Good To Know & Remember
A Note From Cinema and Cinema History
A first live movie refers to one of the earliest films that combined traditional cinema with live theatrical elements, such as actors performing during the screening, live narration, or live music. One of the first examples is Quo Vadis, directed by Enrico Guazzoni, where live performers sometimes complemented the projected scenes, creating a hybrid of cinema and theater.
These early live movies were important because they helped transform cinema from a simple recorded medium into a dynamic, immersive experience, blending film with real-time performance for audiences. (From AI, ChatGPT)
....
The first movie in history is widely considered to be Roundhay Garden Scene, created by Louis Le Prince in 1888.
This film lasts only about 2.11 seconds and shows four people walking in a garden in Roundhay. Despite its short length, it is recognized as the oldest surviving motion picture ever recorded.( From AI)
Keep the Camera Rolling Action!
Author: Dr. Özerk Yavuz
A Comment on Performing Arts and Importance of Freedom of Speech & Several Important Topics
Even if it seems, sometimes we seem to jump from one topic to another because there are countless meaningfull topics and Phenomenon that worth discussing, debating that you can talk on countless hours and you want to cover. Let me share some of my ideas in several topics shorthly. Normally in order to remain within the scope and agenda we form and not to make distractions I make my speechess with formed templates where all forms of feedback is considered and appreciated. And I said to myself maybe also in cinema and film scripts less humour, irony, sarcasm but close to my real one in real life. But I respect each character that is transferred to stage with creative art and efforts. Maybe the audience would not be confused anyway and there is a fan of every line whether it is sarcastic or not but maybe that is the way to go. Here we go!
Criminalizing free media, cinema or people who share their ideas in order to silence them is unethical and contradicts democratic values. In open societies, filmmakers, journalists, citizens, academicians, political/business leaders and artists play an important role in encouraging discussion, critical thinking, and social awareness. Their work often explores difficult topics, including political conflict, crime, and social injustice. However, portraying or discussing these themes, sharing their ideas does not mean that creators, people who share their opinions support wrongdoing or committed any crime. On the contrary, many films and media productions aim to raise awareness, promote understanding, and contribute to peaceful dialogue. All ideas are subjective in their nature and everybody perceives the phenomena with the lenses and paradigms that they have. Penalizing someone basically because of their perceptions or opinions because someone agrees and disagrees can be dangerous and damage democracy. Some people are naturally more talkative, while others are quieter and more reserved, and this is simply a difference in personality — not a crime or wrongdoing. Everyone communicates in their own way, they may have different ideas and both styles deserve respect. Moreover, according to the principle of equity and fairness of law, if one person has the opportunity to speak, others should also be given the chance to express their ideas, if some people be able to shoot movies, share their ideas freely, make arts, listen to music, can get the goods and services when they pay the fees, promote, can be nominated as the President, senator or representative, can choose how to and where to live & work, others should be able to have the same rights and options according the equity principle of law. Otherwise you are saying other citizens in a different way, "you are second class citizens, you do not deserve the same rights, we have double standards here". This is not acceptable.
Of course, there is no guarantee of becoming the President of the United States, or any influential, rewarding career option but if we ensure that there is no second-class citizenship, if everyone is treated equally considering diversity, equity, inclusion, and we respect and implement laws in an inclusive way, then everyone should have the opportunity to run for office to be elected or other career paths they choose. As long as there is no second-class citizenship, these opportunities should be open to everyone, in any position, and in any career path. Equity principle of law should guarantee chances, roads to elect and to be elected to each and every citizen in an inclusive way equally. But at the end of the day as part of the democracy the electors will elect the candidate who they find most suitable in these positions which I deeply, sincerely and kindly respect. Respecting different communication styles while ensuring equal opportunity to speak creates a balanced, fair, and inclusive environment for everyone. In societies that respect freedom of thought and expression, individuals cannot be punished for natural biological processes such as stomach acid HCL production, dopamine, seratonine, melatonine, cortisol or adrenaline release. Similarly, thoughts formed through neural activity — the synapses in the brain (maybe the gift of god) which are classified as involuntary activities — are part of natural human cognition and cannot be criminalized. In democratic systems, only unlawful actions, not thoughts or ideas, are subject to legal accountability. Protecting freedom of thought and expression is essential to democracy, human dignity, and intellectual progress. A well-intentioned person even in a slip of the tongue or gaffe situation, see this as a natural human error and responds with understanding, while a malicious/bad hearted/bad intentioned person may exploit it to unfairly blame or criminalize someone to get advantage from that—an approach that is ethically wrong and disproportionate.
When an authoritarian regime or intolerant individuals ban or suppress cinema, art, and artistic expression—alongside freedom of speech or certain lifestyles, especially those tied to political figures—people fear that society will lose its capacity for critical thinking or the ability to question authority. In such a dictatorship-like, authoritarian, suppressive approach, the regime or intolerant individuals might delude themselves into thinking they are preserving order, but in reality, banning art is a hallmark of repression. People see it for what it is: a form of dictatorship, and that is simply wrong. In the end, people will think as they will, regardless of censorship. Perhaps it’s that these authoritarian regimes are simply deceiving themselves. They believe they hold control, but in truth, it is all an illusion—they are just deceiving themselves. Everybody has a brain and people think what they think or want to say to their friends, colleagues, families as they wish. They have behaviorol control, attitudes, intentions and tendencies that they want to do which they decide theirselves. As long as they can differentiate what is right, wrong and lawfull/constitutional it should be all right. When they try to silence authors, political leaders, or artists—people with strong opinions—the reality is that the public often sees through it. The people who silence them, suppress them or do not let these/other people to live their lifestyles may believe they are in control, but in truth, it’s always clear: the innocent are the ones being targeted, and the guilty are those who oppress, pressure them. That’s the crucial point. That is mostly what we the people think not the other way around. Universally accepted consentual norms are clear in that one whatever some try to show to justify corruptions and wrongdoings. Indeed, Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, as essential as the basic needs in Maslow’s hierarchy—what he called self-actualization—through sharing thoughts and socialization. Without it, we risk stifling our capacity for critical thought, self-expression, and ultimately, our humanity. Nobody tries to be penalized for self actualization or self expression needs in reality. It is just that they try to satisfy these needs that are mentioned in Maslow's hierarchy of needs that are common for all human beings, citizens, we the people. The core idea is that freedom of speech and artistic expression, must coexist with a foundation of respect. When people/audience/viewers/readers/listeners alike engage with these ideas thoughtfully, without causing harm, consume these productions responsibly, it can actually build bridges instead of walls. So, yes, that balance is truly crucial. At the core, above all, the most important thing is that we engage in conversation, art, or even disagreement in a truly civil way—like a gentleman or lady—avoiding harm, keeping respect at the center. And, when that is in place, creative expression and open dialogue can thrive together, helping us all find solutions that work for everyone. Also being able to choose your career path, life style, where to live, preferences, where to work, what to wear, how to live, is what we the people look for we need to respect frankly speaking. We don’t ban driving a car just because accidents can happen; we don’t ban planes just because they can crash; we don’t ban food just because they might lead to obesity; we don’t ban alcohol just because some might become addicts; we don’t ban salt just because it can cause hypertension. As long as you engage with these things responsibly and in balance—as advised by medical experts—then it’s okay. Similarly, when you engage with cinema, opera, theatre, art, people who share their ideas responsibly, maturely in a tolerant way, without causing harm, then this is also acceptable which is part of a healthy democracy.
A respectful, tolerant, mature person you know, is someone who values and honors all diversity, cultures, lifestyles, ideas, paradigms, lenses and individual preferences. A truly respectful, tolerant, mature person would never harm, supress, injure, kill, assault, torture, penalize, harass, to wrong someone, to deprive someone of their rights, or to treat someone unfairly, to be unjust, to treat someone unfairly or to do an injustice to anyone or discredit an innocent citizen to justify wrongdoings he or she does. Such wrongful acts are simply not in their nature. They never engage in these kinds of behaviors. Would a respectful, tolerant, mature person do these wrongdoings? Not at all. Instead, a truly respectful, tolerant, mature person would hug and embrace everybody regardless of their differences and accept them who they are.
Today why do we see fewer genocides, war crimes, wars, coups, terror (which is defined as killing and injuring innocent civilians in global community and literature with consensus but definitely not sharing your idea or making film/art), massacres, assaults, harassments, abuse of power, corruption, violation of citizen rights, human rights, labor rights, consumer rights and large-scale conflicts etc.? It’s because of free media, open cinema, and free art, our political leaders, business leaders, citizens , academicians who value these concepts— of course with separation of powers autonomous law and autonomous academia contribute to that. These act as powerful checks and balances which we see in real democracies. They hold political leaders and decision-makers accountable and push them toward more ethical standards, accountability, transparency in a more inclusive way, respecting diversity, equity, inclusion principles democratic freedoms, liberties protecting each and every citizen, every world citizen, valuing consumer rights, labor rights, human rights etc. That’s why we now see a more peaceful world, with fewer atrocities and wrongdoings taking place.
I want you to imagine yourself in my position. You wouldn’t have the same opportunities that other rich, privileged people have despite your Ph.D. and qualifications, worldwide experiences background recognized and respected worldwide and you cannot use some of your rights, you cannot have a private life etc. You would be criminalized and tried to be punished simply because you didn’t say what some people wanted you to say. You did not think as some wanted you to think. But the truth is you have a clean criminal record in 12 countries you have visited, lived and/or worked and all world countries/businesses/organizations have given you a chance physically or remotely, you are innocent and you have no wrongdoing. Everything is %100 legal and %100 as it is supposed to be. So, how would you feel? In independent cinema and a free Press, this is a form of censorship—a dictatorship tactic that we do not see in a true democracy.
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we have fundamental human needs like going to the bathroom, shelter, sex and basic physical needs—such as hunger and thirst. So, Maslow's hierarchy is basically a theory in psychology that arranges human needs in a pyramid, starting with the most basic. At the bottom, you have physiological needs—things like food, water, sex and shelter. Then come safety needs—like security and stability. After that, you have social needs, like love and belonging. Then esteem needs—self-esteem and respect from others. And finally, at the top, self-actualization—fulfilling your potential and personal growth. These are all core aspects of being human. If we don’t mention things or critize things like going to the bathroom or eating and drinking, even if some consider them taboo, in a democracy that values freedom and liberties, we must also respect intimate relationships, sexual relationships/preferences before or during marriage. That is something everybody needs to decide their selves based on own preferences, expectations and respect. If something is consensual and legal than that’s okay that should be okay. These are all basic human needs, and we shouldn’t judge anyone, because every person is human, and these things are god given to us. Of course, based on preferences, beliefs, culture, norms you choose what you prefer and you can make choices. For example, you can drink coffee or tea, you can eat pasta or any dish you like. There are, of course, personal preferences in life, and we should respect them. There are fundamental impulses, impetuses and motivations that drive human behavior—like hunger, sex, and other basic physical needs. For example, every day we feel hunger, and we have sexual drives—these are just normal, natural aspects of being human. They come from within us, as part of God’s creation, and they’re simply a normal condition of life. God created us this way, with our birthparents who gave us life. Under everyday circumstances, these needs are to be respected—they are powerful drivers and motivators in human life, shaping our actions and choices but we can still make choices as long as it is consensual and lawful in accordance with the constitution it should be all right. So, yes, similarly we have many needs as indicated in Maslow's needs hierarchy. For example thirst is a need, but you can choose to drink coffee, water, a fizzy drink, black tea, green tea, earl grey tea or any beverage you prefer—these are all just ways of meeting the same fundamental needs. But frankly speaking I am not so picky when it comes to food and beverages I try to taste different tastes from all over the world if I have the chance. For my friendships and intimate relationships, if somebody want to be friends with me, I all the time approach everybody kindly, friendly and in a positive way as a gentleman and I love all world citizens, all living beings, nature, animals, our planet world and god. Humans are also social creatures with socialization needs and some may want to try to hang out with each other which can be based on their own preference in the form of intimate, more close or distanced relationships, partnerships or friendships. Mazlow's hierarchy of needs is clear for everyone, but we must also recognize that while human needs are limitless, financial resources are not in some cases. In reality, almost anything can be seen as a need—sometimes even what we call a luxury. However, due to budget constraints we may have, we inevitably may have to postpone or deprioritize some of these so-called needs—things that might be considered discretionary or luxury, but which, for many in the 21st century, have become essential in a postmodern world and still remain needs. As the old wisdom says, human needs may be limitless, but our financial resources may be finite in some cases. This is the reality.
What I also think is that for satisfying some of these needs and preserving your quality of life you need a stable income and a job security with a safety net (of course if you can satisfy some of your needs free of charge no complaints :)). We should also respect individuals—citizens and entrepreneurs—who provide goods, services, and business solutions by developing the right business ideas, crafting clear business plans, and building effective business models to meet needs. By applying the right marketing mix—the 4Ps of McCarthy in literature—these entrepreneurs, professionals can effectively monetize their offerings, ensuring that both business success and human dignity go hand in hand.). Today in the world all goods and services provided by businesses is to satisfy human needs, satisfying the customers profitably as Philip Kotler defines in literature. In this way citizens preserve their quality of life and standards of living that they want. In this way, countries and businesses serve to the society with the goods and services that they provide.). At the end of the day we are all human beings god with our parents gave life to, we must respect all professionals, all businesses, every citizen and all workers. This is the most important principle. By honoring everyone’s contributions, we build a fairer, more just society for all.). For example, a film company can offer comprehensive solutions in advertisement placement and product integration, effectively satisfying key consumer needs for brand visibility and audience engagement. By strategically weaving brands into the storyline, the company not only boosts brand recognition but also entertains the audience, making them think, question, and engage on a deeper level. In this way, each product placement becomes a seamless part of the narrative, enriching the audience’s experience and prompting them to reflect on the world around them
For example, a film company or a Hollywood celebrity can offer comprehensive solutions in advertisement in the form of goods, services, brand placement, celebrity endorsement and product integration, effectively satisfying key consumer needs for brand visibility and audience engagement. By strategically weaving brands into the storyline regardless of the script, the company not only boosts brand recognition but also entertains the audience, making them think, question, and engage on a deeper level. In this way, each product placement becomes a seamless part of the narrative, enriching the audience’s experience and prompting them to reflect on the world around them. For example, a film company can offer comprehensive solutions in advertisement placement and product integration, effectively satisfying key consumer needs for brand visibility and audience engagement. By strategically weaving brands into the storyline, the company not only boosts brand recognition but also entertains the audience, encouraging them to think, question, and reflect. Of course, this doesn’t guarantee a purchase, belief or behavior change but it does increase visibility and, depending on multiple factors—like subjective norms, group influence, past experiences, opinion leaders, preferences, their unique filter and decoding mechanism, intentions and attitudes—these heightened exposures can lead to a purchase or, alternatively, no purchase at all, a change in behavior or belief depending on the consumer’s behavior, filtering and decoding mechanisms, his/her choice. At the end of the day everybody has intelligence, filtering decoding mechanisms, brain, behaviorol control a free will and choice to choose, believe and buy. But in this way you are telling the consumers/decision makers I am also here whether this is a city marketing, business marketing, country marketing, celebrity marketing, political marketing, belief marketing, religion marketing, ideology marketing or even life style marketing inside storytellings of these famous movie and art productions. Marketing is both an art and a science; it evolves continuously to adapt to what we see in today’s dynamic environment. By blending creative storytelling with data-driven insights, modern marketing strategies stay relevant, responsive, and able to engage audiences in meaningful ways. What I also think is that I believe the most appropriate approach is to provide a universal basic income, along with unemployment support, to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. At the same time, individuals should be encouraged to aim higher, work hard, develop their skills, and improve their qualifications—they deserve to achieve the best possible outcomes as everybody else. If someone earns a six- or seven-digit salary, or even more, that success should be fully supported if that is what they want they should go for it. However, at a minimum, we should strengthen the social safety net to guarantee basic living standards, similar to the systems seen in Scandinavian countries while people are trying to achieve for higher if that is what they want.
We should also think about systems that provide housing for elderly people, individuals with disabilities, homeless people—safe shelters, support structures like kindergartens, nursing homes, foster kid services, public services and other essential community services alike. We should also consider giving teenager/student salaries/benefits. We People could also look to Scandinavian models, where public funding supports not just these shelters but also free education and health services—broad, accessible public support, much like a welfare state.
You know, what truly distinguishes a civilized person from an intolerant one is how they balance the id, ego and the superego. Once that balance is in place, they naturally exhibit more civilized behavior—behaviors that define a gentleman or a lady. Of course, anything can arise in your mind, and having those thoughts doesn’t make you guilty or criminal based on neurosynaptic activity between axons and dendrites, nerve cells, sensory neurons, motor neurons. This is a miracle and the gift of god. Frankly speaking we can’t blame a person simply because their brain releases dopamine, serotonin, or stomach releases hydrochloric acid from the glands and associated structures. Similarly after all, we can’t blame anyone for the natural synaptic activity between dendrites and axons in the brain where people have no control. Synapsis are naturally formed and its an involuntary action not a voluntary action as moving your arm or leg with motor neurons. This is a gift of biology— the gift of god something inherent, a natural part of who we are. But it’s about choosing to guide yourself toward a balanced, civilized way of acting in today’s world with controlled behaviors, balancing id, ego and superego and using frontal lobe and all structures of brain. This is what it differentiates a mature and civilized person than others. After all, that equilibrium of id, ego and superego applies to all human beings. And when we have freedom of expression, we can share these thoughts openly, but always in a civilized way respecting each other. It’s crucial that we express ourselves with respect, self-awareness, and a sense of responsibility. By doing so, we create a space where open communication can thrive, anchored in balance and mutual respect.
When someone has these incredible, prestigious career options—like being a president, a global academic, as a distinguished representative of a country, CEO, a prominent figure or a media figure, or a Hollywood star with a Ph.D. and global professional, leadership experiences recognized and respected worldwide—no one would really turn to illegal organizations or something illegal. Simply that is the truth, saying opposite is not realistic. But this kind of tactic—basically criminalizing them, pressuring them, putting in bad conditions/situations— to silence and punish them unfortunately used to discredit independent thinkers, media, art, citizens. It’s like a deliberate campaign to silence them, even when they’ve done nothing wrong and they are innocent. This would never happen in a true democracy where diversity, equity and inclusion exists, democracy, liberties are for everyone.
Let us say few words in consumer rights, citizen rights also, If a business accepts payment for goods or services, it must provide them equally to all customers without discrimination. Consumer protection laws are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and equal treatment in the marketplace which were strengthened with civil liberty rights, consumer protection laws and similar extensions in laws. Denying a product or service after payment — or treating customers badly without a legitimate reason — violates basic consumer rights and undermines trust. Fair access, equal treatment, and non-discrimination are core principles of consumer protection. One other important thing is that, If a crime has not materialized, everyone is considered innocent according to fundamental principles of law. Detaining or punishing individuals based solely on suspicion contradicts the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that no one is treated as guilty until proven so through fair and lawful procedures. These principles protect individual rights, prevent abuse of power, and uphold the rule of law.
We should form our laws in an inclusive way that protect children, teenagers, law enforcement officers, and all citizens, while safeguarding democratic principles, liberties, and the rights of people around the world. Lawmaking should also take into account the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, innovation, technological progress, advancements in artificial intelligence, and contemporary trends in business, politics, the environment, health, safety, consumer rights, and civil liberties in the 21st century. Human exploitation in all its forms—such as sex trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, forced labor, and child labor—is unacceptable. Everyone should be protected under the law, and child labor in particular must never be tolerated. Strong border protection and effective regulation are also necessary to prevent illegal drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and unauthorized or unlawful entry, ensuring safety, order, and respect for legal frameworks. Some may argue historically that slavery was economically beneficial or that labor was performed without compensation; however, it remains a profound injustice. Thanks to leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, slavery was abolished, affirming the principle that no human being should be owned or exploited. Every person deserves fair compensation for their work, and individuals must not be consumed or exploited for the benefit of others. Some people may seek to exploit human effort for personal gain, but this is not ethical. As Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said, violating the rights of others is among the gravest sins. He also emphasized the importance of honoring workers’ rights, stating: “Pay the worker his wages before his sweat has dried.” This teaching highlights the moral obligation to respect people’s rights and ensure fair and timely compensation for their labor. A similar teaching attributed to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) in the Christian tradition emphasizes the same principle of justice for workers. In the New Testament it is written: “The laborer deserves his wages.” (Luke 10:7) and also in 1 Timothy 5:18: “The worker is worthy of his wages.” These teachings reflect a shared moral principle across traditions: those who work should be treated justly, respected, and compensated fairly for their effort. In Jewish ethical teaching, the idea of paying workers fairly and promptly is strongly emphasized. A well-known source is from the Torah: “You shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy… You shall give him his wages on the same day.” (Deuteronomy 24:14–15) This reflects a clear moral duty to treat workers justly and avoid delaying their payment. In Buddhism, the idea behind being fair, kind, and respectful toward workers and others is expressed through general ethical principles rather than a single fixed quote. A “Buddhist-style” way to express the same main idea would be: “A wise and compassionate person treats all beings with kindness, does not exploit the effort of others, and ensures fairness in return for their work.” This reflects core Buddhist values such as compassion (karuṇā), non-harming (ahiṃsā), and Right Livelihood from the Noble Eightfold Path, which together encourage honest, respectful, and fair conduct in all relationships, including work and economic life. Also this applies not just to believers or non-believers or people believes in different school of thoughts, religions, belief systems but to all people with a good heart, regardless of their faith or lack of it. A good person with a good heart will ensure that the value of someone’s labor is fully recognized—paying them fairly for their time, effort, and the impact of their work. This is a universal moral standard: whether someone is a believer or not, or follows another faith, treating others with fairness and respect is simply what it means to be a good person.
As they say, perhaps it is partly a matter of destiny luck—career, work, and even a spouse/s, partner/s, friend/s, colleague/s you meet, your career, all choices you make may come if it is meant to be. If it is written in one’s fate, it will find its way, even from distant places; and if it is not, then nothing can be forced by hand alone. As an old saying states If it's meant to be, it will come from India or Yemen; if it's not meant to be, what can be done?
However, it is not right to simply wait without any effort, struggle, or ambition. One should actively work, strive, and gain experience—improving oneself through education such as a PhD, MSc, or BSc, and continuously developing knowledge and skills as I did and asked the support of distinguished Almighty Creator God and distinguished Jesus Christ, other distinguished prophets and we the people.
At the same time, one can also pray and ask for guidance, saying, for example, “O Almighty Creator, please open my path and guide me.” In this sense, the belief in tawakkul (trust in God while making effort) aligns beautifully with this philosophy. It reflects a balanced approach: doing one’s best while trusting that the outcome ultimately rests with a higher wisdom. I thank god for supporting me in every way, Jesus Christ other distinguished holly prophets and we the people. Thank you. Thank you.
Audiences around the world have watched countless thriller, action, and crime movies or other genres for decades. These films often include intense scenes, dramatic conflicts, or fictional crimes. Yet, the overwhelming majority of viewers do not commit crimes after watching them. Many people enjoy such films purely for storytelling, artistic value, or entertainment. At the same time, actors, actresses, and filmmakers who portray fictional characters are performing their professional roles. Their work is part of artistic expression, not a reflection of their personal behavior or beliefs at all times. Similarly I did not single day said that I committed this crime and this actor or actress is guilty. I have a clean criminal record. If all negative things were as a result of people who share their opinions, artistic expressions actors or actresses, everybody would have had to jump from the bridge after watching spider man, or all world citizens (approximately/roughly 7 Billion) to be alcoholic after watching an alcoholic character in a movie, start smoking after seeing a character smoking, being straight, gay or lesbian, secular or religious after a performance of straight/gay/lesbian/transgender secular or religious character. But this is not realistic.
Many people interpreted the American Pie seriously, but it is unrealistic to assume that every individual treats something like apple pie in the same way. Similarly, monogamy, polygamy, sexual orientation, or any other normative behavior is influenced by multiple factors rather than a single determinant. Individuals enter the world as a tabula rasa, yet their mindset and behavior are gradually shaped by experiences, social context, culture, education, and personal choices—particularly by what they freely allow into their minds. In this sense, diversity in attitudes and behaviors is a natural outcome of complex human development, not a deviation from a single standard. Blaming only creative art and performing arts or expressed opinions, thoughts or ideas for committed crimes or wrongdoings is not realistic. As indicated in OpenAI-ChatGPT, Research consistently shows media exposure does not automatically cause imitation and can not be defined as a sole determinant of wrongdoings or crimes. The Theory of Planned Behavior developed by Icek Ajzen shows that behavior is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control, not a single stimulus. The Cognitive Dissonance Theory by Leon Festinger emphasizes that individuals actively process information and reconcile it with beliefs, meaning exposure alone does not dictate behavior. Research consistently shows media exposure does not automatically cause imitation. Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory notes modeling occurs only under specific conditions, including reinforcement and identification. Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld’s Two-Step Flow of Communication highlights the role of opinion leaders and social filters. Joseph Klapper proposed the Minimal Effects Theory, arguing media typically reinforces existing attitudes rather than creating new behaviors. Philip Kotler explains consumer behavior as shaped by cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors. Solomon Michael R. also highlights complex determinants including reference groups, lifestyle, perception, and motivation.” (ChatGPT-OpenAI, 2026). These tactics mostly used to censor cinema and freedom of speech, suppress questioning the system and some authorities, diverse ideas & lifestyles, thinking intellectually arising from some want people to live/think according to some dogmatic/dictated values and dont want public to watch/hear these productions and think on them even if the film makers, actors and people just share their ideas with the characters that they have and do not harm anybody as the history shows us. After gathering information from various sources (double checking can also be helpful from trusted sources in the form of books, encyclopedias, consultants, opinion leaders, commentators, online/offline information sources, citizens etc.), questioning, based on several factors like reference groups, subjective norms, group norms, past experiences, positive anticipated emotions, negative anticipated emotions, perception, intentions, attitude, preferences, opinion leaders, interest, demographical variables, genetic/environmental variables etc. people come up with decisions and behaviors. In the end people make their own choices and behaviors and this is multifaceted and holistic not tied to only one single individual factor. There is a whole behavioral theory behind these behaviors developed by notable scholars like Festinger or Ajzen in literature which we also use to explain many consumer behaviors as other behaviors. So, in case any wrongdoing or unintended consequence occured, blaming an opinion of someone or a script of a movie, or a character in stage which portrays a snapshot from human beings in real life is not fair and ethical. It is just like shifting, displacing the blame and anger to an innocent person who has no responsibility in the wrongdoing and nothing to do with it. But the root causes that leads to a wrongdoing maybe somewhat different. This approach, instead of solving the problem with constructive reforms in accordance with contemporary developments and trends, only distracts from the real issue and misleads the target in many cases. Besides that whatever the topic/script of the movie is product/brand/service placements in a movie help consumers to notice you and put you in their consideration set even if this does not guarantee a consumer behavior like purchase intention or purchase behavior. As mentioned earlier there are also several leading indicators that leads to a consumer behavior as other behaviors and this is also more complex and multifaceted not tied to only one single factor.
Peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in communication studies, cultural economics, and sociology generally finds no direct or deterministic link between exposure to freedom of speech in arts, cinema, and theatre and increases in crime rates or wrongdoing. Instead, studies such as McQuail (2010) in Mass Communication Theory and Livingstone (2009) in media effects research emphasize that audiences actively interpret cultural content through cognitive “filters” shaped by personal values, education, and social context, which mediate any potential behavioral influence. Similarly, Hall’s (1980) encoding/decoding model—widely cited in Scopus-indexed communication literature—shows that media messages are not directly translated into behavior but are selectively interpreted, reducing any simplistic causal pathway between artistic exposure and criminal action.
From a broader socio-cultural and institutional perspective, SCI/SCIE-indexed research in cultural policy and behavioral sociology (e.g., Hirschman, 1984; Bourdieu, 1993) suggests that cinema, theatre, and artistic expression function primarily as symbolic and interpretive systems within democratic societies, contributing to cultural participation, critical thinking, and social cohesion rather than deviant behavior. Empirical findings across large-scale studies indicate that individual behavior is shaped by multi-layered cognitive and social mechanisms—such as attitudes, norms, and prior experiences—rather than direct imitation of artistic content. Accordingly, the convergent scientific evidence supports the conclusion that there is no direct causal relationship between freedom of artistic expression and crime rates, as human cognition operates through interpretive and normative “filtering” mechanisms embedded in social context (McQuail, 2010; Hall, 1980; Hirschman, 1984).
Peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in communication theory and political sociology consistently indicates that freedom of speech does not have a direct causal relationship with deviant behavior or social disorder, as information processing is mediated through cognitive and social filtering mechanisms. Foundational works such as Hall (1980) emphasize that media and speech are decoded through individual interpretive frameworks shaped by education, culture, and prior experience, while Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) demonstrate the “two-step flow of communication,” where opinion leaders act as intermediaries filtering and contextualizing information before it influences broader citizen attitudes.
Within this framework, citizens do not passively absorb speech but actively evaluate and reinterpret ideas through subjective norms, reference groups, and institutional trust structures. Accordingly, SCI/SCIE-indexed research in democratic theory and public opinion (e.g., Habermas, 1989; McQuail, 2010) shows that freedom of expression primarily facilitates deliberation, idea exchange, and collective sense-making rather than directly producing behavioral outcomes. The convergence of evidence supports the conclusion that freedom of speech operates through layered interpretive filters—opinion leaders, social norms, and individual cognition—within which citizens selectively share and adapt ideas in a pluralistic communication environment.
Based on AI some best case, average case, worst case scenario in relationships, A single person seeking an active dating, intimacy, companionship and sex life can experience very different outcomes depending on clarity, communication, and environment. In the best case, they are self-aware about whether they prefer consensual monogamy or polygamy, communicate intentions openly, and choose compatible partners and contexts. This leads to a balanced sex life—both active and fulfilling—paired with genuine intimacy, emotional safety, and mutual respect, while also responsibly managing risks such as sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned parenthood through protection and informed choices. Dating becomes consistent rather than chaotic, and whether monogamous (deep, stable connection) or non-monogamous (multiple respectful connections), the individual experiences alignment between desires, behavior, and outcomes.
In the average case, the person has intermittent success: periods of active dating and sex life mixed with dry spells, occasional mismatches, and unclear expectations around intimacy or relationship structure. There may be some exposure to risks like sexually transmitted diseases or concerns about unplanned parenthood if precautions are inconsistent, along with the possibility of remaining single despite effort due to misalignment or timing. In the worst case, lack of honesty, poor boundary-setting, or confusion around monogamy versus non-monogamy leads to frustration, unstable or short-lived connections, and an unfulfilling sex life, potentially combined with higher health risks, emotional strain, and continued difficulty forming lasting relationships. Across all scenarios, the key differentiator is not simply opportunity, but the ability to align dating behavior, intimacy needs, and relationship style with clear, respectful, and responsible communication. Worst of worst: Maybe you could not still find anybody or can meet anybody to have these experiences in your private life when you have billions of fans and lovers all over the world. Life is short.
Inclusivity is really about making space for everyone, regardless of their beliefs, religion, idea, lifestyle or backgrounds. When laws are built to accommodate diverse ways of living, they actually strengthen democracy, pluralism because people feel they have a place and a voice. So, staying neutral and flexible in law is really vital for that. When a government or group that have power in policy making uses fear—like claiming to protect children, women, man, society or religion—as a tool to push legal changes that dictates something as banning some of the freedoms we see in west democracies mostly it can really erode pluralism. A healthy democracy should let people live by different values without imposing one group’s, life style or dogmatic beliefs on all, so that kind of neutrality and inclusivity really is key. One is secular democracy, which respects every religion and lifestyle in an inclusive way and gives a chance for believing and having the lifestyle that you choose. The other is dictating your own lifestyle, belief system, or religion to everybody, which damages inclusivity and democracy. Even if you try to get the sympathy of the public and global audience and show it as protecting children, women, men society or religion to justify these dictations/wrongdoings, it is actually, dictation or taking the freedoms from these young generations when they grow up—the options that they have, their peers have, in Western democracies which may damage democracy, inclusivity and liberties. In a true democracy individuals may prefer and have the freedom to choose in what they believe, think, speak, wear, choose their life styles, religion, career options, cities/places they want to live or travel and the constition & law would protect these freedoms with the equity principle for every citizen not to the privilidged few, powerfull only, not only for majority or not only for minority count in an inclusive way for every citizen/individual.
I have never said “do not think” or “do not speak,” whether to those with or without diplomatic immunity—and thank you for people respecting me as well. When you express an opinion, you are a citizen; if you hold another opinion or think differently on the same topic or some other as other citizens/individuals, that also makes you a citizen not guilty or criminal. Disagreement may not make you happy, but it does not diminish your citizenship or diplomatic immunity in a true democracy, it does not also make you guilty. What do you need to say or think to be considered a citizen and to be respected and your rights to be protected, not to be negatively influenced or not to be tried to be criminalized while you are innocent and not guilty normally?
Unfortunately, in some geographies, some people have had their citizenships/employment statuses/rights terminated or have not been recognized as citizens, put in bad situations simply because they wanted to speak freely and they had similar or opposing ideas as other citizens or human beings. This is not acceptable in a true democracy. If you claim immunity, what about others'? If you claim freedom of speech, life style, diplomatic immunity, yours is a life needed to be perfect what about others’?
If you impose your lifestyle, belief system, or personal preferences in a way that leaves no room for others to live freely, that is not democracy—it is dictatorship. A true democracy is built on respect for differences: diverse ideas, lifestyles, and individual choices. In a democratic society, whether among Democrats, Republicans, or any other community, the solution is not to force uniformity but to create inclusive laws that provide equal rights and options for all citizens. For example, individuals who choose to pursue rights such as abortion, same-sex marriage, freedom of expression, drinking alcohol, partying, being an employee, enterpreneur, candidate for senate, house, presidency or marijuana use should be able to do so, while others who do not agree or prefer are equally free not to exercise those rights. This principle of optionality—granting rights without imposing them, supressing anybody—is what preserves democracy, reduces public tension. Rights should be equally available to everyone; whether one chooses to use them or not is a personal decision. However, when certain lifestyles, beliefs, choices, preferences or forms of expression are dictated or suppressed, it becomes impossible to satisfy all citizens and this is called a dictatorship not a true democracy. A fair system does not force people into one way of living—it ensures that everyone has the freedom to choose their own.
As the old expression says: “Are yours rights to be respected, protected than what about others’, something different, a trivial apple or what? Is yours a life, rights that are needed to be respected and protected while the other’s is merely an eggplant or what?” In other words, one person’s rights cannot be valued more than another’s. The principle of equity in law requires that everyone be given a fair chance and good treatment, regardless of differences in age, sex, lifestyle, ideas, thinking, or ideology. Trying to punish an innocent leader, a hollywood star, a citizen like that is at the same time punishing this person's billions of innocent legitimate fans, supporters, lovers who value him/her all over the world. Because when people look at this personality they see their selves, their dreams, their leader, star that they chose whether this is a female, male, child, teenager, young or old. This is needed to be respected.
When institutions hold concentrated power without genuine separation and fail to make laws inclusive, checks and balances are weakened. Independent and autonomous institutions are meant to protect fairness—not to be used to penalize opposing views. With the abuse of power and without seperation of power, not making laws inclusive punishing innocent citizens, media, film makers, actors, academicians, citizens, individuals alike with the power you control can be unethical and damage democracy. This would ruin the trust to peope who engage these behaviors and erode the trust in instutions who uses these tactics. Using control over media, law, or regulatory bodies to silence dissent runs counter to democracy and freedom of speech.
Speech is inherently subjective. A person can say, “the government is effective in this area but needs improvement in another,” and should not be treated as guilty for expressing either view. This is the case for other topics discussing individuals, communities, animals, environment, society, culture, religion, art, history, people, places, architecture, countries, geographies etc. Open debate, diverse productions, and the free exchange of ideas are essential components of a democratic system—they help ensure laws reflect the voices of all.
Consider a simple analogy: in every home, people have a remote control—and even child-lock mechanisms when needed. In a society with hundreds of channels, films, and viewpoints, individuals can choose what to watch or ignore. When authorities shut down channels, restrict content, or undermine advertising, product, service, brand placement, celebrity endorsement, income, people naturally ask: why not let viewers decide? Such actions appear for censorship, with abuse of power has no place in a functioning democracy. If people do not like certain content, they can simply change the channel from the remote control—silencing voices or applying financial pressure only raises further questions and erodes trust, punishing fans, supporters, viewers of these productions as well as content creators and artists in such a case. This would never be in a democratic country. It is also inevitable, as research suggests, that every individual possesses internal filtering mechanisms. After receiving encoded messages from media—whether live broadcasts, cinema, or edited and unedited productions—people actively decode these messages through their own perceptual lenses and paradigms, filter them as in signal processing in information systems. In doing so, they decide what to believe, which sources to trust, which opinion leaders to follow, and ultimately which lifestyles or behaviors to adopt. For example even if the movie is called "Bangkok Dangerous," and Bangkok is portrayed as dangerous in some scenes, I still intend to go—to Bangkok, Phuket, and Pattaya. That’s my plan, and I hope to meet lovely people from Bangkok again as I met them and had friendly talks in Denmark while working in multinational giant, one of the biggest conglomarates that have a very good reputation, Siemens (I believe Siemens like companies, countries are stronger and more competitive with workers and citizens who trust them, who trust these brands from all over the world. Locals and expatriots all together give these companies and countries a competitive edge. Maybe I was not that bad and they really liked me :) at the end of the day. Thank you for all, thank you for believing in me and your trust in me.). As you know, we all have our own filters—no matter what roles the characters play in the movie, that’s just the reality. And if someone doesn’t like the film, they can simply change the channel. If someone doesn’t want children to watch it, they should use parental controls and child lock mechanisms. Banning the movies and media do not seem to be the best option in democracies in 21st century. With this freedom of expression, the scriptwriters, filmmakers, and actors should elevate the storytelling. They need to refine the script in a way that enhances quality and creative expression. With all these freedoms granted in democracies, that is the path forward. And, of course, this is how we foster creativity and impact in the arts.
Every individual has intelligence, cognitive capacity, and behavioral control. To censor art productions, speeches to control what is written in media, suppressing diverse perspectives, justifying wrongdoings for silencing media, art, claiming people do not have intelligence, cognitive capacity, and behavioral control, everything happens negative is a result of art and freedom of speech is not realistic. Therefore, it is not accurate to attribute any behavior, thought, or choice to a single factor. As highlighted by Leon Festinger and Icek Ajzen, human behavior is shaped by a complex interplay of multiple influences. These include attitudes, intentions, subjective norms, group dynamics, cultural and religious contexts, the selection of opinion leaders, as well as demographic, genetic, and environmental factors—among others. Perhaps it is simply the mindset of those who attempted to ban philosophy of science classes in some regions at some point in time—those who did not want people to question certain phenomena, think on several topics and instead encouraged thinking according to rigid dogmas in a dictated way.
If some people blame, criminalize, or punish innocent others for trade targets because a country boycotts or seeks this country to silence filmmakers, philosophers, academicians, governmental officials, political leaders, business leaders and opinion leaders through this type of economic pressure, then this would erode trust in the justice system and in the institutions of that country, particularly among those subjected to such wrongdoing. Penalizing an innocent person and labeling them a criminal because of their speech, thoughts, or content creation—whether in cinema, theatre, or any other form of artistic expression or daily speech—especially by setting traps, orchestrating conspiracies, or deliberately placing them in difficult situations, is a grave injustice and a violation of fundamental freedoms. It is natural to expect that such actions will generate negative feelings and thought patterns; this is a normal human response. In these situations, the most innocent party is the victim who faced those false accusations, traps or conspiracies in these plot setups.
Normally, if the 4Ps—product, price, place, and promotion—are well managed, and a company maintains strong customer relationship management, with high quality goods and services it becomes successful in the marketplace. If consumers switch, then the company should ask itself, “What did we do wrong?” Even loyal consumers—just like citizens—do consumer switching behavior, which is a form of consumer behavior and this should lead to corrective action. Blaming the consumer is not a solution. A country committed to constructive reforms, such as consumer protection laws that prevents discrimination and good quality standards, good treatment to citizens and customers should do what is right.
However, if consumers boycott free cinema, media, philosophers, and thinkers, then this reflects a dictatorial tactic. In a democratic environment, consumers would normally support free cinema and media, allowing film companies to operate without boycotts driven by external pressures. Using such tactics to punish innocent actors, filmmakers, philosophers, academicians, and political leaders—forcing them to suppress their views, remain silent, or change their scripts—undermines the very principles of freedom and open expression. Ultimately, equality before the law must guarantee the same rights for minorities and majorities alike—for all individuals, all citizens, and all communities that together form society.
Selling goods and services is beneficial for growing the economy. However, if anyone demands that we sacrifice freedom of speech, civil liberties, and democracy in exchanage for economic gain, that is not acceptable. Prosperity should never come at the cost of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Even if there is strong sales growth or increased economic performance, we should not accept policies that undermine these core principles. No economic benefit justifies restricting expression, limiting personal freedoms, or shifting toward authoritarian practices—such as banning cultural industries like Hollywood, restricting lifestyles like those associated with Las Vegas, or controlling how people choose to live and work.
A country may do business, but if it lacks freedom of speech, personal liberty, and the ability for individuals to freely express their lifestyles and identities, then it is not the society we want. Economic activity alone is not enough if it is separated from democratic freedoms and human rights. For doing business if you lose some basic necessities, needs of human beings like talking, sharing your idea or other rights, this is not the best solution. We cannot sacrifice these liberties. Instead, we must protect them through inclusive laws that safeguard individual rights and reflect diversity, equity, and inclusion. The rule of law should be guided by the principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité, applied in a way that respects every community, individual, and citizen considering diversity, equity and inclusion principle without undermining liberties and democratic principles. This is what befits America, the land of freedom, the West, and all of the countries of the world.
If the citizens of developed, more democratic, liberal nations or cultures act more liberal and live with more freedoms, and live the lives that they want in private life, sharing ideas or sexual development/life—which are considered taboo in some other cultures or nations—it is because they are given the opportunity, not stigmatized, not suppressed, and their choices are respected, not the other way around. Risk perception, and the perceived judgmental or stigmatization risk for acting natural, is lower in these settings. As Ferdinand Tönnies defines in his literature through the famous concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, we the people are composed of the accumulation of those communities of societies which all together form the society. Sometimes society pushes diversity outside the group, so those who differ tend to form their own cliques. If they feel isolated, that’s often a social issue. Still, every community should respect and support one another. Five fingers are different from each other, but in the hand they all form a whole, which is society. Therefore while enacting laws & regulations/ business conduct guidelines etc. we should consider all citizens, their expectations, universally accepted norms in an inclusive way holistically. The thing is, in a multicultural setting in the form of salad bowl, melting pot everybody should respect and be nice to one another.
I, as all responsible and good citizens like you, wish that we all live happily and peacefully, with good opportunities, a safety net, and with a quality of life every citizen deserves where mutual understanding and respect is protected/applied, both as a country and as a world where everybody understands and respects each other and nobody harms anybody. We should make our laws in an inclusive way, considering all those factors. That is my sincere thoughts, frankly speaking. And we can have this work and have the progress with hardworking Americans, expatriots, people who trusted in this country/brand and with all world citizens under my leadership. Thank you for your unending support, trust, love and believing in me. We would not achieve that without your love, trust and support. Thank you.
Blame shifting behavior to justify wrongdoings, crimes or mistakes to innocent people to justify some like me, myself only creates confusion, prevents accountability, and delays meaningful solutions. Instead of addressing the actual issue, it targets the wrong person, which is unfair and counterproductive. In the end, blame-shifting may temporarily reduce pressure, but it weakens trust, harms innocent individuals, and makes the real problem even harder to solve. As the old saying goes, “let’s not mix apples and oranges” or in other words "Let's not mix the wheat with the chaff." It is unethical to blame innocent people for things they have nothing to do with. Such behavior is unfair, and in these situations it erodes trust — both in those who make the accusations and in the institutions involved. Fairness, accuracy, and responsibility are essential to maintaining credibility, trust in institutions and public confidence.
Blaming actors, filmmakers, or media creators for fictional content can create a dangerous precedent. It shifts responsibility away from real issues and instead targets those who contribute to cultural and intellectual life. Such accusations may discourage creativity and discourage individuals from exploring meaningful topics. This, in turn, weakens critical thinking, questioning, and open dialogue — all of which are essential for healthy societies. Besides even if cinema or other forms of art is silenced or censored, people still think freely in their own homes. Cinema itself is often just a reflection—a snapshot—of the thoughts, desires, and conflicts that exist in everyday life in several mediums with family/friends/colleagues. It mirrors society, showing what people feel, imagine, and struggle with, even if those ideas are temporarily suppressed on screen. Trying to punish or silence art, violating seperation of powers in law, academia, freedom of speech etc. is often just a coping mechanism for an inferiority complex—a defense of the ego. Those who are secure and free of such complexes have no need to attack, assault or control creative expression, diversity, differences and can preserve their egos with more constructive approaches such as learning a new language, enhancing their skills and qualifications, completing a M.Sc. or Ph.D. degree, having the love and support of public as a leader/citizen and can expect to earn as much and drive the same Ferrari or other car of their choice as other rich people. Maybe luck and god may also help some/them to have the richest life without having to wait these degrees, achievements who knows. There is not a single algorithm, recipe or path for the same finish in life in many cases. Other self defense mechanisms which are classified and considered not dangerous and constructive are rationalization or humor/sarcasm/irony in psychology. For example if a person says that I do not have a PhD or title that is why I can not be promoted and be an executive therefore my salary is lower to by the Ferrari I want with rationalization then completes his/her PhD. get the Dr. title for upper more rewarding career options this is a good example to that one and taking a more constructive, positive approach.
A good captain stays focused on flying the plane safely and leading the crew, regardless of what passengers choose to drink — cappuccino, espresso, americano, tea, or even champagne in an inclusive way with or without any crosswind. ☕✈️ Those preferences are about comfort, not safety. Flight safety depends on discipline, communication, and sound decision-making from the cockpit, not the cabin. Michael Porter’s Five Forces framework is a good example of these “crosswinds” in the literature. It shows how competitive pressure comes from multiple directions — industry rivalry, new entrants, substitutes, supplier power, and buyer power — all influencing strategy at the same time. As in aviation a strong leader keeps priorities clear and never lets distractions affect performance in several set targets set whether in business or in country management as profit, growth, liberty, democratic principles, human rights, labour rights, animal rights, environmental targets, citizen rights, investor rights, business rights, tourist rights, customer rights, environment, health, safety, diversity, equity, inclusion, growing of economy, image targets considering diversity, equity and inclusion principles etc. These days, airlines, countries, and businesses pay closer attention to this, offering more detailed and tailored services to each segment in an inclusive way. For us, each citizen, consumer, individual, segment, each community that all together forms the society, country and world is important. Frankly speaking, that’s the way forward. ✈️🌍
Another important thing I want to mention about is that jealousy can be dangerous when it turns into resentment, harming instead of motivation. I have never wished harm on anyone just because they live better than me or scratched anyone's car because they are living in luxury or driving the most luxury cars, yachts or private jets, or had the powerfull titles and positions that they had ever — on the contrary, I felt happy for them I wish everyone could live the life they dream of, without any lost generations and everybody gets these chances some day. But unfortunately I see some people make these mistakes with the bad feelings that they have. It is a pity. Instead I chose to invest in education, knowledge, and patience, completed my B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D, continued my professional experiences respectfully waiting my turn in life, always for better, starting with my birth, my education inside my family, kindergarden and nursery school. I always believed human life and civilization should be in progress. With the innovations, achievements and constructive reforms all citizens and the next generation should always live better in better conditions. Envying those who succeed or not succeeded yet and harm them — whether they struggled hard or not — is neither constructive nor fair. A healthier approach is to focus on self-improvement, growth, and supporting each other’s success. Hope life and God would give us & next generations all the opportunities we all deserve. Everybody deserves the best of everything which I respect and wish everybody realizes their targets/wishes/dreams one day. We all have stories that are not finished/completed in life yet. So we should always try for better have progress and achieve more as citizens, society, businesses, country and world in accordance with universally accepted norms, contemporary advancements in literature, democratic freedoms, liberties, human rights, animal rights, innovations protecting the environment our cosmos/earth achieving united nations development program and sustainable development targets in an inclusive way but never turn backwards in my opinion. But also let us not forget as one famous poet and thinker Yunus Emre said once upon a time" Let us love one another and be loved, for this world belongs to no one forever.” and As Benjamin Franklin highlighted the importance of Peace, ‘There was never a good war or a bad peace.’” “Life is short! —let’s try to get the best out of what it has to offer.”
Similarly for career choice, to whom with in private life we may have preferences. At the end of the day, people do have the freedom to choose, and that’s crucial. If there are a thousand legal job opportunities, or countless personal relationships, and one doesn’t resonate, then by all means, don’t pursue it apply to these legal 999 options out there among those 1000 legal options if that is what you want. Always chase the opportunities you love and dream the most. As an old saying suggest a person loves the work that he/she does doesn't even feel tired and working even a single day. It is your life therefore I think you should decide and take action in things you want, if that is what you want. (America, We The People, Citizens can elect me as their president as long as they want, that is totally okay and fine with me Thank you very much for your support, love and everything :) It is an honor.) It’s about respecting personal agency—people should feel empowered to decide where they invest their career energy or who they form relationships with. This same respect applies to both realms—if someone has attention and interest, they naturally pursue that career path or that relationship. If a couple has a close relationship, it usually reflects mutual interest and genuine connection. Similarly, when someone works somewhere, same applies, it often shows they have intention, motivation, and a positive attitude toward that role. People naturally move toward what they care about and invest their time and energy where their interest lies. As the one famous American saying goes, if you want a haircut, you should be close to the barber shop, not somewhere else — meaning people position themselves near the opportunities, relationships, and paths they truly want. In both careers and personal/private relationships, interest and intention guide where people choose to be. If you have an interest in medical science, engineering, or becoming a pilot or firefighter, then naturally you place these goals on your list and channel your effort, motivation, and time toward them. Likewise, if your interests lie in economics, academia, politics, cinema, chemistry, or becoming a law enforcement officer or judge, you should focus your studies and energy in those directions and put your objectives/targets, make your wishlist accordingly. People grow in the fields they genuinely care about, and interest often drives commitment, discipline, and success. In short, where your interest lies, your effort follows — and where your effort goes, progress usually comes. It is important how hard you try — the more effort you put in, the closer you get to achieving your goals. Persistence builds skills over time. For example, starting early after kindergarten and nursery school, reading poems, taking part in academical, professional skills development until the age of five, and never giving up can lay a strong foundation for future success as I did in my career growth. Such early dedication helps develop confidence, language ability, and discipline, which later translate into successful public speaking, leadership and communication skills. In short, consistent effort from an early stage often prepares the path for long-term success. In short, we must respect each person’s choices (that all together forms we-the people) and journeys without judgment. You should also never give up in believing in you, take the chances that the life has to offer and try/experience things that you want in life.
In Western societies, the development of performing arts such as ballet, cinema, theatre, and opera has often gone hand in hand with the growth of democracy and freedom of speech. From the royal courts where early ballet emerged, to public theatres that encouraged social debate, the arts gradually became platforms for expressing ideas, questioning authority, and reflecting societal change. Institutions like the Paris Opera helped formalize ballet and opera, while playwrights such as William Shakespeare used theatre to explore political and social themes. Later, cinema pioneers like Charlie Chaplin used film to comment on inequality, power, and human rights. As democratic values expanded across Europe and North America, these performing arts flourished as spaces where artists could freely express ideas, encourage critical thinking, and contribute to open public dialogue, reinforcing the connection between artistic creativity, democracy, and freedom of speech.
We, the people, seek democratic freedoms and liberties—such as freedom of speech and creative expression in daily life and art—along with a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion a right for American dream/similar etc., realizing dreams, promotion to higher rankings regardless of diversities and similarities. Sky should be the only limit for everybody that aims higher and wants to rise. We should never loose our motivation and inner drive for that in life whatever some bad intentioned, bad hearted people say or try to show you. It is therefore both natural and appropriate for representatives and leaders to respond to these expectations by shaping policies and laws accordingly; this is a principled and rightful stance.
A filmmaker who questions the system by raising issues such as corruption, addiction, drug problems, a suppressed political/business leader, an actor or film production company or a fired employee—even when he or she did the job properly, ethical and performs well—is not suggesting that everyone should become addicts or start smoking. It is simply the character set around which the story revolves on stage or screen. These elements serve as narrative tools, not endorsements of negative behavior. There may also be a certain creative power in portraying such roles. Without writing a character like Hamlet, for example, how would one convey the deep messages and inner conflicts expressed through that character on screen?
In democratic environments, freedom of expression and freedom of media should be protected. Constructive criticism, artistic storytelling, and diverse viewpoints help societies grow and evolve. Silencing cinema and media through intimidation or criminalization not only harms artists but also limits public discussion and intellectual progress. Encouraging respectful dialogue and supporting creative freedom remains one of the most ethical and constructive paths forward. If criminalizing or punishing philosophers, thinkers, academics, authors, opinion leaders, political leaders, and artists actually improved a country’s credibility and image, then democratic and developed nations would have adopted such practices as well. However, this is not the case. Countries that prioritize liberties, democracy, and artistic freedom have, in fact, developed and flourished far more successfully.
Attempts to silence free cinema and control scriptwriters, authors, journalists, and academicians etc. pose serious risks to democratic societies because they limit intellectual independence, reduce diversity of ideas, and encourage self-censorship. When certain groups try to influence content through criminilization of innocent civilians, innocent people who did not commit any single crime, financial pressure or restrict who gets represented in politics, cinema, media or in some other area, it can create an uneven, unfair landscape where only a few voices dominate while others remain unheard. If someone penalizes others because their creative art, speeches, mindset, ideas, or lifestyle are different—and attempts to dictate their own lifestyle or ideology to everyone else, regardless of how many people they represent—this is unethical. Today, in the modern world, nobody is truly alone. Frankly speaking, an ideology or lifestyle preference can be shared, accepted or adapted and embraced by millions—even billions—of people. 🌍🤝. This is something some people do not want public to know. To supress these diversities with the power you have or instutions that you control (diversity is a richness for a society) weakens the separation of powers, undermines transparency and accountability, and makes it harder for societies to address real challenges through open dialogue and critical thinking. This can even be defined as an abuse of power when authority is used to impose one ideology or lifestyle over others. We-The People do not want these ranking officialls, decision makers, representatives because they supress them and dictate their thinking, lifestyle. They expect their values, ideas, lifestyles are respected. Otherwise this ruins trust to instutions. Institutions and people who engage in these wrongdoings should correct their mistakes and say they are sorry. This is more constructive, sincere compassionate, right and a good hearted, approach than doing nothing, not correcting the mistakes and let innocent people negatively influenced who does not even have a criminal record and did not commit any crime in their entire life. These cases should be carrefully assesed and evaluated for no innocent person to be influenced negatively. Protecting creative, intellectual freedom and freedom of speech is essential for fairness, balanced representation, democratic stability, and long-term societal progress.
It is wrong to mix humor, irony, sarcasm, or jokes with serious matters—especially when they are used to criminalize someone. Using such “fun” elements in that way reflects intolerance and undermines fairness. So it is always important to differentiate—just like in differential diagnosis. You wouldn’t confuse AIDS with a common flu, or cancer with a simple infection, or cirrhosis with depression. As common wisdom puts it, there’s no “maybe” when answering the question “Are you pregnant or not?”—it’s a clear yes or no. Similarly, if someone uses jokes, speech, paradigm, lens, world view or thoughts, that billions share or like or use samples from real world for enhancing the content and storytelling in speeches or art, this does not make them guilty or criminal, this should not be a reason to criminalize an innocent person in a real democracy. If someone says, “I’m going to jump off the bridge like spider man” and then doesn’t, it’s essentially just a joke—nothing more, nothing less—like a Spider-Man moment where there’s dramatic talk of leaping from a height, but no real action follows. Nobody can say that this person jumped from the bridge and he/she has no behavioral control. And here comes the difference: a good-intentioned people may simply laugh it off, but a bad-intentioned person could even use it to their advantage to make you lose and look bad. And worse, a dictatorial-style with no respect for democracy, freedom of speech, or creative art might even claim that someone who watches Spider-Man, media or innocent citizens who share their idea etc. lacks behavioral control, intelligence, brain, or willpower—using such claims to justify censoring films, wrongdoings, crimes, mistakes and punishing filmmakers and actors. Normally, such actions are driven by those who do not want people to think critically about these topics, sharing the same mindset as those who try to ban philosophy of science classes where critical thinking and questioning are performed. Maybe it is just that some people that have power do not want some ideas to be heard, thought on and discussed on. That is, it. These types of approaches would erode the trust who does these mistakes with abuse of power and to the instutions engaged in this type of wrong behaviors.
Research suggests that leading indicators that leads to wrongdoings, negative behaviors, crimes are multifaceted and not tied to a single factor. Research in criminology and related social sciences consistently indicates that crime and wrongdoing are the outcome of multiple interacting “leading indicators” rather than a single causal factor. Across Scopus-indexed studies, variables such as income inequality, unemployment, under-education, social exclusion, and weakened institutional trust repeatedly emerge as significant predictors, but only in combination and within specific contexts. Similar to a systems-based interpretation often used in strategic social analysis (e.g., Kotler-style macro environmental framing), these factors operate as part of a broader socio-economic ecosystem where structural disadvantage, limited opportunity, and uneven resource distribution interact with individual and situational conditions. Consequently, criminal behavior is best understood as a probabilistic and multi-layered phenomenon shaped by overlapping economic, educational, and social inequalities rather than any isolated determinant.
Peer-reviewed research in criminology, sociology, and behavioral science consistently shows that wrongdoing and criminal behavior are shaped by a complex, multilevel system of interacting determinants rather than any single causal factor. Across Scopus-indexed literature, structural “leading indicators” such as income inequality, unemployment, and under-education operate alongside social-psychological mechanisms including reference group influence, subjective norms, group norms, attitudes, perceptions, preferences, intentions, chosen/referenced opinion leaders. Behavioral intention models further highlight the role of anticipated emotional states (both positive and negative), prior experiences, and situational interest in shaping decision pathways. These are embedded within broader demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status) as well as genetic and environmental predispositions that jointly influence behavioral tendencies. Contemporary evidence therefore supports an integrated framework in which crime emerges from dynamic interactions between structural conditions, social influence processes, cognitive evaluations, and individual biological–environmental factors, making outcomes probabilistic and context-dependent rather than deterministic.
Peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in Scopus and Web of Science (SCI/SCIE journals) consistently indicates that criminal and deviant behavior arises from a complex, multilevel and interacting system of determinants rather than any single causal factor. Empirical studies across criminology, psychology, and behavioral science show that macro-structural conditions such as inequality, unemployment, poverty, and under-education interact with meso- and micro-level psychosocial processes, including reference group influence, subjective and group norms, attitudes, perceptions, preferences, and intentions shaped by chosen/referenced opinion leaders. Behavioral decision-making models further emphasize the roles of past experiences, cognitive evaluations, and anticipated emotional outcomes (both positive and negative) in shaping behavioral intention and action. These mechanisms are embedded within broader demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status), as well as genetic predispositions and environmental exposures, forming an integrated biopsychosocial framework. Accordingly, SCI/SCIE-indexed evidence supports a probabilistic, non-deterministic understanding of criminal behavior emerging from dynamic interactions between structural, social, psychological, and biological factors. But a dictatorial-style with no respect for democracy, freedom of speech, or creative art might even claim that someone who watches Spider-Man, media or innocent citizens who share their idea etc. lacks behavioral control, intelligence, or willpower—using such claims to justify censoring films and punishing innocent citizens, filmmakers, authors, academicians, opininion leaders and actors. In a democracy this would erode trust in instutions, would damage checks and balances also democracy.
If a person or authority labels or tries to penalize an innocent individual as a criminal, or a healthy person as sick/ill—especially under pressure from bad-intentioned, bad hearted individuals seeking to silence or control others with negative feelings—they may carry lasting remorse. A sense of conscience- does not easily fade. It is normal. Such actions also erode trust and damage the credibility of both the individuals/authorities involved and the institutions they represent. But the constructive solution is to be more careful next time to not to make the same mistakes, say sorry if there had been something wrong and try to compensate the negative consequences, time lost etc. rather than blaming/penalizing an innocent person. This would bring trust to these authorities and the institutions and usually more constructive than doing nothing. As a famous saying goes in politics, in a true democracy there are always solutions. But in a dictatorship people may have more limited options. Similarly “Democracies operate with checks, balances, and clear limits of power. In contrast, in dictatorships, if the governing authority has abuse of power, too rigid and not inclusive who does not respect diversity, equity, inclusion, to citizen preferences, choices it can suppress and exert pressure on ‘we the people", their lifestyles, preferences and can make dictations.’” This is not the best solution in a true democracy. The most constructive approach is to carefully analyze the situation or phenomenon and resolve it in a way that prevents negative consequences. If there has been a misunderstanding, it can still be corrected. As a well-known saying goes: “In democracies, solutions are never exhausted”—meaning there is always a path forward for the better.
We should consider every citizen and community, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, birthplace, nationality, religion or belief, language, disability, health status, socioeconomic status, education level, profession, lifestyle, worldview, paradigm, or lens. Our laws and constitution should protect and embrace everybody. Sky should be the only limit for any diversity which is our richness. I hope everybody realizes their targets and live the lives that they want and wish.
A child who grows up and becomes an independent individual should have the freedom to choose their own lifestyle, references, what to like what not to like and career. That freedom must be protected. However, it is not acceptable for others to impose their own ideologies, paradigms, or perspectives in an attempt to dictate how someone else should live or think. A constitution and the rule of law should embrace all citizens—regardless of their choices, lifestyles, or age groups—and ensure equal protection and respect for everyone.
Some people, if given the opportunity, may fail to protect individuals who grow up and choose lifestyles or careers that do not align with their own preferences after passing from childrenship to adultship. When children grows up and become an adult and have the lifestyles, ideas, preferences that they have they say this is a citizen if they are like other citizens they say this is not a citizen, they do not deserve the same rights. This is not acceptable. This undermines the principles of inclusivity and respect. A truly fair and just society must ensure that everyone is free to make their own choices without fear of discrimination or exclusion, and that these choices are protected equally under the law. Unfortunately some expect the president, leader to be the half of the country and half of the citizens but under my administration, leadership, presidency I will be the type of bipartisan president leader who hugs, respects, considers all of his/her citizens, a leader for all. I always believed that a constitution and law should protect all of its citizens, all individuals which all together forms the communities, societies, country and world regardless of differences equally in an inclusive way regardless of diversitites and differences in age, sex, colour, race, life style, life style preference, ideology, work, preferences etc.
Another important topic in work life is that once a project is finished successfully before deadlines, the staff member shouldn’t be held accountable just because they’re not assigned a new project or there is no pending project in the que. Project-based roles can be riskier for staff than ongoing operational jobs because they come with fixed deadlines and uncertainty after completion. Once a project ends, employees may worry about whether a new assignment will follow, which can affect their sense of job security. For fairness, organizations should evaluate performance based on successful delivery and ensure smooth transitions between projects, rather than penalizing staff for gaps , unassigned tasks/projects beyond their control, or completed the projects in deadlines, or duties on time. In all my professional career and academic life no single manager, leader, professor or employee came to me and said you did not finish the assigned task or project in deadline. Not a single uncompleted project or task in deadline, not a single feedback stating such thing. I always worked and did my best to be within the professional, legal boundaries, and meeting the expectations with the qualifications and skills I had. Degrees like B.Sc., M.Sc. Ph.D. etc., doctoral titles (Dr.), global experiences with global giants and multinational companies/organizations in all over the world, countless job offers and successful interview/assessment results, trust in me, is a direct result of that one. Another important topic is that if key performance indicators are set for the country, company or employee, performance measures need to be fair, objective, and tied to real outcomes, smart, measurable, achievable, targeted considering environment health safety and human factor—not used as a weapon for personal or political bias arising from life styles, ideas, political orientation, race or any other diversity. But whether this is a employee performance or sales target this is subjective in nature. If you do a good flight as a captain or do one surgical operation in a day which is a success if performed well without sacrificing from health safety and environment some may consider that low performance because they may want to increase your work load not to hire a new staff. It’s all about ensuring a clear, equitable process. As leaders we should always consider all these factors in accordance with labor law, business conduct guidelines, human factor, health, safety and environment considerations etc. This is the key in employee satisfaction which leads to retention of employees which makes you suceed in the marketplace in business.
A few words in relationships also. Unfortunately, some people try to weaponize ordinary, consensual moments—like sharing a bottle of wine with someone you like or you want to share time with. In reality, if two people are not interested in each other, they do not find something positive about each other they simply wouldn’t choose to meet, spend time together, or share an experience. It’s as simple as that.
Even when individuals approach each other with respect, warmth, and genuine interest, there are still those who resort to underhanded, under the belt tactics. This kind of behavior reflects a lack of tolerance and maturity. As a society, we should respect individuals—whether they are single or in a relationship, regardless of their sexual orientation or the type of relationship they choose or preferences. If there is no mutual connection or attraction, people naturally go their separate ways. Attraction itself is multifaceted. Things like appearance, kindness, style, scent, education, lifestyle, career, posture, thoughts, character, personality, norms, cultures, expectations, intention, attitude with demographical, genetical and environmental factors all play a role in whether people connect. These are natural human dynamics that deserve understanding, not judgment. While some aspects of relationships may still be seen as taboo or interpreted differently across some cultures or by some, we must also acknowledge reality: people have the right to make their own choices about who they spend time with. Respecting those choices—without projecting negativity or creating unnecessary drama—is essential for a more tolerant and empathetic society. People who have no interest, do not see something positive in each other like an attraction or appeal generally don’t date or meet in their private lives in the way that dating or more close intimate relationship seeker couples, partners, companions do; as common wisdom suggests, they tend to remain more reserved or distanced. If two people dedicate time and energy to each other in their private lives in a romantic and intimate, close way, it generally means they are investing in the relationship and have mutual interest, expressed with consent.
The most common reasons for relationship breakdowns and dissatisfaction tend to cluster around a few core areas: unmet expectations in intimacy and sex life, financial stress and inequality, poor communication, lack of emotional support, infidelity, incompatibility in values or life goals, and loss of trust or respect. Beneath these visible issues lie deeper root causes such as mismatched needs and attachment styles, unresolved personal insecurities, unmet expectations, perception differences, differing attitudes toward commitment (whether monogamy or polygamy), and external pressures like work stress or social expectations(peer pressure, cultural pressure, pressure from family, pressure from friends). When intimacy—both emotional, sexual and or physical—declines, or when financial instability creates chronic tension, partners may begin to feel disconnected, undervalued, or uncertain about the future, which gradually erodes satisfaction.
From an analytical perspective, satisfaction plays a central role in shaping loyalty and stability in relationships. When individuals feel fulfilled and satisfied—emotionally, sexually, physically, and materially—they are less likely to seek alternatives, regardless of whether the relationship structure is monogamous or consensually non-monogamous. Conversely, persistent dissatisfaction increases the likelihood of “switching behavior,” where individuals look outside the relationship for unmet needs. This dynamic is influenced not only by personal preferences and values but also by communication quality, fairness in effort and rewards, and alignment in expectations. Ultimately, relationships that actively manage these root causes through transparency, mutual respect, and adaptability tend to maintain higher satisfaction that leads to longer-term stability.
What’s the worst that can happen when you become friends or partners? You might share a drink or two, and if you feel a connection, you may naturally grow closer and more intimate—whether it remains a friendship or develops into a romance as mature, civilized people with your consent, will. Or, depending on your preferences, keep things intimate, more reserved or distant or if that is what you want you may choose not to continue, you both go in your own ways respectfully as mature, civilized people. Everything is 100% consensual, %100 Respectfull and %100 fully legal as a gentleman/gentlewoman :), there is no issue, no complaints and no reason for complaints. Mostly, several compliments stating how kind, handsome, smart and gentleman I was. A proud, clean criminal record in all the 12 countries lived, worked and visited which involves NATO Clearence for working in NATO Projects. Maybe I should also consider to be the nominee for the contemporary Dr. Love, Relationship Consultant spot of 21st century :) who knows...
However, when you become a prominent figure—such as a political leader or a Hollywood star—there may be individuals with bad intentions, bad hearts who are disrespectful and intolerant who thrive on drama and misrepresentation. They may attempt to portray your actions in a misleading way, even when there is nothing inappropriate, illegal or wrong to suppress you, put you under stress and pressure. Hope we do not face these types of challenges in life and concentrate on our friendships, relationships, work and not waste time. Time is money, very important and something we cannot turn back. Life is short. We should be able to get the options, chances it has to offer.
It’s crucial to recognize that some individuals, driven by prejudice, intolerance, or racism, may attempt to manipulate institutions—whether businesses, policymakers, or the public—to suppress innocent people and make people marginalized. This can happen by not giving fair opportunities in accordance with diversity, equity, and inclusion, or by failing to tolerate legal diversities and different lifestyles that exist across the world. Such actions can marginalize people or push them to the edge, leads to integration problems in society. This is not acceptable and the best approach. As a bipartisan leader which value inclusivity diversity, equity who loves humankind, animals, all living beings, and nature, I hug all my citizens, all world citizens, animals, all living beings, nature and our cosmos, planet, world and want to thank god and all who supported, loved, valued and believed in me⚖️🌍🤝. Thank you Thank you.
There is nothing wrong with loving your nation, culture, customs and traditions, religion, race, ideas, speeches, beliefs, sexual orientation, preferences, lifestyle, lifestyle choices, preferences or the differences that make you, that makes you distinct in some cases and forms your character. We all do the same. ❤️ These are part of identity and diversity, and they enrich societies. This is something needed to be respected.🌍. However, if someone injures, kills, penalizes, suppresses, diversities, opinions, speeches, art, lifestyles, another person because of negative feelings related to these differences to make dictations etc., that is not acceptable. ❌ Such actions cross the line from personal belief into harm, and they undermine respect, coexistence, and basic human dignity. These tactics thrive on fear and the collective inertia that can arise when mistakes from the past are weaponized. However, we must resist the urge to perpetuate these cycles. If someone acknowledges a mistake and expresses genuine remorse, that is not a sign of weakness—it is a profound strength. Conversely, to treat someone as guilty without due process, supress them especially when they’ve shown growth, is not only unjust—it undermines the very fabric of a fair society.
A good man with a good character and attitude with no wrongdoing. A true gentleman who likes to enjoy life. A proud, clean criminal record in all the countries lived, worked and visited which involves NATO Clearence for working in NATO Projects.
Always builds/builded his close personal relationships, friendships with volunteered, motivated, kind, trusted people on a voluntary, consensual basis in a respectful way in his private life while trying to be a loved, respected, trusted, democratic, effective, innovative, visionary leader, who respects, considers and values different perspectives, for all, WeThePeople, our distinguished citizens.
If a constitution or laws in a democracy cannot protect an individual’s right to think, sexual life, what to eat, drink, wear, speak, create films, work, travel, career choice, choosing the place to live and live their private life, buying or consuming the goods and services without discrimination— lving their private life including their relationships and personal choices—while peacefully walking in the street or spending time with friends, then what is it meant to protect in a democratic system? At its core, a democratic constitution exists to safeguard precisely these fundamental freedoms and human dignity. Without such protections, the very foundation of democracy—liberty, autonomy, and the rule of law—loses its meaning.
For my speeches, thinking, publications, creative arts and scripts, I rely on the principles of freedom of speech, expression, and thought that the constitution guarantees. I have not received any direction from a legal authority requiring me to change or censor my work, speeches, thinking, publications, creative arts , scripts, character, life style or behavior in my entire life. However, if I were to receive such guidance/direction, I would have certainly made and would certainly make the necessary adjustments/changes and if needed, self-censor or modify the storyline/scripts/publications/speeches etc. make the requested changes to avoid any legal issues, negative consequences or misunderstandings. Thank you for your understanding.
Similarly, If my productions, speeches etc. are censored or some scenes are edited to comply with local regulations or the standards of broadcasting and publishing companies, I understand and respect those decisions as well. This technique is applied in several regions and countries in the world. I respect the decision of publishers, broadcasting companies and legal authorities in any way in any country. Thank you for your understanding.
I am as innocent as a single water drop—pure and untainted. Across the thirteen countries I’ve visited so far, I have no criminal record, no wrongdoing whatsoever. My past is spotless; no baggage, no accusations. Maybe I fell asleep in front of the TV couple of times after I turned tired from work or forgot to put my mobile phone charger couple of times but that is it :). I think that is not a big deal and compassionate, understanding people with a warm/good heart would understand that :). Can you believe it? Not a single complaint has ever been lodged against me—not to my face, nor to any authority. And as a result, in all these thirteen countries, I stand completely clean. This is the reality—I am innocent, and I have never committed a crime. This is simply the truth. On the contrary I have always heard Compliments that stated how gentleman and kind I was. As a person who believes in diversity, equity, inclusion believe I should be able to similar/same chances and considered like other citizens.
If you can sell the master copy of a production in art/literature alike—along with product placements, endorsements, and everything else—this is a legitimate business model that we all need to respect. All businesses operate for profit, and these are the goods and services provided by art producers, authors and creative artists, which deserve equal respect. So, if all businesses ask for payment for the goods and services they provide, then artists and creators should also have the chance to set up their own businesses, create opportunities, and be both employers and employed within the creative economy. This also contributes to the economy and GDP. grow the economy, creates jobs. These creative professionals whether this is a book, cinema, theatre or other form pay taxes just like other businesses, generate employment, and add value through their goods and services. In this way, they are beneficial to their countries and citizens, just like any other business.
Companies can also boost revenue through sideline work product expansion, channel expansion, market expansion, brand expansion. If a business can successfully offer its products or services—whether it’s a biscuit, consultation, or haircut—across multiple sales channels, it strengthens growth and market reach. Similarly, employees and businesses may engage in responsible sideline work, provided they can manage it effectively without compromising quality, ethics, or their primary responsibilities if they can manage all those responsibilities. This kind of diversification encourages productivity, innovation, and additional economic contribution.
I wished each citizen had money-printing machines, and no one needed to ask each other for money for the goods and services they consume (maybe in the worst case that would lead to chaos, inflationary pressures and a dissatisfaction complaints of citizens in many areas while other predictions, projections, guesses can also be made for best case and average case scenarios as well). But even in that case or I'll be so rich that I see myself in the pages of Time magazine and Forbes, I would still love working and many people would have still loved me as in the past. I love serving as a president and a leader, and I love “we the people.” If we the people elect me, I will, with honor and love, serve as President of the United States in this case also. There is nothing we cannot achieve together with you—hardworking, dedicated, kind, and smart people.✨
The best economic model appears to be a balanced system—one that combines the dynamism of capitalism, offering many choices in the market, with a strong social state that provides safety nets such as universal basic income and unemployment support. It is a system where people have fair opportunities, roads open for them in promotion, upskilling and advancement, and where everyone can live, think, and love according to their own preferences and freedom.
If some bad hearted, intolerant people try to criminalize a person — whether a Hollywood star, a leader, a citizen who is innocent — simply to make them seem bad or put him/her in a bad position, to suppress or dictate their own ideology, lifestyle then you are, in effect, dismissing or undermining the judgment of billions of people: decision-makers, fans, and supporters who respect and care about that individual. Such broad generalizations risk unfairly stigmatizing not just one person, but also those who legitimately support them, value them, respect them, love them, choose them, elect them. This is unfair, unacceptable, unjust and unethical. A person’s worldview, lens, how perceive things or paradigm does not make anyone a criminal or guilty simply because others agree or disagree with it. I believe there are billions of people think like me and have similar preferences, lifestyles who trust and value me. Thank you all. It means a lot to me. A civilized person would simply say they agree or disagree. If they do not agree, that’s it — they listen to each other and consider different perspectives respectfully. That is true democracy that is true civilization.
Maybe it is just that some people don’t want western style freedom of speech or a Western-type lifestyles that are accepted and respected globally—where everybody can speak openly and solutions are found together—but instead prefer a dictatorship-style system where other voices are silenced and different preferences and lifestyles are suppressed only dictations of some are allowed through wrongdoing, abuse of power, and dirty tactics. That is it.
Silencing people by showing and talking about something else, a guilt, a crime, filming and storytelling something else a guilt, crime, is one of the dirtiest tactics of dictatorships. Even if they say, hard truths are chilly, pepper is also chilly, therefore pepper is chilly, actually there are chili peppers and sweet peppers. Similarly, this banana logic does not work for every case: monkeys eat bananas and humans eat bananas too, but saying humans are monkeys has no sense and is not realistic. We should always strive to develop our democracy, expanding freedoms and liberties, and ensuring our laws are inclusive—respecting diversity, equity, and inclusion. At the same time, we must adopt advanced laws and modern constitutions that align with our Western values. However, we must never resort to the kind of laws typical of a banana republic. Our citizens, world citizens, all living beings, nature, our planet world deserve first class laws that protects liberties, they deserve first class developed democracies, they deserve the best of everything.
People sometimes, because of misinterpretations and biases, can see others as guilty even if they are innocent in the real case. Similarly, speaking is not driving a car, and smoking is not playing basketball; likewise, drinking milk is not singing. Similarly if you do not like someone and do not trust someone because he does a different lifestyle that billions have in all over the world that does not necessarily mean that this person will commit a crime in the future or commited a crime in the past. Until proven guilty, everyone is innocent. No one is considered a criminal before committing a crime and be kept captive or under custody in any form for any suspicion. This is one of the most important basic principles of law what we see in countries that apply advanced law. There must be evidence of a crime—like a body or clear proof—before someone can be convicted. So, if the corpus delicti isn't found, everyone is considered innocent. Fabricated witnesses or false evidence can completely derail justice, and it's really important that legal systems have safeguards against that—so both in practice and in law, we have to be vigilant about those risks. "If the body of the crime is not found, everyone is presumed innocent." This keeps that legal nuance intact. If a crime has not been committed, everyone is presumed innocent. If someone tortures, assaults, or harasses another person in order to force them into a false confession—essentially criminalizing them—to show them criminal, negative, guilty to justify their wrongdoings then the person being coerced is still innocent. If this person is innocent, they remain innocent. The real criminal is the one who tortures, assaults, harasses, and manipulates them—that person is the true offender. Torture is a grave crime under international law. It is absolutely forbidden and constitutes a serious violation of human rights. Anyone who engages in torture is committing a fundamental injustice and a severe breach of legal and moral standards. For centuries, in dictatorship styles, they showed freedom of speech, speaking and talking, sharing your ideas, as something else, a crime, a shame, guilt in order to silence and suppress free media, artistic expression, academia, authors, opinion leaders, and philosophers in some geographies, with abuse of power and by controlling some mediums. This is unethical. But this is rare and no longer exists in many areas where democracy, freedom of speech, and liberties exist. Ideas are subjective in nature shaped by paradigms, lenses and world views saying something good or bad does not make somebody criminal or guilty. Gaining weight may carry certain health risks, and excessive alcohol consumption can also be harmful. Some may prefer to sing, some may party a lot with girls or boys. Some may have another life style or preference. However, drawing broader conclusions about a person’s character, competence, or qualifications based on such lifestyle factors, characteristic traits, ideas that he/she shares often reflects misinterpretations and personal biases rather than objective judgment. If someone, due to bias or misperception, assumes that a person cannot be a good president, is unqualified for a job, or is incapable of delivering an effective public speech or in any other area simply because of a different lifestyle or a perceived negative trait, that conclusion is not necessarily valid. A person can still be trustworthy, capable, and fully qualified despite the negative perceptions held by some.
When we talk about equity, inclusion, diversity, and equal opportunity—whether in employment or other aspects of life—we ensure that a middle-income person or a person coming from a middle income family, born in a particular place or facing certain challenges, still has a chance to dream big—to achieve the American Dream of becoming a president, a senator, a business leader, businessman, rich, a successful professional. We must provide these equal opportunities so everyone can take a step forward. But at the end of the day, we also respect the decisions of the citizens and the decision-makers. In a democracy, everyone has the chance to be elected, chosen, and trusted— elect, choose, trust and we honor that process.
Even in some cases, some bad intentioned individuals who does not have compassion at all with abuse of power or bad intentions may even resort to tricks, manipulation, or deceptive schemes—what might be described as deceit or trickery and a setup, plot, or conspiracy to marginalize or disadvantage those who are different. Such behavior contradicts the foundations of a just and democratic society. This is also unacceptable. I think if decision makers, citizens, we the people want to see me as their leader in good positions we should respect that. If there is no double standards, diversity, equity, inclusion, everybody has a chance to dream, like the we have in American Dream, these roads/doors/options should be open for everybody. Otherwise we should not have succeeded that without your unending support, love, trusting and believing in me. Sky is for everybody. I wish everyone could live the life they dream of, without any lost generations and everybody gets these chances that they wish and want some day. But even in these situations electors, citizens, decision makers can give some candidates a priority based on their assessment which I deeply respect in accordance with democratic freedoms and liberties. But I believe with a Ph.D., a world class education I received, titles like Dr., international global experiences in global giants, multinational organizations, conglomerates and countless working hours, distinguished experiences, if decision makers/citizens find me valuable and a good option, consider me that is something I also respect and agree. I am honored. Thank you very much. We would not have succeeded without your love, support, dedication, hard work and believing in me. Thank you Thank you.
You know, nothing harmful happens simply when you think or when you speak, watch a movie, read a book, go to a theatre or listen opera or talks of an opinion leader political leader. In fact, freedom of speech is essential for democracies. It fosters neuroplasticity in the brain and expands our intellectual capacities, capabilities. For maybe centuries, you know, no one was killed or died just for reading a book, watching a movie, or attending an opera, listening to a person with respect. But the people who created these works—artists, political leaders, authors—were so skilled at writing and telling stories on these artistic platforms. They were better than the bigoted people around them. And so, some of them were silenced—some were punished, assaulted, harassed, suppressed, pressured, tortured, imprisoned, or even killed. But the people who read these stories, they grew—they advanced, enhancing their skills. Their neuroplasticity increased, their intellectual capacities, capabilities increased. They became more qualified—promoted to better jobs. These authors, artists, academics, and political leaders—they tried to be silenced, through assassination, imprisonment, or even violence. Maybe the countries and systems that allowed these freedoms—these freedoms of expression and creativity—became the superpowers, the developed nations. And the others, well, they didn’t develop as much. Maybe that really is the true story. You know, maybe that’s the real truth—maybe that is the real story.
With the support of businesses, political leaders, governments, all nations, and their citizens—along with their trust, love and respect—if you are not elected, doubts naturally arise. You begin to question whether the vote or election was fair or maybe some votes are stolen, are the vote ballots in the officialy allowed spaces where it is supposed to be in accordance with rule of law? or what as it was written in some media outlets someplace wrong—wondering if the trust was lost. And sometimes, to justify that fall, some bad hearted people may or will exploit women, children, or religion alike—using them as tools to justify corruption, wrongdoing or not respecting, treating bad to others, if occurred. In these moments, you’re left with fear and suspicion, always asking yourself, “How could I not be elected, even when the whole world supports me? But in a fair election system where the system is inclusive respects diversity, equity, inclusion protects the rights of everybody with full transparency and accountability. That would not happen at all. What I mean is, we need to ensure a fair, transparent, and accountable voting system—one where every vote is accurately counted and the process is fully visible. At the same time, we should consider online voting, provided it remains transparent, secure, and trustworthy for convenience for all our citizens. If there is nothing wrong with this scenario, without sacrifing from election security, integrity we need to consider safe online voting systems that rely on three tiered architectures based on current technological advances, making sure every citizen feels confident in the integrity of the process in parallel to conventional safe election systems and methods.
In the film industry, in theater or in any other form of art or life where people share stories with narratives, it’s important to understand that even when some portray bad characters, share their ideas it doesn’t mean that the filmmaker, the actor, the character or a political leader etc. themselves are endorsing crime or wrongdoing. But in art, on stage or in real life off stage I also, always try/tried to take good characters. But It’s just part of the storytelling—there are both good and bad characters in life, and they exist to enhance the narrative. The concept of good and bad is also inherently subjective. It depends on the audience’s own filtering and decoding mechanisms, not just on the actors who perform the roles or on the real-life individuals. It’s shaped by how people interpret and engage with art, both on stage and off. Even if we center law enforcement officers, government officials, and other public figures in the script, we write the script with distinguished law enforcement officers, distinguished governmental officers and distinguished professors/world citizens from every walk of life respecting a creative art and freedom of speech there will always be people—some who love the story and some who don’t. That’s just part of it. We respect that. But within a free democracy, we have to respect people’s choices. Everyone has a remote control—some will change the channel, some will stay—and that’s okay. If the story wins over the audience, that’s a positive thing, and it elevates the movie as a true piece of art. At the end of the day, people choose their own characters. They decide what to believe and what not to believe, and they shape the roles they play in real life through their own filtering mechanisms, free will, and behavioral choices. It’s not the movie stars, political figures, leaders, artists, visionaries, or authors who define them—it’s the audience who gives life to these characters off the stage. In the end, everyone uses their own decoding and filtering, choosing what to believe and how to act in the real world, their character, behaviors, life style even if they see this in a cinema, theatre, opera, ballet, other form of art, read in a book, or in any other place. The so-called "bad characters" aren’t simply the roles played on screen that drive the narrative. Instead, perhaps the real villain is a dictatorship-style authority or the people who want that or push the authorities for dictatorship and suppressions that seeks to suppress freedom of art, diverse lifestyles and speech who have never heard of democracy, liberty, diversity, equity inclusion. Maybe some people see certain things as right for themselves, but not for others. Perhaps that’s the thing. Each person’s perspective is shaped by their own values, experiences, and context, and that shapes what they see as right or wrong. They invert the truth, trying to portray these champions of good as the villains—discrediting them, casting them as the enemy, simply because they don’t want these true heroes in our society. Maybe some of the so-called "bad characters" aren’t the bad characters at all at the end of the day. Instead, perhaps the real villain is a dictatorship-style authority that seeks to suppress freedom of art and speech. They invert the truth, trying to portray these champions of good as the villains with abuse of power or some who pushes some authorities to violate their basic human, citizen, individual rights who are not mature enough and intolerant for other perspectives, freedom of speech, diversities, different cultures, preferences, lifestyles.—discrediting them, casting them as the enemy, simply because they don’t want these true heroes in our society. Maybe that is the real story. Maybe that’s the truth underneath it all. The real conflict isn’t just on the screen; it’s about those who try to control the narrative, distort the truth, and silence the voices that truly matter. But there was something that they did not know, we the people knew how to create these heroes and these heroes were there for a reason loved by billions who love them. Maybe the world, our planet needed that hero and that hero needed the world and all world citizens. One for all, all for one :) Thank you Thank you.
A smart nation invites both expatriate talent, immigrant talent and local talent, offering them the best opportunities preserving democracies and liberties. It says, "Work with us, contribute your skills, and together we become more competitive and stronger. Our society is better with you. Thank you for your services to our society and the world" In contrast, others may try to silence, suppress, or punish them even discredet criminalize—leading to issues of curtailed freedom and human rights. The more constructive, intelligent approach, however, is the one embraced by many developed nations that see this difference. For example, if we silence the people—those who create, who think critically, who innovate: the philosophers, the academics, the visionaries—then how can society progress? How can a nation move forward? Without them, we lose progress. This is not good. We must never penalize those who push boundaries, who drive us forward—helping the nation, society, world and civilization advance. Instead we should give them the opportunities and chances for them to utilize their skills and reward them which is a win for everybody in the long term for businesses, for academia, for art, for politics, for society, civilation, nature, all living beings and world.
As the old saying goes, the tree that bears fruit is the one that gets stoned. Maybe some people are still in this mode. Yet this is hardly the most respectful or constructive response—jealousy and envy rarely lead to anything good. As another proverb reminds us, the apple usually falls close to the tree; people who grow up in good environments and among good individuals, educated theirselves good having good qualifications and direct their efforts in constructive areas tend to reach good places, and they are not associated with wrongdoings and harms even if there may be exemptions. Studies also show that when education increase and unemployment decrease crime rates and wrongdoings less likely to occur. Likewise, one should not hesitate to go where they are invited, but should not appear where they are not. And although it is often said that a candle cannot light its own base, I believe that it can—and perhaps it should.” As a leader, president, special envoy, businessman, academician and prominent figure), hollywood star (just to name a few :) that have too many fans, supporters and lovers I consider all people and try to be the president of everybody. Thank you all.
If we want our laws to be inclusive, we can’t silence anyone otherwise how you will discuss each topic, listen to every perspective and find a common solution that will satisfy each citizen and individual? Everyone should be able to express their ideas, and we must work together to find solutions. The real danger, though, not speaking or sharing your ideas, perspectives in a friendly way— people who do not have behavioral control and anger management who injures, harms or even kills someone—that’s the real problem. Otherwise, speaking or thinking freely, making art, films, theatre, opera, writing books, listening them, watching them, reading them is not an issue that would do anything negative to anybody. It would enhance your neuroplasticity and intellectual abilities. Whatever people watch in films or read in newspapers and the media, every citizen has a brain, intelligence, behavioral control and their own decoding mechanisms. Based on these mental filters, they process messages; if something resonates, they accept it; if not, they reject it. Similarly, when they choose opinion leaders, they rely on these same filters. If they agree with the leader’s views, they accept them as truth; otherwise, they simply filter them out. This is a crucial mechanism of how we decode messages. Even if they try to ban free media and cinema, which undermines checks and balances, people still share information. They talk, they deliberate, and they make decisions. Films, after all, reflect real-life narratives on screen. And even if films are censored, in real life, people still discuss these issues—in pubs, cinemas, cafés, and at home. So censorship doesn’t stop people from reflecting and deciding. As philosophers and philosophers of science argue, knowledge emerges from questioning, thinking, and engaging in dialogue. Even if they suppress cinema and media, they can't stop people from thinking and questioning. So, if you discuss these issues with your friends and family, and as a political leader, actor, or scriptwriter, you speak to your audience as if they were your friends and family without any issue, then there should not be a problem. Inside a community, family, friend group everybody should listen to each other express their opinions in a respectful civilized way. A respectful person will listen—because, ultimately, speaking with sincerity and respect fosters understanding.
If I had credible information or intelligence that someone was going to harm innocent people, all living beings, environment and our planet world I would, as a responsible citizen with civic duty, immediately report that information to law enforcement officers so no one would be hurt with precautions taken. And, you know, if such a crime were occurring, then they could also take action in the crime scene and caught the criminal redhanded. Frankly speaking, this is the case as a person with civic responsibility wants nobody to be hurt, I feel it's my duty to step up in this way. But I did not have this type of information in my entire life and do not have this type of information.
Information is power, and it must be used ethically. The analysis of data collected from various sources—whether we call it marketing intelligence, business intelligence, or research data—provides a crucial advantage. Students, Professors, organizations, businesses, social media giants, financial institutions, ecommerce giants—all of them gather and analyze information. We are living in the information age, and this provides a definite competitive edge for organizations. But it must always be used ethically. In short, information is now one of the most vital assets in our world today. We are living in the information age, and information should be used to protect all citizens—individuals, their democratic freedoms, liberties, consumer rights, rights of businesses (such as film companies etc.) and human rights etc.—not to harm any person, individual, tourist or jeopardize them or unethically to be used to criminalize, penalize innocent people or discredit them. Some bad intentioned people can do these for you to loose elections or damage you but a responsible intelligence agency with the highest ethics should never do that. In this way if there is a set up conspiracy to an actor, film maker, author academician, citizen, tourist or alike that somebody want to silence and unwanted consequences or negative things, crimes that may occur can be prevented right in time. In my view, what needs to be done by responsible intelligence agencies , governments, law enforcement officers—those who process these kinds of Information for centuries—is to ensure that it is used ethically. A country who protects its citizens all over the world has a good image and a good place and sympathy in the heart of all of its citizens which would give this country a competitive edge with a good image in the global arena. This is, frankly, what defines an ethical intelligence agency and an ethical country. I think everybody and all countries pays attention to these sensitivities that the citizens, individuals want and expect from them not to erode trust in institutions and country image.
A few words on freedom of speech and inclusivity also. Suppressing freedom of speech, several life styles with noninclusive laws— is a real problem. We need to ensure that our laws don’t cater just to the majority or just to the minority only, but rather address every citizen holistically considering both majority and minority parties covering/considering all, each citizen, individual, in a multifaceted, inclusive holistic way. Otherwise, the law becomes the tool of the powerful; if there is no checks and balances and separation of powers and autonomous media, law, academia, law even if some decision makers with abuse of power commits crimes or do wrong doings innocent, victims cannot get their compensations, rights in this setting where rule of law, law and constitution remain exclusive and fails to encompass each individual and every citizen not meeting expectations of all citizens. This may harm the equity, inclusion and diversity.
Diversities in lifestyle, ideas, birthplace and race etc. are not the only — nor the decisive — factors in successfully performing a job. Whether in sports, academia, politics, cinema, business, leadership, or even the presidency, merit should be based on capability, performance, and integrity. Tying merit solely to birthplace or lifestyle is neither constructive nor realistic. We should form our laws in a more inclusive way that provides diversity, equity, inclusion after the transformations that were driven with the foundation of jet engine, collaborations and globalization. As equal-opportunity employers and opportunity providers, we should evaluate everyone fairly and inclusively before appointing, electing, or selecting someone for a position. But even in these situations electors, citizens, decision makers can give some candidates a priority based on their assessment which I deeply respect in accordance with democratic freedoms and liberties. But I believe with a Ph.D., a world class education I received, titles like Dr., international global experiences in global giants, multinational organizations, conglomerates and countless working hours, distinguished experiences, if decision makers/citizens find me valuable and a good option, consider me that is something I also respect and agree. I am honored. Thank you very much. We would not have succeeded without your love, support, dedication, hard work and believing in me. Thank you Thank you.
Countries classified as developed are often those that have strengthened civil liberties, democratic institutions, and freedom of speech, while continuously implementing constructive reforms that enhance governance, innovation, and social inclusion. As indicated in AI, Amartya Sen argues in Development as Freedom that political freedoms and civil liberties are central components of development, not merely outcomes of economic growth. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson show in Why Nations Fail that inclusive political institutions—such as democracy, rule of law, and freedom of expression—are strongly associated with long-term economic prosperity. Empirical indicators from Freedom House and World Bank also demonstrate correlations between democratic governance, civil liberties, and higher levels of human development and income. Seymour Martin Lipset (1959) — In Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy, Lipset finds a positive correlation between economic development and democratic stability. Robert J. Barro (1996) — Shows a positive relationship between rule of law, democracy, and growth in Democracy and Growth. Ronald Inglehart & Christian Welzel (2005) — In Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, they show positive correlations between human development, freedoms, and democratic institutions. United Nations Development Programme Human Development Reports show positive correlation between human development and political freedoms (AI-ChatGPT, 2026).
Peer-reviewed empirical research indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in political economy, institutional economics, and development studies consistently shows that liberal democratic governance—defined by rule of law, separation of powers, checks and balances, and protection of citizen rights—is strongly associated with improved long-run economic performance, human development, and institutional efficiency. Cross-country econometric evidence indicates that democracies tend to exhibit higher levels of investment security, stronger property rights enforcement, and reduced corruption, which together enhance productivity, lower structural unemployment, and support sustained economic growth. These institutional features improve the allocation of resources by increasing accountability and predictability in policymaking, thereby strengthening labor market outcomes and overall development indicators such as HDI.
Further SCI/SCIE-indexed studies emphasize that democratic systems, through institutional constraints and inclusive governance mechanisms, reduce policy volatility and improve governance quality, which in turn supports stable macroeconomic environments conducive to entrepreneurship and innovation. The presence of civil liberties and judicial independence is associated with more efficient public service delivery, better education and health outcomes, and stronger human capital formation. Within this literature, the observed relationship between democracy and development is primarily explained through institutional channels—such as accountability, transparency, and enforcement of contracts—rather than cultural or media-related factors. Accordingly, the convergent evidence across Scopus-indexed and SCI/SCIE literature supports the conclusion that liberal democratic institutions enhance economic growth, reduce unemployment, and improve human development through structured governance mechanisms and institutional stability.
If I hug someone, it’s because I love humans, and if I celebrate with someone, it’s because I care for them and like them and this is %100 consentual natural and humanistic. But some bad hearted intentioned people try to twist this into something negative who wants drama. They dislike who share their opinions, children, teenagers, elderly, straight people, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of colors, different races, ethnicities, individuals of society, citizens or anyone who parties, drinks alcohol, or lives a lifestyle they don’t approve of—whether that’s secular or conservative not me. They have a problem with loving people as they are not me. But you know, if you don’t love someone, you don’t hug them, or party with them and you don’t join them in these celebrations. This is about mutual consent, and people appreciate that. So, what’s the big deal? The truth is, those who dislike sharing their opinions, children, teenagers, elderly, straight people, people of colors, different races, ethnicities, LGBTQ+ individuals, individuals of society, citizens or anyone who parties, drinks alcohol, or lives a lifestyle they don’t approve of, their clothing, style—whether that’s secular or conservative. — What is worse is some of these bad hearted people try to portray me in a negative light in order to justify their own wrongdoings and harmful behaviors. In doing so, they obscure and distort the truth, because the real issue is their inability to love and respect others. People who do so simply don’t know how to respect others love different cultures, ideas, preferences, life styles, members who forms our societies and world. Their issue is with loving and respecting to others, differences, diversities not with me.
If someone is inclined to commit a crime, they wouldn’t wait until they earned a M.Sc., PhD or became a global leader, a Hollywood star, or a corporate giant, a rewarding career, or a live movie production that everybody watches. If a person is already predisposed to illegal behavior, they would commit crimes at any stage, regardless of their success waiting so long. However, once these individuals who have a clean criminal record who did not commit any crime at all anyway do become famous or reach positions of influence, they may be targeted—framed or accused—not because the crimes suddenly emerged, and there is any crime or wrongdoing but as a deliberate tactic of control. In authoritarian systems, this criminalization is used to silence them, discredit them, and keep them in check. That is so clear and this is unacceptable.
Peer-reviewed empirical literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in economics, political economy, and development studies consistently finds that liberal democratic institutions—characterized by rule of law, protection of civil liberties, electoral accountability, and institutional transparency—are positively associated with higher long-run economic growth and improved human development outcomes. Cross-country econometric studies show that democracies tend to achieve better governance quality, stronger property rights protection, and lower corruption, which together reduce transaction costs and improve investment efficiency, thereby supporting sustained reductions in unemployment and increases in productivity. Furthermore, institutional stability and inclusive political participation are linked to more efficient allocation of human capital through improved education access and labor market flexibility, which enhances overall development performance.
Additional SCI/SCIE-indexed research also indicates that democratic governance and civil liberties contribute indirectly to economic resilience by fostering innovation, information transparency, and adaptive policymaking in response to shocks. In contrast, authoritarian constraints on information flow and political participation are associated with higher policy volatility and misallocation of resources over time. Within endogenous growth and institutional economics frameworks, liberty and democratic accountability improve incentive structures for entrepreneurship, foreign direct investment, and skill formation, which collectively contribute to lower structural unemployment and higher human development indices (HDI). Accordingly, the convergence of evidence across Scopus-indexed and SCI/SCIE literature supports the conclusion that liberal democracy is statistically correlated with stronger economic performance and broader human development outcomes through multiple reinforcing institutional channels.
Peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in political science and institutional economics consistently indicates that political suppression—characterized by constraints on civil liberties, restricted freedom of expression, weak rule of law, and limited electoral accountability—is strongly associated with authoritarian governance and reduced institutional quality. Foundational institutional theories such as North (1990) emphasize that when constraints on executive power are weak and information flows are restricted, governance systems tend to drift toward rent-seeking behavior, corruption, and centralized control, which are key structural features of dictatorship. Empirical cross-country studies further show that reductions in press freedom and civic participation are correlated with weaker checks and balances, lower transparency, and diminished governmental accountability (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2012), reinforcing the institutional conditions under which authoritarian regimes persist.
In contrast, SCI/SCIE-indexed comparative political research (e.g., Przeworski et al., 2000; Sen, 1999) demonstrates that democracies tend to be sustained through institutionalized competition, protection of civil liberties, and open information environments, which collectively reduce the likelihood of sustained suppression. Sen (1999) argues that political freedoms are both intrinsic and instrumental to development, as they enable public reasoning, accountability, and correction of policy failures through civic feedback mechanisms. Accordingly, the convergence of evidence across Scopus-indexed literature supports the conclusion that systematic suppression of speech and civic freedoms is not a stabilizing force but rather a central characteristic of authoritarian or dictatorial systems, while democratic resilience depends on maintaining pluralism, institutional checks, and open public discourse.
Peer-reviewed literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals in comparative politics and institutional economics generally finds that restrictions on freedom of speech and civic participation are associated with lower institutional legitimacy, reduced government accountability, and increased likelihood of political instability over time, rather than sustained stability. Foundational work by Sen (1999) and subsequent empirical studies in political economy emphasize that information openness and civil liberties function as corrective mechanisms that allow societies to detect policy failures early, reducing the risk of unresolved grievances accumulating into systemic tensions. Similarly, Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) argue that when inclusive institutions are weakened and political voice is constrained, states become more prone to elite capture, social dissatisfaction, and long-term instability dynamics.
Further SCI/SCIE-indexed comparative research (e.g., Przeworski et al., 2000; Davenport, 2007) shows that repression of civil liberties may produce short-term compliance but often increases latent societal tensions by reducing legitimate channels for expressing grievances, thereby shifting conflict from institutional resolution toward informal or disruptive forms. In contrast, democratic systems with protected freedom of expression tend to convert social disagreement into managed pluralism, where competing views are processed through institutional mechanisms such as elections, courts, and public deliberation. Accordingly, the scholarly consensus does not support the idea that suppression of speech stabilizes democracy; rather, it indicates that durable stability is more strongly associated with institutionalized openness, accountability, and protected civil liberties within democratic governance structures.
In the long run, we need a culture that prioritizes accountability, but also one that allows for redemption and learning. When we respond to errors with openness, compassion, and a commitment to justice, we break free from the cycles of suppression. This is how we build a future where no one is unjustly punished, and everyone has a chance to move forward with dignity. When we say we are sorry for the mistakes we make and correct them and say sorry it is not a weakness it is true strength and more constructive.
When a business, decision makers or workers fails to deliver quality goods or services, put people in a bad situation and the customer/tourist/citizen responds by taking their business elsewhere—often called switching behavior mostly in consumer behavior and alike—the customer, tourist or the citizen who makes a switch considering other options is never at fault. In these situations, the business , decision makers, workers must take responsibility. A simple "I'm sorry" paired with a money-back guarantee and a robust customer retention policy or not putting the citizen/tourist in a bad situation, blaming or victimizing them by taking corrective actions isn't just a gesture or weakness—it's a sign of integrity and true strength. We should all not make mistakes, if some mistakes happened we should correct them with corrective actions and let innocent people not to be negatively influenced. This is the true strength more constructive and better than not correcting the mistakes & blaming someone innocent. It shows the customer/citizen/tourist that their trust matters and that the business and decision makers are willing to learn and improve. We should write those learnings in lessons learned portals/ documentations/ archives, learn from them and make, plan trainings on those for similar injustices, wrongdoings, victimizations not to occur again. As a result this would be remembered as a good progress, achievement for the human kind, country and the world in history.
On the other hand, if a company/ decision makers/ workers/representatives refuses to apologize not correct similar wrong doings or worse, tries to blame and victimize the customer/citizen/tourist for the breakdown, it not only damages trust—it erodes the entire brand reputation whether this is a country or business. Customers/citizens/tourists remember being dismissed or unjustly blamed and victimized, and that kind of mistreatment can ripple outward, costing far more in the long run than a sincere, proactive solution ever would.
This is similar in marketing and business. Customer satisfaction builds trust, and trust leads to loyalty. Loyal customers stay longer, recommend you to others, and increase customer lifetime value over time. Chasing short-term gains by cutting corners or making unfair decisions can damage that relationship. Focusing on quality, fairness, and consistency creates sustainable success in the long run. This means growing companies, more jobs, lower unemployment numbers and more taxes & GDP/GDP per capita for the country which means a better flexibility in providing better public/governmental services, safety nets (maybe a capitalist system strengthened with safety nets including unemployment & universal basic income and a better social state side) to its youths and citizens.
Inclusive laws, diversity, equity, inclusion and principles like liberte, égalité and fraternité are most effectively realized in societies that uphold freedom of speech where everyone is represented, respected and heard. Studies show that in these societies there is less tension, civil unrest, crime rates where more democracy, empathy, mutual respect/understanding exist instead. Studies also show that if unemployment numbers reduce and education increase there are less crime rates, tension but a more peacefull society. Therefore with constructive reforms and enhancing liberties, democracy and trust in our instutions and fairness we need to attract citizens, investors, tourists, expatriots to grow our economy, reduce our unemployment numbers and serve to all citizens while protecting nature, animals, all living beings and our planet cosmos/earth. Provide more equal employment and education opportunities where mutual respect, multicultural awareness, empathy highlighted in academic and all forms of education curriculums. Open expression allows all voices—including marginalized and underrepresented groups—to be heard, debated, and considered in shaping policies and social norms. By protecting the right to speak, critique, and share ideas, societies foster mutual understanding, challenge inequalities, and promote fairness. Freedom of speech thus becomes a foundational tool for achieving true inclusion, equality, and social cohesion.
To take control of media, silencing cinema, or treating leaders’ speech and artistic expression as a crime to suppress them, penalize them with the power had is unethical and undermines the credibility of those enforcing such restrictions. People should be free to share ideas openly in the arts or any forum while respecting everyone’s right to live and exist safely. Open expression fosters understanding, creativity, and trust, whereas repression only breeds fear, mistrust, and injustice.
Maybe it is not hypocrisy to refrain from saying a hard truth in certain situations—even when you have freedom of speech. Sometimes, choosing not to speak bluntly, straightforward is an act of kindness: a way to avoid breaking hearts or being misunderstood, especially when others may not yet be ready or mature enough to receive it. In such cases, silence or careful wording reflects empathy and respect, not rudeness or dishonesty.
At the same time, we can be grateful that the days when political prisoners, philosophers, thinkers, innocent political leaders, academicians, opinion leaders, artists, and citizens were punished simply for their lifestyles, preferences, career choices, ideas, ways of thinking, paradigms, ideologies, or worldviews are increasingly being challenged. These days are luckily over in many parts of the contemporary world today. In those times, many were denied fair treatment, stripped of their human rights, torchured, excluded from citizenship, or left unrepresented in democratic institutions such as assemblies and councils. Their voices were silenced, unheard and their belonging questioned or even revoked.
A just and inclusive society recognizes these past injustices and strives to ensure that every individual—regardless of perspective or identity—is treated with dignity, fairness, and full citizenship.
Unfortunately some expect the president, leader to be the half of the country and half of the citizens but under my administration, leadership, presidency I will be the type of bipartisan president leader who hugs, respects, considers all of his/her citizens, a leader for all. I always believed that a constitution and law should protect all of its citizens, all individuals which all together forms the communities, societies, country and world regardless of differences equally in an inclusive way regardless of diversitites and differences in age, sex, colour, race, life style, life style preference, ideology, work, preferences etc. We should consider every citizen and community, regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, birthplace, nationality, religion or belief, language, disability, health status, socioeconomic status, education level, profession, lifestyle, worldview, paradigm, or lens. Our laws and constitution should protect and embrace everybody. Sky should be the only limit for any diversity which is our richness. I hope everybody realizes their targets and live the lives that they want and wish.
You enter in politics. You take the rewarding career options, whatever you want. You become wealthy. You build companies. You gain rewarding opportunities, and you can live and work wherever you want. You party, you have fun, you do as you please whatevery you, want whatever you please, buy whatever you want, film whatever you want, say whatever you say or talk think the way you want. But when another innocent person—someone with a PhD—tries to do the same, you criminalize them. You silence them. You try to penalize them, to control them, to shut them down. Is that diversity, equity, inclusion? Is that fairness? Is that being good-hearted, or is it just, you know, normal? Of course it is not. You demand these rights—you say they’re yours, you deserve them. But an innocent person—with a PhD, who studied for 30 years, worked globally, across the world— wants do the same things does not get these chances because some bad hearted people do not want. With abuse of power of or your influence you try to watch these people suffer without living their private life, suffering, harassed, assaulted, tortured because some want this innocent person to be in control and does not want him/her to have the same rights like other lucky people that came these points by chance, trust, support, network, qualifications alone or a combination of all these. So is that fairness? Diversity? Equity? Inclusion? Fair treatment? Of course no. And this qualified PhD holder—who spent 30 years studying, working globally in top multinational companies—also deserves the exact same chances as others for sure, for sure. That’s only fair. Are the people who have those rights and privileges somehow more human, deserving of their rights, live in the best way possible such a talent with a Ph.D. is treated like an outsider, as if they don't belong? Are theirs' right this guys with a Ph.D. aborgine? That is the question we need to confront and correct.
If you force someone into a vulnerable state through torture or by any means to make them say what you want and to control this person that doesn’t make the person guilty or criminal Likewise, when those in power abuse their influence—like controlling the media, art, academia, business etc. to label an innocent person as a criminal, to penalize that person doesn’t become a criminal. These are clear abuses of power. The person subjected to such torture and pressure is innocent at the end of the day with a clean criminal record in 12 countries visited, lived, worked etc.. Instead, those who place them in these situations, who orchestrate the harassment, wrongdoings and assaults to silence them, violates his/her rights and discriminates him/her are the real criminals.
Everyone deserves the best of everything in life, and I truly wish for everyone to succeed in their dreams and achieve what they want. From the bottom of my heart, I believe this. And, as I often say, if you win the lottery, even if it seems unlikely(you never know), you will get it—and I also get it too. As I always suggest, if someone is given a chance, they should take it if that is what they want. And so, in these decision moments I do/did—just like others do in life. And a piece of general wisdom to myself to other: If something is legal, you can earn a trillion dollars, even two. That is totally all right. But if it's illegal, do not even get a single cent. I’ve applied this principle in my entire life—every saving, every earning, all done ethically and legally. Full transparency and accountability.
As medical professionals and academics, we must uphold ethical boundaries. In behavioral therapy, for instance, the goal is to foster positivity by treating symptoms like anxiety or depression. At the same time, we must respect individuals’ legal lifestyle choices or orientations. In approaches like neuro-linguistic programming and cognitive behavioral therapy—pioneered by figures like Aaron Beck—medical professionals and academics must also commit to transparent data collection and publication. Throughout my life, I’ve emphasized that all data gathered and measured has been transparent, and I have always met accountability targets. This is ethical academia and medical science—not fabricated, politically driven research or behavioral therapy. Thus, we must preserve autonomy in both academia and medical science. While we treat symptoms like depression and anxiety, we should avoid pathologizing personal lifestyle choices respected by billions all over the world. In short, we should focus on the symptoms, not the lifestyle, personal choices, preferences, ideologies as long as it is legal. These are subjective in nature to every unique individual we need to respect.
This is what makes the difference—this is what separates politically motivated, fabricated science or behavioral therapies from autonomous, ethical, positive science academia and positive, ethical medical science. It is about preserving the independence of academia and maintaining ethical boundaries. Positive sciences and medical science also rely on this autonomy—they rest on truth, not political agendas or any lifestyle, ideology, or belief that the behavioral therapy taker does not choose.
If the dataset, literature, or findings differ—whether it is marketing, public research, management studies, or medical science—then they are not just duplicate studies. If Philip Kotler’s definition of marketing is widely accepted by the global community and respected, he or other distinguished scholars, scientists can apply it consistently across his next studies referencing these lucky sentences in prior studies. Similarly, Paul Krugman (Krugman Currency Crisis Model etc.), McCarthy (4P of Marketing definition etc.) or Michael Porter (5 Forces Framework definition etc.) can rely on their established frameworks—like Porter’s Five Forces—from previous work in future studies, referencing these lucky few sentences that were respected and recognized worldwide in their following studies. This does not make them or any other distinguished academician or professor unethical or the those two studies the same study. What matters is that we clearly need to disclose our sources, remain rigorous in research methods we choose, and ensure each study’s context, data, and conclusions are transparently stated. If there is a question, with full transparency and accountability, we should answer the questions. That is it. In that way, the autonomy and integrity of the research remain intact.
In autonomous science, if data is collected transparently, with full transparency and accountability targets met, and analyzed correctly, and the literature is reviewed, and the methodology is sound, then it remains an ethical study. In autonomous science, where separation of powers exists and external authorities do not dictate the style or any part of the study this is entirely acceptable.
Individuals who dismiss autonomous studies in favor of politically motivated, fabricated research should not undermine the autonomy of academia. Instead, they must respect fellow academics with equal credentials, degrees and experiences. Even if some of the methods used, or even a lucky few sentences used and referenced from prior studies that have the consensus and respect of the global academic community, this study can still be categorized as ethical as mentioned earlier.
Each study has its own literature, data, and managerial implications. The conclusions differ. In a case one study is sociological, another marketing, another public policy, and another medical science etc. for answering several research questions for different research phenomena, research domains even if the methods align, these are not classified as the same studies. The differences in literature, data, and conclusions make each study distinct, whether it is a sociology study, a marketing study, public perception research, or medical science whether you utilized neural network, tree algorithms, regression or any other research method you choose. What I mean is, in autonomous academia, the researcher designs the research, the methods, and the sample independently. In a suppressed academy, this is not possible. In other words, autonomy allows the researcher full control over how the study is structured, while in a suppressed environment, that freedom is taken away. But here, the most important thing—the key—is that you need to be accountable and ensure transparency. If it is a single case study, call it a single case study. If your sample size is 300, say it is 300. If it is just 3, then say it is 3. If the data—whether collected via paper surveys, online surveys, observation, or other methods—is gathered correctly, then it is completely acceptable. If you use regression you need to say my research method is regression if you apply neural networks, multilayer perceptron or any other method you should say so to the global community. What matters is that the method is applied rigorously, the process is transparent, and the data is analyzed appropriately. In that case, the results will be sound and ethically gathered. Study is also still categorized ethical. As long as you maintain transparency and accountability, there should be no problem in autonomous academia. Without this, we lose academic autonomy and end up with fabricated, politically driven research, where there is no separation of powers or autonomy at all, especially if researchers who conduct scientific autonomous studies are penalized even when their studies are conducted with scientific methods and a positive science methodology, whether quantitative or qualitative.
If you want, I can also make it more concise or more persuasive (for publication, speech, or policy use).
If we keep treating people like this, only a select few will get to seize those chances—those fulfilling, rewarding careers. Or, we could let build independent law, independent academia—autonomous institutions, media, cinema, and art—places that can challenge the system, that encourage critical thinking share their ideas whether they think something is right or wrong they should be able to say it as in real democracies as other world citizens, individuals Or will we just end up with these censored, controlled institutions, rife with abuse of power? That is the real question. Maybe it’s just that they want to keep people under their control—only those who write like them, who live like them, who think like them, should occupy these positions, get these rewarding chances. But the others—the rest of the citizens—they’re kept out of these rewarding opportunities. They are pressured, penalized and in this way tried to be kept out of the system, prevented from these, do not take these rewarding opportunities they do something else and there is not a diverse perspective heard or known that people can think on, in academia, art, media, law faculties, politics etc. as in real democracies. Maybe that’s the real heart of the issue.
Right. In a true democracy, where there is inclusion if someone has the right to be wealthy—with all the privileges, like diplomatic immunities, and to become a business leader—then yes, other citizens should absolutely have that opportunity. That’s part of what a fair system should allow. That is diversity equity, inclusion. That is real equity. Otherwise even if you have lovers, supporters, fans, people trust in you, you are qualified, talented and have a Ph.D. with global experiences all over the world you cannot have a rewarding fulfilling life.
I want to thank the countries, companies, businesses, and organizations that placed their trust in me—those who believed in me—as well as all the fans, supporters, and loved ones, all world citizens, AI, all living beings, animals, environment/nature, our planet world and god. Thank you so much for your support—your belief in me, your understanding, your love and your support all along the way. It means so much to me. I truly believe that, together, we achieved this. Without your unwavering love, dedication, hard work, and support, we wouldn’t have gone this extra mile. So, thank you so much for everything. We will continue to achieve together. Together we achieve. There is nothing we can not achieve all together. Kindest Regards, Warm regards. Thank you.
As President of the United States in the movie, I respect the decision of the majority vote. However, as an elected citizen and representative, I share my vision, especially through the character I portray in the film. If what I say makes sense, there is a consensus on those, then, of course, the laws can be enacted as in this way, decisions can be made accordingly. That is natural, and it is understandable. If there is a consensus in a different way, majority vote is something different, than that is something I also respect. If what I say and my suggestions make a positive contribution to USA and the world than that would make me happy more than anybody. I do not want any harm for any country, any business, any organization, any citizen, any tourist, consumer, any leader, any artist, any individual or any world citizen whether a child (also when they grow up, become adults and wants to make their own decisions/choices), teenager, women, men and our planet world. But if there is a disagreement, I still respect the majority vote. At the same time, I argue that we must be inclusive—considering every citizen and every individual. If what I say doesn’t hold up, then we do not pass the law. After all, we have democracy in the Senate, the House, and the Capitol, and we uphold party democracy, inside party democracy as well. In this way everybody can easily share their perspectives in a respectfull way and defend their thesis'. We do not silence opposing views within the same party, the Senate, or the House. This is the logic of my presidency in the film, and if elected in real life as in the movie, this will be my approach as well. There is nothing we can not achieve with hardworking, dedicated, smart Americans like you and all the people who trust in this country. Together we achieve. Thank you. Thank you. Kindest Regards, Dr. Özerk Yavuz (President, Professor)
I want to say to all my supporters, loved ones, and those who believe in me—who trust me and care about me—that they want to see me in positive positions, in good conditions not in bad situations doing something wrong. I cannot let them down. I will not let them down. When I have this loud support, and this belief in me as a leader, as your president, why on earth would I risk ruining my future, destroying your trust, and losing the elections, my rewarding career options and all the chances you have given me with this successful, diverse, distinguished international global background/experiences, Dr. and similar titles, Ph.D. degrees etc.? I stand here because I believe in us, and I will never take that trust for granted. I love you all. I was lucky to have all those beautiful people around me in the center of attention. Thank you for your unending support, trust, love and believing in me. We would have not achieved that without your unending love, trust and support. Thank you. For me every living being humans, animals, nature are needed to be treated nicely and considered. Whatever some intolerant bad hearted people try to show, this is the reality, this is the situation.
Distinguished United States—and all the distinguished countries of the world, our world—are already great, but even better with Dr. Özerk Yavuz. We will work tirelessley to make it better with you hardworking, dedicated, smart people. Together we achieve! Thank you all, Thank you for all.
Let us not forget as one famous poet and thinker Yunus Emre said once upon a time" Let us love one another and be loved, for this world belongs to no one forever.” “Life is short! —let’s try to get the best out of what it has to offer.” Everybody deserves the best of everything which I respect and wish everybody realizes their targets/wishes/dreams one day. Thank you. Thank you
Kindest Regards,
Dr. Ozerk Yavuz
(Strengthened With AI)
Cut. Scene Ends....
