deliver everything it hinted it would. Those who are disillusioned are on the warpath, looking to take down people who seem to have succeeded at something. To keep those disillusioned people happy, the now Big Tech is trying to erase anything and everything that could set these people off, and it won’t work.

For starters, I am not the only person in the world who has no trouble with using the Internet even if I am not rich and famous. Fame to me seems like a burden and a cage, and I don’t train well. I learn easily, but I do my own thing. Keep your scripts away from me.

But for a Zero-Risk Society, scripts are their bibles. Let everyone think alike, act alike, and conform alike, and then there is no risk, just sure things with easy payoffs in a world there you are never seen as wrong or deficient.

It is a lie. Ignoring your wrongs and your defects is a gamble.

And the more offended you are when someone expresses something that draws attention to your wrongs, the unhealthier you become.

Or didn’t you know that offended people are not self-actualized?

IV

When you have a society that fears risk, and becomes averse to controversy as they seek sure things, what you have is a psychologically weak society. They can tolerate less adversity and, hence, cannot function. The ghosts of social media’s broken promises is forcing them to cannibalize on their own hearts and souls, and if these people think the world will conform, they will not know where to turn when it all explodes, and they suddenly have more adversity to face than they ever did in their lives.

Too bad they sought fame, fortune, and fun instead of facts, or else they would have stumbled on Person #24 on the List of People Everyone Should Know.

A humanistic psychologist by the name of Abraham Maslow.

abraham-maslow-2.jpg

He had many sensible ideas, but there was his standout: the concept of self-actualization.

It encompasses many things, but one of the core concepts is the idea of self-acceptance: the ability to laugh at yourself.

If you cannot laugh at yourself, and throw temper tantrums, as you vindictively moralize and are perpetually offended, then the problem is you.

You are not self-actualized. If you cannot stand to laugh at yourself, you cannot stand on your own.

And you stand for nothing because you are always conniving and manipulating people to rig the board to hide your deficits.

Deficits, I might add, that wouldn’t be mocking you if you just took a motherfucking risk every once in a while, even if people complain, are offended, and make fun of you.

Do they pay your bills? Do they nag you about wearing a sweater or eating right, or worry if you strayed too far for too long?

No?

Then fuck them. What’s your problem?

That’s right: you don’t take risks, but gambles. You confused self-actualization with selfie-actualization.

Not the same, kids!

Just ask Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who panders to the Middle Class as he takes no risks, but over-the-top gambles with a nation of risk-averse citizens.

He talks in scripts and liberally uses labels that never match the goods. Playing it safe has resulted in getting Canada pummelled from more and more quarters of the globe.

He thinks he can find loopholes to US tariffs that got slapped on because he stuck to a script. Canada behaved like a vassal state on behest of the US, and now we have lost liberties in China, the one country Trudeau had banked on in saving Canada from those US tariffs. The US knew it, and found a perfect way to block that avenue.

And now those fractures are showing within the country. Alberta’s ire is ready to explode. Ontario has already been alienated.

What is going wrong?

Risk aversion, and you cannot be a capable leader unless you are literate in the strategy of risk.

Those who take risks succeed. Those who play it safe by preset scripts do not. The neo-Victorian whining is a mere byproduct of a caste of people who did not reach their expectations, and now are looking to blame others for their passive gambles.

Social media is not living up to their bargain, and it is the bargain they could never fulfill. You cannot make grandiose promises and then think people are going to let you climb to the top using their broken dreams as your staircase.

That was social media’s sin, but social media was co-opted by a greed scam, and those scams hinge on having pigeons who want something for nothing. Now that they aren’t getting rich and famous, they want a pension at 30 with no one else succeeding because then those pigeons will lose in the comparison.

It is a toxic stew that has poisoned the communications stream, and yet people still fear risk instead of fearing their flighty gambles.

But society thrives only in a pro-risk environment. Economies blossom, art thrives, and people progress and evolve.

Until we learn the difference by accepting risk, facing our own flaws, and learning to laugh at ourselves, we will keep regressing as we retreat, looking at defeats as victories until even the lies spit in our faces and tell us to grow up…

Memo to the American Conservative: If you don't understand the business of your own profession, then don't write about it.

The American Conservative has a stupid article about the death of journalism. It is the same sort of stupid other Left-wing media trolls have whined about, and I have said before, but let me say it again.

Journalism properties were bought by asset-squeezers for the last twenty years because legitimate companies could no longer make a profit because no one was reading their product anymore.

An Asset Squeezer is a vulture that feasts on dead carcasses. The end. The American Conservative has no grasp on the concept at all, and that’s truly frightening. They are blaming vultures for their death, which is ridiculous.

Asset Squeezers know how to make a profit from dead properties. They fire everyone they can. They sell assets, such as real estate. They cut down on printing and sell off the printing arm and centralize operations. They get rid of things as they shed resources that are profitable whether or not the publication is.

If this concept is hard to understand, think of it this way: you can’t find a job, but you have debts to pay; so you sell all of your jewelry, stocks, bonds, and collectibles before selling your house.

You are still bringing in money, but as you are not working, sooner or later, you have nothing more to sell.

The gravy train runs dry.

Now suppose your house and all your chattels were acquired by an asset-squeezer. The difference is they sell your house, car, gold, keep the cash, and then kick you out once they sold your last possession.

That’s what happened to newspapers.

But it is also actively happening in broadcasting, too.

I covered the newspaper industry in the early aughts: this was happening back then, too.

The American Conservative doesn’t compute: they are talking about the New York Times’ digital subscriptions as if it were a hopeful sign, when it is a sign that the industry imploded.

You still have a few relics who want antiquated information, but they aren’t going for local, but whatever seems to be left over. It’s like a fad food outlet being everywhere, and then it loses its popularity, closing most of its outlets, save for a few in a couple of larger markets, and then people who still want it drive up a distance to get to the few remaining ones.

But even that will not last long. Once the habit of not reading local was broken, eventually, people don’t even want the big city papers as they can no longer relate or have real use for it.

When the smaller arteries die, the bigger ones die as well, and that is a basic concept reporters still do not seem to be able to grasp.

Your audiences have been shrinking for decades. You are attracting grim reapers operators for a reason.

Do not expect a Reality Denier to know what the fuck is going on — they only report from the planet Deludo, and keep hoping for a miracle in Hell…

Am I the only writer who doesn't have a hate/fear for social media these days?

Reading this article in Reason magazine made me wonder just why people in the communications industries were always so terrified of social media.

I am not a fan of this publication, but they hit the nail on the head here:

Then there's the legacy media, which is also doing its damnedest to characterize tech and social media companies as not simply all-powerful, but unprecedentedly dangerous in their actual effects on our lives, dreams, and politics.

…The New York Times recently released a breathless, three-part video series called Operation Infektion about "Russian disinformation from the Cold War to Kanye." Neither of these products (and others like them) do a particular good job of explaining why new modes of media are particularly dangerous or even effective.

…The overall impact of these sorts of journalistic pieces is to add to the idea that we are in a bold new world that needs bold new solutions. Ironically, of course, those solutions are themselves older than the mummies on the Senate Judiciary Committee: breaking up businesses or heavily regulating them, typically with rules written by the very people who run them.

Reactionary, yes, and not just mainstream legacies. Foreign Policy is in on it, too:

The Internet Is Going To End Up Like Greece

When the big players get away with open fraud, trust disintegrates.

I doubt I am the only one who can handle social media. It is not the be all and end all of my existence. I write here, for instance, but I also write books, and am working on number five as we speak. There is a lot to be said about the power of the Fourth Medium.

For example, I could have never taken courses from Oxford or Harvard unless I relocated before. Now, I can and do take courses from academic institutions I respect the most. I have far more control here than what authors before me had.

Are there problems with the Internet and social media? Yes, plenty, but the distaste for it comes from the lack of instant and enduring fame and fortune that Big Tech always hinted at during its heyday. It made a lot of cheap and easy promises that people bought into, and a lot of young people became disillusioned. If the glamour factor actually was true, people honestly wouldn’t care about the intrusions. Celebrities have had reporters and paparazzi stalk them and know the colour of their gauchies for decades, and they put up with all that bullshit as those factions made money from celebrity Big Data.

And legacy media made a killing on that Big Ass Data.

1101830228_400.jpg

And that was perfectly fine.

I always said that Big Tech’s fortunes rested on them keeping their Big Promises, and you really can’t do that for billions of people.

But if journalists think the power is going back to them, it’s not.

We don’t drive Model T’s anymore, but we didn’t go back to the horse and buggy.

We traded up.

And when the fifth medium comes along, people will flock to it because those players will make a new and different promise.

Big Tech will not be what they are now, and it will come a lot sooner than people think. Apple, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix — they may be giants, but so were dinosaurs.

And the Internet is a transitory medium. Those salivating at breaking them up don’t seem to see that the act is most likely unnecessary.

To me, it doesn’t matter. Print, radio, television, and Internet never frightened me.

And what comes after won’t rattle my cage, either.

I study the medium, understand its strengths and weaknesses, and then make plans.

But the Victorian Left do not understand that nothing is perfect — and that includes them.

They are looking for purity perfection, and God and Goddess have better things to do with Their time than to indulge a fickle crowd who get offended by everything little motherfucking thing.

Memo to the fragile virtue-signallers: you are offended by an old song, but ignore the fact that your friends, neighbours, coworkers, siblings, and children are getting beaten and abused by their spouses? Fuck you. Navel-gazing is not cool.

Get a life, a sense of humour, morals, and some genuine courage while you’re at it.

Because if you’re trying to get some fame and fortune that way, here is the memo: it won’t work, either…

When Reality Deniers choose to be journalists, bullshittery ensues, and high schoolers proves to have a greater sense of reality.

AdWeek was shocked that half of high schoolers don’t trust journalism.

And they shouldn’t. Journalism got co-opted by Reality Deniers and it shows.

Just take this piece of bullshit published by J-Source.

It is beyond oblivious. The article laments that somehow, that journalism has suddenly become stressful because the new generation are precariously employed.

Memo to J-Source: journalists were poorly-paid and precariously employed when I started out in the 1990s.

Where do you dumb fucks live? The planet Deludo?

There were big cuts for decades. Journalists always had side gigs because the pay in the profession always sucked, particularly in Canada. The difference is that previous generations lied through their teeth, and the current crop, who were sheltered as they were sold a bill of goods by their mommies and daddies who assured them that they were special Indigo Children, are aside themselves that the pay and security are truly that bad.

And in Ontario, publications such as the dysfunctional Walrus were working unpaid interns more than full-time, until the provincial government cracked down on them.

And that was in 2014.

I chronicled the bad working conditions in my latest book — and that came from covering the profession, all while working as a journalist. I tried to avoid working for Canadian media outlets because the pay was beyond a pittance, while the US publications not only paid far better, but the weak Canadian dollar made my pay check even more lucrative. It was like getting a raise every day.

There was never job security by the time the 1990s came rolling in: publishers and editors were riding in a revolving door even then, and the Matthews Media Directory was perpetually out of date. I know because I used to get the latest one, and then start verifying the names and positions as part of my research into the profession, and then charting the revolving door. Reporters were getting canned frequently as asset-squeezers took over because circulations were plummeting — and it would have been worse unless the definition of “paid subscription” wasn’t rejigged to reflect giveaway newspapers, which is a big cheat.

But my favourite quote is this knee-slapper:

It was once possible to join a newsroom and stay there for years. At the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail, a reporter who joined the newsroom prior to 2016 could expect to be making at least $90,000 a year by their sixth year of employment.

In Toronto? With the housing prices being what they are alone? And considering the jobs cuts going on even then, and the shrinkage, that is an optimistic estimate, also considering that the net and the gross are not going to be the same figure, given the clawbacks on an average Canadian check. I doubt many were pulling anywhere near that much, given the modest staffs these publications have had for about the last twenty-five years.

So the article is a big pile of bullshit with fuck all to it. As usual.

No wonder a new generation don’t believe journalists. They truly are full of shit.

If they cannot be counted on to accurately reflect the reality of their own fucked up profession, then they cannot be trusted to cover anything else…

Memo to Vox: "no-platforming" doesn't work because no one is reading your bullshit, either.

Vox is a moron’s publication that is filled with sophistry, and mostly just motherfuckery.

They don’t get reality. They are Reality Deniers, Left-wing Edition, Subsection, Millennial Ass-Kissers.

They are gleeful that professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos is broke, and speculate the reason is that “no-platforming” (i.e., collective demand for censorship) is to blame.

No, it isn’t. That is an illusion.

Imagine you not having cancer, and then someone gives you a pill, and says you are now cancer-free.

Did the pill cure you?

That’s bullshit: you were never sick to begin with.

That is the delusion these Reality Deniers cannot face is one: they are bitching and kvetching on the Troll Scroll, banning people who no one was ever actually reading.

What people like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos did was court media attention by being obnoxious trolls and assholes. The press, who are lazy and have no idea what this “news” thing is, gave them loads of publicity, never noticing their own ratings and circulations plummet.

Then these hucksters, who have all sorts of carny tricks to seem as if they have social media followers, get one of the now Sister Five to pay them big bucks for a book deal. They get paid as pundits — and that’s how they make their money.

It is hype, aided and abetted by journalists.

Then these grifters push their luck and keep going for the gutter, trying to keep in the spotlight, and they push one step too far, frighten a jittery press who all run away because they are looking for a safe and sure thing with zero effort, trolls on Twitter rant like idiots, and then the scheme collapses.

The outlets who paid thinking they had some sort of find or get, stop footing the bills, and the house of cards collapses.

But the numbers aren’t really there to ever justify the lavish attention.

Not even the hate watchers.

Everything is inflated. No-platforming doesn’t work because there is no real platform to begin with.

It’s a sham.

You have people play up to the press, buy fake followers, and put on a dog and pony show, and then they are somehow “celebrities” or controversial newsmakers.

And Vox ought to know it is all a shell-game considering they aren’t a very popular publication.

I have a small, but stable readership here. I had a much bigger one a decade ago with Chaser News, but even back then, I could see the writing on the wall. You don’t have much to work with given the climate and the me-focused population who would rather look at their own social media feed than get genuinely informed.

And now they are even boring themselves as they are also abandoning their own outlets.

I don’t try to drum up business for myself. I spend nothing on advertising. I post links on Tumblr and Twitter automatically, but the bulk of my audience come from searching for something on a search engine, stumbling on me, looking at the “Who is She?” section, and then sticking around.

And to these people, thank you. Thank you for being your own thinkers and making your own decision to stay.

That’s the audience I want: the ones who think for themselves, and arrive here absolutely on their own volition.

Tomorrow, some trolls may target me and have Twitter and Tumblr censor me.

It will not make a dent because I don’t “work” those sites.

This is my base of operations, and I am in a good place with that.

The Confirmation Bias and the Death of George 41: why aren't we looking at Bill Clinton's War?

Many Left-wing partisan outlets are having a field day slagging the corpse of dead president George Bush. It is cheap and easy filler.

But Democracy Now is indulging in some serious confirmation bias with a piece about how Bush’s Gulf War had been sparked by real war propaganda generated by Hill & Knowlton with the pseudo-testimony of a teenaged girl named Nayirah who claimed Iraqi soldiers killed Kuwaiti babies by taking them out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

It is recounted in detail in my first book, and it is a stand-out example of you don’t have to be a good or logical liar to fool journalists. As far as bullshit stories go, it is one of the worst.

But having reporters placing the blame on a dead president is even bigger bullshit.

John R. MacArthur, who was the one who broke the origin scam, was on the panel, and he goes on at length about how journalists back then were doing good work.

No, they weren’t. They were lazy assholes who parroted press releases. Don’t try to be a revisionist. The reportage back then was absolutely horrid on every level, and Western journalist have a lot to answer for in their bullshittery.

George Bush got the war because the press demanded the war. They were the ones who kept going on about dead babies.

And yes, I have the original articles, transcripts, and broadcasts to back up my claims because I am doing exhaustive research for my next project.

And every reporter MacArthur cites in that interview put out bullshit. So let us not play a game of make pretend.

But the Democracy Now segment is interesting in that they are trying to manipulative and frame a narrative that somehow George Bush was a bad man because he was a Republican…

Yeah, except Bill Clinton did a whole lot worse and he was a Democrat. Not only did his policies allow vested interests to shape it, it is under his watch that modern Middle East terrorism flourished.

And he had been directly warned about it.

If we had an honest press, there would be different conversation going on: why does the media spew war propaganda?

And how come political ideology has never served as any antidote to bloodshed?

George Bush did what every US president before and after him have done. He is not a special president.

So when this kind of partisan propaganda gets spewed, you have to be very careful not to fall for the spin, and realize it is a game of misdirection, and a highly manipulative one at that…

The strange world of Reality Deniers.

I find Truthout to be very silly.

Here they are slagging a dead president in an article, and then beg for money because fewer people are reading their slagging.

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 12.11.29 AM.png

You are not “independent news.” You are Left-wing propaganda, and it costs no money to say something easy like George 41 was an Establishment president. Duh.

But welcome to the world of the Reality Deniers who do not know what is real and what is fake.

3.jpg

They think they know, but they always run to the lie.

2.jpg

I had my fill as a teenager of the lies of the press, and I said enough.

1.gif

People treat Reality Deniers with kid gloves, lest the snowflakes are inconvenienced.

Never mind the kind of hell the rest of the world endures in the name of protecting a few psychopathic and manipulative cowards.

The fortresses Reality Deniers have created are huge and thick, but they are built on lies.

They rigged the battleground, and then covered up the battleground with distorting mirrors.

Enough is enough.

It is time to uncover the battleground, and show the rigs, but not in the old ways that no longer work.

The Reality Deniers are getting brazen, thinking they can just do whatever they wish. See drunk drivers ride around, and one police department want to shame them because nothing else is working.

Because Reality Deniers are allowed to throw tantrums, feign victimhood, misdirect by villainizing people who they destroy, and rig laws to work in their favour.

But there is another method to dealing with Reality Deniers.

And it is more than just exposing them.

It is turning over their own rules, and being the Nightmare of Reality.

But not in the traditional way that journalism once did.

That doesn’t work because that profession got infected with Reality Deniers, and fucked up the profession.

So, there comes a time when you have to get the joke, and find the right mindset to deal with those cowards and liars.

And turn the world into a laboratory, and a stage.

That’s what I intend to do.

And that is your message from…

Chaser.png

A Dangerous Woman Story Studio update

It looks like there will be one more One Shot coming in a week.

twmdwmnf.jpeg

It is one that was half-written since about 2014, and was patiently waiting its turn in the queue, and now seems like a good time to finish it.

I didn’t think I would have the time, but there is actually one more One Shot from this series, along with a couple of stories in the magazine, but I want to finish them all in 2019 because I want to get to the next leg of the story arc.

As for the first wave of Magnus Lyme Mysteries, there are three more in the popper, and I am working on the next one called Chick Bait. I am eager to get through these as well so the second wave of stories can be done — ones where Miss Lyme is infiltrating the Circle in the Sky and romancing Dr. Hunter Colby. We know a lot about her first love Dwennon Garrison as he has been spun-off into his own mystery series of short stories, but very little about the enigmatic Dr. Colby. Dwennon wasn’t supposed to be a character: he was to be her unnamed first boyfriend with his older brother Felix in one of her short stories; but then Dwennon seemed to speak to me, and my plans had changed.

I make no secret that I adore four male characters: Dwennon, Hammond Hughes, Phil Lipton, and Theodore Nathanial, and out of that list, Phil is the most patient as I had him in an unpublished manuscript since my early twenties with no connection to Magnus Lyme. Eventually, when I began writing in a Matriarchal-style, the two characters clicked, and paths opened wide for me.

I have an art book I have to do, and that means A Dangerous Woman will most likely be on hiatus until June, and it is the reason I want to squeeze in one more short story.

I have another series in the works that is structural in nature, and the novella will have two separate and unrelated stories told in the same novel style. When this will come out, I have no idea.

I have a course to finish, a move, and a book to write, among many other things, but I am still actively working on Dangerous Woman stories and venture in general. My problem is to find a profitable way to take it to another level. There is a definite readership for them, and there is a supportive base for them, but I need to shore up and settle a few things after surviving a shocking, unpredictable, and horrific year.

I need to look after myself, as well. It has been a shitty year, but I triumphed. It is hard to believe that I got through everything that fell on my head at the same time. You heard of the trope “dropped a bridge on him”?

Well, someone dropped a universe on me, hoping to keep me dead and buried, but never mess with an eccentric Serbian punk.

We survived holocausts and oppression, and we are still around to tell you how much all the Establishments suck.

And we don’t forget. We are stubborn little punks.

So there is much in the cosmos that has a lot to answer for to me personally, but my life still goes full steam ahead.

The scoreboard this year?

Universe 0, Alexandra Kitty ∞.

And I wasn’t looking for a fight. I was looking to teach others innovative and important things as I write books, and do constructive and kind things in the world as I looked after my family and animals.

C’est la vie, motherfuckers.

I go on with my life with my favourite character of them all, a prim and proper punk by the name of Magnus Demeter Lyme, who is there with her adoring creator all the way.

Stay tuned…

Bad journalism and why Chaser has become my driving force.

I have been writing about perception misaligning with reality for a long time — since 2005 when my first book was published, and multiple times here.

My undergraduate thesis was on the topic, after all, and it is something I know well.

After all, my book through A Dangerous Woman Story Studio Dr. Verity Lake’s Journey of a Thousand Revelations studies the phenomenon, and her signature course is Truth, Perception, and the Nature of Reality.

So the Atlantic’s inferior copy of my musings were of interest to me.

Reading and listening to this ignorant bullshit from oblivious motherfuckers reminded me why journalism needs an alternative.

Because journalism is akin to reading a medical book, and then deciding that you can now be a doctor.

That’s what we have, and that’s not acceptable.

Not anymore.

Chaser is empirical. It is more than just an art or craft — but an actual science.

And when I read bullshit from the Atlantic, it makes me more determined to combat their kind of cancerous garbage that pollutes the information stream to do it in a more professional way…

The psychology of CBC propaganda: A confirmation bias with a strawman argument isn't going to get you any credibility, assholes.

The federal regime-sponsored CBC is at it again with the propaganda, comrades:

The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence

'This is not a time to be passive and allow this calamity to happen to us,' says one psychologist

This is pure one-sided propaganda that commits numerous logical flaws.

What about those psychopaths and grifters who use fear-mongering to manipulate and control behaviour by turning environmentalism into a doomsday cult?

Why are we encouraging appeal to authority, the confirmation bias, and the strawman argument?

Why don’t we look at the real psychology of the climate exploiters instead of the junk psychology of skepticism?

Because the governments know way too much of the hype is pure bullshit.

Just go to your neighbourhood dump, like the one in Hamilton where there is a “pro-environment” mayor. Within the last year, I emptied- a storage locker and had three glass wall units that were no longer functional and a thick glass top that was chipped, and had to be discarded. I had the idea of taking them to be recycled because there would be a lot of glass to recycle.

So I rented a truck, but when I went to the residential part of the dump where you have all these recycling bins, I was told to go to the commercial end because I was taking it in a truck.

And that was very illuminating to how governments assess the problem.

Commercial waste is much bigger than residential, and boy, there weren’t any recycling areas.

Just one building with a huge pile of trash all thrown in together, and I was told to just throw all that glass in the pile.

No recycling of any of the garbage. Businesses come and just dump it all in the same pile.

And I could see the cans, bottles, and paper all going into the same pile of garbage with no one questioning it or telling them to separate the garbage.

And it is not just garbage. Wind turbines mess up the climate. When I was renting a lakefront cottage for several months in the winter in Selkirk to write my latest book, I was warned that I’d be snowed in. I brought bags of salt, a shovel, and prepared for the worst.

Except the town is littered with wind turbines, and there was no snow at all.

As soon as I left town and drove to non-turbine areas, it was a different story. There was huge snow. None in Selkirk.

I thought nothing of it until I binge-watched the West Wing, and one of the characters made mention of the problems of turbines, and when I read more about it from academic sources, then yeah, they are very bad for the environment.

We have had scandals with scientists admitting to fudging and “tweaking” data.

So when you have people who are protesting wind turbines, they aren’t “deniers”, and it is a manipulative misnomer to label them as such. They are witness to various skulduggery that people assume is true, but is just snake oil.

When you have too many charlatans hiding under the banner of environmentalism, the movement loses credibility. You can’t just shame people, and expect them all to walk lockstep with whatever decrees you make.

It is true that pollution is a damaging thing. It causes all sorts of serious health issues, such as cancer. It kills plants and animals. Many companies are gratuitously filthy, and there is no need for it, either because we have the resources and the technology in place to make cleaner output a viable option both environmentally and economically.

But fear-mongering is a dangerous gambit that begs grifters and manipulators to use the cloak to hide their more dubious schemes, and people can see it, and once that happens, they will no longer trust the message.

They are not stupid. They are not ignorant. They are not mentally defective.

They just aren’t buying the bill of goods you are selling.

And if CBC was a real journalism outfit, and not a mouthpiece for the Liberal regime, they’d point it out.

But they aren’t journalism. They just spew propaganda, and then are honestly surprised that people stop believing the lies they’ve been told.

You don’t pick sides. You look for facts. You measure, compare, and contrast. You don’t try to shame or label people mentally ill because they have been burned.

If we had sensible information coming out without the theatrics, facts become self-evident, and it is far easier to gain consensus on solutions and finding the ones that actually work.

And this piece of propaganda isn’t helping anyone — it is just creating hatred and fear when neither emotion is required to find a solution of any sort…

Martyr? Superheroine? Crusader? Fuck that. Try Ringmaster to the Sucker Circus.

I feel bad for three men: Julian Assange, Eric Snowdon, and Dr. Radovan Karadžić.

They all made the same amateur mistake.

47210079_517457022077610_4042225796528472064_n.jpg

They actually believed that the Middle Class are some sort of moral core.

Some are, of course, but you have too many people who abuse their children, sabotage their siblings and coworkers, needlessly tattle on their neighbours, gossip and spread rumours about their friends as they fuck their spouses, and ran away when someone in drowning or being mugged.

People allow others to molest their children, and when those pained and vulnerable children run to their worthless parents for help, pretend not to believe them or tell them to shut up.

Then walk over homeless people feeling superior to the dispossessed.

And should they be called out for being selfish psychopaths, they always have an excuse.

What these three men have in common is that they thought all they had to do was expose evil, and people would rise up and overthrow these evil people, and they would be grateful to those who risked everything to stand up to them.

Snowdon is in exile, and will most likely be caught and go down as a villain, even by those who are strategically cheering him on and supporting him for their own political gain. Assange is in serious trouble and has been painted as a Russian agent by the Left who pretend to be the moral voice. Dr. Karadžić got caught in a civil war, and got arrested and painted as a war criminal.

No one will ever thank you for exposing the evil shit they are eating.

I learned that as a teenager during that civil war when I had evidence of the lies the press was spewing, and was told “So what?”

People who wear suits are brutes and barbarians, and they are enabled by the middle class.

You have several choices if you are someone with a moral core, but if you think you are going to save the world and get gratitude, you are being naive.

But you cannot sit in silence, either. You are allowing scum to influence your life, and then you become a different kind of prisoner. People get rich and famous at your expense. They steal your ideas, resources, and happiness; so to stay silent is a rather passive and cowardly thing to do.

You don’t let people get away with garbage. For all the virtue-signalling and moral masturbation raging on Twitter, it is all shallow, cosmetic things and people picking of celebrities who are easy and inconsequential targets, or just ordinary people who did something silly.

It is nothing that would bring real change or progress.

So what to do you?

You don’t play a martyr as Snowdon did. His fake American supporters aren’t lobbying to have him receive immunity, and they could have made his fate an election issue. So he is up the creek.

You don’t play crusader like Assange because people will turn on you for exposing to the world what wretched and ignorant minions they are to people in power. They want to believe they voted for moral servants you can support amid the fake laughter at boring cocktail parties.

You don’t play superhero like Dr. Karadžić because you’ll end up taking all of the blame as you wither in a jail cell at the Hague in some fake trial that is absolutely rigged to paint you as the bad guy.

But you do not stay silent. You call out the fraud. When you call out sanctioned insanity as sanctioned insanity, you complicate the schemes of those losers. They want the façade of respectability, but if you point out what vile and pathetic motherfuckers they are, they lose control and control freaks shit their diapers when that happens.

Because they think they can fool all of the people all of the time.

But calling out is not the real work.

You are merely drawing attention to something that no one really wants you to draw attention to because there is potential for work, contrition, humiliation, shame, and the loss of rewards.

Which is what you should be doing. You are pulling more than just a carpet, but also raising a curtain.

Meaning you are exposing the Hell for what it truly is.

Yet when you raise a curtain, you are signalling that a show is about to start.

And that the centre of gravity is not with the schemers — or their enablers.

It is a Sucker Circus, and you’re not an act in it.

But the ringmaster.

You are not there to appease or change minds.

What you are there is to ensure the clowns are seen as clowns.

And the animal shit on the ground is labelled as such.

You expose how the tricks are played: the trick wires, the hidden players behind the scenes, everything.

But the trick is comedy.

People get into unnatural habits and then go running on a hamster wheel.

And you then show the Hamster Wheel Runners as part of the Sucker Circus.

You are putting everything on the record, but not to save people.

They are more than capable of saving themselves.

You are not some sort of holy crusader. People can get off their fucking asses. If those suckers are hoping for a They to save them, or God, Santa Claus, or the Great Pumpkin, you expose them as the Invisible Friend Seekers as part of the Sucker Circus.

You are not some sort of superhero swooping in to save the little people from governments. They voted those motherfuckers in there, and kept voting them in election after election, even though they get fuck all for their votes. You expose those Futility Voters as part of the Sucker Circus.

You show that the Left side is as ridiculous as the Right side. There is no comfy loophole to hide in.

You have to earn your place in the Radical Centre.

The ringmaster’s seat.

You ride on the wavelengths as part of your act. You don’t try to alter those frequencies.

You expose them, but not in the way that you think people will change because they are moral.

You expose both sides of their calculations to show just how moronic they are, and then clear the path for you to live your own life on your own terms.

Freedom from the shackles of conniving lunacy is the goal of Chaser. You want to live as a follower, minion, loser, or moron, go ahead. I won’t stop you.

I won’t try to change you. Whatever sanctioned insanity floats your boat.

But don’t try to confine me or harm me with your bullshit.

Because you may very well be the debut act in the Sucker Circus…

The re-launching of Chaser News, Part Forty-Five: I was a girl scientist doing strange things in the name of science. I still do the outrageous, but in the name of truth.

When I was a little girl, I was precocious.

20180711_151650.jpg

I skipped grades. I was in my high school’s gifted program. I won awards.

I was also very much into science, even as a toddler.

I was a girl scientist and girl inventor, and I did very strange things in the name of science.

I poured orange juice into the television set to see what would happen (it makes a popping sound before it explodes and black smoke comes out of it). That experiment was a failure.

But I had many successes. I took apart the stereo, fixed it, and put it back together working better than before as a kid in grade school with no help.

I still got punished for it, but it went down as a victory in my science journal.

I made little contraptions. Some worked, some really didn’t work, and some really, really did not work as intended.

When I hit university, the nature of my experiments radically changed from basically engineering to psychology.

Experimental psychology opened up a whole new world for me, and suddenly, I found myself doing a very different kind of science.

I still conducted outrageous experiments. At first, to test whatever theories I was learning in my classes, but then when I got a hang of it, I invented my own.

No one ever knew it or figured it out. Not the quiet ones, and not the surreal eccentric ones.

Then came the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, and I decided to put my peculiar talent to good use by conducting experiments as a journalist.

Those were instructive beyond my most optimistic expectations, but sometimes I pushed the limits, like the time I struck up a conversation with a Secret Service Agent when then Vice President Dick Cheney was giving a speech in Toronto to journalists.

I thought someone was going to have to bail my ass out of some sort of secret jail, but the shocked and jittery agent indulged my questions without overt incident.

That is how far I was willing to go to find out the reality of a situation, and my books are empirically solid enough to be used in academia and have been repeatedly.

When I began Chaser News the first time, I upped the outrageous factor of my online experiments, and found out a lot more about people than I had ever expected.

Then when I stopped Chaser, life focussed my energies on far more serious matters, and I had no time or mindset for them.

Until 2018 and then my life was thrown into a place below hell, and then suddenly, those old ideas transmuted and came roaring back with a vengeance.

So I started conducting even more outrageous, but empirically sound experiments. From tweaking noses of social media moderators by creating such a tangle of fine lines to make a spider’s web and see their increasingly angry responses as they have no clue how much I am tweaking their noses just to see how much Big Brother information that have on me as their user (throwing bricks to get jades, kids — and you would be shocked how even dinky little sites have big data on you), to other more subversive experiments, I am gathering data, and the Internet allows it on a global scale, but I am not lying, hacking, cheating, or stealing.

I am just doing something small, subtle, and peculiar.

My latest invention is something I dub mind wild: mix in Mission: Impossible, experimental psychology, culture jamming, Candid camera, military strategy, Spy magazine, and Just for Laughs Gags.

mission_impossible_tv_101-h_2018.jpg

Chaser is going to be hard news, but by the summer, it will be hard news with a twist. The F.R.E.E.D. will be added to this blend by the fall, and it will not be like anything you have seen before.

It will be scientific. It will find new information.

What it won’t be is the same old way of doing news. While the old ways of academia try to observe, but can never really get it, Chaser jumps into the eye of the storm to do something to turn over every rule to break them.

The girl scientist grew up to be an inventor of an alternative to the way we have been doing journalism, and she is excited…

Michelle Obama knocks Sheryl Sandberg. The typical female catfight snorefest rages on.

Michelle Obama got calculatedly petty and catty at Sheryl Sandberg because the Leftie Mean Girls on the playground are apparently jealous:

At Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, on Saturday, a very candid former first lady weighed in on whether she believes women can "have it all." Speaking off the cuff, Michelle Obama explained why "leaning in" doesn't actually work, and she caught a lot of attention for it across the internet.

“Marriage still ain’t equal, y'all,” Michelle told the crowd, which had gathered for a sold-out stop on her book tour, according to Vanity Fair. "It ain’t equal. I tell women that whole ‘you can have it all’ — mmm, nope, not at the same time, that’s a lie. It’s not always enough to lean in because that sh*t doesn’t work."

And men do seem to have it, and have had it all for centuries, but women cannot?

Really?

Women are intellectually inferior to men and are too stupid for the work-life balance?

Wow.

Is Michelle Obama some sort of Stepford, neo-Victorian delicate flower?

Apparently so, but there is a more conniving reason for the swipe.

The Left are script-followers and lock-steppers, and the new helmet-haired biddies of this generation. Sandberg is merely a target because the Left want to blame everyone else but themselves for their incompetent failures.

Sandberg at least tried to have a war manual for women, and that was important.

Bravo about writing a helpful book, and not just another Look at Me! pabulum that passes for a book.

Oh, and that book was lauded when the Left thought Facebook was going to be their own little propaganda tool.

And now we have women who are knocking it because it was flawed?

While offering no constructive alternative?

Okay, let Michelle Obama bring us an alternative.

She has a university education, and I take it she has the ability to do some research, and come up with something that is both reliable and valid, empirically-designed, and has utility.

Sandberg at least made her own power and fortune on her own, and hence, has more credibility than the one woman who married into her position, and rode on her husband’s coattails.

Women have to do more than squawk, tattle, shame, and get into catfights: they have to lean in it, punch in, scratch in, kick in, crawl in, steamroll in, blast in, roar in, and fucking fight in.

You’re not fucking fairy princesses, bitches. Life is hell and does not give one flying fuck about your wedding pictures, cupcake recipes, and which toady loser you’re fellating.

You are on your own. You are free to succeed or fail based on your own strategies and active plans for the future.

You are also free to lean in to neo-Victorian Liberals, and go tell them to go fuck themselves and stop spewing bullshit in public.

Because I don’t recall Michelle Obama doing anything for women for her eight years in the limelight other than point out to women how deficient they were and needed First Lady meddling to tell them how to feed their children.

Women these days have decided to retreat and take steps backwards, not forwards. If they want to be oppressed, they are doing an impeccable job for the misogynists. #MeToo was the last real push, right before it got hijacked by the Democratic Party and was FUBAR…