jcs

Here is the result of my research this summer, simplified as much as possible:
 
Energy and Information Control in the World Today
 
Flow of Information and Control

World Power
Our current money is a form of energy accounting. Energy used over time is Power: physics. The world currently runs on the petrodollar: actual energy (oil) and FIAT accounting (Federal Reserve Notes, or FRNs). FIAT is latin for “let it become” and is a kind of IOU. It’s purely an accounting for energy exchange, not based on real tangible assets.
Who Rules the World
The people who create and control the money supply rule the world: the trillionaire+ Rulers. In the USA it’s the people who control the Federal Reserve (FED), a private banking cartel, which contrary to its name is not under government control. Which means it is not managed by the will of the people of the USA, but rather transnational banking interests. And for every dollar created, we go further into debt and the Rulers become more powerful.
The FED creates money out of thin air every time the government borrows money, and in turn every time consumers borrow money from the banks. A major talking point is “reducing the national debt”. However the way the system is currently structured, it’s impossible to pay off the debt. Because of the way the FED makes money on interest for the loans, it’s impossible to pay it off. If the government and consumers stop borrowing money, the system will collapse. The system is entering the terminal stage, meaning that in the near future it will collapse, similar to what happened with the Great Depression, except this time it would happen on a global scale with far greater consequences.
Why the USA Seems to be Going Crazy Right Now
The USA and it’s allies have the most powerful combined military in the world, by far. If a world war starts, it will provide cover for the Rulers to restructure and create a new monetary system of control while the militaries save us from whatever threat the Rulers have manufactured. While it may seem hard to believe, every major war since the USA was formed was funded by the Rulers. And they funded both sides, including Germany for WWII, and even helping to create communism by supporting Lenin in Russia. The strategy is brilliantly simple: create internal and external division, and fund both sides until they can provide a solution which ends up giving them even more power and control.
The Rulers created the terrorism and migrant crises', and now that enough people have realized this, they are concentrating most of their energy in weakening the USA by creating division in any and every way possible. Civil war is clearly one of their goals, as is world war III. They tried with Ukraine and Syria, and now they are focused on North Korea (Iran is still in play as well).
The Rulers are brilliantly ruthless. They are lead by psychopaths and sociopaths, who have no mercy or empathy. From a systems power and control analysis, this makes perfect sense that they would rise to the top of power. They can do whatever it takes to win. These same kinds of people also control many top corporations, which are legally ‘individuals’ operating as psychopaths: do whatever it takes to create a profit for the benefit of the shareholders.
The reason it appears almost impossible for change to happen in Washington DC, is for two primary reasons. First, the system is completely corrupt, held together by blackmail and bribes. It’s pretty much impossible to prosecute one or a few without the whole system blowing up as pretty much everyone is in on the game. It’s like asking a gang of criminals to prosecute themselves for crimes they have committed: they’ll protect each other and make the case that no crimes have actually been committed. Second, the system is controlled by the Rulers, not the people. The two-party system is a charade.
The Rulers understand that millions of people now realize what is going on, and civil unrest is rapidly accelerating. It would appear that marching on DC and demanding change would be a solution. However that could start civil war and marshal law would be declared. This would result in a complete loss of liberty and consolidation of power for the Rulers. They have bunkers all over the world, including some as large as underground cities complete with shopping mails and functioning replacement governments. At least some of them will survive all out global nuclear war and/or biological war based on state of the art targeted bio weapons.
The Rulers are a combination of people born into wealth as well as  some of the most intelligent people on Earth. They are now using real-time artificial intelligence, operating on social media intelligence gathering, to shape the world view in real-time! They realize that the average person is, by definition, of average intelligence, and historically, large populations haven’t done well to manage themselves or resources without a strong power structure keeping it all together. In their defense, they have a valid point. However, their agenda means to control the population’s behavior, as well as the population's numbers, by any means necessary. Deep down they truly believe they are doing the right thing. While wars are terrible and many have suffered as the result of forced regime changes, overall the world has been more peaceful and prosperous than all of prior recorded history, which has resulted in an unsustainable population explosion.
The question for us all, is there a better way? Must we suffer through another global economic disaster if the petrodollar collapses? Must we suffer through a civil or global war in order to facilitate another reset?
Crypto currency is seeing massive growth, and people are getting rich from it. While a friend recently boasted of buying a new home from cryptocurrency profits, I suspect crypto may have been developed by the Rulers. Why? Because it was released from a secret source, supposedly from a single person, Satoshi Nakamoto (not a real name). While it’s certainly possible that a single genius developed it and released it anonymously, it’s also possibly the result of a large group of people’s work, as a way to start transitioning away from the petrodollar and providing as-yet-unknown ways of maintaining control of a system which on the surface appears to be fully decentralized. Such a crypto system could contain unseen back doors, especially if NSA level folks worked to help develop it.
From a simulation and systems point of view, it would appear that developing many small systems of management and control, which loosely interact to form a larger system, would be a viable ‘better way’. Such as the original idea for the United States. Currently that system doesn’t work, and the Federal government controlled by the Rulers have ultimate authority and control everything, including mainstream media to shape the people’s thoughts through well understood psychology.
A peaceful solution would be to walk away from the system. Everyone leave the cities and live in smaller rural communities which are self-sufficient: making their own food, clean water, shelter, and anything else they need to live a good life. By using barter or some other system of energy accounting, no taxes would be paid other than minimal taxes as required by current law for land, etc. The Rulers realize this, and communes in the past which have tried this have been labeled cults and once large enough have been ended by the Rulers.
So What can We Do?
With a goal of minimizing global suffering, and to promote a good life for as many people as possible, the first step is education. For as many people as possible to understand how the global system currently works, and who’s doing what and why in terms of information exchange.
A financial system reset is needed: can we figure out a workable soft reset, so we can prevent war? The difference today vs. the past is the internet is a giant, intelligent being. With the combined intelligence of everyone online, along perhaps with artificial intelligence systems, we should be able to develop a stable, healthy, and sustainable system that has never existed before. For the so-called Age of Aquarius: a new way of living not based on consumption, which is unsustainable on a planetary scale.
As media creators, first and foremost our mission in education is healing division. Once we stop taking what’s going on in Washington as a real, functioning system, vs. the Theater for Division, we can collectively focus on what’s necessary to improve the system without collapse. Perhaps this starts with the FED and financial systems, including a restructuring of the tax system. Simplifying and streamlining the system to remove hidden wastes of energy (money) will result in massive improvements for the quality of millions of lives, all over the world.
In summary, we the people of Earth must develop a new way of living sustainably, which we can test via artificial intelligence and simulation systems before trying it out on the world. At the same time, these modeling systems can give us real-time feedback in ways never before possible to fine tune the system’s performance to more quickly reach working solutions.

lol Thank You Canon for not giving the C200 10-bit which would make our C300 II further depreciate  

lol Thank You Canon for not giving the C200 10-bit which would make our C300 II further depreciate  

Here is the result of my research this summer, simplified as much as possible:
 
Energy and Information Control in the World Today
 
Flow of Information and Control

World Power
Our current money is a form of energy accounting. Energy used over time is Power: physics. The world currently runs on the petrodollar: actual energy (oil) and FIAT accounting (Federal Reserve Notes, or FRNs). FIAT is latin for “let it become” and is a kind of IOU. It’s purely an accounting for energy exchange, not based on real tangible assets.
Who Rules the World
The people who create and control the money supply rule the world: the trillionaire+ Rulers. In the USA it’s the people who control the Federal Reserve (FED), a private banking cartel, which contrary to its name is not under government control. Which means it is not managed by the will of the people of the USA, but rather transnational banking interests. And for every dollar created, we go further into debt and the Rulers become more powerful.
The FED creates money out of thin air every time the government borrows money, and in turn every time consumers borrow money from the banks. A major talking point is “reducing the national debt”. However the way the system is currently structured, it’s impossible to pay off the debt. Because of the way the FED makes money on interest for the loans, it’s impossible to pay it off. If the government and consumers stop borrowing money, the system will collapse. The system is entering the terminal stage, meaning that in the near future it will collapse, similar to what happened with the Great Depression, except this time it would happen on a global scale with far greater consequences.
Why the USA Seems to be Going Crazy Right Now
The USA and it’s allies have the most powerful combined military in the world, by far. If a world war starts, it will provide cover for the Rulers to restructure and create a new monetary system of control while the militaries save us from whatever threat the Rulers have manufactured. While it may seem hard to believe, every major war since the USA was formed was funded by the Rulers. And they funded both sides, including Germany for WWII, and even helping to create communism by supporting Lenin in Russia. The strategy is brilliantly simple: create internal and external division, and fund both sides until they can provide a solution which ends up giving them even more power and control.
The Rulers created the terrorism and migrant crises', and now that enough people have realized this, they are concentrating most of their energy in weakening the USA by creating division in any and every way possible. Civil war is clearly one of their goals, as is world war III. They tried with Ukraine and Syria, and now they are focused on North Korea (Iran is still in play as well).
The Rulers are brilliantly ruthless. They are lead by psychopaths and sociopaths, who have no mercy or empathy. From a systems power and control analysis, this makes perfect sense that they would rise to the top of power. They can do whatever it takes to win. These same kinds of people also control many top corporations, which are legally ‘individuals’ operating as psychopaths: do whatever it takes to create a profit for the benefit of the shareholders.
The reason it appears almost impossible for change to happen in Washington DC, is for two primary reasons. First, the system is completely corrupt, held together by blackmail and bribes. It’s pretty much impossible to prosecute one or a few without the whole system blowing up as pretty much everyone is in on the game. It’s like asking a gang of criminals to prosecute themselves for crimes they have committed: they’ll protect each other and make the case that no crimes have actually been committed. Second, the system is controlled by the Rulers, not the people. The two-party system is a charade.
The Rulers understand that millions of people now realize what is going on, and civil unrest is rapidly accelerating. It would appear that marching on DC and demanding change would be a solution. However that could start civil war and marshal law would be declared. This would result in a complete loss of liberty and consolidation of power for the Rulers. They have bunkers all over the world, including some as large as underground cities complete with shopping mails and functioning replacement governments. At least some of them will survive all out global nuclear war and/or biological war based on state of the art targeted bio weapons.
The Rulers are a combination of people born into wealth as well as  some of the most intelligent people on Earth. They are now using real-time artificial intelligence, operating on social media intelligence gathering, to shape the world view in real-time! They realize that the average person is, by definition, of average intelligence, and historically, large populations haven’t done well to manage themselves or resources without a strong power structure keeping it all together. In their defense, they have a valid point. However, their agenda means to control the population’s behavior, as well as the population's numbers, by any means necessary. Deep down they truly believe they are doing the right thing. While wars are terrible and many have suffered as the result of forced regime changes, overall the world has been more peaceful and prosperous than all of prior recorded history, which has resulted in an unsustainable population explosion.
The question for us all, is there a better way? Must we suffer through another global economic disaster if the petrodollar collapses? Must we suffer through a civil or global war in order to facilitate another reset?
Crypto currency is seeing massive growth, and people are getting rich from it. While a friend recently boasted of buying a new home from cryptocurrency profits, I suspect crypto may have been developed by the Rulers. Why? Because it was released from a secret source, supposedly from a single person, Satoshi Nakamoto (not a real name). While it’s certainly possible that a single genius developed it and released it anonymously, it’s also possibly the result of a large group of people’s work, as a way to start transitioning away from the petrodollar and providing as-yet-unknown ways of maintaining control of a system which on the surface appears to be fully decentralized. Such a crypto system could contain unseen back doors, especially if NSA level folks worked to help develop it.
From a simulation and systems point of view, it would appear that developing many small systems of management and control, which loosely interact to form a larger system, would be a viable ‘better way’. Such as the original idea for the United States. Currently that system doesn’t work, and the Federal government controlled by the Rulers have ultimate authority and control everything, including mainstream media to shape the people’s thoughts through well understood psychology.
A peaceful solution would be to walk away from the system. Everyone leave the cities and live in smaller rural communities which are self-sufficient: making their own food, clean water, shelter, and anything else they need to live a good life. By using barter or some other system of energy accounting, no taxes would be paid other than minimal taxes as required by current law for land, etc. The Rulers realize this, and communes in the past which have tried this have been labeled cults and once large enough have been ended by the Rulers.
So What can We Do?
With a goal of minimizing global suffering, and to promote a good life for as many people as possible, the first step is education. For as many people as possible to understand how the global system currently works, and who’s doing what and why in terms of information exchange.
A financial system reset is needed: can we figure out a workable soft reset, so we can prevent war? The difference today vs. the past is the internet is a giant, intelligent being. With the combined intelligence of everyone online, along perhaps with artificial intelligence systems, we should be able to develop a stable, healthy, and sustainable system that has never existed before. For the so-called Age of Aquarius: a new way of living not based on consumption, which is unsustainable on a planetary scale.
As media creators, first and foremost our mission in education is healing division. Once we stop taking what’s going on in Washington as a real, functioning system, vs. the Theater for Division, we can collectively focus on what’s necessary to improve the system without collapse. Perhaps this starts with the FED and financial systems, including a restructuring of the tax system. Simplifying and streamlining the system to remove hidden wastes of energy (money) will result in massive improvements for the quality of millions of lives, all over the world.
In summary, we the people of Earth must develop a new way of living sustainably, which we can test via artificial intelligence and simulation systems before trying it out on the world. At the same time, these modeling systems can give us real-time feedback in ways never before possible to fine tune the system’s performance to more quickly reach working solutions.

Regarding Trump, Left, Right, etc. it's all theater for division. You can look deeper to see what is really going on: 
 

Another topic this brings up is "how to sell an un-sell-able opinion". Mr. Damore's opinion is one that easily creates a lot of negative press regardless of whether what he said is correct or not. As filmmakers we might therefore ask ourselves, how do we best present something that people do not want to hear? How do we successfully preach against the choir?
Metaphors is as discussed earlier one technique. For the last few years I have worked on a piece on a very controversial topic where I want to present something that goes against the main stream opinion. However, I have seen several filmmakers and writers try to do it before, but nobody want to write about them and they gather no support, while content with the opposite narrative is given first page covers. I have still not been able to figure out how I will make my final delivery, but I am starting to believe that the only way to deliver it will be to create a film which seems to deliver the main-stream narrative, but in the end leaves the audience with the gut feeling that "this is not right". It could be done with a twist, slowly adjusting the narrative as the film progresses, or keep the same narrative throughout the story, but let the audience feel like they're on the wrong side.

Today a model I am working with brought up the google employee who was fired recently. I had skimmed his article and also saw that mainstream media was outraged and that he was ultimately fired. I asked her if she had read what he wrote, and she replied she had not. So her support of the firing was based solely on reporting by mainstream media (MSM). It took a bit of googling to find his original document: the MSM sources I found had removed all external links and didn't post the original document. Here it is:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here's a couple examples where the external links and all graphics have been removed: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 , http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/. I didn't check them closely for other deletions and omissions.
As an executive and manager of both small and large corporations, I was made well aware by legal departments what is acceptable and not acceptable practice in the workplace. I believe he put google at major lawsuit risk for writing the following:
The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
This post is related to other posts discussing women in the workplace and now I raise the issue of media bias in reporting, which relates to all of us who create filmed media and are trying to help heal our divided country and planet.
From a purely legal risk basis, I understand why google fired Mr. Damore. However, here's the problem for google: if what Mr. Damore wrote isn't true, they could defend themselves, showing that what he wrote isn't accurate. Given what he wrote, firing him might harm google even more. It appears this was an internal document, never meant for public view. The fact that it was released to the public has harmed google, and is now being used as a divisive tool and weapon by the MSM. If what Mr. Damore wrote is true, then some good can come from it to heal division, not just at google but anyone affected by these issues.
I realize that both the extreme Left and Right are just tools for division, and see them for what they truly are. I can see how some of what Mr. Damore wrote could be inflammatory for some individuals, however in his favor he did provide links to other sources which support his statements. Which is why it's very misleading when MSM removes these links (and graphics) from his original document.
Here is what appears to have triggered the Left and the people funding MSM (see his full document for the rest of suggestions and reference notes, there's a lot more):
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. What many of us are seeing is the Left is completely intolerant of any view other than their own, and have been resorting to violence. If one states they are neither Left or Right, the Left calls them Right, and the Right calls them Left. So while the Right might at first seem to be more tolerant, if one is not "on their side" they can be labeled "Left" simply because they are not Right. Fortunately, the well-armed Right hasn't been violent (we can get into "conspiracy theories" with Charlottesville, so perhaps best to agree that so far only the Left has used guns recently).
If we don't start creating counter-momentum of healing the dividing forces, we're headed toward major civil unrest, and we know the government has been preparing for this for a while, so it's best we don't go there.
What does all this mean for us filmmakers/vloggers and video hobbyists posting on YouTube? We can help heal the divisions, by creating content designed to bring people together, to better understand the issues, and to always take a position of understanding, love, and kindness. Metaphors and parables are more effective vs. lecturing (is this post lecturing ?). Think about how to better communicate with those who think differently from yourself. If you are posting online, think twice if you are angry. Understand that anger comes from your own ego, not from external sources, and certainly not from a person who has angered or annoyed you: that's coming from within yourself. Debating online is an excellent place to practice kind debate. Because you can take a moment or a break to think more deeply before replying. And by all means don't drunk post or post when upset in general: that's not the real you.
Peace brothers & sisters  

@Ed_David you made your point about B&H, some agree, some disagree, the courts ruled, we're paying attention to these issues, perhaps time to focus on a new issue? Such as how to unite the people away from chaos and war? You have a lot of talent, would love to see a piece by you using the amazing F65 which promotes love, understanding and unity. Tell a story to make people cry with joy, brother  

For me, it's a great shame the world seems to go from racial and religious division, through political division and onto cultural division so often, like a cycle, and it looks like we're going through one of those phases again, which leads to a world war.
The first thing to happen is the mob mentality, where dissenting voices in the crowd are dismissed even if they might be reasonable and logical.
Be it a far-left uprising or a far-right one, I hate all extremists.
Fighting Nazis is very noble but there are quite a lot who now consider all conservatives or anybody slightly right of centre on certain issues to be flat out evil people. I don't buy that and the Google thing shows that there's a huge, uncontrollable politically correct mob at corporations who can't have an honest debate about certain subjects because they're taboo.

This is why I believe so much in metaphor with a candy coating. I'm not saying it's the only way, but when you take into account the world we live in, where to make movies you need funding and to get funding you need eyeballs and to get eyeballs you need "flash," I think that the most broad-reaching tool in the box to affect any change is an action/adventure, thriller/mystery, or even horror film that's layered with metaphor.
Having said that, don't discount documentaries too quickly. Many times they reach people outside of the "choir" and they do change hearts and minds. Do whatever you feel called to do!
Also, yes.

This forum is a microcosm of the world, a fractal. Andrew is the mayor, Jon is the sheriff, regulars are the villagers, and others are tourists/travelers just passing through. Is it possible for us to discuss these issues, about the world and each other's behavior, without divisive dialog? If we focus on discussing actions vs. people, especially if we ask questions as to why are people acting a certain way, we can get a better understanding of their motivations, and perhaps help each other to realize there might be better ways to achieve our goals. If we can do it on this forum, it will be a useful pattern for the world, right? (a fractal thing)
Does disparaging each other work? Think about it- if someone puts you down, are you likely to listen to anything more about what they have to say, even if they are 100% correct?
I have compassion for everyone working in the media industry, as well as everyone on this forum. We are constantly bombarded with negative energy designed to divide and conquer the US and the World. Folks in the media who don't follow the divisive guidelines face extreme personal and financial pressure to conform. It's truly a bummer.
I spent my free time this summer doing research into what is really going on in the world today. The realization is so terrible that I didn't want to believe it, people who know the truth don't want to talk about it, and people who don't already know the truth don't want to believe it or even hear about it.
All I can say with any certainty, is listen to those who push for kindness, understanding, and unity. Have empathy for all to those who output hate, intolerance, and division. More than anything they need understanding and love: that's how you heal them. Giving them more hate only makes their condition worse, right? This is for the general case and works for almost every person. The exceptions for violent people are noted, and even they are best given love and understanding when they must be countered with force and/or constrained freedom for the protection of others. Think of a powerful samurai warrior who must fight with honor and compassion and without hate. The reason we do this is it's good for all of our biology: kind actions and thoughts improve our mind, body, and spirit health. Kindness is not weakness. A soldier in battle can fight with compassion and without hate: fighting with honor.
What are the advantages of making enemies? Now more than ever in modern history is a good time to practice making friends. We need to work together to get through the possible upcoming crisis. Ideally it will be avoided, but if not we must work together to reduce suffering and possibly even to survive.

Lol where's the irony? We're all in the same boat, brother  

Ignore all sides who preach hate and division, brothers and sisters. They are all coming from the same source, the same people pulling the strings, a layer above and invisible to most. Their goal is to create division and civil war, WW3, to consolidate their global power. DC is locked in self-destructive corruption, so we need to manifest miracles to bring about peaceful change. Perhaps best case scenario is to pardon them all if they'll all leave peacefully. They have most people looking down at minutiae, when we really need to be looking up at our rulers and working together in unity to create real change, at the root source of all the world's manufactured problems.
Spread the message of love and unity. Think in terms of what you want, as opposed to what you don't want.
What we think becomes reality.
 

Today a model I am working with brought up the google employee who was fired recently. I had skimmed his article and also saw that mainstream media was outraged and that he was ultimately fired. I asked her if she had read what he wrote, and she replied she had not. So her support of the firing was based solely on reporting by mainstream media (MSM). It took a bit of googling to find his original document: the MSM sources I found had removed all external links and didn't post the original document. Here it is:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here's a couple examples where the external links and all graphics have been removed: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 , http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/. I didn't check them closely for other deletions and omissions.
As an executive and manager of both small and large corporations, I was made well aware by legal departments what is acceptable and not acceptable practice in the workplace. I believe he put google at major lawsuit risk for writing the following:
The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
This post is related to other posts discussing women in the workplace and now I raise the issue of media bias in reporting, which relates to all of us who create filmed media and are trying to help heal our divided country and planet.
From a purely legal risk basis, I understand why google fired Mr. Damore. However, here's the problem for google: if what Mr. Damore wrote isn't true, they could defend themselves, showing that what he wrote isn't accurate. Given what he wrote, firing him might harm google even more. It appears this was an internal document, never meant for public view. The fact that it was released to the public has harmed google, and is now being used as a divisive tool and weapon by the MSM. If what Mr. Damore wrote is true, then some good can come from it to heal division, not just at google but anyone affected by these issues.
I realize that both the extreme Left and Right are just tools for division, and see them for what they truly are. I can see how some of what Mr. Damore wrote could be inflammatory for some individuals, however in his favor he did provide links to other sources which support his statements. Which is why it's very misleading when MSM removes these links (and graphics) from his original document.
Here is what appears to have triggered the Left and the people funding MSM (see his full document for the rest of suggestions and reference notes, there's a lot more):
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. What many of us are seeing is the Left is completely intolerant of any view other than their own, and have been resorting to violence. If one states they are neither Left or Right, the Left calls them Right, and the Right calls them Left. So while the Right might at first seem to be more tolerant, if one is not "on their side" they can be labeled "Left" simply because they are not Right. Fortunately, the well-armed Right hasn't been violent (we can get into "conspiracy theories" with Charlottesville, so perhaps best to agree that so far only the Left has used guns recently).
If we don't start creating counter-momentum of healing the dividing forces, we're headed toward major civil unrest, and we know the government has been preparing for this for a while, so it's best we don't go there.
What does all this mean for us filmmakers/vloggers and video hobbyists posting on YouTube? We can help heal the divisions, by creating content designed to bring people together, to better understand the issues, and to always take a position of understanding, love, and kindness. Metaphors and parables are more effective vs. lecturing (is this post lecturing ?). Think about how to better communicate with those who think differently from yourself. If you are posting online, think twice if you are angry. Understand that anger comes from your own ego, not from external sources, and certainly not from a person who has angered or annoyed you: that's coming from within yourself. Debating online is an excellent place to practice kind debate. Because you can take a moment or a break to think more deeply before replying. And by all means don't drunk post or post when upset in general: that's not the real you.
Peace brothers & sisters  

I use Vimeo, but its also in virtu signaling business, they even created a category for Resistance! 
This war is already shaping the environment for content makers. You can't pretend nothing is happening. 

I hate this kind of thing as much as anyone right of center, but I find Google's tracking/advertising/manipulation practices to be more concerning especially considering their political clout and market share. The online advertising market is a straight up duopoly right now between them and Facebook.
But unfortunately, they're king when it comes to many things on the internet.

It seems JCS is simply requesting that we as filmmakers make extra effort to make our films/videos have positive meaning. Left, right, up, or down, I think we can agree that's something to think about and is certainly applicable to a site full of filmmakers.
I have discussions all the time with people about the purpose of film and whether it's our responsibility to be positive, refrain from opinion, just deliver entertainment, etc... 
I think it's worthwhile discussion. 

Today a model I am working with brought up the google employee who was fired recently. I had skimmed his article and also saw that mainstream media was outraged and that he was ultimately fired. I asked her if she had read what he wrote, and she replied she had not. So her support of the firing was based solely on reporting by mainstream media (MSM). It took a bit of googling to find his original document: the MSM sources I found had removed all external links and didn't post the original document. Here it is:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here's a couple examples where the external links and all graphics have been removed: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 , http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/. I didn't check them closely for other deletions and omissions.
As an executive and manager of both small and large corporations, I was made well aware by legal departments what is acceptable and not acceptable practice in the workplace. I believe he put google at major lawsuit risk for writing the following:
The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
This post is related to other posts discussing women in the workplace and now I raise the issue of media bias in reporting, which relates to all of us who create filmed media and are trying to help heal our divided country and planet.
From a purely legal risk basis, I understand why google fired Mr. Damore. However, here's the problem for google: if what Mr. Damore wrote isn't true, they could defend themselves, showing that what he wrote isn't accurate. Given what he wrote, firing him might harm google even more. It appears this was an internal document, never meant for public view. The fact that it was released to the public has harmed google, and is now being used as a divisive tool and weapon by the MSM. If what Mr. Damore wrote is true, then some good can come from it to heal division, not just at google but anyone affected by these issues.
I realize that both the extreme Left and Right are just tools for division, and see them for what they truly are. I can see how some of what Mr. Damore wrote could be inflammatory for some individuals, however in his favor he did provide links to other sources which support his statements. Which is why it's very misleading when MSM removes these links (and graphics) from his original document.
Here is what appears to have triggered the Left and the people funding MSM (see his full document for the rest of suggestions and reference notes, there's a lot more):
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. What many of us are seeing is the Left is completely intolerant of any view other than their own, and have been resorting to violence. If one states they are neither Left or Right, the Left calls them Right, and the Right calls them Left. So while the Right might at first seem to be more tolerant, if one is not "on their side" they can be labeled "Left" simply because they are not Right. Fortunately, the well-armed Right hasn't been violent (we can get into "conspiracy theories" with Charlottesville, so perhaps best to agree that so far only the Left has used guns recently).
If we don't start creating counter-momentum of healing the dividing forces, we're headed toward major civil unrest, and we know the government has been preparing for this for a while, so it's best we don't go there.
What does all this mean for us filmmakers/vloggers and video hobbyists posting on YouTube? We can help heal the divisions, by creating content designed to bring people together, to better understand the issues, and to always take a position of understanding, love, and kindness. Metaphors and parables are more effective vs. lecturing (is this post lecturing ?). Think about how to better communicate with those who think differently from yourself. If you are posting online, think twice if you are angry. Understand that anger comes from your own ego, not from external sources, and certainly not from a person who has angered or annoyed you: that's coming from within yourself. Debating online is an excellent place to practice kind debate. Because you can take a moment or a break to think more deeply before replying. And by all means don't drunk post or post when upset in general: that's not the real you.
Peace brothers & sisters  

Paper bag + white sheet paper + paperclip = (shot and post processed in Snapseed on iPhone)
Processed in ACR and enlarged in Photoshop:

Today a model I am working with brought up the google employee who was fired recently. I had skimmed his article and also saw that mainstream media was outraged and that he was ultimately fired. I asked her if she had read what he wrote, and she replied she had not. So her support of the firing was based solely on reporting by mainstream media (MSM). It took a bit of googling to find his original document: the MSM sources I found had removed all external links and didn't post the original document. Here it is:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here's a couple examples where the external links and all graphics have been removed: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 , http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/. I didn't check them closely for other deletions and omissions.
As an executive and manager of both small and large corporations, I was made well aware by legal departments what is acceptable and not acceptable practice in the workplace. I believe he put google at major lawsuit risk for writing the following:
The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
This post is related to other posts discussing women in the workplace and now I raise the issue of media bias in reporting, which relates to all of us who create filmed media and are trying to help heal our divided country and planet.
From a purely legal risk basis, I understand why google fired Mr. Damore. However, here's the problem for google: if what Mr. Damore wrote isn't true, they could defend themselves, showing that what he wrote isn't accurate. Given what he wrote, firing him might harm google even more. It appears this was an internal document, never meant for public view. The fact that it was released to the public has harmed google, and is now being used as a divisive tool and weapon by the MSM. If what Mr. Damore wrote is true, then some good can come from it to heal division, not just at google but anyone affected by these issues.
I realize that both the extreme Left and Right are just tools for division, and see them for what they truly are. I can see how some of what Mr. Damore wrote could be inflammatory for some individuals, however in his favor he did provide links to other sources which support his statements. Which is why it's very misleading when MSM removes these links (and graphics) from his original document.
Here is what appears to have triggered the Left and the people funding MSM (see his full document for the rest of suggestions and reference notes, there's a lot more):
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. What many of us are seeing is the Left is completely intolerant of any view other than their own, and have been resorting to violence. If one states they are neither Left or Right, the Left calls them Right, and the Right calls them Left. So while the Right might at first seem to be more tolerant, if one is not "on their side" they can be labeled "Left" simply because they are not Right. Fortunately, the well-armed Right hasn't been violent (we can get into "conspiracy theories" with Charlottesville, so perhaps best to agree that so far only the Left has used guns recently).
If we don't start creating counter-momentum of healing the dividing forces, we're headed toward major civil unrest, and we know the government has been preparing for this for a while, so it's best we don't go there.
What does all this mean for us filmmakers/vloggers and video hobbyists posting on YouTube? We can help heal the divisions, by creating content designed to bring people together, to better understand the issues, and to always take a position of understanding, love, and kindness. Metaphors and parables are more effective vs. lecturing (is this post lecturing ?). Think about how to better communicate with those who think differently from yourself. If you are posting online, think twice if you are angry. Understand that anger comes from your own ego, not from external sources, and certainly not from a person who has angered or annoyed you: that's coming from within yourself. Debating online is an excellent place to practice kind debate. Because you can take a moment or a break to think more deeply before replying. And by all means don't drunk post or post when upset in general: that's not the real you.
Peace brothers & sisters  

I started using bing since the day they fired the guy. Not that Microsoft is any better, but I don't want to use their services anymore. I wish a Chinese or Indian startup make a YouTube rival then I will be G-free. Thanks god Telegram rocks in my country so I rarely need to use email. 

Hot thread... Chill out guys and gals ; ) Let's keep it up a little bit at least, we are all friends over Andrew's home :-)

Thanks User. That's why we are best training and thinking like samurai. Joining together with like-minded people to not only protect ourselves but also those who are not able to protect themselves. If the hordes come, we do our best to help them, at the same time being smart and not putting ourselves at risk. If we must fight, we do so with compassion and honor. That's a big reason to make friends and work as a team vs. going solo in times of crisis. I finally started watching Game of Thrones and I see one reason why it's so popular right now: lots of metaphors for what's happening in the real world.

This forum is a microcosm of the world, a fractal. Andrew is the mayor, Jon is the sheriff, regulars are the villagers, and others are tourists/travelers just passing through. Is it possible for us to discuss these issues, about the world and each other's behavior, without divisive dialog? If we focus on discussing actions vs. people, especially if we ask questions as to why are people acting a certain way, we can get a better understanding of their motivations, and perhaps help each other to realize there might be better ways to achieve our goals. If we can do it on this forum, it will be a useful pattern for the world, right? (a fractal thing)
Does disparaging each other work? Think about it- if someone puts you down, are you likely to listen to anything more about what they have to say, even if they are 100% correct?
I have compassion for everyone working in the media industry, as well as everyone on this forum. We are constantly bombarded with negative energy designed to divide and conquer the US and the World. Folks in the media who don't follow the divisive guidelines face extreme personal and financial pressure to conform. It's truly a bummer.
I spent my free time this summer doing research into what is really going on in the world today. The realization is so terrible that I didn't want to believe it, people who know the truth don't want to talk about it, and people who don't already know the truth don't want to believe it or even hear about it.
All I can say with any certainty, is listen to those who push for kindness, understanding, and unity. Have empathy for all to those who output hate, intolerance, and division. More than anything they need understanding and love: that's how you heal them. Giving them more hate only makes their condition worse, right? This is for the general case and works for almost every person. The exceptions for violent people are noted, and even they are best given love and understanding when they must be countered with force and/or constrained freedom for the protection of others. Think of a powerful samurai warrior who must fight with honor and compassion and without hate. The reason we do this is it's good for all of our biology: kind actions and thoughts improve our mind, body, and spirit health. Kindness is not weakness. A soldier in battle can fight with compassion and without hate: fighting with honor.
What are the advantages of making enemies? Now more than ever in modern history is a good time to practice making friends. We need to work together to get through the possible upcoming crisis. Ideally it will be avoided, but if not we must work together to reduce suffering and possibly even to survive.

This forum is a microcosm of the world, a fractal. Andrew is the mayor, Jon is the sheriff, regulars are the villagers, and others are tourists/travelers just passing through. Is it possible for us to discuss these issues, about the world and each other's behavior, without divisive dialog? If we focus on discussing actions vs. people, especially if we ask questions as to why are people acting a certain way, we can get a better understanding of their motivations, and perhaps help each other to realize there might be better ways to achieve our goals. If we can do it on this forum, it will be a useful pattern for the world, right? (a fractal thing)
Does disparaging each other work? Think about it- if someone puts you down, are you likely to listen to anything more about what they have to say, even if they are 100% correct?
I have compassion for everyone working in the media industry, as well as everyone on this forum. We are constantly bombarded with negative energy designed to divide and conquer the US and the World. Folks in the media who don't follow the divisive guidelines face extreme personal and financial pressure to conform. It's truly a bummer.
I spent my free time this summer doing research into what is really going on in the world today. The realization is so terrible that I didn't want to believe it, people who know the truth don't want to talk about it, and people who don't already know the truth don't want to believe it or even hear about it.
All I can say with any certainty, is listen to those who push for kindness, understanding, and unity. Have empathy for all to those who output hate, intolerance, and division. More than anything they need understanding and love: that's how you heal them. Giving them more hate only makes their condition worse, right? This is for the general case and works for almost every person. The exceptions for violent people are noted, and even they are best given love and understanding when they must be countered with force and/or constrained freedom for the protection of others. Think of a powerful samurai warrior who must fight with honor and compassion and without hate. The reason we do this is it's good for all of our biology: kind actions and thoughts improve our mind, body, and spirit health. Kindness is not weakness. A soldier in battle can fight with compassion and without hate: fighting with honor.
What are the advantages of making enemies? Now more than ever in modern history is a good time to practice making friends. We need to work together to get through the possible upcoming crisis. Ideally it will be avoided, but if not we must work together to reduce suffering and possibly even to survive.