Addressing conflict leading to war and the honorable path to peace

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

If you have not yet completely read this About pre-introduction, please go here and do so, before returning to this article.

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

~*~*~*~*~*~

War can be defined as a period of armed conflict or struggle between two or more nations. War can also be a battle of ideas, values and arguments. People and media sources have labelled social media as a new significant frontier for war, where battles can be fought and lost with significant consequences, such as influence on decision-making. The topic of social media as a weapon and usage in modern warfare has been dissected in mediums such as a podcast shared by University of Pennsylvania, the New York Times online, and other sources.

Peter Singer and Emerson Brooking discussed their book in the podcast “Why Social Media is the New Weapon in Modern Warfare” during a Knowledge@Wharton radio show on Sirius XM [1]. They mention interviewing godfather of the internet Vint Cerf to understand how the internet was once a military network for scientists, how the internet and social media have evolved rapidly within the last 20 years, the impact of social media on politics, and the extent of internet usage in many areas of our lives including national security, such as online recruitment for terrorists such as ISIS.

The New York Times recently published an article titled “How Journalists and Academics Are Tackling The ‘Misinformation’ Wars” [2], in December 2021. In February 2021, Research Fellow for Lowy Institute Lydia Khalil had prepared a paper for submission to Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding extremists and radicalism in Australia, whereby she notes the increasing polarization and disinformation of digital technology, especially social media [3].

Similar to the usage of fire and other tools in our lives, social media is a vehicle with negative and positive consequences, depending on the user. Is the impact of social media on our lives partially dependent on many factors, such as how we evaluate the ability and ethics of media sources to professionally fulfil their job obligations without overly-partisan bias towards fellow citizens and people in other countries?

Whether you are American or non-American, how would you evaluate news coverage of domestic and international issues by media sources in USA? This is an important question because your ability to navigate such a complex landscape also determines your ability to evaluate other topics, especially for complex issues discussed on social media and can have serious consequences, when many people decide to disseminate their opinions. 

It is necessary to understand the words “information”, “educate”, “propaganda”, “facts” and “news” when you read something, regardless of source and country. News is a presentation of information. You need to carefully ascertain whether the information you are digesting can be classified as facts with accurate context and nuancing, errors, half-truths, or propaganda which is untrue. If you want to educate someone, giving them misinformation is akin to providing unreliable information and thus misleading them.

Before you decide what stance to take on an issue, or whether to believe what you read or hear, what processes or actions do you choose to undertake, before reaching any preliminary conclusions or final conclusions? What do you define as being true to yourself, which vulnerable children can learn from?

Do you agree that a positive intelligent disagreement leads to all parties making discoveries, eventually pausing to say, “You made me think”? I believe a positive intelligent disagreement enables us to learn to hear what is being mentioned, we do not misunderstand intentions, we are patient with the process of trying to voice words to match beliefs or convey errors, we come to understand how someone else thinks, and we realize the parts of our thinking which can be improved. What do you think about my beliefs?

Would you consider yourself to be educated and intelligent and principled? If you agree with the above details regarding a positive intelligent disagreement and you consider yourself to be educated and intelligent and principled, are you able to sufficiently understand how someone might have a completely opposing stance relative to you on an issue, before you decide how to judge them or why you choose not to do so?

To be able to do so, the twin traits of intellectual humility and intellectual integrity are essential. Without being willing to admit what you do not know and where you need to improve or what you need to learn, how are you going to improve? Intellectual humility opens the doorway to learning and refining intellectual integrity. Anyone can talk about truth and honor. How would you view someone who only talks about values they espouse, but refuses to back their words with their actions?

Awareness of how to exercise intellectual humility and intellectual integrity is the key to someone being able to transform themselves and evolve to help our world and fellow humans, without losing sight of individuality while productively contributing to society.

“Intellectual honesty” is not exercised as the words imply, when someone cannot identify or refuses to consistently acknowledge the key differences of applicable ethics with regards to “the ends justify the means” versus “the means should justify the ends”. Do you think you are able to help your fellow humans, without being misled? What processes or actions do you utilize to assess yourself, if someone asks you how you know whether you are properly informed or misinformed about an issue?

How do you evaluate facts and errors in what you are perusing or experiencing? How would you perceive someone who misleads you? Do you have differences in how you decide to perceive someone, when you are being intentionally misled or being unintentionally given wrong information? How do you choose to allot credibility from any angles, when you choose to listen to what someone claims about an issue? If you listen to someone and agree with their viewpoint(s) and come to a similar conclusion as them which you feel strongly about, are you giving them credibility?

How would you evaluate your effectiveness, in communicating what you need to know and what you want to share with others? Do you realize the importance of effective communication? Can you have effective communication, if you and other parties are engaged in conversation whereby certain words used by each of you have different meanings and context, but all of you do not realize, resulting in the conversation leading to misunderstandings which are not realized or addressed? If this happens, why does this happen?

What do you think is the biggest problem today? War, poverty and other problems must be tackled. Do we have a major problem, with regards to communication about all these matters including how to identify the key details and contexts of such problems, and how to resolve such matters? Is education a necessity to help individuals learn to exercise effective communication? What is effective education, to help children learn to communicate effectively while fairly protecting fundamentals of developing individuality and critical thinking abilities in every child, without political bias?

Do you think you have received a sufficiently well-rounded basic education, which prepares you for our modern world today? How would you evaluate that?

Please remember that an ideology or political identity or religious identity is not equivalent to sufficiently developing a consistent reliable compass of morals and values which others can also rely upon, when they evaluate you. If you believe being an atheist makes you morally superior to someone without religion, or you believe identifying as part of a certain religion makes you more moral than someone without religion- If you do not know how to exercise the combination of intellectual humility and intellectual integrity with a minimum degree of consistency, “moral superiority” or “more moral than” is more likely a symptom of unattractive arrogance without mature self-awareness, whereby you should carefully study your moral compass before espousing moral superiority or bragging about it.

Whatever you may espouse about reliability or morality, regardless of differences in opinions or beliefs between you and another person, neither of those values has any semblance to inconsistency of a weather vane or the word “exploitation”.  Exploiting language to warp necessary communication, exploiting a situation to create an issue where there was none previously, exploiting a trait with hypocrisy by refusing to report a crime because you believe the trait of a criminal should mitigate them from a crime such as molestation- These are examples of exploitation.

Can you identify key differences in two situations: The situation of refusing to report someone for molestation because you think doing so is racist but such inaction is likely to lead to the predator finding another person to be their victim, versus the situation of a teenager shooting her rapist and killing him in self-defense after being a victim of sexual trafficking?

The teachers of today help create leaders and students of tomorrow. Being a teacher to respect and emulate is to understand the need to honor intellectual humility and intellectual integrity. As an individual and depending on the subject, we are students or teachers or both simultaneously, relative to ourselves or other people. Being a teacher to respect and emulate is not about knowing everything in a subject. Not all teachers understand how to be leaders and students. If a teacher cannot understand what it means to effectively teach or to humbly learn, how will that teacher truly contribute to the needs of a modern globally-competitive education which also necessitates a reliable moral compass for exercising consistency?

Please remember this lesson, which will become personally unavoidable to you  when perusing Articles 2 and 5 on this website: The extent of a stranger’s intellectual humility and intellectual integrity can affect your entire life or major aspects of your life, without your knowledge. This depends on what position that person holds, relative to you. Who we choose to respect as a teacher and leader is very important, especially if you accord them an official status in a position for education.

Choose wisely, because Articles 2 and 5 will illustrate the costs and consequences of at least two enormous issues affecting your life today, due to this lesson not yet effectively learned by your grandparents and parents and a majority of the global population today.

Do you pride yourself as a person of certain consistencies? How do you work towards consistency with a smile and appreciation for life despite any setbacks, without being overly-harsh on yourself while recognizing the need to improve? It is important to learn, but it is also vital to learn to nurture resilient joy, in our never-ending education in life. And as you learn to live in such a balance, can you remember the compassion and firmness you apply to yourself, and be just as fair with others who are learning as well?

People can have different opinions and political affiliations and geopolitical ideas but fundamentally, we are people. Having similar and dissimilar values can be expected, but when evaluating fundamental values matched by actions? Respect. Wisdom. Love. Reliability. Professionalism.  These words speak of standards. They do not belong solely to one label or category, be it political or religious or geopolitical. Whether these words can apply to what you say or do is dependent on you.

Criticize something or someone, but please be aware of not falling into the nonsensical trap of pigeonholing or misjudging someone primarily because of a label or a belief they hold which you disagree with. Being effectively positive is to acknowledge the flaws and any other negatives present, avoid being lulled into inertia due to skepticism, and ultimately strive for solutions while remembering pauses are important.

Sitting behind a computer or frequenting a town square or holding a prestigious position on a council or espousing activism to the point that you have a regular space in a newspaper column, yet refusing to listen carefully or do what is fair and true, despite having much to talk about or criticize? The world you enjoy today is due to many people willing to step outside of their comfort zones to make changes. What are you doing, to help this world? Who helped your parents or guardians and what did those people do to help, when you were growing up?

If you have not considered a minimum of all the above questions by the age of 20, please consider evaluating where your education has been lacking if you attended formal schooling. If you do not decide on processes and actions to evaluate whatever you see or hear online or offline, you are most likely already misinformed and ignorant about certain issues, but you are unaware.

If you do not choose to educate yourself for a future to sincerely benefit yourself and your loved ones and the world of our future generations whereby children always deserve certain protections until they are of a sufficient minimum age in mental and emotional development to choose, someone else will choose outcomes for you to go along with. Some of these outcomes are mistakes. Some mistakes are temporary, but other mistakes can have long-lasting consequences.

As an example when official media does not fulfil its obligations or makes significantly unprofessional mistakes and thereby inflicts severe damage to credibility, the results are unforgettable.

ISIS terrorist leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdidi committed suicide while also murdering his young children via the detonation of a suicide vest after being the source of so much grief in the Middle East, such as the Yezidi who endured genocide attempts, irreversibly broken families and sexual crimes from ISIS. To address his death for readers, Washington Post momentarily committed professional suicide in the realm of global public opinion, inexplicably choosing to mutilate their headlines beyond acceptable political correctness [4].

Veering from “terrorist-in-chief” to “austere religious scholar at the helm of Islamic State”, such a headline was eternally preserved, severely lambasted, and thoroughly mocked on social media such as Twitter, resulting in its final change to “extremist leader”. The Chief Communications Officer for Washington Post addressed the mistake of the headline, tweeting “Regarding our al-Baghdidi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly” [5].

Washington Post had to correct itself far more than that in recent times, with regards to the infamous Steele compilation labelled as a dossier and hailed by much of certain segments of American media despite certain issues arising from its creation. The dossier became indefensible as a wholly credible source, to the point that Axios published an article in November 2021 by Sara Fischer titled “The media’s epic fail” [6]. According to a study by the 2020 Knight Foundation, Axios is classified as a source for moderate leaders leaning mildly to the left. And if you have questions about Sara Fischer’s political leanings for writing that article, she also co-wrote a recent article with Dan Primark, titled “Right wing builds its own echo chamber”[7].

When evaluating current stances of all American media sources which had trumpeted the dossier and their previous work involving it, what do you think, when comparing the reality of their work and behavior to other American media sources usually much less favorably displayed in terms of prominence by Google algorithms? Where are the echo chambers? Where is the hypocrisy? Where is the polarization? How do you know you are looking at accurate facts in comprehensively reliable reporting, instead of overly-selective bias?

When doing a comparison of articles published by media sources from a media source of any country, you must read beyond the headlines, evaluate the tone of reporting, and scrutinize the extent of details shared with the reader. A truly reliable journalist will aim to share details which all readers should know, to allow people to fairly analyze the situation. If they cannot professionally adhere to the requirements of objective reporting and prioritize primary loyalty to their political affiliations on issues as the basis of their reporting, then it is necessary to also read other sources.

Polarization is exacerbated and encouraged when journalists or writers do one-dimensional caricatures and choose to ignore the need for professional objectivity and questions using appropriately objective language, and this is especially relevant for journalists or writers who operate in countries within Western Europe or North America where press freedom is supposedly much greater than other countries and Google’s algorithms amplify what someone finds when using certain languages on Google.

Polarization occurs and is exacerbated or encouraged, when people oversimplify and extrapolate their views of causation or correlation onto others, especially when there are character count limits on mediums such as Twitter. I

If you want a lesson on hypocrisy and polarization, see the Varsity article “The West has a hypocrisy problem” published on 23 March 2022 from Cambridge in the United Kingdom {8}.

Jacob Lewis has a noble goal for the article, aiming to share with the public about how social media and traditional media are magnifying hypocrisy with regards to certain public figures while also damaging public discourse. Whenever you pick a position of moral superiority and authority for any article made available for public consumption, be mindful of nuances, wording, building accurate arguments and choosing accurate examples without moralizing to others in a condescending manner. Humans can be easily biased, but you also have no excuses as a professional in reporting, if your assumptions are projected as definite conclusions alongside neutral language. If you do not exercise meticulous caution with necessary frankness to show a minimum amount of basic respect to a reader, your efforts will be easily rejected and trashed.

Fairness is a key fundamental and end-goal. If you cannot be objective, you still have a professional obligation to report fairly, which requires keeping personal bias in-check.

If the writer was aiming to teach readers objectivity and stop hypocrisy, this article was a partial failure and if questioned by the reader using consistency, can result in a reader believing the whole article has been too biased to be cited as a reflection of reliably and consistently being against hypocrisy. It would be a shame for this article to be ignored completely because there are some important significant points in the article, but this article sadly faces a possibility of being dismissed completely because of the writer’s personal politics being anything but subtle or professionally presented in the article.

Certain officials in the UK government were brought up as examples in that article, of the press aptly playing a crucial role in reporting those who defy the rules which these officials had responsibility for instituting. When mentioning Extinction Rebellion and its activists, the writer gives a reader the impression that the writer believes the organization and its activists are right in whatever they do, because of wording which conveys a stance about reporters being opportunistic with regards to the conduct of some activists in Extinction Rebellion appearing to be hypocrites with their uncleared waste after a march, to detract from the goals of the organization.

People have valid concerns against Extinction Rebellion’s actions and goals and hypocrisy. When Rabima Khan was not yet councilor for Shadwell, she produced an opinion piece titled “Extinction Rebellion’s Violence and Vandalism won’t save the planet” {9}. She gave examples of Extincti0n Rebellion activists smashing windows at Barclays Bank headquarters and HSBC headquarters, and blocking trains, all occurring in Canary Wharf which is within the borough of Tower Hamlet whereby she holds responsibility as an elected councilor and climate change advocate.

She raised details which Extinction Rebellion activists and readers of her article might not have realized or considered about ethnic minorities living in London, and the consequences of actions inflicting “criminal damage” which needs rectification. With regards to mentioning Greta Thunberg in her article, Rabima Khan supports protests without violence, while not advocating for Greta’s views or Greta as a person. 

Matt Ridley’s article for The Critic in December 2019 uses an overly-sensational headline, which nearly overshadows what he wanted to convey about shale gas and fracking {10}. This article is not being brought up as a reference able to wholly rebut the article in Varsity, but as an example of how people can have valid concerns in not agreeing with certain goals of green groups, via details and factors related to shale fracking.

Some people will be justified in their views claiming that the writer in the Varsity article is giving a wide umbrella of exemption regarding hypocrisy and worse towards Extinction Rebellion and its activists due to presentation and wording, and doing so is lazy, politically biased, opportunistic, or a mixture of the traits I have just listed. The other example in the Varsity article which can have people going on to finally decide to junk the article is the language and labelling and indirect oversimplified condescension towards American Republicans.

Did you find the wording and arguments helpful or accurate, to categorize certain people as definite hypocrites when describing “Republicans” – which the writer identified as trending towards certain religious beliefs and are anti-abortion- as people who appear to lack any appropriate consideration for the needs of a baby, after the baby has been born? When people look at how the writer has given a free pass to Extinction Rebellion as a whole while managing to clumsily over-generalize and wrongly mislabel what they deem as “Republicans” being hypocrites, the Varsity article will understandably be trashed by certain readers for insufficient professionalism. 

If you want to discuss hypocrisy in the press of First World Western countries and want to decide whether a solid significant case can be made for how social media and traditional media in Western Europe and North America is damaging to public discourse domestically and internationally, this is not the article for it. This article first needs you to realize biases, errors, problems with media reporting alongside an unavoidable need for improvements within media sources and yourself, in order to enable strangers to effectively communicate and connect with each other.

The objectivity of certain segments of American media became significantly questionable because of their approach and tone long before 2010, especially during the period of Donald Trump taking office. When Trump predecessor Barack Obama ditched the press pool of “media minders” early in his presidency to take his daughters to a water park, what type of coverage did he receive from various media sources such as New York Times [11]? How many media sources covered this story, and in what manner? Compare this to Donald Trump ditching the media early in his presidency, and what are the coverage differences?

Perhaps the mention of such a topic is too polarizing, because your brain refuses to question your beliefs and biases about Donald Trump and Barack Obama. You might question my knowledge and biases. If you believe you know better than me and you assume my claims are a product of being biased by certain political beliefs as an American or Westerner, I look forward to your guesswork about my nationality by the end of this article.

USA urgently needs a mature objective professional free press, whereby journalists reporting from USA-owned media outlets and their owners are not compromised by foreign intelligence or local intelligence or any special interest groups of any country. I believe all Americans should be fairly informed as much as professionally possible by such media sources, before any elections.

Your President is supposed to pick a team to help decide and manage foreign and domestic policies, and he will make choices in foreign policy which affect many countries. All foreign countries will have national security professionals, whereby these officials will be scrutinizing USA press reports and by now, the most capable of these officials would have privately made observations advising utmost caution with regards to your press. As to why, read to the end of this article.

How would you define this scenario: social media, many experts and many journalists of specific political leanings are fundamentally wrong about an important issue which occurred more than 18 months ago before a Presidential election whereby the person elected will make decisions affecting many countries all over the world during his or her presidency. Coverage of that important issue was demonized by too many responsible for journalism, and censorship abominably exercised by big technology companies such as Twitter and Facebook, when a fairly-informed electorate mattered most in a crucial time period before an election.

Almost 18 months later, media sources such as the New York Times have recently published at least one article confirming important details after more than 20 paragraphs, which proves unfair censorship and silencing of what the New York Post had been reporting since 14 October 2020?

“Hunter Biden Paid Tax, But Broad Federal Investigation Continues” published by New York Times on 16 March 2022 is an unforgettable insult to anyone who was paying attention to unavoidable facts and context {12}. New York Times also mentions a certain Biden being aware of FARA, which refers to the Foreign Agent Registration Act and is an unavoidable focal point in the issues raised around a certain family. With regards to unavoidable facts and context, we need to go back in time to the second and final debate presidential debate on 22 October 2020 which occurred between Joe Biden and Donald Trump {13}{14}.

According to transcripts and videos, in response to accusations from Donald Trump about Joe Biden getting money from China, Russia and Ukraine and his son Hunter Biden having no experience in the energy field, Joe Biden made statements about himself and Hunter Biden. He claimed the laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, which Donald Trump was accusing him of, was a Russian plan and a smear campaign. Joe Biden proclaimed his personal integrity, claiming he never took a penny from any foreign source in his life. He claimed he carried out US foreign policy and not a single thing had been out of line.

Joe Biden also defended his son Hunter Biden, after debate moderator Kristen Welter raised the issue of people having questions with regards to work done by Hunter Biden in China and for Ukrainian Energy Company Burisma Holdings Limited. He claimed his son did not make any money with regards to what Kristen Walter had raised, and only Donald Trump had earned money from China. He was very clearly vocal that Donald Trump’s claims about him and his son with regards to China and Burisma was a Russian plan and hoax.

A certain statement he made during that debate at 1:11:32 was highlighted by J. Michael Waller, who explains why there is a huge problem in a must-read article published at the Center For Security Policy in October 2020, titled “For Pro-Biden Intelligence Veterans, American Politics Is Just Another Op” {15}.

Why did 60 current and former officials in the fields of security, intelligence and defense agree to a certain public statement dated 19 October 2020, also published by Politico on that date {16}? What are their responses, as of today? Their joint statement published by Politico did not debunk what the New York Post reported, if you had read the article beyond its misleading headline. Politico’s reporting was dishonest and unreliable unless the journalist did not know how to read a statement and was unintentionally making errors, not helped by a completely misleading headline finalized by editorial oversight for the Politico article claiming “Hunter Biden Story is Russian disinformation, dozens of former intel officials say”.

The joint statement of these officials is fundamentally disturbing and unprofessional because of the insight it provides outsiders, with regards to previous and current quality of leadership and potential priorities of USA’s intelligence apparatus for security and defense {17}.

The fourth paragraph of the statement claims the emails purportedly from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden has all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation program, but the fifth paragraph of this statement claims to emphasize not knowing if the emails are genuine while also having zero evidence of Russian involvement. This joint statement does not present any concrete facts or evidence to rebut any articles from New York Post. Certain sentences have been italicized for emphasis in the statement, such as not knowing whether certain press reports are accurate, but the statement makes presumptive conclusions for details which have not yet been investigated or are under investigation by the FBI.

The statement also contains wrong information, such as attributing emails to Rudy Giuliani while there was more than one source. A second source known at the time of the published statement was Joe Biden’s former business associate Bevan Cooney being responsible for a significant portion of the available material at that point in time, as pointed out by J. Michael Waller who also highlights Bevan Cooney gave two investigative journalists access to his entire Gmail account.

Were you aware of this? Or were you immediately blinded into assumptions by your own prejudice, because Joe Biden’s former business associate gave access to Breitbart’s senior editor as well as a Polish-American journalist who is on the side of Ukraine in the current destructive chaos engulfing Ukraine and Russia? Did you ask Bevan Cooney why he would give access to these two journalists instead of mainstream media outlets with international reach, such as The New York Times and Washington post?

Less than 60 hours after the Politico article was published, Tony Bobulinski was a third source, and he went public on 21 October 2020 {18}.

The former US Navy veteran claimed he would hand over 3 phones formerly in use from 2015 to 2018 to the FBI as electronic evidence, released hundreds of text messages and emails, stated the leading presidential contender Joe Biden was the “big guy” which Hunter Biden mentioned in emails especially when “holding 10% for him”, explained why Joe Biden is a liar, and made other claims such as alluding to Joe Biden’s brother Jim Biden getting a 20% stake in Oneida Holdings {19}.

Did the 60 officials retract their statement or issue a professionally-responsible statement informing the public of these updates with relevant details, whereby extensive investigations also needed to be urgently carried out? Outside of New York Post, did left-leaning media outlets and right-leaning media outlets of USA cover Tony Bobulinski’s claims extensively? 3 November 2020 was the date of the Presidential Elections. What was the behavior of the media and the intelligence officials who agreed to a certain joint public statement, from the time period of 14 October 2020 to 3 November 2020?

How informed was the American public by media sources during that same time period, about this issue? By April 2022 today, anybody who is aware of this entire fiasco and the details of shutting down essential truths being disseminated to the American electorate two weeks before a Presidential election will be entirely skeptical towards a majority of your American media in any types of reporting. Any Americans who did not read or remains unaware of what has been pointed out here do not have any credibility or intelligence to be browbeating Americans and non-Americans for this stance.

USA’s Congress members should have access to materials not available to the public and should not be reliant primarily on press reports to make decisions, for such a matter. Congress members are responsible for ensuring such issues are duly investigated and prosecuted, and the onus becomes particularly important for Democrats. What are the statements and stances from individual Democrats in Congress about these unacceptable shenanigans involving Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, as of this point in April 2022?

Was FARA applied consistently, being urgently necessary in the case of all Bidens involved when Hunter Biden had received millions of dollars from Chinese conglomerate company CEFC which also has ties to the Communist Party of China {20}? Washington Post, Times of UK and other media outlets are unacceptably late, when they report on these matters only in March 2022. They need to start following and emulating the likes of Armstrong Williams, who summarized this unacceptable fiasco in his must-read article published 7 April 2022. He also shared what the likes of CIA Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism Unit Chief Charles Faddis had to say to him, on his radio show.

“Hunter is a bagman for a family enterprise” was the response from Charles Faddis. Former Attorney General William Barr told Armstrong Williams that Joe Biden “knew it was false when he said it and that was quite appalling to me that he would say that in a debate. The media was onboard with suppressing the information before the election.”

It is sad day for Americans sorely needing to be fairly informed by your media without unfair censorship from tech companies, when a Senator has to state the obvious implications of everything that transpired up until this point, and many Americans are still so misinformed and ignorant that they disagree with him {21}. Speaking of the need to prevent unfair censorship, Elon Musk’s tweets on his Twitter account have been educational, especially if you look at the reactions or articles from various Twitter blue-check accounts towards his publicly-stated intentions in April 2022 to buy 100% of Twitter and privatize it.

What is your opinion on the matter of a former FBI director donating 100,000 USD to a trust for Joe Biden’s grandchildren in April 2016 and when Joe Biden was USA’s outgoing Vice President, then emailing Hinter Biden to tell him more than “I would be delighted to do future work with you” on 8 April, followed by Hunter Biden thanking this former Judge and former FBI director Louis Freeh on the same day about another matter, and all this is part of a very interesting collection of emails covering their correspondence {22}?

What are the implications, when New York Post has clearly been going through Hunter Biden’s emails and claims Hunter Biden referred Romanian real estate tycoon Gabriele Popovicu to Louis Freeh, the same Louis Freeh who wrote a reply thanking Hunter Biden? Is it a sad day for Western media, when New York Post and Daily news are doing necessary journalism which so many “credible” media outlets obviously missed, such as the Romanian real estate tycoon being convicted of corruption and how he became a client of Louis Freeh {23}?

If you are an American who claims to be intelligent and informed about politics in USA, you should have read and done your own research to be informed on the details of this situation between Hunter Biden with regards to former judge and FBI director Louis Freeh, when the details were published in May 2021. 

Can someone explain what an email from former judge and FBI director Louis Freeh in March 2017 signifies, when he writes to Hunter Biden about someone stating, “I would still like to persuade him to associate with me and FSS—as we have some very good and profitable matters which he could enhance with minimal time” and mentions Gabriele’s court hearing scheduled on 17 March 2017 whereby getting a judgement was a possibility? What is the significance of Gabriele Popovicu to Hunter Biden, any other Bidens, and Louis Freeh? What is FSS?

As of 18 March 2022, a reporter for Washington Post seems to have doubled down on previous reporting from that period {24}. What did MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and other outlets report as of 18 March 2022 {25}, about the New York Times quietly acknowledging the magnitude of a certain investigation into Hunter Biden while also admitting affirmation using a cache of emails from the laptop abandoned by Hunter Biden in a Delaware repair shop, whereby the authenticity of emails has been verified by people with familiarity of both the email cache and the investigation?

How does the Iowa voter fat-shamed by Joe Biden at a townhall event in New Hampton on 6 December 2019 feel, especially if he remembers Joe Biden’s unwarranted juvenile insults after he accused Joe Biden of selling access to the Presidency through Hunter Biden’s work in the energy industry in Ukraine {26}?

How many social media users of Twitter, Facebook and other mediums were wrongly and falsely accused/shunned/mocked as disseminating “fake news” in October 2020 and November 2020, when all this should have been the headlines and front pages of print news and online news throughout USA? What about May 2021, when more emails were being published and the American public in all states of USA should have been informed by your biggest media sources of Washington Post, New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC?  What about Fox News?

If you claim to have read both sides of an issue, then you would be aware of WSJ publishing “Durham Unravels The Russia Case” [27]. In 2020, Daily Signal published articles such as “Senate Panel Finds ‘Absolutely No Evidence of Collusion’, Faced Roadblocks” [28]. Since January 2018, Washington Examiner has 20 articles related to this topic under the hashtag “Steele Dossier” [29].  

Did you read about Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann, who filed defamation lawsuits against CNN, Washington Post and 6 other media sources for their botched coverage of what happened in January 2019 near the Lincoln Memorial {30}? After being sued for $275 million, CNN settled the lawsuit out of court with him, all details being confidential {31}. After being sued for $250 million, Washington Post also settled out of court with him, all details being confidential {32}. What did he win? Did he win?

How would you evaluate media coverage for the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, whereby the actual trial can be watched online [33]? What is the quality of media coverage by various American outlets, regarding the facts and the trial?

Before this trial, incredible botches by media outlets such as CNN included using a wrongly disingenuous chyron and thereby disadvantaging their reporter Omar Jimenez, stating “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING” while a building of Kenosha is burning in the background [34].  If it is not a peaceful protest, it is a riot. Why would someone label buildings on fire as “peaceful protests”? Do they think viewers or readers will not classify such instances as delusional or obviously dishonest?

Consequences of destructive riots in Kenosha are most damaging to businesses of minority communities, and anyone who suffers such damage is unlikely to accept riots as helpful, harmless or justified [35]. Politico referenced a Marquette Law School Poll in Wisconsin, pointing out a drop of 61% to 47% from June 2020 to August 2020 for approval of protests over police officers shooting Black Americans, and a drop of 10 points in approval towards the Black Lives Matter movement from August 2020 to September 2020 [36]. What was happening in Wisconsin and/or outside Wisconsin, to create these numbers?

17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse spends half his time each week in Antioch, Illinois, which is only 20 miles away from Kenosha. He has an uncle, aunt, grandmother, cousins and friends in Kenosha, and identifies with Wisconsin’s Kenosha as his community because he also spends the other half of his time living in Kenosha with his father. According to an incisive article by Bari Weiss, Kyle Rittenhouse is a lifeguard and also a firefighter/EMT cadet, who spent 2 hours of the morning cleaning graffiti off a high school after damage from riots the night before [37]. He had a first aid kit with him, and was seen with a fire extinguisher trying to put out fires.

He has made statements supporting peaceful protests and Black Lives Matter [38]. Where was coverage of that, while also investigating the factors leading to a photo with the Proud Boys and allegations of white supremacy [39]? Is this another case of non-existent or botched journalism by too much of certain segments of American media, a narrative war while misusing cultural cues, or some amalgamation of any of those factors along with what has not yet been publicly identified?

Waiting for facts, being careful with the news and not jumping to conclusions is definitely a lesson many Americans need to learn [40].

Watching the videos during the trial reveal the chronology, locations and details of how the teenager was pursued and attacked and chosen usage of his firearm, such as when he was cornered in a parking lot and believed he was about to be murdered. The chain of events, and the people whom Kyle Rittenhouse eventually shot and killed in self-defense, require detailed articles. This is an important summary of Anthony Huber [41]. This is an important summary of Joseph Rosenbaum [42].

As to whether Kyle Rittenhouse violated any laws of Wisconsin including gun possession and specifics of gun usage, the judge also had those details dissected in the courtroom. If you do not understand specific statutes in Wisconsin law pertaining to the gun Kyle was carrying and the circumstances, this explanation is necessary [43].

Under cross-examination, Gaige Grosskreutz confessed to being three to five feet away from Kyle with arms in the air and Kyle did not open fire, until Gaige lowered his arm to point his gun at Kyle Rittenhouse while advancing on him. Kyle was also hit twice with a skateboard. It is possible to kill someone with a skateboard, be if self-defense or aggression [44][45].

Some people believe Prosecutor Thomas Binger made the case for Kyle’s self-defense, according to comments under the ABC-released video of the original trial. The prosecutor did not seem to be aware of basic facts when asking Kyle Rittenhouse certain questions, such as why Kyle labelled Kenosha as “your community”. Other examples of the prosecutor’s unconvincing performance on the stand include violating Kyle’s Fifth Amendment rights, and asking him twice why he was running when Kyle Rittenhouse said he was running to put out a fire.

With regards to race, there are many countries outside USA where the majority of the population is neither white nor black, and majority of crimes or all of the crimes occurring daily are between people who are neither white nor black. Crimes are evaluated based on facts, chronology and all relevant details while investigating motives, instead of sensational piecemeal articles rife with pre-conceived speculations, insufficient facts, biased personal politics, and social media being weaponized to promote the narratives of such articles.

Why is it so difficult to find an American mainstream media outlet summarizing a comprehensive group of facts in an objective manner to dispel ignorance and wrong assumptions, as seen in Jessica McBride’s articles about Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum?

Regardless of where you live, there are four necessary basic prerequisites for evaluating journalists and reliability of media sources in any country:

1) Whether an event or situation is reported. The greater the local and/or global exposure of the journalist, the bigger the onus on that journalist to work for the people

2) How it is reported in much-needed detail without being taken out of context, while being as non-partisan as possible for tone and language, which requires being on-the-ground with participants or witnesses, finding out background details away from the actual scenario which may or may not be relevant to what is on the ground, the extent of relevance of those background details, as well as viewpoints opposing each other

3) Corrections to initial reporting being directly issued as recent updates for readers to easily take note and easily access the original article, without burying it alongside the original article and not informing readers or burying the alert in a hard-to-find corner

4) Limitations the journalists may face, if based in an area or country whereby freedom of press is censored, state-controlled, maybe compromised by circumstances or people and thus limiting what can be reported

Late one night on 16 February 2022, a live-streaming video was posted by PCI Predator Catchers Indianapolis on Youtube. This video was titled “Facebook Executive caught. He was talking to a 13 Y/O boy! [46]”

An Open Secret tweeted this video to their large audience within an hour of its livestreaming, adding relevant screencaps and details [47], while also exerting effort to ensure credit was given where applicable [48].

Ingrid Lundgren of Techcrunch presented a careful article about this individual and the circumstances which warrant reporting, titled “Meta axes a head of global community development after he appears on video in underage sting operation” [49]. She also informed readers about Drew Pusateri (a spokesman for Facebook’s parent company Meta) talking to her on the phone and trying to convince her not to report this story because no other outlets were covering it, as of the time of her article being published.

Andy Ngo also shared this topic with his large audience via a Twitter thread, talking to a spokesperson from Predators Catchers Indianopolis while including Ingrid’s statements of Jeren A. Miles deleting his social media profiles and leaving Facebook over this matter [50]. Predators Catchers Indianopolis has sent to law enforcement in Palm Springs (California) and Columbus (Ohio) all chat logs and evidence of Jeren A. Miles communicating with what the former Facebook employee assumed to be a 13-year-old boy, including sexually explicit texts inappropriate to be sending to a minor [51].

Which other outlets have reported on this, as of 19 February 2022?

People in this era know social media can be used to add more details to a situation than is reported in articles, and people also know social media can be used to mislead other people. People can also be easily swayed by wanting to protect a narrative which you have emotionally identified with, and ignoring your bias only furthers your errors and ignorance. Pictures can be doctored. Videos can be edited for nefarious purposes. Sources can try to obscure their bias.

Media sources which dismiss the suspicions and intelligence of readers, without including and addressing detailed necessary reporting by journalists on social media, can easily be classified as lacking in sufficient details or not sufficiently reliable. If the four basic prerequisites are not fulfilled by journalists and media sources, people will turn to other sources because they reject polarization and biased inadequate reporting.

Parents and people across all demographics in San Francisco who voted to oust the three San Francisco School Board members eligible for recall are not happy at being labelled as part of a “right-wing conspiracy”. These Democrats have also taken to social media to voice their unhappiness, reasons for their choices, and other details, unhappy with much of the media letting them down while refuting those who reduce reality to over-simplistic one-dimensional reporting [52].

Being overly quick to define issues or determine “reliable” sources based on identity politics is not journalism nor a sign of reliable intelligence. Being overly quick to reduce issues to base assumptions such as political leanings, funding by the rich, or primarily race is not journalism nor a sign of reliable intelligence. Read for yourself how CNN, New York Post and other media sources chose to report on this subject of the three San Francisco School Board members getting many votes to be officially ousted on 15 February 2022, then use social media to also evaluate their narratives.

Nima Rahimi of Iranian descent who lives in San Francisco highlights the importance of good education helping him get to where he is today, also stating “If we care about our black, brown, and immigrant kids, we must invest in strong education & not lower the bar [53]. People identifying as lifelong Democrats aiming to protect the education of their children and wanting “leadership centered on students” for this recall in San Francisco do not take kindly to being labelled as closet Republicans [54].

Gary Kamiya for the Atlantic has a decent interpretation of what led to the results of this school board recall election, being the first in San Francisco since 1983 [55]. Helen Raleigh’s article in Newsweek focuses on the inspiration of grassroots efforts from Asian American parents, including the ghastly behavior of more than one Board Member which they ousted [56]. If news outlets are using political labels to try to prevent the public from understanding what is happening, then Democrats who are parents taking umbrage at fellow Democrats being misled about their efforts to protect their children and their futures need to start questioning everything you believe about the news sources which you rely upon.

Being political novices did not stop these Democrat parents from doing what is morally necessary, to protect education standards and other relevant issues affecting children for more than two years of enduring Covid-19 public health measures. When you were previously a migrant who now consistently votes Democrat and benefitted from being given certain opportunities to ensure a quality education, and you are now protecting testing standards and taking action against measures or choices that significantly affect the futures of your children, should there be a spin inputting political identity bias for a topic of parents protecting the quality and choices of their children’s education?

How did you feel after reading the coverage of the San Francisco School Board recall by your mainstream media, as a Democrat who worked to get rid of people in positions which have been detrimental to your children? How do you feel as a Democrat, after reading and watching how the media of your country covered the recall of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin which happened also because of your efforts?

Parents identifying as Republicans, Democrats or Independents in USA should talk to each other, and those people might realize a political label or racial label is fundamentally irrelevant on such an issue. If you disagree on this possibility of political labels and racial labels being irrelevant to issues which inspired parents to oust three San Francisco School Board Members because of their positions of authority instituting choices affecting their children’s futures? Ask parents living outside USA and show them what you have been fighting for. There are plenty of countries such as Philippines, Indonesia, UAE, Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Australia, Tanzania and more, where education systems and parents exist.

The sources of examples and issues within USA have been presented in a certain manner here, so non-Americans and Americans of all stripes can evaluate the need for reliable consistency relative to professional journalism, which rises above political labels for four necessary prerequisites.

If your reaction is to dislike and disagree with nuances, chronology, and sources of one topic recommended here because of identity politics, but you like and agree with the other topics recommended here, then you need to seriously plant your nose at the mirror and evaluate the extent of external manipulation which has succeeded in warping your ability to consistently evaluate information and reality, then search for intellectual humility and intellectual integrity within yourself.

Other than having to browse widely and be wary of political biases in domestic media, American citizens have other huge problems in USA when it pertains to communication and polarization. Weaponizing language and labels such as identifying as “Republican” or “Democrat” to cancel or dehumanize someone is not a sign of intelligence of morality and does not benefit discourse. Labels you identify with do not grant you any protection from ignorance, bias, or hypocrisy.

If you believe in discrediting someone based on labels which the media bestows on someone, then you have given everyone else a good marker to measure your stupidity being based on an easily-manipulated sense of moral superiority with no credibility. If you immediately assume the worst of someone or denigrate someone based on such labels, you have also fallen prey to bad habits and follies exercised by your media or those you follow, while also trafficking in unhelpful bias causing unnecessary divisions.

Have people living in USA ever questioned what non-Americans outside Western Europe and North America think, about USA politics? Outside of those mentioned regions, we constitute more than 82% of the current global population, a significant number of us adeptly able to navigate and evaluate your mostly-unreliable media landscape. Try asking us. Regardless of our differences, reality outside your bubble when connecting to people from different countries might surprise you.

What do you think, if someone assumes identifying with a political label of Republican or Democrat or Independent denotes character or intelligence or moral superiority? In my opinion, it is juvenile and stupid and over-simplified to judge someone so conclusively based on what you want to believe about a political label. People also do not necessarily choose to vote for a politician based on their labels of identification. Voters can also weigh up issues, then make a choice based on issues which they prioritize, or according to goals which they think need to be achieved. 

If you claim to be progressively objective while minimizing hypocrisy on a topic? One example would be claiming to accept the existence of rich transgender people such as Elliot Page speaking out about being true to themselves and the joys of wearing a tuxedo in public at a celebrity event not accessible to the masses, while also respecting the existence of less-fortunate non-celebrity women misled into believing they are transgender, such as Sinead Watson. Sinead Watson has a story to tell [57], just like Keira Bell who speaks out about being wrongfully let down by healthcare professionals and individuals with specific agendas [58].

Do you think the results of allowing Lia Thomas to compete in professional swimming with biological females has any consequences on British female cyclists who insisted on boycotting a competition if Emma Bridges was allowed to compete with them? What do the details of science reveal about advantages of biological males in their twenties who have completed puberty and competed professionally as males, and now want to compete against biological females after less than 2 years of hormone therapy despite undergoing all the biological privileges of completing male puberty which is not available to females completing puberty?

When you Google the heights of Lia Thomas Bridges and Emily Bridges, what do you see? Have you tried Googling for results of teenage boys in various fields of sports, in terms of timings and achievements? Have you researched results of teenage boys competing against professionally-trained adult women across various sports such as athletics or swimming, and the outcomes in terms of timings? In 2016, before the Summer Olympics in Rio, the Australian Women’s Football team known as “The Matildas” lost 7-0 to the Newcastle Jets Under-15 side of male teenagers.

When former Olympian champion and current transgender activist Caitlyn Jenner is opposing Lia Thomas competing in swimming with biological women, you need to evaluate the hard facts of science to see whether ethical science backs up such a stance, especially with sports records. Objectively evaluate muscle mass, height, bone density and structure, and other factors of completing male puberty versus completing female puberty. Ask the female swimmers who competed with Lia Thomas what they feel and think, especially the females who have to share a changing room with someone who still possesses a penis and testicles. Then publish your findings and share them with women in every country, and see their reactions.

If you believe you want to fairly respect the existence of transgender people, you must also want to fairly respect people who have de-transitioned after realizing they are not transgender. These people also share the same responsibility towards respecting certain basic aspects of science in humanity, which includes a necessary basic classification of the majority of physiological and biological characteristics into classes of biological males or biological females, while also aiming to accord the same degree of help and respect to people who are intersex. Some ask: Is intersex a third category?

We need a global analysis and agreement and update in the medical literature on this issue, without political activism mutilating or warping the process of objective science. “Intersex” cannot be used in gender identity ideology.

Biological females typically possess reproductive organs with the ability to produce ovum for sperm to fertilize, and are able to carry a pregnancy to term to give birth to a baby, which are undeniable facts of biology. Biological males typically possess sex organs with the ability to produce sperm, to fertilize ovum. Two hundred years after you pass away and scientists evaluate your bones, some details will be undeniable because of ethical objective science. Science is not the domain of a country or culture. Ethical objective science is to be respected and pursued and preserved, regardless of language, culture or country.

I would be very careful about trying to superimpose Western cultures, interpretations and usage of languages for gender onto the Bugis people from Southwest Sulawesi, whose previously-thriving history also falls outside the rules and definitions of many religions such as Islam or Christianity. What would the Bugis people say, if they look at how politicized gender and sex has become in some Western countries? The calabai may resort to some procedures to appear more outwardly feminine in the cosmetic realm and work in some roles traditionally taken upon by women while being accepted in their society, but they do not classify themselves as women or females.

Do they respect the adult women who are biological females which gave birth to them or their mothers, such as mothers and grandmothers?

Have you ever considered that the Bugis people might not agree nor appreciate outsiders disregarding or destroying the recognition of biological sex, or weaponizing their history and culture for other agendas, since biological sex is an essential component of how they peacefully co-exist in their society of five roles where biological sex has not been classified as a problem that must be rectified? How did their society function peacefully and harmoniously, before the encroachment of other religions and cultures?

Other questions include acknowledging and eventually deciding how to respect the love of couples such as Eva Echo and Pippa Ng. Science in healthcare must be precise and cautiously balanced to ensure the lives of children and adults are protected and not ruined. Regardless of beliefs, the individual and families are professionally protected when you aim for objectivity and reject hypocrisy.

If the media in your country will not cover the necessary according to four basic prerequisites? The bigger their influence because of the impact they have on discourse and communication, the more responsibility they bear in the polarization of rhetoric and divisions between people living in USA.

The New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, and other American media outlets of all political leanings should reach out to non-Americans skeptical about your work and headlines, then honestly publish what you learn, by the year 2024. What you share with Americans may be educational for the world, including yourselves. Choosing not to do that will also educate more than 80% of the global population outside North America and Western Europe about your media outlets.

Reliable critical thinking skills also flourish in languages other than English. The ability to keep track of a diverse range of topics and details is best served by a foundation of intellectual integrity and intellectual humility instead of wrongly relying on sensationalist headlines and botched partisan media coverage to shape public opinion before a case is fairly evaluated. USA and journalists in USA are not the accuracy compass or moral compass of the world, even if Americans of certain political inclinations may be very loud on Twitter and Facebook.  

The viewpoints of non-Americans who usually exercise careful evaluation of multiple sources including research papers and/or foreign policy articles are not impressed by American media articles about Joe Biden’s ice-cream flavors, especially when analyzing media coverage from USA about the White House administration’s choices and reactions with regards to America’s disastrous retreat from Afghanistan and why the Afghan people excluding the Taliban are unhappy with this administration’s choices about their money.

In a hazardous landscape, where social media can also be a weapon and a treacherous jungle but is ultimately a necessary tool to facilitate progress, how do you look for reliable facts or discern a viable realistic path to world peace?

It never seems to end on social media or offline. You put forth facts and details to correct misinformation, try to present truths despite being others slinging opinions encouraging dehumanization, watch insults hurled at yourself and others who don’t deserve to be mocked or dismissed or treated as pinatas for what has gone wrong in some other part of the world and for unrelated issues.

But every day, regardless of what you do, you know you are grossly outnumbered, your supporters and partners cannot achieve what they should despite being peaceful and ethical, and people who should be your partners on the same path of peace are opposing you for factors beyond your reach to truly address. You see issues that have been addressed and corrected, but the tide of what has not changed and needs to be eventually addressed for any significant change is overwhelming in comparison.

Many decades or centuries of unresolved problems do not directly affect you now, but their unresolved consequences will affect futures of what you hold dear, geographically and globally, for yourself and others of this world. Some of you have deemed the struggles hopeless. You feel alone. You might feel oppressed. Are these problems truly unchangeable? How will you solve Gordian Knots in geopolitics, which affects many people and many countries in different regions? What is a true path to peace? Can you be certain you know reliable absolutes and nuances of right versus wrong?

Inspiring others to understand their power using reliable ethics is the true definition of empowerment. But it is far messier than one sentence, and helping a person understand oneself in such a manner cannot be achieved without mutual dialogue between mindsets open to evaluation and objectivity. We must do it together.

Can a series comprising five articles possibly transform hearts and minds willingly without coercion, in accordance with goals of being mutually beneficial and truthful, without asking you to distort or trash ethics? Doing so first requires an agreement on 3 reference points for intellectual integrity and intellectual humility. This is followed by a careful process of analysis, dissemination, and collaboration between people who value intellectual humility and intellectual consistency, who are also willing to say and do what is right.

The challenging barriers to dissolve in the minds of strangers across many countries are shaped by circumstances and languages and interests, but such barriers are not insurmountable. Our questions should not be destroyed; they need to be understood and investigated, to identify appropriate context and nuances and answers.

For some people, waging war successfully against extermination warfare targeting you and everything you hold dear long before you were born is not primarily about violence or deceit or propaganda or military might, but strategy, patience, tenacity, and innovation when a truly transformative opportunity presents itself. Acquaintances can become partners, and enemies might one day become acquaintances, even friends.

~*~*~*~*~*~

On Twitter, the likes of Emily Schrader and Ido Daniel are targeted by armies of anti-Israel Malaysians who are also anti-Semites. Emily Schrader spoke to Algemeiner about these armies of trolls continuously violating community standards on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, targeting a specific religion and nationality, bullying and harassing and inciting violence while attempting to hack into specific accounts belonging to Israeli Jews [59].

Nothing has been done by these social media giants to tackle the problems according to their official rules, despite obvious continuous traceable behavior that should see many of these accounts permanently banned. Some of these users create fake accounts. The biggest troll army is allegedly “Tentera Troll Kebangsaan Malaysia” on Facebook, with more than half a million followers.

A report by Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre also points out non-government organizations such as Cinta Syria Malaysia are part of the attacks [60]. While Hamas was committing heinous war crimes by launching more than 4000 rockets at Israel over 11 days and simultaneously using their own civilians as human shields in May 2021, a sizeable number of Malaysians on all forms of social media have been useful tools for Hamas and other anti-Israel groups.

Do such Malaysians see themselves as trolls? Do they know what they actually achieve or realistically fail to achieve?  How are such Malaysians classified as useful tools to perpetuate ignorance, instead of people who can facilitate positive change?

What do Israelis or non-Malaysians know about these Malaysians, specifically Malaysians with actual accounts hurling insults in Bahasa Melayu while trolling Israeli Jews or supporters of Israel? Do such Malaysians adhere to a specific cluster of religious and/or political beliefs? What are the demographics of internet usage in Malaysia? How do Malaysia’s media outlets, education and laws influence or distort whatever Malaysians perceive and believe, therefore shaping what they believe and hence choose to do?

A quick glance of facts lined up on datareportal.com for Israel and Malaysia speaks volumes. As of January 2021, 7.68 million internet users exist within Israel’s population standing at 8.72 million. Internet penetration is 88% of the population, with an increase of 6.7% (485,000 users) from 2020 to 2021. 6.81 million social media users can be extrapolated as 78.1% of the total population in Israel. Social media users increased by 320,000 between 2020 to 2021. 10.2 million mobile connections in Israel are the equivalent of 116.9% of the total population, because some people own more than one mobile phone [61].

Malaysia dwarfs Israel in every statistic, population-wise. As of January 2021, 27.43 million internet users exist within Malaysia’s population of 32.57 million. Internet penetration is 84.2% of the population, with an increase of 2.8% (738,000 users) from 2020 to 2021. 28 million social media users can be extrapolated as 86% of the total population in Malaysia. Social media users increased by 2 million between 2020 to 2021. 39.99 million mobile connections in Malaysia are the equivalent of 122.8% of the total population since some people own more than one mobile phone, and that was a decrease from 2020 [62].

Malaysia’s textbooks have sadly contributed to the ignorance fueling hordes of online Malaysian troll armies. Education professor Santhiram Raman called out the racial and religious prejudices shaped by history textbooks used in Malaysia’s secondary schools, pushing a Malay-centric narrative instead of a complex truthful history involving all of Malaysia’s races [63].  

In his book “From Decolonization to Ethno-Nationalism: A Study of Malaysia’s School History Syllabuses and Textbooks 1905-2020”, the professor summarizes the sad situation affecting Malaysia’s textbooks. “Malay ethno-nationalist historians and history textbook writers argued that the Malays were the base society and non-Malays were immigrants or splinters who had broken off from their home communities… Ideas like this led to the rewriting of history textbooks which centered upon Malay dominance and Islamic history [64].”

In 1987, Malaysia’s education minister instituted an instruction which became official in 1989, whereby he declared the history taught in Malaysia’s schools should reflect the dominant position of Malays. This was a catastrophic mistake based on belief, and the consequences have been a disaster beyond dilution.

In Malaysia, Malays are the dominant group in politics and by population numbers, although one can question when and how and why that happened because this is not what history reflects. What inspired Malaysia’s then-education minister to implement an over-simplified disastrous idea disregarding too many much-needed facts and context in a truthfully complex intertwined reality of many years, without careful consideration for the long-term consequences on Malaysia’s future and its citizens? Do you think this short-sighted destructive policy shaping vulnerable minds throughout decades of Malaysian citizens is a key component among other key components obstructing Malaysia’s progress, to go beyond race-based and religion-based politics today?

What of Malaysia’s media? If you are aware of draconian laws governing censorship in Malaysia and the approach of some governments in utilizing such laws, one recent incident is necessary education for non-Malaysians about Malaysia’s government relative to the limitations of Malaysian media outlets.

In an article by The Star published 13 May 2021, the Communications and Multimedia Minister of the current Perikatan Nasional government ordered the management of RTM to investigate the incident of the RTM television channel TV2 Mandarin news bulletin labelling Hamas as “militants” [65].

As of December 2021, UK has officially designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in its entirety [66]. Hamas has been automatically returned to the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations [67]. As of 17 February 2022, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews has declared the intention of the Australian government to classify the entirety of Hamas as a terrorist group [68].

What is reported about Hamas in Malaysia media? Does Malaysian media highlight the male guardianship law instituted by Hamas, which stopped a young woman named Al-Najar from travelling out of Gaza to study abroad in a Turkish university [69]? Malaysian women are not subject to such laws. What are Malaysian men and women doing about this issue in Gaza?

Has Malaysia’s media reported about the segregation of boys and girls above the age of 9 in schools within Gaza by the Education Ministry of Hamas for all schools including non-Islamic schools since 2014, and male teachers not being allowed to teach in schools with girls [70]? What about the 85-year-old woman who was beaten by Hamas, and Hamas also arresting the journalists who covered the incident [71]?

Do media sources such as Utusan publish these articles of what is happening in Gaza because of Hamas, instead of publishing opinions attributing Hamas possessing a negative reputation as the doing of UK and other Western allies of Israel [72]?

Between the unfortunate history of Malaysia’s textbooks alongside media limitations being pointed out here (and other significant factors not yet mentioned or this article would be too long), who and what is responsible for the antisemitic behavior of a large number of Malaysians targeting others on social media?

When a government has an issue with facts being reported in their country’s media outlets as facts, and their history textbooks have major significant issues favoring one race over all others for decades to wrongly distort young minds while inadvertently driving racial divides and religious wedges between its own citizens, what do you think might be the end results leading to certain types of netizens you can encounter online from such a country?

Malaysians can be well-meaning and have big hearts. If you look at how Malaysians overseas and within Malaysia worked together to get as many votes as possible back to Malaysia in time for the 14^th General Election within 72 hours in the spirit of “gotong- royong” and “anak Malaysia” despite being strangers [73], or Malaysians helping other Malaysians waving white flags during this latest lockdown in June and July 2021 [74]?

There are many examples of Malaysians in action, being heartening and admirable. Some of them are not anti-Semites. If any of them are antisemites, being an antisemite does not preclude such people from all other human qualities, even when it is undeniably revolting or beyond revolting to witness the inhumanity of their antisemitic words and actions. Denounce, suggest and demand solutions for change, but completely dehumanizing those you denounce into stereotypes or caricatures is never helpful to anybody.

When you look at the responses by large groups of Malaysian anti-Semites on social media trolling Emily Schrader or Ido Daniel, you need to understand what you are seeing: Not a brainwashed zombie army primarily of fake accounts or bots.

Many Malaysians trolling Emily Schrader or Ido Daniel have social media accounts and have no compunctions exhibiting certain beliefs shaped primarily by ignorance and well-meaning intentions, coddled and misled by harmful censorship they have not realized.

They swarm, proudly displaying ignorant beliefs and thus behave as pompous bullies without listening abilities, which is a great tactic for ensuring people permanently classify you as noise pollution or something disposable. They are unable to realize a lack of much-needed skills, resulting in an immature torrent of juvenile insults showcasing inability to analyze and search for accurate history, and unable to exercise critical thinking. You can easily see the comments for yourself.

If you claim you wish to remain objective without taking a side, but want to venture an opinion, please consider this approach: A group of aliens from a far-more-advanced civilization residing in another dimension have discovered your planet. Their technological superiority alongside their other attributes as a species has them cautious about whether to engage with sentient beings they see as potentially worthy of future bridges, or choose to avoid any species they deem unworthy and leave such a species to further evolve or self-destruct. They value interactions with intelligent emotionally mature beings, which means they will evaluate many aspects of communication examples. They understand different types of humor, value communities that protect and advance a civilization, wish to gauge the progress of the human species. And they take a look at the posts on the social media accounts of Ido Daniel or Emily Schrader.

What would a sentient species cautiously evaluating whether humans are worth engaging conclude, when viewing vast numbers of comments from many Malaysians who post short videos with no context, edited pictures with juvenile insults and taunts, alongside zero attempts to communicate as sane or intelligent individuals?

Are you happy to be grouped with these people as humans, or might you feel other emotions such as embarrassment or shame upon seeing so many people believe they can succeed in large numbers by using only vulgarities and being obvious examples of perpetuating mob bullying?

Putting aside that scenario of an advanced sentient alien species, another scenario is to ask people who are online users and fancy themselves to be civilized, intelligent, rational, from Malaysia and other countries. Would you recommend such hostile clownish behavior flooding the posts of Ido Daniel or Emily Schrader be emulated elsewhere? If so, why? If not, why not?

It is heartbreaking to see asinine bullying in any circumstances. Did the parents of these online bullies teach them to behave in such a manner towards strangers? What parents and/or schools did they have? Are other Malaysians embarrassed to have such people as their fellow citizens? Can you also feel sympathy or sadness for such people who could have had far less opportunities than you growing up, and their failures on display are not necessarily solely of their own making but also largely due to conditions of their country, such as schooling system or shared community values or societal mindsets?

Choosing not to engage in conversation with bullies is understandable, because these people come across as uneducated bullying trolls spineless and devoid of anything positive except malice, hence needing to do things in a large group. Do these Malaysians realize how laughable they appear to strangers? People will easily and completely reject whatever is conveyed by a bully, especially a group of people trolling as a bunch of bullies.

If you want to build bridges and change minds, respectful engagement is a basic necessity. Behaving like malicious clowns so people are convinced you are fundamentally ignorant and wanting only your way as a group of bullying trolls will never convince anyone you are talking to. You also destroy your credibility as someone to talk to.

These well-meaning crusaders and activists trolling Ido Daniel and Emily Schrader come across as completely obnoxious and disreputable trolls. They should not be surprised if anyone assumes a sorry state of education in Malaysia’s schools, societies throughout Malaysia needing change, and possibly questionable parental upbringing being responsible for such disgusting noise pollution on social media.

Warped values due to a need for better holistic well-rounded education to handle complexities while growing up, obviously-underdeveloped thinking skills, a dire need to develop emotional intelligence and maturity, and a lack of basic manners towards strangers online or offline is a sad result to see.

Mass stupidity on display proves the usefulness of these Malaysians as tools for the purposes of others, despite being sadly unintentional. Can you help these people realize the errors of their ways?

The ultimately reliable solution to what this world truly needs for so many geopolitical messes will demand an ability to see a path with sufficient nuances and stances through all these messes across space and time. This will also necessitate being able to help people understand this path. For some Malaysians and many others to realize what they never considered and where they are wrong and how they can change, this article will expound upon the path forward after you have grasped why this article is necessary.

Emily Schrader tweeted to her audience that if her video reached 1 million views, she would make a Twitter post of herself holding the flag of Palestine [75]. In a subsequent post, she waved the true flag of Palestine [76]. She is factually correct, because that flag is the only flag which has ever existed for modern Palestine. What flag or flags have existed, for any region that was labelled Palestine in the past 1000 years? What do maps from the Ottoman Empire label, regarding Palestine?

Nevertheless, many anti-Semites from Malaysia trolling her posts with insults tell her she is wrong, and also clearly wish to perpetuate their views of her as belonging to a key oppressing factor of Palestinians, while portraying themselves as being on the side of justice against evil.

Was Emily Schrader victorious? Were the antisemites from Malaysia trolling her victorious? It depends on how each side defines victory. How Hamas defines victory is best defined by the reality that Hamas forces the people under its rule to live, not what Hamas proclaims about victory [77]. How the Israel Defense Forces define victory for Israelis of all ethnicities in Israel is very different from how Hamas declares victory [78].

Policies are made not primarily and solely through a combination of logic and facts and emotional intelligence, because emotions based on opinions can play a significant role alongside culture and psychology. And the realm of public opinion can be easily exploited, to encourage ignorant people to reach false conclusions detrimental to a reality of complex truths, for goals which enemies of complex truths wish to achieve. Hamas being given the opportunity to use well-meaning but ignorant Malaysians against Israel is one sad example.

Hamas does not need to understand or know the ignorance defining a large number of Malaysians and non-Malaysians in their stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hamas does not need to understand or know the ignorance of Malaysians and non-Malaysians regarding the issue of Hamas declaring eternal war on Israel since the inception of Hamas. Hamas does not need to care about the issue of people not understanding the goals of Hamas.

Hamas simply needs to constantly push a key narrative with selective imagery, while ensuring any media outlet that reports from areas within its control adheres primarily to its key narrative. Hamas knows this. Ignorant readers do not know this.

Ignorance, blind sympathy, a lack of awareness in maintaining objective critical thinking, coupled with self-righteous arrogance unable to discern accurate history and key nuances are the best weaponizations of people and organizations for the cause of Hamas, especially those who support Hamas and do not realize their support indirectly classifies them as antisemites because the 1988 genocidal antisemitic founding charter of Hamas is staunchly against Jews [79]. 

On 14 May 2021, Editor-In-Chief of Jerusalem Post Yaakov Katz posted a Tweet about every war having three fronts and in Israel’s current situation, the 3 fronts being the main battle field where IAF is at work (Gaza), home front relying on the Iron Dome and bomb shelters (rockets aimed at cities in Israel), and a vacuum in public diplomacy [80].

More than 4000 rockets have been fired at Israel. Contents of many international newspapers choose not to empathetically state there is no ethical basis to justify rockets being spontaneously launched by a terror group at a country. Terrorist groups should be condemned and reported accurately as such, by media. The contents of many international newspapers should cover both sides adequately.

If you report the claims of the Palestinian Red Crescent about 305 people being injured due to police entering the premises of the Temple Mount {81]? You should also report the claims of Israeli police being finally provoked into entering the premises after Ramadan prayers on Friday evening, in order to stop rockets, objects and fireworks being continuously hurled at them by which led to their attackers suffering injuries [82]. The Israeli police claim they were attacked first by hundreds of suspects assaulting them with all sorts of objects, hence they had to respond to quell the violence, and short videos were also circulating on social media about what was happening [83].

Has this always been a pattern every year at that site, over the years? Or is this a one-off event? Chronology, cause and context are important. Journalists are responsible for laying out the chronology and specifics of events as clearly and factually as possible, to enable people to evaluate the evidence carefully, and identify primary unavoidable context.

Do you think international newspapers create accurate headlines according to best ethics journalistic practices, or do they fail at that and also fail to sufficiently highlight the war crimes of Hamas against Israeli Arab citizens and Israeli non-Arab citizens, and especially the people living under the rule of Hamas?

Today’s situation as a whole for Israel on domestic and international fronts is significantly more varied and challenging than any previous eras, because wars are also intensely and continuously waged via non-conventional mediums, unlike Operation Protective Edge in 2014 where now-retired Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner was the IDF spokesperson and willing to give 450 live interviews in 50 days. The loss of Yarden Vatikay as head of Israel’s National Information Directorate in 2019 remains unaddressed to this day.

Many people who shaped or now live within modern Israel based on thousands of years of history have always had to struggle for survival, even before 1948, a fact which too many within Israel and outside Israel have chosen to ignore. Fighting for existence and survival against ignorance and antisemitism of too many people who wrongly classify Israel as a country merely too full of Jews who should not be there, thriving in a region mostly hostile to much of its population and existence until only recently just prior to the Abraham Accords, Israel’s population of various ethnicities has managed to come together on many occasions, despite racial and religious divisions in the Jewish-majority country.

In response to Yaacov Katz, Peter Lerner opines that there are three battlefields of war:  Actual battlefield (offense and defense), public diplomacy, and the legal front.

Israel, like every other country, needs to adequately address two frontiers. For Israel, the angles of international and domestic fronts have significant differences, despite similarities. The domestic front can be divided into five battlefields: Actual battlefield involving Israel and within the Middle East where military intervention is unavoidable, public diplomacy, legal considerations, domestic media coverage, and social media usage by citizens of Israel. 

The international front can be divided into four battlefields: Public diplomacy, legal requirements, international media coverage, and social media mediums of those who live outside Israel willing to present/highlight necessary facts about situations which the international media does not report fairly about Israel.

Being unable to form a stable long-term functioning government with adequate staffers managing heavy responsibilities after four elections is noticeable in the current situation, for Hamas and other enemies to exploit.

Throughout the war of Hamas firing thousands of rockets at Israel resulting in Operation Guardian of the Walls, Israel saddled with a fundamental moral obligation to do its best to protect foreigners and Israelis in Israel from being murdered by terrorists, how has Israel’s media covered this war for citizens and foreigners? How has international media covered this war for readers?

Hamas is about equality in perpetuating war crimes because their rockets fired at so much of Israel would also have murdered Israeli Arabs and other Israeli ethnicities, but these Israelis have the protection of the Iron Dome.

Has anyone from the Prime Minister’s Office or the National Information Directorate issued a clear picture of strategy and aims for the Israeli public and international community to understand, in the news and on television and through social media? No.

If your country or a country you live in and care about is being attacked by terrorists firing rockets while you suffer through all these issues (substitute the name of “Israel” with “Saudi Arabia” or “Myanmar” or some other country), international media is not reporting professionally about the situation, and you could not solve these issues because you are not in positions to do so, would you feel disheartened?

If a stranger reaches out to you and claims that after you read five articles in a certain series, you will understand the beginning of the path to truly dissolving obstacles in geopolitics, while truly giving all countries much-needed opportunities to peace and prosperity and understanding based on actual reality, but your help is needed to fully unshackle geopolitical Gordian knots… Will you consider reading and listening to understand what you can contribute, which you may not yet realize?

An African proverb says, “A lie has many variations, the truth none”. It is almost impossible to apply this proverb consistently to intertwined geopolitics between multiple countries over a lengthy span of time, but it is possible to apply a method for this proverb to unresolved history which distorts many choices of many people in many countries, every hour and every day.

Before you gripe about oversimplification or context, the method mentioned is also applicable to evaluating a wealth of sources and facts when attempting to reach preliminary conclusions or reliable conclusions for any topic or field or specific question, such as exploring the contents in non-fiction biographies and interspersing those with relevant papers.
|
“King Hussein of Jordan: A Political Life” by Nigel Ashton Ford and “Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace” by Avi Shlaim are professionally summarized incomplete examples of meticulous research and analysis providing hugely-valuable windows of insight into how much complexity can happen behind the scenes involving one man’s choices and reactions and circumstances, without the awareness of more than 99% of the population on this planet spanning decades.

To venture a summative sentence about “how to start the true path to peace” or mention a highly-complex-but-distilled method to apply a proverb is not the result of decades of assumptions or a trite slogan, but a minimum span of many years requiring careful evaluation regarding everything relevant, while taking into account many fields, relevant chronologies, complexities, cultures, especially the characteristics of humanity at our worst and best alongside billions of shades and angles between the ends of a spectrum.

The true path to peace for a region and the rest of the world starts with restoring the Middle East to its truest possibilities, and finally unlocking the full potential of the Abraham Accords.

This path requires us to come to terms with this crucial first obstacle: Illuminate and dissolve the key obstacle which divides brothers and sisters in humanity across countries of the Middle East. The Middle East must be the key and can also be a leader in many fields, to pave the way for all other regions such as Southeast Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Central Asia and the African continent.

~*~*~*~*~*~

The first step on this path requires us to acknowledge and agree on 3 fundamental reference points about similarities and differences, in order for each of us to communicate coherently with each other.

To do so, we must acknowledge and realize the basic necessities of intellectual integrity and intellectual humility. Everyone has certain perceptions, uses language somewhat differently, has different life experiences, but needs to be able to unite 3 points mentally and emotionally, if you claim you are intelligent enough and principled enough to possess sufficient intellectual integrity and intellectual humility.

If you claim to believe or have faith in science, you are misunderstanding science. Science needs to be prudently, cautiously and continuously evaluated, without being compromised by personal preferences or politics. Science is also about exploring, allowing oneself or others to make mistakes, correcting any mistakes while on a trajectory of exploration which can take more time than you assume, and patiently aid others to understand the exciting and amazing world we inhabit.

If you want to understand context and limitations of subjects including science, Friedrich Von Hayek gave a lecture in 1974 after winning the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences [84]. This lecture involving necessary humility and consideration of ethics should be compulsory studying for every teenager to understand, before they reach the age of 18.

Science is not about groupthink or bombastic rhetoric. Great minds do not always think alike, and disagreements are to be expected, but certain parallels and basic values will always be present. Simultaneously, science is not about cancelling your colleagues in their profession simply because they have political views or conclusions you do not like.

If you want to fight someone’s understanding of science which you insist is wrong, then fight like a principled scientist who understand Hayek’s 1974 lecture. A principled scientist knows what to teach and share to win using facts in science, not someone trying to win a high school popularity contest while exhibiting all sorts of fallacies, and should acknowledge personal biases which could affect your analysis or any accurate points made by another side whose personal politics you disagree with. Acknowledge accuracy in others.

Reliable standards in science requires understanding processes and systems to achieve. And everyone needs help in the process of doing so. While you are doing so, do not forget your own mistakes and how you can help others to understand their mistakes. We advance as a species together. And we help this planet best, by helping each other on 3 reference points, including a beneficially fair approach to science.

You need to question your commitment and understanding of science if you have fallen into defending a mob mentality or have lost sight of the need for a conscious exercise of objectivity, especially if you easily label anyone who disagrees with you without hearing them out. Are you demonstrating how to learn about science and how science should be exercised, sharing both learning and teaching to lead to reliable consensus? Truly reliable intelligence is understanding the balance of nuances and facts with necessary context. If you believe yourself to be intelligent while understanding science, should your attitude to science reflect this balance?

Once you understand this first reference point, the next 2 reference points become easier to grasp. Whether you believe in a religion or not, identifying with a religion or identifying with no religion does not automatically qualify you as being smarter or better or morally-superior as a person if you compare yourself to others. How you identify on your religious or non-religious stance, or on political affiliations, does not automatically render you smarter or better or morally-superior at rationalizing and analysis than all other groups of people on all other topics. Bashing someone for belonging to a certain group, be it religious or none, or generalizing an entire group based on one individual, is anything but intelligent or nuanced.

If you cannot think your way out of a subject, if you cannot identify accurate context and relevant nuances, if you cannot identify your ignorance and errors and political bias, then the onus is on you to figure out where you are lacking in self-analysis, self-awareness and rationalization.

There is nothing wrong with admitting to ignorance or a need to learn. We would be a better species for the future, especially if we could admit to errors online. When someone sincerely apologizes and admits to wanting to learn, being compassionately firm by exercising necessary kindness based on intellectual humility and intellectual integrity is key to civilized productive dialogue.

In short, you can be an atheist, an agnostic or someone who identifies with one of more than 3000 religions in history, but it does not fundamentally make you a smarter, better or more mature person than someone else who identifies differently from you, be it politics or religion or none.

Have you ever participated in an online community or offline in a group, whereby you mock believers of a certain religion or sneer at someone who does not believe what you think you know? What makes you certain that you are morally superior to them? What do you think of people who sneer at you behind your back, because you reject what they regard to be true? Would you like to have such people as your friends or mentors? Do you want to engage in conversations with such people? How do you view such people?

If your answer to any of the above questions is No, then look at yourself in the mirror, especially if you are doing any of the above to others but believe you know better or are morally superior to others. Discussing where and how others are wrong or where we have differences, sometimes with a sense of humor, can be helpfully engaging. Behaving like a condescending over-generalizing hypocrite is not respectable or honorable. Avoiding the immature behavior of an arrogant jackass has nothing to do with whether you identify as an atheist, an ex-believer, or someone with religious beliefs.

A principled person who considers themselves as intelligent and beneficial to society, who also believes you know how to balance individuality with society, will understand the importance of emotional intelligence, a necessary psychological starting point in personal ethics, and especially a need to pause and question more than once during your mental processes in analysis of an issue, for the sake of emotional intelligence and psychological balance while pursing factual reliability. You do not need to have a university degree to understand this second reference point or any of the other reference points.

If you are feeling stung by unavoidable truths in this second reference point, please pause to analyze your ego and emotional maturity in the mirror. Once you have humbly come to terms with this second reference point, the third reference point will be easy.

Not everything is relative. There are limits, which are necessary for accuracy in context. One can claim the scientific laws in this universe do not care for what one thinks or feels, but simply exists as these laws always have. If you understand and agree with this point about limits and the existence of laws that do not care for the feelings of humans, here is an example of unavoidable limits: Rape cannot be justified in any ethical context, if you claim to be a person who understands ethics and context.

On this planet, the research of more than 99% of species classified as vertebrates at this point in time have been recognized as reproducing through the mode of sexual reproduction, which includes humans.

It is possible to claim rape is unavoidable and necessary to perpetuate a species of vertebrates if there is only 1 male and 1 female of that species left on this planet, if the only mode of reproduction for that species is sexual reproduction, and nothing in the scientific technology of humans can help that species when one survivor is rejecting the other. However, such an occurrence cannot be justified morally if it happens to that species, especially not if the species refers to humans.

We have different perspectives due to our life experiences. Languages and cultural norms of our societies which we grew up with or are living in can shape what we view and how we think and the ways in which we express ourselves. In order to respect our differences and identify irrefutable similarities for a reliable reference point in space and time, these 3 reference points as a basis for intellectual integrity and intellectual humility are essential.

Once you can reconcile yourself to these 3 reference points necessary to begin the path of intellectual integrity and intellectual humility by which communication and perspectives can become connective and accurately measured on a preliminary basis, we can proceed.

A start to this path out of tangled messes in geopolitics requires a unity on these 3 reference points, regardless of your life experience, language, education, or location.

Now that you have read the details of the 3 reference points for intellectual humility and intellectual integrity, what did you think and feel, and why?

~*~*~*~*~*~

Once you have understood the first step onto this path, you might realize this first article is unavoidably necessary to help foster reflection, understanding and connective communication, threading complexity in a hugely-simplified but not over-simplified manner about what you have not seen but need to know and realize.

Three more articles will cover the following:

~ Vital leadership skills which our future generations need while utilizing two issues for evaluation and conveying the understanding you need because you have to go through this necessary exercise as a vital sequel to this first article,

~ Exploring unavoidable fundamental concerns affecting countries of a certain region

~Positive collaboration leading to unexpected opportunities and further flourishing.

In the final fifth article of this series, King Salmān ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Āl Su‘ūd and his son Muḥammad bin Salmān Āl Su‘ūd hold the keys to helping many Malaysians understand and realize fundamental errors of beliefs and ignorance. What these two men choose to do and say publicly for their citizens, the people of the Middle East and other regions has local, regional and global repercussions. What they can say and do, if they choose to exercise honorable leadership, will be the beginning of undoing errors which have crippled countries such as Malaysia, Pakistan and Afghanistan for too long.

Urgent truth has been hidden for more than decades, which has crippled Saudi Arabia while blinding the House of Saud, preventing healthy development of Saudi Arabia for the primary benefits of its people. We can finally unlock the full potential of the Abraham Accords in the Middle East, once the fifth article for the people of Saudi Arabia and the entirety of the Middle East officially helps you realize the full meaning of the African proverb on a global scale: “A lie has many variations, the truth none”.

At that point, proper reporting from all media outlets of the Middle East in Arabic, Farsi, French, English, Hebrew and any other languages, while including social media in as many languages as possible to reach the whole world via mobile phones and print media, should be primary. People of the Middle East have a vital central role in helping to lead the way for other people in other countries, also depending on the choices of their leaders in countries such as UAE and Oman.

What traditional international media of First World countries will choose to do -based on what is reported in the Middle East and via social media primarily based in the Middle East- will be a fitting reminder to people outside those countries about which outlets cannot be trusted, and which outlets are still practicing reliable journalism to a certain extent.

When the Houthis attacked Abu Dhabi on 17 January 2022 and made at least two more attempts against UAE within the month of January 2022, what reporting did you see on this issue, in every country within the Middle East and outside the Middle East?

If you live in a country outside the Middle East, evaluate media sources within your country reporting on this topic and compare it to reports by different countries from the Middle East. You can make decisions about reliability and objectivity of your country’s media outlets.

Unshackle the biggest obstacle as a first unavoidable step, to irreversibly change all of geopolitics for the better today. What has strangled the Middle East and beyond for too long because of originating in the Middle East must be primarily resolved by the Middle East, for the world.

“Accords” can be an official agreement of balance between entities, and can also be actions choosing to award recognition or create reconciliation leading to a harmonious agreement. Realizing, unshackling, dissolving imaginary Gordian knots in geopolitics requires sufficient recognition and identification of such knots. Using accurate nuances and context, in order to fairly resolve such complex thorny issues, must be connective.

People who claim to do so as ‘experts’ but choose to pursue a narrative based on their selfish interests, while wrongly ignoring the needs of entire regions of people and many fields needing to be addressed, are not experts. They are at best, opportunistic political hacks whom people need to stop acknowledging as credible or authoritative.

At this point, what preliminary conclusions or assumptions might you have surmised about me? Are you able to guess that one of my parents is Malaysian? Would you be able to guess that although I studied in a First World Western university, how I analyzed and decided upon three specific reference points anchoring intellectual integrity and intellectual humility as a fundamental unifier of perspectives and measurements, for communication and analysis, is not due to any specific institution or culture?

Being able to speak at least four languages while enjoying the understanding of more cultures than those have helped me to hone the ability to identify oft-overlooked connections in space and time. Southeast Asia, East Asia and Western Asia have been helpfully educational and formative.

If one can sufficiently understand nuanced differences, gaps, errors, biases and contrasts in interpretations within and between languages and cultures, and how they shape perceptions, then one will understand an imperative need for common reference points to reliably connect measurements with necessary context, regardless of languages or cultures. If we cannot communicate on common grounds requiring creation of necessary self-awareness using intellectual integrity and intellectual humility, then facts will be rejected by a person in a dialogue, regardless of presentation.

Accuracy and apt nuances must shape language for necessary context as much as possible, not the other way around. This too applies to science, education, and any other field whereby people claim to have standards of necessary fairness, reliable scholarship and consideration for humanity.

You can be as arbitrary as you please in an opinion, but when you decide to opine about a topic which has value and impact greater than your favorite color preference, there must be a reliable method for measurement. And the weightier the subject, the greater the need for accuracy and primarily unavoidable context. In the necessary kindness of intellectual integrity and intellectual humility is the method which leads to the beginning of viable solutions, allowing for accommodation of space and mistakes and time, in order to allow fairness and truth to change and benefit humanity.

This is not about left, right, center, or other political inclinations. This is fundamentally about whether you will choose intellectual humility and intellectual integrity to strive for consistent intellectual consistency, or whether you will turn away from an intertwined global and local reality needing these two values in every person who claims to have a reliable education and possesses the ability to think critically and objectively.

If you truly want to start paving the extremely long winding road for tackling issues honestly, it is a very long road, often winding through obstacles for continuation which you cannot see. If you want to reach fair solutions and help fellow humans which you are not aware of, what are you going to choose?

Are you ready?

If you are an American and want to assert USA does not have major problems needing urgent rectification in what I am imploring American parents to tackle, here is one more example.

Journalist Peter Doocy queried current White House press secretary Jen Psaki about Hunter Biden’s email asking a landlord to “please have keys made for office mates Joe Biden and Jim Biden”, Jen Psaki claimed it was not accurate and insists Joe Biden was not office mates with Hunter Biden {85}.

In December 2020, the issue of Hunter Biden sending an email regarding keys being made for office mates was revealed and reported. In an email dated 17 September 2017, Hunter Biden told his general manager to have keys made available for new office mates of Jim Biden, Jill Biden, Joe Biden and Chairman Ye CEFC emissary Gongwen Dong, alongside an office sign stating The Biden Foundation and Hudson West (CEFC US). CEFC wired 5 million USD to Hudson West III, and a total of 4.79 million USD was transferred to Hunter Biden’s law firm Owasco being classified as “consulting fees”.

Could someone explain why CEFC paid Hunter Biden 1 million USD to represent Peter Ho, chairman of China Energy Fund Committee, who was arrested in November 2017 and sentenced to jail for 30 months because of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Hunter Biden is not listed as an attorney in Ho’s filings, according to Daily Caller {86}.

Could someone also explain why Jen Psaki is confirming the current administration making a decision to give free mobile smartphones to illegal immigrants crossing into USA, but not American citizens {87}{88}? Do Americans consent to their taxpayer dollars being used in this manner? You can see the contents for yourself in the official White House press briefing transcript of 6 April 2022 which has Jen Psaki also claiming, “Title 42 is not an immigration measure, it’s a public health measure and one that Congress has given the CDC authority to make a decision about…” {89}.

Is Jen Psaki’s claim about Title 42 accurate, as a public health measure and not an immigration matter? Why is this administration lifting Title 42? US citizens who are parents, such as those of you in San Francisco, are you aware of this? Do you know what is happening at your borders with Mexico? Do you know how your taxpayer dollars are being used?

As to Jen Psaki’s reply, below is the question she was answering:

“With the lifting of Section 42, there are a lot of Democrats, particularly Democratic Senators up for re-election who worry that you don’t have a plan to either stop the spring surge of undocumented immigrants or handle it. What do you say to those Democrats?”

What do you think, if the current White House administration’s Press Secretary is still in her official role but has signed a deal to work with MSNBC and is currently in the midst of a media tour? NBC journalists at NBC’s Washington bureau were disturbed about these negotiations happening during this period, according to CNN {90}. NBC journalists apparently have wide-ranging concerns about MSNBC, as detailed in that CNN article.

CNN also reported on Chief White House correspondent for NBC Kristen Welker repeatedly questioning Jen Psaki about her plans to host a show on MSNBC while still working in the official capacity for Joe Biden as White House Press Secretary. Ed O’Keefe of CBS also questioned Jen Psaki about ethics of such decisions in context, and their questioning plus Jen Psaki’s replies during a White House Press Corps briefing was also shared on Twitter, which you can watch for yourself {91}.

Is this conduct professional? Speaking of professionalism, how might you describe someone when they make certain claims about a journalist who questioned them regarding mobile smartphones being given by the current White House administration to illegal immigrants who cross the border?

Eugen Daniels, Politico White House Correspondent and Senior Contributor for Morning Joe MSNBC Political Analyst, shared what he observed of Jen Psaki during the recent Thursday live recording of Pod Save America.

When asked by the hosts if “Peter Doocy is a stupid son of a bitch or does he just play one on tv”, Jen Psaki said, “He works for a network that provides people with questions that, nothing personal to any individual including Peter Doocy, but might make anyone sound like a stupid son of a bitch.”{92}

Eugene Daniels also reported on Jen Psaki sharing about the situation in which current POTUS Joe Biden previously apologized to Peter Doocy about his remarks for a certain question, which Peter Doocy graciously accepted {93}. Joe Biden did not realize his microphone caught him calling Peter Doocy “stupid son of a bitch” after Peter Doocy asked him, “Do you think inflation will be a political liability in the midterms?” in January 2022, before Russia attacked Ukraine {94}?

Peter Doocy joked about the labelling by POTUS on Fox News. What do you think of the two examples and professionalism of Peter Doocy’s questions being raised here? What do you think of the professionalism of the two people, which Peter Doocy has to question? Every journalist who questions the White House Press Secretary or POTUS has a primary responsibility to their fellow citizens to seek accountability from every administration, report what people do not know, and obtain answers which Americans deserve.

Peter Doocy also asked Jen Psaki certain details about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, amongst other hard-hitting questions which require straight answers or massive circling to avoid direct answers. If you want to evaluate the professionalism or lack of professionalism involving all parties: Seek out actual transcripts and videos of all exchanges, then decide.

If you only rely on headlines or short video segments or what certain media sources want to report, without viewing original videos and transcripts and checking a diverse range of sources? You are in no position to label other people as stupid or unprincipled. This is especially true if you are unaware of all the examples highlighted in this article, and you live in USA or identity as a citizen of USA, and you want to educate someone using news sources from USA.

As a final current update in this article about Hunter Biden’s laptop and the wealth of information revealed on his laptop contributing to investigations of his activities, Daily Beast had to issue an apology and correction via an editor’s note on Wednesday 25 may 2022 to the repairman who turned over Hunter Biden’s laptop for investigation, after their December 2020 reporting on the subject labelled Hunter Biden’s laptop as “stolen” {95}. According to Fox News, Delaware repairshop owner John Paul Mac Isaac has filed a defamation lawsuit against Daily Beast, CNN, Politico and Congress member Adam Schiff {96}. Which mainstream media outlets in USA have accurately covered this issue of Hunter Biden’s laptop and choices revealing significant concerns affecting American interests because of his choices and details involving other Biden family members?

If you are an adult living in USA, are many of you ready to admit to unacceptable ignorance alongside an urgent need to start addressing major problems in your media outlets, school boards, and other institutions of your country? When are you able to decide to muster up moral courage to adhere to intellectual humility and intellectual integrity, so as to finally help your fellow citizens and also stop harming non-Americans with your uninformed voting?

Many non-Americans are exasperated and tired of suffering decades of consequences borne of your ignorance, which also boomerangs back onto you in the realm of domestic policies. Your decision is most appreciated.

Are you ready?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[1] https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/singer-weaponization-social-media/

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/28/business/media-misinformation-disinformation.html

[3] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/KHALIL%20PJCIS%20Parliamentary%20Submission%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf

[4] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/28/abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-washington-post-austere-headline/2483340001/

[5] https://twitter.com/kriscoratti/status/1188522256810631170?s=20

[6]  https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post-6b762a0b-64a9-4259-8697-298e2f04fb3e.html

[7] https://www.axios.com/conservative-social-media-crypto-publishing-internet-56a77cbd-89c6-480a-a8a4-6092b7eea481.html

[8] https://www.varsity.co.uk/opinion/23385

{9} https://www.thenationalnews.com/opinion/comment/extinction-rebellion-s-violence-and-vandalism-won-t-save-the-planet-1.1212011

{10} https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-plot-against-fracking/

{11} https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/politics/27obama.html

{12} https://archive.ph/tW9N8

{13} https://www.debates.org/voter-education/debate-transcripts/october-22-2020-debate-transcript/

{14} https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCA1A5GqCdQ

{15} https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/politicized-intelligence-veterans-brennan-clapper-biden/

{16} https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

{17} https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000175-4393-d7aa-af77-579f9b330000

{18} https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-biz-partner-confirms-e-mail-details-joe-bidens-push-to-make-millions-from-china/

{19} https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/

{20}  https://www.journal-news.net/eedition/hunter-biden-the-invisible-government-and-the-laptop-from-hell/article_8cb013c4-dd76-5edc-9c71-025ce3ed7870.html

{21} https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1512158733861892111

{22}  https://nypost.com/2021/05/20/ex-fbi-chief-gave-100k-to-biden-grandkid-trust-as-he-sought-future-work-hunter-emails/

{23} https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10615171/State-Department-AGREES-hand-NY-Times-Hunter-Biden-emails.html

{24} https://archive.is/vK6wM

{25} https://twitter.com/JosephWulfsohn/status/1504944916710965253

{26} https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1504534456257945600

[27] https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-russia-danchenko-steele-dossier-fbi-durham-11636152567

[28] https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/08/18/senate-intel-panel-found-absolutely-no-evidence-of-collusion-faced-roadblocks/

[29] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/steele-dossier

{30} https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/20/18233161/covington-catholic-washington-post-lawsuit-nick-sandmann

{31} https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/2020/08/25/nick-sandmanns-settlement-with-cnn-was-almost-public/42298615/

{32} https://deadline.com/2020/07/nick-sandmann-washington-post-defamation-1202994384/

[33] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHGsBxmfc8

[34] https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-mocked-calling-kenosha-riots-fiery-mostly-peaceful-protests-1527997

[35] https://fee.org/articles/new-reporting-shows-kenosha-riots-hit-minority-communities-hardest/

[36] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/22/wisconsin-democrats-kenosha-problem-523196

[37] https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse

[38] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-claims-supports-black-lives-matter-tucker-carlson-int-rcna6311

[39] https://www.newsnationnow.com/banfield/kyle-rittenhouse-blames-former-lawyers-for-proud-boys-photo/

[40] https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/582877-taibbi-media-should-learn-from-coverage-of-kyle-rittenhouse

[41] https://heavy.com/news/anthony-huber-rittenhouse-victim/

[42] https://heavy.com/news/joseph-rosenbaum/

[43] https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/13/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge/?amp=1

[44] https://abc7chicago.com/starbucks-fight-santa-ana-man-dies-skateboard/1103808/

[45] https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2021/05/05/man-found-guilty-in-skateboard-attack-death-of-good-samaritan

[46] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDbMDy2e44w

[47] https://twitter.com/AnOpenSecret/status/1494790606736048131

[48] https://twitter.com/AnOpenSecret/status/1494784917569511429

[49] https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/18/meta-axes-head-of-global-community-development-after-he-appears-on-video-in-underage-sex-sting/

[50] https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1494457638821761025

[51] https://katv.com/news/nation-world/high-level-meta-employee-fired-after-being-allegedly-caught-soliciting-a-minor-for-sex

[52]  https://twitter.com/garrytan/status/1494790898063855616

[53] https://twitter.com/Nima_Rahimi/status/1494824355150241792

[54] https://twitter.com/cynyurita/status/1494803239123881985

[55] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/meaning-san-franciscos-school-board-recall/622854/

[56] https://www.newsweek.com/sf-school-board-recall-shows-new-political-awakening-asian-americans-opinion-1681193

[57] https://twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1511269913524154369

[58] https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story?utm_source=url

[59] https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/12/israeil-activist-targeted-after-calling-malaysian-troll-campaign-over-gaza-conflict-a-digital-war/

[60] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/social-media-attacks-on-pro-israel-accounts-during-operation-guardian-of-the-walls-malaysian-cyber-warfare/

[61] https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-israel

[62] https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-malaysia

[63] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/05/23/distortions-in-anwars-vision-led-to-dilution-of-non-malay-history-says-author/

[64] https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/05/29/malaysian-history-a-one-sided-story-says-author/

[65] https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/05/13/rtm-ordered-to-probe-mandarin-news-editors-after-bulletin-refers-to-hamas-as-039miliants039

[66] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59346441

[67] https://www.courthousenews.com/top-eu-court-returns-hamas-to-terror-list-after-3-year-absence/

[68] https://www.dw.com/en/australia-to-list-hamas-and-us-far-right-group-as-terrorists/a-60809841

[69] https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/hamas-guardian-law-gaza-woman-studying-abroad-80986350

[70] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-hamas-schools-idUSBRE93009920130401

[71] https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2020/06/22/Hamas-arrests-four-family-members-of-85-year-old-woman-who-was-attacked

[72] https://www.utusan.com.my/terkini/2021/12/ngo-asean-kecam-usaha-uk-label-hamas-pengganas/

[73] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBZ3q7SijP0

[74] https://sea.mashable.com/social-good/16402/if-you-see-a-white-flag-flying-outside-a-house-in-malaysia-the-family-needs-help

[75] https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1414296522758496257

[76] https://twitter.com/emilykschrader/status/1414631218679795718

[77] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/hamas-claims-victory-over-israel-but-is-stuck-in-same-cycle-of-failure-1.4761903

[78] https://www.belfercenter.org/israel-defense-forces-strategy-document

[79] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

[80] https://twitter.com/yaakovkatz/status/1393063604761604101

[81] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkish-charity-provides-urgent-medical-support-to-palestine/2237036

[82] https://abcnews.go.com/International/rockets-launched-jerusalem-militant-group-hamas-leading-unrest/story?id=77610201

[83] https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-burst-into-temple-mount-compound-as-hundreds-riot-after-ramadan-prayers/

[84] https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1974/hayek/lecture/

[85] https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1511791992371568645

[86} https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/11/hunter-joe-biden-cefc-office-mates/

[87] https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1511790408472403977

[88] https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-won-apos-t-agree-214821059.html

[89] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/04/06/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-april-6-2022/

[90] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/06/media/jen-psaki-nbc/index.html

[91] https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1509973853782556681

[92] https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1514819943686057984

[93] https://dailycaller.com/2022/04/15/jen-psaki-peter-doocy-pod-save-america/

[94] https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1485740107378397189

[95] https://nypost.com/2022/05/27/daily-beast-issues-apology-to-hunter-biden-laptop-repairman-john-paul-mac-isaac/

[96] https://www.foxnews.com/media/daily-beast-apologizes-john-paul-mac-isaac-hunter-biden-laptop?intcmp=tw_fnc