Let's hope so. However, if it has anything to do with giving up our rights in exchange for a program where we are all "not going to own anything, yet be happy", I am not interested as that idea completely stalls new innovation and puts majority control into the hands of a few elites, who BTW, will own it all and rule us all via "social credit scores"... the opposite of democracy.
Well I don't know what I might have said to indicate that I am for anything other than more innovation, as much or more profit, never giving up rights.
What gave me that idea was from our back and forth regarding George Soros, who BTW, is working tightly with the World Economic Forum in order to:
1) Create a one world Digital currency, connected to our phones. - This will give them control over our bank accounts, cutting any of us off from any money we have there if we don't agree with their narratives. This is already happening NOW both here in America and in Canada (if you read about what happened to the Canadian Truckers who participated in peaceful protests regarding vaccine mandates).
2) They want to do what you would like for them to do and distribute UBI to everybody in the world. Only it gets cut off, along with any other privileges if you have a low social credit score.
3) Part of the deal is that you will no longer have any choice as to if you are to be vaccinated or not AND the moment you refuse to get your booster, your vaccine passport will not be valid. These vaccines have been created to alter your natural DnA and according to the top scientist who works for the WEF, will be able to control all thoughts so that we all completely agree with whatever the one world government is proposing.
4) There will be no borders. The goal is to have unelected elites (like those who run the EU) to rule over all areas of the world.
5) This is all under the guise of "Saving The Planet", a worthy goal that so many are for. It is also a good excuse for taxing the heck out of all of us to support total world transformation into something that the WEF is in charge of.
....I know, I know, you are going to call me a "Conspiracy Theorist" at this point, but I have seen too much of this occurring to bury my head in the sand and ignore it any more. ... You have always been so much more trustworthy of big government than I am or ever will be.
Love the concept that you present here. “We The People” desperately NEED news outlets that we can TRUST to present us with TRUTH and FACTS.
More comments on this:
“benefiting from an uninformed, apathetic citizenry, but they are not conscious and they are not democrats, FYI.” <—— That is your reality, but not a fact. You somehow have this idea that the problem lies with Republicans when it is actually BOTH parties that have been participating in spreading false information for years.
“When, for example, Fox News, Democracy Now!, National Review, The Nation, Joe Rogan and Al Franken are all participating, it stands out in a big way when The New York Times and OAN do not. What are they hiding?” <—— Good question!!!
My thoughts exactly. Go to the New York Times, then compare it with the Epoch Times. Two totally DIFFERENT set of “facts” on a daily basis! Both believable, until one checks their “facts” with their own personal reality of what they actually SEE occurring. Who owns and what commercial interests support the New York Times? Who owns and what commercial interests supports the Epoch Times? <—— That is where you will find the answer.
Look at the large corporations that support the news organizations and you will understand why they promote “facts” such as “93% of the people who have died from covid have not been vaccinated” or “Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia and is totally innocent of any internal corruption”, or “Hunter’s lab top is nothing but a Russian dis-information campaign”… on and on and on… Easy to SEE why such things are promoted as facts just by looking at the commercial interests promoted on those news outlets.
Most of us would love to know what news outlets you trust to give you REAL FACTS instead of bias opinions based on commercial or financial interests.
Just to be clear: I am not published on Substack so much as I am using Substack as the place to publish my work. Nobody looks at anything, I don't have to DO anything (save, I'm sure, for operating within its guidelines).
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know how Substack worked. I just realized that a lot of the authors that I enjoy reading are here (including you). Now that you explained that nobody has to approve of what you write here, it makes it even better. We all need to have more formats like this where free speech is still allowed.
When I said "they are not democrats," that was small-d democrats, people who do not care about America continuing as a democracy (not the Democrats from the Democratic Party). Meaning yes, of course, absolutely, people and entites who are benefiting from us being all apapthetic and not well-informed are "on the left" as well.
As for news outlets I personally trust? I'm just flubbing through like everybody else. For me these days it's much less about specific trusted sources/outles -- for many of the reasons you say -- and much more about a case by case, story by story, journalist by journalist, writer by writer story and how it resonates. I personally read more than watch and listen and I believe I read a range, which I think is reasonably broad, though I'm sure others would deem tremendously narrow. The general idea proposed in the piece would, I believe, because it is rooted in conscious practice, make it much easier for we the people to make sense of it all.
Ok, then. That makes more sense. I read more than I watch as well. After a while it comes down to individual authors that make the most sense to me as well.
OK: couple of things here. Americans are fiercely independent thinkers, and being told what is fact or fiction when it comes to the news of the day? It’s a tough sell, seems to me. Don’t get me wrong: the National Enquirer and it’s equally bizarre sibling publications taught the mainstream media what kinds of stories sell best, and the consciousness that consumes that kind of “news” has been joined by consciousnesses from all the other media political slices because shit seems to sell better than Shinola. So I’m not sure about a ratings system.
The other issue is how to make media sustainable. I know at least one national daily founded precisely to solve the truth in reporting issue more than 100 years ago that has not, in the last 30-40 years or so, been able to retain its paid readership in spite of its continuing commitment to journalistic excellence. Unfortunately a charter like that that doesn’t provide for profit from the profane, but the media generally exists to serve and profit from all levels of consciousness, regardless of how informed those levels may be.
Why don’t we address this issue at the root: providing resources at all levels of consciousness for those who want to learn and practice critical thinking skills? Just my opinion, but doesn’t a “well-informed” citizenry depend on individual practice to seek and find the truth? Clearly many of us don’t know the difference and still religiously shine our shoes with the wrong stuff, but that stuff stinks, and once one learns about the smell or steps in it one begins to learn the difference. How about an Institute for Consciousness and Political Reason (iCRAP)?
Well there's not much to say after iCRAP, is there?! :)
Except this: I'd say forget a rating system or any PARTICULAR idea at this point and focus on the larger idea -- the media industry itself, looking at the mess IT has collectively contributed to, taking responsibility for it, and creating whatever scheme(s) they deem appropriate to address it, fix it, heal it, make it better. I'm arguing that, on the whole, it's the industry that is responsible for a LOT of why we are not well-informed.
As for providing resources to encourage and learn critical thinking, 100%. This is part and parcel, I'd say, of a renewed commitment to civics education in America -- another piece of having a well-informed citizenry, for SURE. To my mind, it's not either or but both and.
Great to see others, besides myself, getting into these conversations regarding Steven's articles. Enjoyed reading your comments above. iCRAP is an interesting idea. LOL!
Maybe not, it must be that when I get on to comment, I hardly see anybody else commenting other than single sentence agreements. I start to feel like the big blabber mouth over here.
I, for one, am ready to start trusting the news I hear and having that news, all news, be fact so my children don't grow up second-guessing and/or having to prove what they hear, read, see. I'm in.
Not sure how I missed this the first time around but I salute your CHOICE to choose. I also trust that if something doesn't sound -- or feel -- quite right, you'll know it and will be able to discuss as such. In the old days we called it critical thinking. Now we call it discernment and I think it's the same thing in a different way.
Good thoughts…but it’s all about the Money.
Competing for advertising,
I totally agree with this comment. Follow the money and you will realize why certain viewpoints are presented as truth.
In the old consciousness, it's all about the money. In the new consciousness, things change.
Let's hope so. However, if it has anything to do with giving up our rights in exchange for a program where we are all "not going to own anything, yet be happy", I am not interested as that idea completely stalls new innovation and puts majority control into the hands of a few elites, who BTW, will own it all and rule us all via "social credit scores"... the opposite of democracy.
Well I don't know what I might have said to indicate that I am for anything other than more innovation, as much or more profit, never giving up rights.
What gave me that idea was from our back and forth regarding George Soros, who BTW, is working tightly with the World Economic Forum in order to:
1) Create a one world Digital currency, connected to our phones. - This will give them control over our bank accounts, cutting any of us off from any money we have there if we don't agree with their narratives. This is already happening NOW both here in America and in Canada (if you read about what happened to the Canadian Truckers who participated in peaceful protests regarding vaccine mandates).
2) They want to do what you would like for them to do and distribute UBI to everybody in the world. Only it gets cut off, along with any other privileges if you have a low social credit score.
3) Part of the deal is that you will no longer have any choice as to if you are to be vaccinated or not AND the moment you refuse to get your booster, your vaccine passport will not be valid. These vaccines have been created to alter your natural DnA and according to the top scientist who works for the WEF, will be able to control all thoughts so that we all completely agree with whatever the one world government is proposing.
4) There will be no borders. The goal is to have unelected elites (like those who run the EU) to rule over all areas of the world.
5) This is all under the guise of "Saving The Planet", a worthy goal that so many are for. It is also a good excuse for taxing the heck out of all of us to support total world transformation into something that the WEF is in charge of.
....I know, I know, you are going to call me a "Conspiracy Theorist" at this point, but I have seen too much of this occurring to bury my head in the sand and ignore it any more. ... You have always been so much more trustworthy of big government than I am or ever will be.
Here is a link with more information regarding Klaus Schwab. This guy put a bunch of actual clips together in one YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3nWyoQ5CQ
Would love to get your feedback on this.
Love the concept that you present here. “We The People” desperately NEED news outlets that we can TRUST to present us with TRUTH and FACTS.
More comments on this:
“benefiting from an uninformed, apathetic citizenry, but they are not conscious and they are not democrats, FYI.” <—— That is your reality, but not a fact. You somehow have this idea that the problem lies with Republicans when it is actually BOTH parties that have been participating in spreading false information for years.
“When, for example, Fox News, Democracy Now!, National Review, The Nation, Joe Rogan and Al Franken are all participating, it stands out in a big way when The New York Times and OAN do not. What are they hiding?” <—— Good question!!!
My thoughts exactly. Go to the New York Times, then compare it with the Epoch Times. Two totally DIFFERENT set of “facts” on a daily basis! Both believable, until one checks their “facts” with their own personal reality of what they actually SEE occurring. Who owns and what commercial interests support the New York Times? Who owns and what commercial interests supports the Epoch Times? <—— That is where you will find the answer.
Look at the large corporations that support the news organizations and you will understand why they promote “facts” such as “93% of the people who have died from covid have not been vaccinated” or “Ukraine did nothing to provoke Russia and is totally innocent of any internal corruption”, or “Hunter’s lab top is nothing but a Russian dis-information campaign”… on and on and on… Easy to SEE why such things are promoted as facts just by looking at the commercial interests promoted on those news outlets.
Most of us would love to know what news outlets you trust to give you REAL FACTS instead of bias opinions based on commercial or financial interests.
BTW, right now the most honest news that I personally SEE is coming from places like Substack where you are being published and others like Dr. Malone who are NOT funded by commercial interests. He was a Democrat, until he saw how Democrats were being lied to and used to support the false narrative about the efficacy of the vaccine mandates. Here is an article that he wrote this week about the protests in LA regarding this subject. TRUTH can be found here: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/defeat-the-mandates-la?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNDIxMzIzMSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NTE5Njk5OTgsIl8iOiJqTzNqMiIsImlhdCI6MTY0OTYyMTk2MCwiZXhwIjoxNjQ5NjI1NTYwLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNTgzMjAwIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.PGM7ikWPZQg_8M_Un0TfOW1ObE7ZibQZONYmiInVEFI&s=r
Just to be clear: I am not published on Substack so much as I am using Substack as the place to publish my work. Nobody looks at anything, I don't have to DO anything (save, I'm sure, for operating within its guidelines).
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know how Substack worked. I just realized that a lot of the authors that I enjoy reading are here (including you). Now that you explained that nobody has to approve of what you write here, it makes it even better. We all need to have more formats like this where free speech is still allowed.
When I said "they are not democrats," that was small-d democrats, people who do not care about America continuing as a democracy (not the Democrats from the Democratic Party). Meaning yes, of course, absolutely, people and entites who are benefiting from us being all apapthetic and not well-informed are "on the left" as well.
As for news outlets I personally trust? I'm just flubbing through like everybody else. For me these days it's much less about specific trusted sources/outles -- for many of the reasons you say -- and much more about a case by case, story by story, journalist by journalist, writer by writer story and how it resonates. I personally read more than watch and listen and I believe I read a range, which I think is reasonably broad, though I'm sure others would deem tremendously narrow. The general idea proposed in the piece would, I believe, because it is rooted in conscious practice, make it much easier for we the people to make sense of it all.
Ok, then. That makes more sense. I read more than I watch as well. After a while it comes down to individual authors that make the most sense to me as well.
OK: couple of things here. Americans are fiercely independent thinkers, and being told what is fact or fiction when it comes to the news of the day? It’s a tough sell, seems to me. Don’t get me wrong: the National Enquirer and it’s equally bizarre sibling publications taught the mainstream media what kinds of stories sell best, and the consciousness that consumes that kind of “news” has been joined by consciousnesses from all the other media political slices because shit seems to sell better than Shinola. So I’m not sure about a ratings system.
The other issue is how to make media sustainable. I know at least one national daily founded precisely to solve the truth in reporting issue more than 100 years ago that has not, in the last 30-40 years or so, been able to retain its paid readership in spite of its continuing commitment to journalistic excellence. Unfortunately a charter like that that doesn’t provide for profit from the profane, but the media generally exists to serve and profit from all levels of consciousness, regardless of how informed those levels may be.
Why don’t we address this issue at the root: providing resources at all levels of consciousness for those who want to learn and practice critical thinking skills? Just my opinion, but doesn’t a “well-informed” citizenry depend on individual practice to seek and find the truth? Clearly many of us don’t know the difference and still religiously shine our shoes with the wrong stuff, but that stuff stinks, and once one learns about the smell or steps in it one begins to learn the difference. How about an Institute for Consciousness and Political Reason (iCRAP)?
Well there's not much to say after iCRAP, is there?! :)
Except this: I'd say forget a rating system or any PARTICULAR idea at this point and focus on the larger idea -- the media industry itself, looking at the mess IT has collectively contributed to, taking responsibility for it, and creating whatever scheme(s) they deem appropriate to address it, fix it, heal it, make it better. I'm arguing that, on the whole, it's the industry that is responsible for a LOT of why we are not well-informed.
As for providing resources to encourage and learn critical thinking, 100%. This is part and parcel, I'd say, of a renewed commitment to civics education in America -- another piece of having a well-informed citizenry, for SURE. To my mind, it's not either or but both and.
Yes! That would do it!
Great to see others, besides myself, getting into these conversations regarding Steven's articles. Enjoyed reading your comments above. iCRAP is an interesting idea. LOL!
It's not just you, Linda!!! :)
Maybe not, it must be that when I get on to comment, I hardly see anybody else commenting other than single sentence agreements. I start to feel like the big blabber mouth over here.
I, for one, am ready to start trusting the news I hear and having that news, all news, be fact so my children don't grow up second-guessing and/or having to prove what they hear, read, see. I'm in.
Not sure how I missed this the first time around but I salute your CHOICE to choose. I also trust that if something doesn't sound -- or feel -- quite right, you'll know it and will be able to discuss as such. In the old days we called it critical thinking. Now we call it discernment and I think it's the same thing in a different way.
AKA trusting our intuition. Potayto/ potahto. #aligned