Al Franken for Democrat Dummies

Roy Moore must be absolutely thrilled.

2cb63c03f04a497ceded32e979009fc7_b

He must think that Al Franken is his godsend.

And he would be right on the money.

Moore has nothing to worry about now.

The moment the Left defended Al Franken, they let Moore off the hook, and anything they say about sexual harassment now, is absolutely meaningless.

It is all talk. Anyone who complains about Moore, will be effectively shut out and shut down.

Because if it is okay for some to be forgiven for sexual harassment, then everyone else will be forgiven, too.

Because women made excuses for Franken, they lost the battle and the war.

Some aging relics got pushed out, but the new boors now take their positions, and it will be the same old story, except they will see how the old guard got caught, and now know precisely how to circumvent detection for the next half century or so.

And as women’s rights have been eroding since the 90s, the trajectory will continue in the US.

So why is it a big deal that there are too many apologists for Franken?

There are many reasons that I have outlined earlier, but the Left’s hypocrisy has cost them as being credible guardians of feminist and women’s issues.

They imply that only Franken can save women. It is a patronizing and misogynistic assumption, but it is the narrative the Left willingly chose on their own, proving their system is as rigged as the Right’s.

And as we have not seen a single American woman start a political party to address this, there is no longer a single credible American woman who can rightly call herself a feminist.

The women retreated, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all on their own.

You are on the cusp of winning a key battle, and then you what? Start treating a duplicitous hostile force as a victim as you dismiss a sister-in-arms whose life was forever impeded by the episode?

There is not a single American woman competent and capable enough to take on the mantle here?

The defeat is a subversive one that will make more damage than most people realize.

The problem stemmed from ignorance of war strategy by American feminists.

They justified the actions of Franken, which was not just a tactical error, but has brought them defeat.

Harvey Weinstein will beat the rap just as easily as Bill Cosby.

Once you roar a battle cry, there is no going back. Once you wage a war, you do not end the battle until the goal is achieved.

You will face obstacles. You will suffer losses, but most importantly of all, you will discover double agents and traitors to your cause, but you have to face the reality of these truths all the same.

But Franken’s actions on that fateful abusive siege on Leeann Tweeden were far more diabolical than most of Franken’s apologists realize.

They were coworkers, but also sharing a stage. Tweeden is comely, and to the mostly male troops, she would be the one to get the most attention.

She would be the belle of the ball by default.

I don’t think someone like Franken would stand being upstaged by a radiating beauty…and so, there would be numerous ways to usurp her, and throw her off balance as he is not a particularly brilliant or original performer.

And there are ways to make someone lose their focus.

All the things he did would do precisely that to Tweeden.

How many women have been thrown off balance that way and had their careers derailed as they lost confidence and became afraid?

And I wonder how many of those women are coming to the defence of a man who did to them the same as the men who forever sabotaged their careers and lives?

But there is another side to it, and it is the side I saw when I was working as a journalist.

In 2002, I wrote an article for Elle Canada about women who broke the law to please a boyfriend. All of the women I interviewed ended up in prison with lengthy terms…while the man walked and walked out of their lives never to be seen or heard from again.

Every one of these women would be what I call street smart and savvy, yet every single one fell for the same basic ruse that hinged on gratitude, and assuming a kind gesture had no ulterior motive for it.

The boyfriend in question “saved” her — from an abusive relationship to financial ruin. Every woman was grateful for the kindness and attention.

And every one volunteered to help their boyfriend do something illegal, even taking the rap for doing something he did and masterminded.

But it was not the man who got caught.

It was the woman who protected the man by not giving him up to police.

With no one else to prosecute, these women got two decades or more in the slammer.

And the boyfriend took off to parts unknown, leaving her to rot all by herself.

It was a rude awakening: not only was she tricked into keeping quiet, the man was not even grateful. He wasn’t because he cultivated her to behave on cue the exact way he needed her to in order to do what he wanted, but not get caught.

He pulled her out of an abusive relationship or financial hardship to have a pawn who would do his dirty work, take the fall, and defend him in public.

It keeps happening. Charlie Manson made a career out of it. He may have been labelled a “murderer”, but technically, he did not do the actual killing. He was the mastermind, not the minion slaughtering innocents.

But to his groupies, he was absolutely without flaw. I once had a conversation with a female professor who was very protective of him, telling me that he was just “a lost little boy.”

She had the Ph.D. and he didn’t even have a high school diploma, but he played her to the point that she had become irrational in her defence of him.

Many women have no clue when they have been asked to jump up on a hamster wheel. They honestly believe they are shrewd, savvy, and even the smartest person in the room who can never be played.

But women have been played. They get played with chilling ease.

By allowing one man to be protected from his own calculated sexist feint, they have now made a path for other men to do the same. All a man has to do is pay them a few false compliments, say he supports abortion rights, and she will always come to his defence, even if he treats women like trash who are beneath him.

Instead of making a path where all women can liberate themselves and depend on no one to hold their fate in their hands, those same women squandered a chance by giving it to someone who would throw them to the wolves if it were expedient for him to do so.

Worst of all, the Roy Moores reap the benefits of the Al Frankens.

No woman will benefit.

Don’t start a campaign unless you are willing to fight the war to the bitter end, or pull your punches. You are playing for keeps.

And to the American Left who are wondering why Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost, you now know your answer.

You arrived, but then failed to deliver — and that is an unforgivable sin.

Very rarely, will you ever be given a second chance.

You squandered it on a man who humiliates women when he thinks no one is looking. Now deal with it, poseurs.

The Washington Post’s Pseudo-feminist column, and the death of journalism

In one of the worst columns the Washington Post has ever had the gall to churn out, pseudo-feminist Kate Harding’s dreck on defending Al Franken is a prime example of sophistry disguised as an actual idea.

It is the same pseudo-feminist babble that enabled Bill Clinton to hold on to power when he should have been kicked to the curb for using the Oval Office as a love shack.

You can be a book smart woman. You can be an ambitious woman. You can even be a woman who has a title and a tiara.

You are not a feminist by default.

And Kate Harding is no feminist because no feminist would ever use illogic to keep an abuser in place.

No, Ms Harding, you are not a feminist. You are an apologist who is trying to twist logic to keep a status quo you believe works for you and you alone.

Forget about the excuses and sophistry she churns out. The bottom line is that we have women who are using a dishonest narrative to make an excuse why they made a mistake, were wrong, and elevated a disrespectful schmuck to power.

One who is exploiting you and telling you sweet nothings to get what he wants — and you, like a fool, support him.

Yeah, not feminist thinking at all.

Stand by your man, ladies!

If you want to turf someone like Roy Moore, then you have to turf Al Franken. Do not make excuses that your boors are less offensive than the other guy’s boors. All it means is either (a) the true extent of boorishness has not been exposed (and with nondisclosure clauses, do not assume anything), or (b) one boor was not given the same chance as the other guy. Once you think it is okay to humiliate a coworker in such an intimate manner, that’s it.

You may be less brazen, but it doesn’t make you any less swinish.

No feminist gives a man a free pass, and makes up excuses for him as if he needs her meddling.

Because if he does need meddling and a maid to clean up his messes…he is not all that competent.

And the idea that women’s right in America hinge on a former mediocre comedian is insane. As in childish, logically flawed, and just plain pathetic.

Sadly, the New York Times can have no virtuous airs as they, too, allow pseudo-feminist prattle get published. So did the Daily Kos.

American journalism has always been a hotbed for sexist ideology. Their filters are so tainted, even when they have a token woman under some sort of “feminist” banner, she does nothing remotely feminist.

She will perpetuate stereotypes. She will make excuses and give free passes to bad behaviour.

She may affiliate with Democrats, but sorry, that is not enough to make her a feminist.

American feminism has been reduced to obsessing over a single issue: abortion rights.

There are plenty of qualified women who can replace Al Franken. Women have to stop stooping to defending low-class users and start actually fighting a war.

Not a war against men. But a war against misogyny.

And it starts by making demands, and not being dependent on other people to give you dregs of a human right here or there.

American feminism lost its dignity the day women who proclaimed to be one stood up and defended Bill Clinton.

Those women got played. It happens. You have to learn to recognize your mistakes, face it, and then admit it to change your thinking and not make the same mistake again.

Harding’s toxic ideas merely pollute feminism, and are just as destructive as the acts of Roy Moore.

Stop protecting predators. Stop making excuses for predators.

And stop calling yourself a feminist if you are not willing to actually stand up for women’s rights no matter how difficult and inconvenient it can be.

Memo to the Mainstream Media: Your boorish Great Men weren’t great at all. Women in journalism are the underclass. And it is time it stopped.

When CBS fired journo-perv Charlie Rose, they did not actually sound very sorry…just sorry that he got caught as CBS News President David Rhodes whined (emphasis added):

Despite Charlie’s important journalistic contribution to our news division, there is absolutely nothing more important, in this or any organization, than ensuring a safe, professional workplace — a supportive environment where people feel they can do their best work. We need to be such a place.”

What contribution was that? Workplace terrorism? Predator? Grifter who got rid of the competition by degrading them with his admitted war games?

If Rose thought his hateful tactics were justified, then how good of a journalist could he have been? The lens through which he saw reality was defective; ergo, his journalism was not all that.

And even he would have had to have known this if he resorted to ambushing female employees in that manner. Quality journalists do not stoop to those tactics.

But the overt sexism is still rampant. CNN’s Dylan Byers lamented a “drain of talent” because all of the Great Men were getting fired for their abusive war games on his Twitter feed:

Beyond the pain/humiliation women have endured (which is of course the paramount issue), it’s worth taking stock of the incredible drain of talent from media/entertainment taking place right now.

He got called on the carpet, and deleted his Tweet, but he is not the only one out there who thinks it was a bad thing to fire men who, in fact, cannot actually do their jobs, but use misdirections and ruses to climb to the top.

The New York Times’ golden boy Glenn Thrush has also been exposed to engage in such guerrilla tactics, and yet the newspaper is “torn” about kicking the abuser to the curb.

Sexism in journalism was always at crisis levels. It has not gotten any better because the ones who decide who is hired and fired don’t actually see anything wrong with the structure that got them this far up for this long.

The lens is faulty. It is not one that can see reality. The press love their Great Men, and don’t actually think Great Women exist.

They do, but they are always shut out and distracted with stupid games, always having to justify themselves and having to endure barbs that their confidence in their abilities is akin to be an arrogant ass.

Journalism has a serious problem. It has a series of serious problems. It has been a frat house for far too long. The Charlie Roses create hostility, while the Dylan Byers enable it.

If you do not have respect for women, you are not a real journalist. Not a serious one, let alone a great one.

Will the profession actually change? I doubt it. It is too entrenched in its old ways to ever contemplate real change.

But it doesn’t mean people should stay silent or take the abuse that slaps them in the face with every story the profession churns out.

Charlie Rose is out. Journalism is out of touch. Does the industry have the ovaries to admit they need a reinvention?

Charlie Rose has been outed as a menace to women who have to work with him. I have said this is the precise reason why Harvey Weinstein was getting away with swinishness before.

And I will say it again.

Journalism is a profession that reeks of misogyny in its every nook and cranny. It can babble about Evil Bad Trump all it wants, but it is a profession that rewards boors as it ignores any woman with a functioning brain who has dignity, gravitas, vision, courage, morals, and a work ethic.

The accusations against Rose are severe, and I am saying right now, all this abusive behaviour is still going on. Don’t think the scum-shaming is some magical antidote that will cure anything.

After all, if “Great Men” such as Charlie Rose can make it that far up for that long being a tyrant, that shows just how acceptable woman-abusing is in the industry.

And if abusing women is acceptable and does not impede men from being drooled over by the masses and the industry, then how well can these knuckle-draggers report on reality?

No wonder journalism collapsed. People such as Rose were rewarded, never punished for what they did.

How much harder was it for these women to focus and move forward unleashed when they were being degraded at their place of work?

That is how men such as Rose decimate the competition. Plant seeds of fear and disgust, and the rivals cannot stay focussed.

Journalism didn’t collapse because of the Internet. It collapsed because it allowed grifters to rig the newsroom to promote deficient people into positions of power, as it abused people who actually worked.

It starts at j-schools where bad behaviour is ignored. It continues in the newsrooms that have a peculiar idea that being a good reporter requires looking down on women.

Seeing women as a lesser being — or pretending to — is the biggest mark of a coward, and journalism is not a profession that can afford to indulge men whose testosterone feels threatened by the presence of estrogen. Sexism is a sign of weakness. End of story.

Journalism’s reinvention has been long overdo.

And with his mechanical “apology”, comes another covert attack on women.

Sorries are not enough. These apologies never come out of the blue when an offender is at his prime: only after he got caught — and punished.

Apologies have become a feint and ruse — a stratagem in order to buy oneself time, or a second chance.

Charlie Rose had decades of chances. He blew every single one. Let him feel as helpless as the women whose lives he forever altered with his actions to let them feel as if they were his prey — no better than a toilet for a man in power to relieve his urges on.

That is not a journalist. That is the kind of person journalists are supposed to expose to tell the world who is not worthy of their trust.

And the Hall of Shame grows by one more…

 

Why journalism needs street fighters — not apologists or propagandists

Journalism in the West is in a disgraceful shambles, and it shows with every article and segment they churn out. The problem could be easily solved, but as they keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome, the mess becomes bigger and more toxic to the society they cover.

The New York Times is a very bad offender. Their latest apologistic propaganda drivel disguised as an op-ed piece is desperately trying to salvage the reputation of Al Franken.

It was fine to finally out Harvey Weinstein as a predator because he was losing his clout, his cash and support did not translate into a Hillary Clinton presidency; so it was justifiable to throw him under the bus. He became expendable, and the press has no trouble disposing of no longer useful players.

But then came still very viable pawn Al Franken.

Now things are entirely different. 

Now, all of a sudden, the narrative is about making excuses for him. Well, everyone makes mistakes, is the sophistry used to justify vile behaviour; so let’s ignore it and move on.

No, overcooking a roast is a mistake. Grabbing a woman’s chest when she was asleep and then memorializing the disgracing pose against her will as a trophy to prove you are more cunning than your prey is very deliberate. It is fitting that this took place in a military setting because that picture itself was a guerrilla ambush

It is war and Franken won by sneak attack. There is no mistake there. That assault was a calculated one of opportunity and says a whole lot more about Franken’s content of character than most people in journalism can admit.

But journalists often serve as maids and janitors to those currently in power: they clean up the messes by spinning, ignoring, downplaying, or re-interpreting their masters’s numerous sins.

Exposing Franken was a tactical error, but it was the fallout of war: the point of this entire Weinstein/#Metoo campaign was a game of Go against Donald Trump: he was accused of being a boor; so the point was to slowly surround him by exposing a few weakened titans who were accused of doing the same or worse.

The gambit didn’t work the first time when the Clinton campaign went after the now infamous recording of him prattling to Billy Bush — but perhaps if there was a longer arc on it, there is a chance he could be eventually stymied.

Prime your audiences to renounce sexual harassment, and then shaming him is the natural and foregone conclusion.

Except it didn’t work out quite as planned.

Because people in power don’t become powerful because they are gentle and sensitive, or even intelligent or competent.

The power structure in this society is such that people who are conniving rig things to ensure that their conniving ways are rewarded, and that intelligent and benevolent people are too distracted to challenge them.

If there is a direct comparison, the connivers are going to lose. So, ensure that the moral and intelligent are too unfocussed and overwhelmed to be serious threats.

So when the sexual harassment Pandora’s box opened, there truly was no telling what would happen.

Because once upon a time, journalism had an iron-grip on what information would be made public, and it made outcomes easier to manipulate and control.

But with the Internet, things are less predictable, yet journalists still hold on to those old rules, making the results of their campaigns not quite what they were aiming for.

So when valuable pawn Al Franken got exposed as the pig that he is, the press now has a dilemma as they lavished positive press on him for years.

And now the backtracking begins, which itself will undermine the entire narrative: if journalists say that sometimes it is okay to sexually humiliate women, then harassers will just cop to saying it was all a mistake, they are sorry, and then women will be placed in a worse position than they were before: once again being seen as hysterical harpies who should be compassionate and accommodating toward their abusers, who, by golly, are just making mistakes at women’s expense.

Do not think that can’t happen. It is already starting, thanks to the apologists at The New York Times and the Daily Kos.

If women truly do not want to be oppressed even worse than they were before, they must ignore the apologists and demand Franken’s resignation. There must be a line drawn somewhere, and it must be a very severe and serious one.

No, it is not okay to humiliate a woman. No, it is not okay to take a photograph of you fondling her when she is asleep. There was no consent. You were on a job, and she was your coworker. It would not be any different under any other circumstance, but this is the epitome of sexual harassment, and we do not make exceptions to popular Democrats who morally masturbate in public just because traditional media drool all over him and he once handily won Celebrity Jeopardy.

But the Times’s propaganda piece does raise one more interesting question to ponder: why didn’t the press see the Franken debacle coming?

The answer is very simple: because you have journalists who are not trained to be street fighters, but sheltered, ignorant, and arrogant teenagers who think they are smart just because they have a university degree or two.

Journalism requires those in the profession to understand that they are soldiers in an intellectual war. You have to fight to hunt and gather every grain of truth. J-schools do not train soldiers: they indulge brats who cannot be bothered in learning how to fight and how to survive. They sit at their computers all day, and have no idea about this thing called reality. They imagine themselves as kings and queens, telling people how to think — who to shame and who to hero worship, and then all the little peasants follow their decrees.

Journalists love having war stories, but so long as they do not have to actually fight in any battles.

The profession got decimated precisely because journalists really had no clue they were in a war.

They never fought. They haughtily schemed. They all thought they were royalty in a castle, not the knights who had to defend that castle called Truth at all costs.

They saw Republican hypocrisy, and thought that aligning themselves with the Democrats was the easy answer by default.

No, the Clintons and the Frankens of the world are your enemies, too. They used you, abused you, exploited you, manipulated you, and lied to you again and again and again.

And all you ever did was kiss up to them and reward their conniving ways. To them, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Stop your maid service to Franken. Stop your janitorial detail to the Clintons.

Take off that ridiculous crown and maid’s outfit, and get out your soldier’s uniforms, and put them on right now.

If you haven’t noticed, there is a war raging out here right now. You are surrounded by hostile forces, you lost far too many liberties, and you have no idea how to fight as you threw away your weapons, and wouldn’t even know how to use them if you still had them because you gave them to the enemies who are using those weapons against you.

If you can’t read between the lines, then here is the memo: the war is over, and journalism lost.

Now what?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am not sitting around waiting for the enemies of truth to dictate anything to me…

Memo to the Daily Kos: Defending Al Franken just destroyed your credibility. Why feminists should be creating their own political parties — once and for all.

The Daily Kos is propaganda for the Left, the way Infowars is propaganda for the Right. Let’s get that out of the way, first. They peddle in scary bedtime stories, nothing more.

Let’s also look at the American Left’s war manual, Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to understand how the American Left fight their battles. The book is simple, elegant, and has a neat list of “rules” to take on a political opponent. Radical rule number four is interesting:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Alinsky hit upon something absolutely brilliant here: that people in power may have to pay a lot of lip service, but that’s just to appease a certain flock. They don’t actually believe the mush they spew to the little people who blindly follow whoever tells them what they want to hear.

For the last few decades, the Left have done a very effective job of exposing Republican hypocrisy; even as recently as this month, pompous self-entitled troll Roy Moore was exposed. With accusations and victims coming up to tell the world about how he exploited them when they were mere teens, the Left followed Rule #4 just fine.

But then came along Al Franken’s very bad behaviour.

And the Daily Kos defended his behaviour, as they, too, got devastated by the same rule that tarnished Moore.

Let us turn the tables and apply Rule #4 on the outlet as well, shall we?

They dreamt up a diabolical and paranoid conspiracy theory that this scandal was somehow a coordinated “hit.” with the faithful flock yet again playing Joseph McCarthy blaming Orthodox Christians for all of their woes.

And I suppose Russians made Al Franken pose for this abusive picture, too:

Russians made him do it.

It’s like dismissing an ex-wife for telling people her former husband molested their children. We can call her a disgruntled person with an axe to grind all we want, but if she has hard evidence of his sins, she has every right to be disgruntled and wield her axe on his reputation any time she chooses for whatever purpose she chooses.

He made that axe for her in the first place.

With a single article, the Daily Kos proved to be nothing more but apologists for scum.

And if that wasn’t enough, those little propagandists went into overdrive, trying to frighten feminists into sticking with a woman-degrader because, well, those evil Republicans might take abortion rights away!

And Al Franken is the only person capable of standing up for women’s rights, according to the illogic of the Daily Kos.

No, this is the precise reason feminists need to dump not just Franken, but the entire party.

Do not threaten me with lies. Do not tell me that I have to settle and make do with a letch.

Because no woman has to settle for any garbage for any reason.

I always said American pseudo-feminists messed up with their cowardice during the Bill Clinton scandal. They stood by their man. Shame on all of those women who were passive airheads.

Any woman who defended Bill Clinton was not a feminist, but a Stepford voter.

And no feminist — female, male, or however you identify yourself — should stick with Franken just because they are afraid of losing their rights.

You dump the hypocrite. You denounce the hypocrite. You put every hypocrite on notice that you are ready to battle.

And feminists have all sorts of options: they could run for Franken’s seat in a run-off after chasing him out of Dodge; in fact, you can have two feminists run — one Democrat, and one Republican.

That’s right: mobilize in droves to be represented in both parties so that women’s rights are permanently off the table. As in, not for negotiation; so it does not matter who wins that election; women can sleep easy no matter who is in that seat.

Or, they could just start a new party. Get a real feminist to launch her campaign at a woman’s shelter, showing America that too many women are living in terror with their domestic terrorists. Gather all the teenage girls who were abused and then thrown away on the streets, and bring them over to the super-rich’s house, and show these girls the life they will never have.

Let those dispossessed girls lean in to Sheryl Sandberg to ask her what she thinks about women’s rights — the reality version of it, and what she plans to do about it as she has the money and the means to lean in to the big boys.

Let that candidate take on pay equity. Let that candidate show us the teen mothers, the elderly women who cannot make ends meet, those single mothers who fight a million wars every single day with no reprieve just to put scraps of food on the table. Let her do her campaign ads from the morgue, showing the women who were murdered by their spouses, and ask if the rest of the country really wants to settle for squalor and make do?

The Daily Kos is no friend to any woman. Not one. They are ensuring that women run in fear on that hamster wheel, thinking they are getting away from the past.

No, they are driving you into the clutches of yet another letch.

And is that what life is all about? Being a damsel-in-distress your entire, meaningless life?

Or is it making new opportunities where none existed before because you don’t have to eat the dirt publications such as the Daily Kos keep kicking in your face? Enough is enough. We don’t need yet another bully tell to us how morally superior he is. We need to face reality with the truth so we can stop being afraid, and start dealing with tyrants head on.

Memo to the Globe and Mail: Sophistry does not justify keeping the works of rapists, murderers, and other destructive con men. Why a creator’s intent is more important than the product he makes

The Globe and Mail’s Russell Smith’s apologist column is a very good example of bad journalism. It is a justification why we should keep admiring the works of thugs and tyrants who backstabbed, schemed, lied, and bullied their way into immortality with their immorality.

Smith gets the ball rolling with the logic that explains why journalism has collapsed:

The great Renaissance sculptor and goldsmith Benvenuto Cellini, creator of Perseus With the Head of Medusa, was a murderer and a rapist. He killed at least two men and was accused by a model of sexually assaulting her. This does not stop me from looking with great amazement and curiosity at the naked and sexual Perseus With the Head of the Medusa. The knowledge of the immorality of the creator does not distract from my enjoyment of his creation; indeed I am made even more curious to know how beauty is perceived by a violent man.

Beauty? Has Smith never heard of the concept of a Trojan horse? When I look at the art of destructive men such as Cellini, I wonder what more talented men and women had their works silenced and forgotten because a sociopath like Cellini maneuvered his way into prominence? Whose voices were forever ignored because men like Cellini was not above terrorizing people around him as he blustered his way to the top?

Just like Harvey Weinstein.

Imagine how pathetic a species humans are that we still enable tyrants in 2017? We learned nothing. We changed nothing. Notice we are hashing up years old sexual harassment and assault stories, as if it weren’t happening right now.

And still holding on to Cellini is proof why journalism is no longer a thing.

Because journalists do not know how to ever admit they are wrong, nor do they seem to have any capability of looking beneath the surface.

R. Kelly’s song Age is Just A Number isn’t art: it is an excuse disseminated through song. We have people who have infected our hearts and minds with things that are destructive. These works as used to justify racism, sexism, pedophilia, oppression, and making very bad things look good.

Art is supposed to be creative. It is supposed to progress and free people, not make them co-conspirators in their own oppression and confinement.

Wonder Woman, for example, is a prime case of a misogynistic concept presented as a feminist one. No sorry, not even the raved about movie can erase the sexist stink of it. But you have people who honestly think it is about empowering women. It is, in fact, a guide in showing how to make a woman oppressed, but tricking her into thinking the opposite. If Wonder Woman is Hollywood’s answer to feminism, they can keep it.

But people are slaves to habit, particularly journalists. They cannot entertain the notion that they were flawed in their conclusions in any way. They do not look back to see things through the lens of reality: they were told to admire this Great Man, and they will doggedly recite the script without looking deeper at what does this song/book/movie/show really tell people?

Woody Allen’s movies are nothing to rave about, and I always found them patronizing and insulting to women, even as a kid. People rave as if it were a divine decree.

We are not taught to ask questions. We are not taught to think critically. We are not taught to reflect. We make do with what limited dreck we are given; and so, we begin to pretend we like things in order not to make trouble or be seen as an outsider.

Journalism needs to reexamine itself before it can start again. It has to stop snootily fawning over trash created by destructive people just to seem hip and learned. A lot of con men have managed to turn themselves into titans and gods, when they stole, lied, and puffed their way into public notice. Enough is enough.

The misuse of the arts is no excuse to praise bad people. It’s not good art: it is coded oppression, and there are enough talented and creative people to fill the gaps so we can finally enjoy the arts — and appreciate them sensibly without creating a new breed of them without the psychotic praise that turns normal people into the very monsters that eventually harm us.

The Problem with Alt Media: It’s no better than the traditional media: Why Vice isn’t journalism’s answer

I never cared for Vice. 

vice-og.pngSmug, shallow, pretentious, patriarchal, and with misogynistic subtext.

It proclaims to do things differently, but if bad science is what is defined by differently, then they can keep it.

When there is some artificial story about women, it is always some pseudo-feminist wallowing that sees women as perpetually victims. 

Not cool or even remotely accurate.

It is not surprising to me that the outlet is facing accusations of having a work environment that is hostile to women.

Ya don’t say?

It’s not learned, or hip, or edgy, or cool. It’s bad journalism with blinders on. What it offers is something worse than the gold standard.

Journalism always suffered from smug ignorance and a lack of focus and discipline. That is the bottom line of why the profession smothered itself to death.

So having alleged indie media that upped the smug ignorance, and wear their lack of focus and discipline as a badge of honour…well, don’t expect any miracles for a journalistic resurrection.

We don’t have good journalism out there right now. One or two guerrilla fighters are left in the field, and Ronan Farrow is just about the only one out there right now who can actually call himself one.

I have been an author and media critic for a very long time. I have always fought for good journalism, but when people keep adding the same toxic ingredients in their own recipes, they cannot expect anything but a poisonous product that infects an information stream.

And that is the Internet’s greatest shame and dilemma: it has corrupted the information stream. It has allow toxicity from both the Left and the Right to pollute information, making information consumers sick in the bargain. They can’t seem to stand back, and realize they have to scrap everything they know, and start over.

Vice is a very appropriate name for an outlet that has not contributed a single thing to journalism, save make it more radioactive than it was before.

Misogyny has no place in a newsroom. You cannot expect real change from some place that made its name peddling arrogance, and was rewarded with its own ways.

And it is a problem that is not going to go away by throwing a tantrum on Twitter or expecting the nebulous They to do anything about it.

Patriarchal Storytelling and how it killed journalism

Us versus Them. It seems that is the only story we are capable of telling. Good guys (us, of course, you wouldn’t say we were the villains), and bad guys (the people who disagree with us, and aren’t applauding our every thought).

People these days are attacking all sorts of other people, with even death threats because someone’s life requirements do not line up perfectly with theirs.

It is a sick, sick way to view the world.

Yet good luck finding reportage that challenges that obnoxious, childish, self-serving narrative.

But that is the way of patriarchal narratives. It is all about The One: how the One was right/better/superior than the mindless hordes. Offer a different way of solving a problem that goes against The One, you must automatically be some sort of usurper out to do horrible things to people.

It would be nice to see a more constructive way of seeing things, you know, like Us with Them. How do we coordinate so that both sides can understand there may not be a better in the equation, and that both sides have rights?

But the second you offer that structure, people bring up Hitler as proof that in every single situation, there is a super-bad evil-doer, and should we have worked with the Nazis, too?

Please, do not be stupid — and binary.

Cue in Matriarchal storytelling.

In the Matriarchal,  we are always aware that it is not always Us versus Them. Sometimes it is, but other times, it Us With Them, or Us going our independent way from Them, or Us Versus Us, or Them versus Them and it’s none of Us’s business. There is no One Rule That Explains Everything. You cannot memorize a single rule and then apply it to everything — or worse, think you must always go a little more extreme to prove you are a better follower of the rule than someone else.

Journalism was always about following rules, from Inverted Pyramids to news pegs. So it should be no wonder that the Patriarchal style of telling stories was highly appealing.

But then came social media and people having a chance to be their own PR hacks, spinning and justifying their every action, jockeying to be The One.

Journalism became lost in that game, and instead of questioning their own structures, they went to the extreme version of it.

We can see it in the coverage of Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein, the latter who can be easily characterized as a villain. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was also an easy target. It should be no wonder that in the death throes of the profession, journalists are sticking to their own patriarchal ways of telling stories. You need us! is the subtext of these yarns, Because look at all the bad guys out there!

Well, of course there are evil people, but when you have but a single lens to see the world, guess what? You lose focus. You begin to see every person who is not kissing your feet as they put you on a pedestal as a villain, instead of a righteous, fed-up person who is standing up to your cancerous ego as they put you and your self-entitled self in your place.

And if you ever wanted to know how the Harvey Weinsteins of the world are created, just go back and read the news stories about him before the truth came out. He was placed on a pedestal. Reporters were writing fawning stories about the Great Man, and what a cultured and brilliant visionary he was. He owned the Oscars. He ruled Hollywood, yes sir, because he was The One.

He was on the positive side of the Patriarchal paradigm.

And now he is on the negative.

Had journalists taken a more sensible matriarchal approach, no one would be going in thinking he was some cinematic deity. They would be digging and looking at all sides of the story, not the tripe bored Middle-class people look for so they know what to rave about at the backyard barbecue party to look hip and in the know.

The Patriarchal is all about designating angels and demons, and no one wants to be a demon — and even if people pretend they want to be a badass “demon”, they want to be a Mary Sue demon who is, in fact, an angel with an attitude who happens to be better than the angels.

The Matriarchal goes in knowing that people are people — and too much praise has always been a surefire way of making good people bad ones in short order.

Journalism lost its common sense with the Patriarchal, and it became irrelevant, always chasing after villains, instead of just looking for facts. Just the facts. Had facts been put out there, the predators of the world would lose much of their tyrannical clout. There would be no need for hatchet jobs, because when there were the first signs of trouble, that information would be out there when it counted — before people got hurt and had the course of their lives altered forever.

And people would be held accountable early on, and would be too busy to have to time to work on their image — or harming other people.

We are in an age of sophistry and extreme arrogance. Everyone is convinced they are The One.

No, you’re not.

You are one of an Infinite.

It is not always about hunting, but gathering as many grains as you can to see the big picture.

And only when reporters grasp that grain of truth can journalism ever get that resurrection it has longed for.