Category Archives: Media

Why Trump?

The GOP establishment has been asking why Trump? They don’t understand why so many are supporting Trump. Why are a bunch of “childless single men who masturbate to anime” supporting “a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones”?

This article shows why:

The two officials described having conversations and asking which candidate a voter supports, whereupon the voter quickly glanced left and right, to see if it was OK to talk, and then said, “Trump.” That happens a lot, they told me.

Normal people in the US are having to look suspiciously around before voicing their public opinion.

The article barely mentions it, but I will repeat it:

Average Americans have to glance over their shoulders and make sure there are no hostile commissars around before they declare support for a mainstream political candidate. This is happening not in the USSR, but in the USA.

This is why we support Trump.

We fucking fear you and we fucking hate you.

Before we can speak candidly we working-to-middle-class white men have to quickly make sure no informants are around to rat us out. We have to be careful, because we know that one wrong word or action at work, in public, online, or even in the privacy of our own homes means losing our jobs and being publicly pilloried. It may even mean being persecuted by kangaroo courts, being bankrupted, or having your home raided by police.

We used to think the conservative machine had our back, that you would protect us from political correctness and left-wing pogroms. We working-to-middle class white men are your base, we thought you’d fight for us us. Maybe you’d let a nazi or two twist in the wind, but you’d at least have our backs. But now we’re the nazis for simply advocating what the people who beat the nazis did.

You don’t have our backs. Instead, you sneer at working-class whites. You call us, your fucking base, illiterate, crazy, and stupid. You attack us, the people you supposedly represent, as racist, the same slur leftists use against us to destroy our lives (and against you to score political points, but your heads are too far up your own asses to see the irony of that). You deride us and sneer at us at every turn.

But you aren’t even content to sneer at us. Instead, you traitorous bastards attack and mock us as cowards for writing anonymously because we don’t want to lose our jobs and be the subject of a national two minute hate. Not once did any of you even wonder why your base, the people you supposedly represent, have to hide behind pseudonyms and proxies simply to talk openly about politics. Instead, you insulted us for not wanting to lose our jobs.

We support Trump because we now know that you’re just like the leftists. You have shown repeatedly you do not have our backs, you hate us just as much as the progressives. You will run us out of jobs, you will engage in the public shaming, and when the time comes, you will happily march us to reeducation camps.

We fear you and we hate you and the media complex you represent and support. And Trump, it appears he’s standing up for us against you. He has the will and the money to speak where we can’t without becoming impovershed and publicly shamed. He can frog-march newsmen (ie: the leftist witch-hunters) out of rooms and insult them to their face, we’re we’d just be burned at the figurative stake. He’s willing to attack leftists, instead of fawning all over them to get invited to swanky DC parties. He’s opening the conversation so that we have slight bit more room to breathe without being purged from society. Through him normal folks have an outlet to speak. He’s standing against those who are trying to destroy us.

We don’t fucking care about your “conservative principles” of hating Russia (the only major power fighting degeneracy and supporting the church), amnesty for invading illegals, corporate subsidies, homosexual marriage, slightly lower taxes, increased debt, and minor hedges of Obamacare. We don’t care if Trump hasn’t been ideologically pure; you didn’t when you forced Romney(care) and amnesty McCain on us. We don’t care if he doesn’t fit in the ever-more-left overton window. We don’t care if his Christian convictions are superficial (it’s been 40 years and you’ve done shit all about Roe, not to mention you’ve done nothing to prevent Christians from having their businesses destroyed by kangaroo courts). We don’t care if he gave money to Democrats a decade ago  (y’all keep importing new voters for them).

We don’t care and why should we when we are living in a country barely above a crowd-sourced communist police state, we are being culturally genocided, our jobs and our future are disappearing, and we are killing ourselves in despair at record numbers?

We don’t care. Trump is fighting for us (or at least acting like he is, but nobody since Ron Paul has even pretended to care about the white middle). We don’t trust your party, we don’t trust your democracy, we don’t trust you, because you have done nothing but betray us.

Trump is rich beyond anything we can comprehend. He could spend the rest of his life drinking champagne from crystal glasses and snorting coke off high-class call-girls’ breasts at his own personal beach-side mansion if he wanted. Instead, he’s spending mounds of his own money and taking the hatred of the entire political-media-bureaucrat class upon himself to fight. Meanwhile, you guys are paid to fight and all you do is fold and compromise.

Trump is absolutely right that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and [not] lose voters.” In fact, it could win him voters. This is how much we hate and we fear you: if he took the media class, lined you all up on your knees along 5th Ave and personally put a 9mm in the back of each of your heads, he’d get cheers. Almost nobody would sympathize with you because we know you’d sit by contentedly watching while the left dragged us into the street, if you didn’t join in yourselves to prove you’re not racists (and fail, again, like always).

You are the ones engaging in witch hunts against us. You are the ones driving us from our jobs. You are the ones selling our country out. You are the reason we have to look over our shoulders before we speak. You are the ones destroying our culture. You are the ones bringing in hordes of foreigners to murder us and replace us.

Maybe he won’t follow through. In fact, I doubt Trump will make a difference. Maybe the wall gets built, maybe it won’t. Maybe Muslim immigration won’t be stopped, maybe he won’t change the stifling political culture, maybe he’ll work with leftists. But with you it is not a maybe, we know that you will cave as soon as the leftists call you names and we know you will betray us. You had the chance to pull the trigger on the government machine and you pussied out like the pathetic mewling quislings you are. Trump may change his mind, he may betray us, but he won’t pussy out.

And if he does change his mind, so be it. Better a chance at success than the surety of failure you represent. At the very least, we will get to see Trump beat you, mock you, and humiliate you. At the very least he will tear apart the corrupt, weak GOP machine and show the “convservative” media machine for the quislings they are. Your tears alone are making supporting him worth it. He probably won’t accomplish anything beyond destroying you, but destroying you is worth it in itself.

The country is disappearing, freedom is dying, and our trust is gone. Trump is our hail mary, because we know if nothing is done, we will, at best, be forced to check around for commissars for the rest of our lives.

If you don’t want Trump, then do your jobs. Stand up for us, defend us. If the GOP establishment showed half as much hatred and derision for the leftists attacking us as you do for us, your base, if you spent half as much effort stopping leftists as you are stopping Trump, there would be no Trump. If somebody would actually stand up for us, common people wouldn’t have to flock to the only man who is willing.

The day of reckoning draws near. Repent your betrayal now before its too late, so it can be avoided.

Until then, viva la Trump!

Serge and Frederick Kovaleski

Trump’s getting heat for mocking a disabled NYT reporter, Serge Kovaleski. I have no sympathy for NYT reporters, so I support Trump attacking them.

Anyway, Serge is the son of Frederick Kovaleski. Frederick Kovaleski was a tennis player who worked as a CIA spy for a decade, recruiting other spies. Serge wrote of Fred’s work as a spy in the Washington Post in 2006. Oddly, Fred doesn’t have an English wiki, although, he does a French one, which, run through Google Translate, states this:

He grew up in a small town Hamtramck Michigan near Detroit and mainly populated by Eastern European immigrants where most people converse in Polish. Poland is the country of his parents, he speaks Polish and Russian. At school he first played handball and his gym teacher sees him as a tennis player potential. There is no court in the city then it draws a line on the gym wall and asked if his parents can buy her a racket. After asking 10 dollars to his father who does not see what sport it is, it advises instead to play baseball or something like that. His teacher, Jean Hoxie who became a local legend of tennis, provides him a racquet and tennis teaches him, he is 11 years old. It will be selected for the US Junior Davis Cup Team and spotted by several universities of Michigan, where he will visit but for a short time since October 1942 he had to make war from the Philippines.

On his return his tennis success earned him invitations to tournaments, USTA and then left to tour Europe with the financial support of Jean Hoxie in 1950, after a 1/8 finals at Roland Garros is classified in the top 15 worldwide for Wimbledon where he also reached the 1 / 8th. His many successes throughout the world earned him a further invitations chaining in France, Italy, Pakistan, India, Hong Kong, Philippines etc. He met many US diplomats in various embassies. At Monte Carlo in 1951 the question arose to turn pro after an offer from Calcutta tournament, but he refused because only a handful of players at that time could make a living as a pro.

His contacts then offered her to work for the CIA. His first mission was to support defectors from the Soviet army because of his knowledge of the language. He continued in parallel its business coverage, tennis player. He meets in Cairo Manya Jabes, of Russian origin. The CIA considered too high risk and asked him to choose. He chose to marry her, in Lebanon or it will just find a position for Pepsi. They then go to Sudan and the CIA back in touch with him and asked him to make recordings of translations after reconsidering her marital situation.

He works after Yemen and South Africa in Cape Town, still for Pepsi. In 1961 Serge and his son was born, and he decided to leave the CIA. He left for Australia and Pepsi situation at Revlon, not before had an MBA at Columbia University. The family moved to New York and then go to Washington to follow their son Serge who works for the Washington Post. It is for this newspaper that Serge will tell the story of his father in 2006. Following the article the family returned back to Manhattan the son to follow in his new post at the New York Times where he will pick the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. That year Fred Kovaleski won the USTA National Men’s Grass Court Championships for over 85 years, and in 2010 and 2011. n June 2014, nearly 90 years he decided to speak for the first time in his past secret agent

According to Serge’s article linked above, Serge knew his father by 1973 and Fred worked in the upper echolons of Pepsi, Revlon, and Nabisco. There’s also this little tidbit:

Soon after my father arrived in Cairo, a socialite friend introduced him to an exotically fetching Egyptian woman of White Russian parents. He started to court Manya Jabes, even though she was married to a wealthy Egyptian banker, Rene, and devoted to her young son and daughter, who were at school in Europe.

To be inconspicuous, she and my father would meet at his apartment, take drives outside of Cairo or have drinks at a bar on a Nile house boat. After knowing her for two years, my father asked my mother to marry him. She said yes and divorced Rene several months later. She has seen her other children — my half siblings — often over the years.

My father was exalted about marrying my mother, but apprehensive. He knew how the CIA felt about agents wedding foreigners, especially a foreigner whose father had returned to the Soviet Union. His fears were justified. In March, 1957, his boss received a cable from Washington: If my father married Manya Jabes, he would have to resign.

Now out of the CIA, my father found civilian work with Pepsi, which sent him to Khartoum, Sudan, for training at a local bottling plant. Ironically, it wasn’t long before he got a call from the CIA chief of station there who offered him a job translating tapes from taps on Khartoum’s Soviet Embassy. My father declined, but said he knew someone for the job: his new wife, who spoke six languages, including Russian.

This article elucidites a bit more:

While Kovaleski’s cover story eventually changed from tennis pro to travel agent, he continued his work in Cairo with the CIA. There he fell in love with a woman named Manya Jabes of Russian descent. Marriage, however, required approval by his boss at the agency. “I supplied her name, birthdate, family members, et cetera, all of which was cabled back to D.C. for security processing,” says Kovaleski. “They discovered that Manya’s father had divorced Manya’s mother, married another Russian woman who was a poet and returned to the Soviet Union.”

She was considered a security risk. The CIA told Kovaleski he had to choose his career or Manya. He chose Manya and resigned as an officer of the CIA.

Manya ended up working for the CIA a few years later. Serge was born in Cape Town in 1961, which, as near as I can tell, would have been around the time Manya was working as a spy. Serge graduated from William & Mary, one of the original Public Ivies and has worked the rounds of newspapers: The Washington Post, the New York Daily News, Money Magazine, and The Miami News.

Interestingly, he won a Pulitzer in 2009 for his work in writing on Spitzer’s prostitution scandal. 28 Sherman has connected Spitzer’s scandal to Maurice Greenberg, who himself has numerous known CIA connections and has been accused of even deeper connections.

Also, Greenberg and Trump have been feuding for a while now, starting around the time Greenberg was forced out of AIG by Spitzer and is backing Bush in this election.

I don’t see a direct link between Greenberg and Kovaleski,* but it would be doubtful that someone who wrote for Money Magazine didn’t know someone as involved in the financial world as Greenberg. It seems at the very edge of coincidence that the man who was awarded for destroying Spitzer, which just happened to benefit the big hedge funds and got revenge for Greenberg, is also the man who is at the centre of a manufactured controversy against Trump, who is also warring against hedge funds and is feuding with Greenberg.

Don’t forget, Serge’s entrance into the controversy was when he backtracked on his article in 2001 which stated:

In Jersey City, within hours of two jetliners’ plowing into the World Trade Center, law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river.

Which directly supports Trumps assertions on this issue and which the usual suspects are attacking him on.

If you look around, Kovaleski has been involved in pushing numerous other left-wing causes in his “reporting”. Here he is sympathizing with Tsarnaev, painting Zimmerman as creepy and crazy, and pushing the poor, victimized Michael Brown narrative.

None of this amounts to proof of anything, but the coincidences of a left-wing NYT reporter being involved in two scandals to destroy the enemies of AIG and Greenberg, are rather interesting. In fact, it’s almost amazing how little there is on the internet about the Kovalski family despite (because of?) the two parents being known CIA spies, the father being an executive at multiple MNC’s and a world-class tennis player, and the son being a NYT reporter at the heart of two different national headline political controversies. I suspect there’s probably more to this than the superficial outrage generation.

What NRx and the alt-right really need is a wiki/encyclopedia/editable web so we can track the web of connections between all these people. It would be a huge project, but if we mapped the web of connections within the Cathedral over the last century, I’m sure it would provide reams of interesting information.


* There’s a Dan Kovaleski who works as an Assistant VP at AIG, but I don’t see any linkages but the name (Dan Kovaleski is almost non-existent on the internet), and Kovaleski isn’t rare enough to assume a family connection on last name alone.

Cosmo et al

I mentioned before, I got linked to by Cosmo. The link in the article  traced back to my odds of divorce post. This same article has since been posted in Elle, Good Housekeeping, Marie Claire, and Harper’s Bazaar, virtually a who’s who of the women’s magazine world. The writer, Asher Fogle, seems to be a somewhat influential woman in this world, judging by her LinkedIn, which lists her as an editor at multiple high profile magazines.

This has led me to multiple observations:

First, do these people have not have editors. I have nothing against Asher, she didn’t slander me or anything, but I am unsure what she was thinking. I know nothing of her, but I am almost entirely sure she would, at the very least, disagree with almost everything I write. In addition, I write primarily badthink and none of these magazines seem the type to court badthink. Linking to me runs a risk of drawing the Eye of Soros. It doesn’t look like the author or any editors actually reviewed my site or the link beyond the data. This is interesting.

Second, I am almost surprised by the incestuousness of the women’s magazine sphere. The exact same article was posted on 5 different major magazine sites (that I know of). Did she get paid 5 different times for the article? After looking into it, it turns out all five magazines are owned by the same company, so probably not. A search also turned up that MSN had the same article, although, AFAIK, they have no ties to that company, so maybe she got paid twice.

Finally, the major one is how little traffic these sites sent me. Cosmo gave me a grand total of 42 hits, Good Housekeeping, Elle, and Marie Claire  gave me 4 each, and Harper’s gave me 6, for a grand total of 60 hits. MSN gave me none. As a comparison, 2015/08/08 Lightning Round sent anywhere from 30-200 hits per a link, in a single day (some sites with multiple links can receive up to 300-500 hits) . Over the last quarter a buried link from TRP over a similar time period sent me 70 hits, a Chaos Patch from Land can send over 60 hits, , a Free Republic link sent 130 hits, and a RooshV thread sent me 60 hits.

None of the other links are abnormally high: my aggregator, Reaction Times sends me 50-150 hits a post, a link from Viva la Manosphere nets 100-300 hits, some TRP links have sent thousands of hits, one link from Scott Alexander got me over 2000 hits. I could go on but you get the point.

Why are major, international, professional magazines with paid writers, editors, advertisers, web designers, etc. getting so outclassed in this area? I run a poorly edited blog consisting mainly of long-winded posts laced with grammatical mistakes and typos on arcane socio-political theory on the fringes of the already fringe edgysphere in my free time, yet a single link from me sends multiple times more traffic than five major corporate magazines combined.

Their Alexa ranks destroy mine (although, being in the top 260,000 sites in the world for the kind of blog I run is still pretty decent, I think), so it’s probably not due to traffic.

Is it because the women who read 15-point clickbait lists aren’t the type to click-through to the source? Do they read nothing but the headlines? I was in one of the later points, maybe they can’t read more than a couple hundred words at a time? Was it the article itself? Is divorce risk simply not interesting to women?

I’m not sure what the reason is, but I found this discrepancy rather odd. When I saw Cosmo pop up in my referrers, I thought I’d get a deluge of visitors and was worried a minor internet outrage storm might engulf me. But instead, I got less hits than I do from a buried link on a random TRP thread.

Hotness is All That’s Left

Amanda Mannen at Cracked has written on why getting MAD at magazines for photoshopping hot girls to be even hotter is stupid. There’s some feminist crap in there, but the points themselves aren’t too bad. The final one though brings up a good point, then stops dead before reaching something really interesting.

The uncomfortable truth is that most of us don’t actually want to eradicate cultural standards of beauty — we just want them changed to include us.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think she was familiar with Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism. That’s not the part I want to talk about, simply an interesting observation. Here’s the meat:

This isn’t the same as in entertainment, which serves a completely different function. The chief complaint about sexy ladies in those media is that that’s all they’re there for … or at least it’s presented as their most important quality. We run into problems only when we’re taught that a) “hot” is the most important thing a woman can be, and b) we do not meet that standard. How insane is it to propose as a solution to that dilemma, “Well, let’s just change the standard”? You might as well be trying to prevent tornadoes by removing the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here she identifies the superficial problem, women in the media are judged by sexiness and sexiness alone, and she identifies that changing the standard to include fatties and uglies doesn’t change the fact that the standard of ‘hot’ itself is corrupt.

She then goes on to blame this on the media and advertisements.

But, as the Last Psychiatrist was fond of saying before he disappeared, if you’re watching it, it’s for you. The media, however much I rag on it and however much of a sewer it might be, doesn’t exist in a bubble. Even more so, advertisements don’t. Advertisements have to actually have people who identify with them to be effective.

In other words, if people didn’t already value ‘hot’ to the exclusion of other virtues the media wouldn’t be able to use ‘hot’ as the sole standard.

This is where her thinking stops. Why do people, particularly women, accept that ‘hot’ is the standard to which they should aspire?

As I’ve pointed out before this is the new hedonism, how sexiness has become the greater good, especially for women. This is not going to change, because ‘hot’ is the only value left.

However much some feminists and some MGTOWs rage against it, men and women want to be together with each other. They want to love and be loved. This is natural, this is good. To attain this love, attraction is important. Men are attracted to the feminine, women are attracted to the masculine.

Our society has been working to destroy the feminine in women and the masculine in men. As well, society actively lies to both men and women about what the other sex finds attractive. The traditional lovely, feminine virtues that women used to use to attract a man: kindness, joy, peacefulness, chastity, submission, vulnerability, motherliness, cooking, housekeeping, etc. have been maligned by feminism and replaced with repulsive traits of rebellion and argumentativeness (disguised as moxie and independence). Meanwhile, the traditional masculine traits that men would use to attract women have been beaten out of them through public schooling.

Once inner beauty has been destroyed, what does a woman have to offer a man? How can she find love? Men aren’t attracted to degrees, they aren’t attracted to over-exaggerated work titles, they aren’t attracted to argumentativeness or rebellion. Meanwhile, she can’t find it by being lovely, because being lovely is anti-feminist, which is evil. The only thing she has left to attract a man are her looks and her vagina. So, the woman try to be hot, so her looks and her vagina can land a man. She has to make up her lack of inner beauty, her lack of loveliness, with sexuality, hotness.

Hence, why the media focuses on the standard of hot. Women want to be hot, because they want to find love and their other paths to love have been taken from them. If people want advertising to change, they have to change the values consumers hold. As long as women value hot the media will sell them hot.

Hot is the standard and will remain the standard for women to find love as long as feminism reigns for it is the only standard men find attractive that is not in itself intrinsically antithetical to feminist values.

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie

As of my writing this the Google news search of Charlie Hebdo shooting nets “About 21,700,000 results“. Rotherham abuse nets “About 27,800 results“. Rotherham rapeAbout 9,520 results“. The latter story has had four months for stories to be written, the former a couple days.

Here we can see the West’s priorities: a dozen left-wing journalists get killed by the same people they fought so hard to import and it is an international crisis that everyone must care about. 1400 innocent children get raped by those same imports and nobody gives a shit.

You should have been angry months ago.

Anyway, here’s my opinion on Charlie Hebdo: they got what they deserved  the natural consequences of their pro-immigration beliefs (Ed: Ill-phrased and added a clarification) and I’m not going to shed a tear. May God grant them mercy in the next life.

Charlie Hebdo was a vile left-wing rag that regularly engaged in anti-Christian blasphemy. They are not ‘us‘. The Muslims aren’t us, but neither are Charlie Hebdo. If our enemies want to start killing each other, why should we involve ourselves? Let them take each other out.

I do have some sympathy for free speech and I might be sympathetic if Charlie Hebdo was staunch ideological pro-free speech organization but like most left-wingers Charlie are very selective in their desire for free speech. From Charlie Hebdo’s wiki:

In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné’s sacking by Val. Siné sued the newspaper for unfair dismissal and Charlie Hebdo was sentenced to pay him €90,000 in damages. Siné launched a rival paper called Siné Hebdo which later became Siné Mensuel. Charlie Hebdo launched its Internet site, after years of reluctance from Val.

Charlie gutlessly sacked a cartoonist for violating a more-untouchable taboo. I guess they fear Jews more than Muslims. They are not pro-free speech, they are simply anti-religion. Why should I, or any religious person, support them in this?

To add is this:

On 26 April 1996 François Cavanna, Stéphane Charbonnier and Philippe Val filed 173,704 signatures, obtained in 8 months, with the aim of banning the political party Front National, since it would have contravened the articles 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The people at Charlie loved free speech and free assembly so much, they literally tried to ban a political party* and silence 15% of the population. (I wonder if they would/will reconsider their dislike of FN now?)

There is no reason to support Charlie. All this is is a left-wing organization, a supporter of diversity, receiving the natural consequences of diversity. If you invite savages into your country, do not be surprised when savagery results. Mourn not for those who helped engineer the invasion, but for those innocents who suffer due to it.


* Mike Anissimov indicated on Twitter that it may have been a joke (as did another rude person), but I haven’t been able to find a source for that. Wikipedia and the article wikipedia sources seem to be playing it straight (‘pilon’, translated ‘drumstick’ at the end, also means to pulp a book). Other sources than wiki seem to take it seriously as well. The translations of a random set of these forum members seem to take the attempted ban seriously. Now, I can’t read French very well, so I would miss any subtleties to these stories that would indicate humour and this story is from two decades ago, before the internet went mainstream, so I am having a hard time finding much. It’s possible that this is a joke, but 173k signatures is a long way to go for a joke, and there was an official inquiry into banning FN that followed soon after. I’m accepting it as legitimate until such someone shows otherwise.

NYT Tries to Have a Pregnant Women Murdered

Jim has noted that two NYT journalists published Darren Wilson’s home address so the Ferguson mob can lynch him and kill his pregnant wife.

In response, common citizens can help show them not to wage war on us. I do not have a big a platform as the NYT but I can help boost the signal. Here is the information on the two responsible for doxing Officer Wilson:

Julie Bosman
5620 N Wayne Ave Apt 2
Chicago, IL 60660-4204
Cook County
Work Phone: 312-552-7204
Mobile: 646-753-2052

Campbell Robertson
1113 N Dupre St
New Orleans, LA 70119-3203
Orleans County.

If you’re ever in either neighbourhood, why don’t you stop by and say hello.

Creeping Horror

Here’s a fun little test to either help internalize the creeping horror or introduce someone new to the mind virus.

The first step is to find a moderately obscure topic you would know far more about than your average English grad would. It can be anything: something related to your career, a hobby you’re deep into, your religion, an academic area you’ve studied extensively, or even pastel ponies. Choose something of which you have a deep knowledge.

You must avoid anything your average SWPL “knowledge-worker” would know; so avoid things related to coffee, indie music, HBO, pretentious literature, etc. (Alright, pastel ponies might not work). Also make sure to avoid anything overly subjective or too mainstream.

Having chosen your topic, look for articles in the mainstream news on the topic. Try the big ones: CNN, the NYT, the Washington Post, or, in Canada, the CBC. Having found a few articles from a few different sources read them.

Notice every time they are inaccurate, make a factual mistake, leave out something important, make a logical fallacy, write something that doesn’t make sense, or otherwise distort reality.

Having done this, think on the fact that every other topic covered by the media has errors to the same extent, except you don’t notice because you don’t know more about that topic than your average J-school graduate.

Then consider how you, and most everybody else, becomes informed about things they don’t know of.

This is where the horror sets in.


To let the horror creep in more, look to your career. Remember that obscure regulation nobody outside your particular occupation or industry would know of, the one that: made society worse, was borderline insane, the government had no business being in, allowed a person/company to rob the taxpayer, made your job more miserable than it should be, and/or was just pointless busywork to employ bureaucrats?

You probably never talked of it to anyone other than possibly the occasional rant to a friend or two or some co-workers.

Now think on the fact that there are thousands of other occupations and industries you are not employed in and where you would not be able to know that obscure regulation.

Give it a few minutes for the horror to dawn.