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 and we discriminate you". This is not acceptable. Also for term limits and alike I think there should be no imposed limits on how many times someone can be elected or appointed/nominated. If the people choose to elect a leader two, three, or even more time, then that’s their right. If they don’t want them, they’ll choose another candidate anyway. At the end of the day, we the people decide anyway. Putting limits in any criteria or differences, diversities just doesn’t make sense—if they don’t want a leader, they’ll vote for someone else that is so clear. If someone is already leading and speaking well, is right in what she/he says, they're naturally going to attract support, right? So, why do we impose extra hurdles for nomination? It doesn’t really align with a fair, open democratic process. If we the people, citizens don’t want to elect a leader and do not think this person is right, then these leaders wouldn’t get elected anyway. So, why are we adding additional barriers to the nomination process? It just doesn’t make sense. Similarly If the majority of voters—whether in a representative body (in senate, house, in capitol hill) or through a referendum—doesn’t think a law proposal is good enough, then it simply won’t be enacted anyway. So, why don’t we open everything up for debate—for discussion and voting—whether through a referendum or in the Senate and House? After all, if the majority disagrees, it won't pass, so we have nothing to lose. But if it’s a good idea, makes a positive contribution to the citizens, society, country, all living beings that we share the world with, our planet world then we should enact it anyway. That’s the reality. We should open all law proposals to debate and voting in these processes. We should also craft our laws to be inclusive and holistic, ensuring we consider diversity, equity, and inclusion at every level. Moreover, this inclusivity should extend beyond humans, we the people—encompassing all living beings, animals, and the planet itself also. By protecting them, we create a truly inclusive framework, recognizing that we share this world with all its inhabitants.
We should reflect that freedom in the election law as well, ensuring that it’s always the people’s choice. So, why should we restrict their choice with term limits or alike if they want to elect a specific candidate they want in each election? At the end of the day, I fully respect the decision made by we the people, whether I am elected or not. Of course, I acknowledge the outcome, and I respect that process entirely. But opportunities for all citizens, based on the principle of equity, must be ensured—that much should be absolutely clear. Opportunities for higher-ranking positions, rewarding career options and career advancement in all areas of life should be accessible to everyone, grounded in the principle of equity regardless of their differences. As a PhD holder and a Master of Science in Computer Engineering degree holder, with all the qualifications and extensive international experience in multinational, multicultural companies, conglomerates and alike I believe I should also have the opportunity to be nominated, just like in the movies, of course. And if we the people elect me, then, of course, I will serve them and society with full dedication. As long as I am healthy, and there are no medical issues, I will carry out my duties with honor, passion, and commitment, fully devoted to this noble role.
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. People choose what to believe and what not to believe. In a poem even if you say "I am listening to Istanbul my eyes are closed" or "I am listening to Istanbul my eyes are open" . There would be lovers and non-lovers of each version. These are subjective in nature people choose their selves with their own will we need to respect. 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 or alcoholics; 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, media, associated content, creations and productions, people, leaders who share their ideas, freedom of speech, responsibly, maturely in a tolerant way, without causing harm, then this is also acceptable which is part of a healthy democracy. Therefore freedom of speech which is basically a human need in Maslow's needs hierarchy that comes with self actualisation, expression. In reality nobody would insist sharing their ideas, expressing themselves, talking or creating new works, creations, productions or any other innocent behavior, if they think these are crimes that requires punisment, penalizing. People share their ideas, talk produce art productions, the behaiors they think normal precisely because they believe in freedom of speech exists and in this type of setting, in a real democracy and as a result nobody would criminilize an innocent person to silence him/her.
Translated by ChatGpt/ A unique and beautiful work of art, a poem, lyrics of a song from the past that deserves to be remembered at all times
While thinking, he’s a philosopher; while boasting, he’s hollow inside.
A verbal acrobat—he spins tall tales, oh dear, oh my.
Back in the day, we used to drink water from clay jugs.
We’re noble, descended all the way from Father Adam.
Excuse me, may you find your way.
So you won’t feel slighted either.
You’re beautiful, we get it—you’re very special.
There’s no one quite like you.
Excuse me, may you find your way.
So you won’t feel slighted either.
You’re beautiful, we get it—you’re very special.
There’s no one quite like you.
“Thank you,” “please,” and so on—just a few fancy, polished words,
Tearing through the dictionary without caring what fits or not.
Times have really changed—oh dear, what a suburb this has become,
Everyone’s strutting around like a rooster.
Excuse me, may you find your way.
So you won’t feel slighted either.
You’re beautiful, we get it—you’re very special.
There’s no one quite like you.
Excuse me, may you find your way.
So you won’t feel slighted either.
You’re beautiful, we get it—you’re very special.
There’s no one quite like you.
Excuse me, may you find your way.
So you won’t feel slighted either.
You’re beautiful, we get it—you’re very special.
There’s no one quite like you.
Songwriters: Gönül Aysel Gürel, Aylin Livaneli
At the end of the day, everyone decodes messages and content, have filtering mechanisms, they choose what to believe and what not to believe with their paradigms, lenses, perceptions, willpower, subjective norms, group norms, superego but if they interpret things positively —guided by good intentions whether this is a speech, an art production or any other content— and send signals to their motor neurons with their central nervous systems composed of brain, spinal cord and similar structures etc., considering rule of law, constitution and what is right, then crime rates, wrongdoings may also be lower in such populations and even may not exist at all. In short, when people can decode content correctly whether this is in art, in media or in any other outlet—guided by positive intent, good intention regardless of the message given or heard, actors, leaders, citizens in any medium—it can also even benefit the audience overall in enhancement of intellectual capabilities, develop critical thinking, brainstorming skills and empathy.
You know, penalizing political leaders, citizens, individuals, opinion leaders, artists, actors, actresses, and those in cinema, media, and the arts, simply because some individuals have inferiority complexes and insecurities and they penalize freedom of speech available in art and media outlets— this is not a constructive solution. In a democracy, it undermines the checks and balances that are crucial. Instead, what can be done is simply changing the channel—it’s not as if, you know, everyone is forced to consume the same content. Each person has their own audience, viewers, and supporters. We must not penalize those creators, leaders or the fans, supporters, followers. Rather, those who disagree can change the channel. But we should not restrict free media and free cinema from thriving; we must not destroy them just because some power group dictates so. Instead, we should respect them. A production that is good—whatever its idea or message—can be appreciated by all walks of life, all world citizens. We need to respect these works, because they may have loved more than we thought by all world citizens even. In a free democracy—regardless of ideology or opinion—there is always room for every form of creation and production. As long as it is good, it should not be limited—just let imagination flourish, like in the paintings of Salvador Dalí. You know, it’s always suggested that we don’t ban alcohol just because some people become alcoholics. We don’t ban salt because it can lead to hypertension. We don’t prohibit sexual relationships just because some people may contract sexually transmitted diseases. Similarly, we don’t ban cars or planes just because there’s a risk of accidents. As long as you engage with these things responsibly and in balance—as advised by medical experts—then it’s okay. It should be okay. The constructive approach is that we consume all goods and services responsibly and thoughtfully considering rule of law and constitution prepared in an inclusive way. Our behavior should also be mindful and responsible considering rule of law and constitution prepared in an inclusive way. In the same way, we should thoughtfully and responsibly consume media creations, artistic works, and expressions of free speech—these talks, these creations—always with care and responsibility. It’s also not fair to blame someone for speaking, just because another individual misused or was harmed by those words or by those films. That kind of thinking is simply nonsensical. This is a case of blame-shifting behavior. Everyone has their own capacity for self-control, their own reasoning, own will, intentions, attitudes and intelligence. We all watch Hollywood films, TV, and media, public speeches but none of us inherently commit crimes. Likewise, everyone who watches these kinds of content—these speeches, creations, and productions—should do so with responsibility, thoughtfully. Blame-shifting onto content creators and public or prominent figures is a form of dictatorial suppression. It seeks to control expression and restrict freedom, rather than fostering a constructive, responsible dialogue and even some, in an attempt to do this, try to control people's lifestyles as well, which is equally unacceptable.
It's not the content, production creator, the speaker, or the person sharing ideas who should be held responsible. Instead, those who engage with these creations—whether in art, theater, opera, ballet, cinema, or classical music—should do so responsibly and thoughtfully, in line with the law. As long as they engage with these various forms—just as they do with any other goods, services and content—then there shouldn’t be any issue at all. Everyone has the ability to think, reason, and filter information. Each person uses their own judgment, paradigms, lenses to decide what to believe and what not to believe, how to behave, what to choose based on their own will, brain and intelligence. Ultimately, it’s not the content creator, the public speaker, the leader, president, the artist, or the film producer, art producer who decides—it’s each individual’s own responsibility what to think and how to behave. For similar reasons freedom of speech is also not banned in real democracies which is part of healthy democracy which protects checks and balances. Similarly we don’t fundamentally ban or penalize consensual sexual behavior, flirting etc. solely because of risks like unintended pregnancy, AIDS, or hepatitis, nor because a bad person might criminalize, penalize, stigmatize, or discredit you or it is perceived bad in some cultures, communities or belief systems even if this is considered a natural god given human need in many. Similarly, we don’t prohibit party culture just because there is a risk some might misuse it to harm your reputation or bring criminal charges, discredit or criminalize you, or it is perceived bad, negative, wrong in some cultures, communities or belief systems Instead, it’s essential that we all engage in these behaviors responsibly—consuming all goods and services thoughtfully and responsibly always thinking twice before we act, this is also the case for consuming productions in cinema, theatre, ballet, opera art and media. We should always consume all these contents and productions responsibly, thoughtfully in a mature way. We try to protect every life style, preference, freedom of our citizens, we the people and world citizens in enacting our laws in an inclusive way considering diversity. We enact our laws in an inclusive manner, taking into account diversity, equity, inclusion, and the core values of liberty, equality, and fraternity without sacrificing from democratic freedoms and liberties. By doing so, we protect these principles and ensure that everyone is treated with fairness and dignity. I respect every single world citizen, along with all cultures, beliefs, religions, and values regardless differences in age, sex, lifestyle, ideology without discriminating anybody. Each person deserves that recognition and dignity, and we should always uphold that respect in all we do.
In a system with the rule of law and a clear separation of powers, the legal and judicial systems aren’t swayed by the majority out of fear. Instead, they uphold the rights of the minority when it is just, and they recognize the majority when it is just. Each case is judged on its own merits. Without this independence, the rule of law a fair justice system would not truly exist. In this kind of system, the laws are also inclusive, considering equity, inclusion and diversity to sustain equality, fraternity, and liberty, equity principle of law taking into account both majority and minority perspectives, and they consider each individual citizen, individual—not just specific groups with equity principle of law. This ensures that every person’s unique circumstances and rights are fully considered. As long as everyone performs their role well, without abusing power, and within a clear separation of powers—whether in academia, law, art, media, business, politics or other fields—these checks and balances will be upheld. Than that is perfect and everything should be all right. However, if errors or mistakes occur, we must correct them promptly to avoid harming anyone or causing negative consequences and always saying I am sorry with the maturity expected from each citizen and decision maker.
In some cultures, consensual sexual behavior and flirting—even considered legal—may still be used for stigmatization or alike. In certain geographies or among certain communities, this stigma is used as a way to control or suppress those relationships to cope with the inferiority complexes that they have. Often, it stems from individuals' own insecurity, where they project their inferiority onto others, that is shaped with societal pressures or own paradigms developed over time based on their filtering mechanisms that they use in determining their subjective norms alike. In the society preventing people who genuinely desire each other consensually from connecting, suppressing and pressuring them at comes with diverse preferences, life styles, paradigms and lenses many in the world respect is a coping mechanism for inferiority complex and insecurities that these people reflect on others who wants to form consensual relationships. This, in turn, disrespects and undermines consensual intimacy and healthy flirtation. Similarly, when partners who want to be in a relationship with each other are discouraged, they often remain silent, many postpone these intimate relationships that they choose up to marriage or never do in order to not have conflict and have negative feelings that may also be classified as a coping mechanism for an inferiority complex. In this way the partner who wants to engage this legal consensual relationships give the societal members who makes these pressures and messages I am also like you to prevent further suppressions and pressures.
Some parents, driven by traditional maternal or paternal instincts from being mother or father, try to shield their children from negative social criticism by suppressing certain lifestyles and freedoms—similar to those often embraced in Western societies. Even when their children are over 18, the relationships they want or choose is legal. They might urge them to wait until marriage for intimate relationships. This often stems from a deep-seated inferiority complex, shaped by societal pressures from intolerant or dictatorial elements within society. These forces aim to justify their insecurities, exerting control over personal freedoms in the process. In this way, these insecurities and inferiority complexes can be passed on to children, even once they are adults. In order to meet their parents' and society’s expectations, young adults may adopt lifestyles different from what they truly desire. They may stay within traditional boundaries—such as waiting until marriage for intimacy—because, despite their age is over 18 and adults, they seek a sense of security by conforming to those expectations. Ultimately, some may choose intimate relationships before marriage, while others wait—each navigating these tensions in their own way. A person who is secure in themselves and free from these inferiority complexes would not feel the need to suppress others or restrict lifestyles that are globally respected and legal. In fact, this dynamic is sometimes mischaracterized as a superiority complex by some, though many who find it normal because of its subjective assessment nature and availability of different perspectives in literature. Typically, these individuals, having stable incomes, strong social status, and good reputations, don't need to degrade others or behave negatively to compensate for any personal shortcomings, insecurities or inferiority complexes if they have. At the end of the day, each individual, regardless of their background, beliefs, ideologies, or personal preferences, should have the freedom to choose how they live, who to be with, how they work, and how they think. This autonomy also extends to relationships and partner selection—people should be free to define these aspects of their lives as they see fit and this should be understood by all members of the society, country and our planet world.
In doing so, these external pressures prevent them from expressing their feelings and from building an intimate connection. In addition, an inferiority complex can develop in those partners who want to pursue a healthy relationship also. As a result, they avoid flirting and refrain from engaging with either the same or opposite sex, monogamy or polygamy even if they have feelings and still legal. They do this to avoid conflict with the disrespectful elements of society. In this way, they internalize a sense of inferiority, believing that avoiding dating or flirting will protect them from further rejection or judgment and help them feel more secure. Furthermore, what is worst is that when these intolerant, immature people use dictatorial tactics to justify these wrongdoings and suppressions, these intolerant people may also attempt to criminalize you and portray you in a negative light. As a result, it becomes even worse, compounding the harm and stigma. What’s even more troubling is that some individuals, driven by their own insecurities, inferiority complexes, ideologies, life styles that differ, paradigms, lenses, beliefs, preferences, world views that differ and negative emotions, may escalate these feelings by unjustly accusing innocent people, labeling them as guilty or even criminal. This kind of behavior is not just ethically indefensible; it erodes trust, perpetuates injustice, and leaves lasting scars on those unfairly targeted, criminilized and victimized. Such tactics must be unequivocally rejected.
Scientific research indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals supports the idea that consensual sexual behavior and relationships may be stigmatized due to cultural norms, social pressures, and psychological mechanisms such as insecurity and inferiority-related coping. Studies published in journals such as Scientific Reports, Archives of Sexual Behavior, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin demonstrate that structural stigma and societal norms often regulate consensual relationships by creating social pressure, which leads individuals to suppress their preferences and internalize negative beliefs. For example, research in Scientific Reports (2025) shows that structural and societal stigma significantly increases minority stress and psychological distress, illustrating how social norms can discourage individuals from expressing consensual identity and relationships. Similarly, research in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that cultural stigma and societal expectations create pressure to conform to socially approved relationships, leading individuals to suppress genuine consensual desires and relationships. Studies in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin further demonstrate that consensual non-monogamous relationships and other non-traditional but legal relationships are often stigmatized, resulting in social marginalization and internalized inferiority among individuals engaging in these relationships. (Nature)
Additionally, research in psychology and social sciences indicates that stigma can be internalized and lead to inferiority feelings, avoidance behaviors, and relationship suppression. For instance, studies on internalized sexual stigma show that individuals exposed to negative societal attitudes may adopt those beliefs, resulting in low self-esteem, shame, and avoidance of relationships. These findings are supported by research published in Behavioral Sciences and Sexuality Research and Social Policy, which demonstrate that sexual stigma is associated with psychological distress, self-suppression, and avoidance of intimacy. Moreover, sociological research on sexual double standards found that individuals engaging in consensual sexual behavior may face social exclusion and peer disapproval, reinforcing stigma and discouraging future relationships. (MDPI)
Furthermore, broader social-psychological research confirms that stigma functions as a social control mechanism shaped by cultural norms and group expectations. Meta-analyses and longitudinal studies show that peer norms, social pressure, and societal expectations significantly influence individuals’ sexual behavior and relationship choices, often leading to delayed relationships, silence, or avoidance. These studies conclude that stigma and social pressure can result in internalized inferiority, reduced relationship formation, and psychological stress, supporting the argument that suppression of consensual relationships can be linked to insecurity-driven social dynamics and normative control mechanisms. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Research published in high-impact journals further supports these dynamics. For example, Erving Goffman’s foundational work on stigma, later expanded empirically by Bruce G. Link and Jo C. Phelan (2001), explains how societies use stigma as a mechanism of social control, discouraging behaviors that deviate from perceived norms. Studies by Ilan H. Meyer (2003) in the minority stress model and research by Gregory M. Herek (2007) published in Archives of Sexual Behavior demonstrate that social stigma related to consensual sexual behavior can lead to internalized negativity, reduced self-esteem, and avoidance of relationships. Furthermore, Mark L. Hatzenbuehler (2011) in American Journal of Public Health showed that structural stigma at societal levels contributes to psychological distress and suppressed interpersonal relationships, while John E. Pachankis (2007) found in Psychological Bulletin that internalized stigma leads individuals to avoid intimacy and conceal their preferences to prevent social rejection. Collectively, these studies—indexed in Scopus, SCI, and SCIE journals—provide scientific evidence that stigmatization of consensual relationships can foster insecurity, internalized inferiority, and avoidance behaviors shaped by societal pressure and normative expectations.
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, suppress, injure, kill, assault, torture, try to 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 to an innocent citizen knowing he/she is innocent, whether they work, live or party in Las Vegas, America, Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa, Australia, Greenland or somewhere else, whatever their perspective is, ideology is, thinking is, belief is, religion is, preference is, lifestyle is, to justify wrongdoings he or she does for innocent people. 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. In this type of country where there is real democracy, laws, rule of law and constitution protect everybody, every individual, citizen considering every voice, diversity, equity & inclusion in an inclusive, holistic way and designed, implemented, enacted accordingly.
Unfortunately today in our world we see who harbor deep-seated inferiority complexes and insecurities resort to such crimes and wrongdoings; these actions stem from a fragile sense of self. However, it is crucial that, even when someone grapples with such feelings, we guide them toward constructive paths—whether that be up skilling, enhancing your skills and qualifications, pursuing a PhD, creating art like a film, or setting meaningful career goals. While sarcasm, irony, jokes, self actualization and being creative in art, cinema and politics with freedom of speech, and rationalization might be common coping mechanisms and acceptable which also builds the self esteem and prevents inferiority complexes and insecurities that may have. To harm, suppress, injure, kill, assault, torture, ban/suppress freedom of speech, democratic principles, liberties, lifestyles that he/she does not like or fan of, 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 should never be accepted and definitely they are not the most constructive solutions. A truly respectful, tolerant, mature person would never harm, suppress, injure, kill, assault, torture, ban/suppress freedom of speech, democratic principles, liberties, lifestyles that he/she does not like or fan of, 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 harmful actions must be recognized for what they are: deeply destructive, and never acceptable. Such wrongful acts, actions are simply not in a tolerant, mature person’s 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.
Research in psychology supports the idea that insecurity and threatened self-esteem can sometimes lead to harmful or aggressive behavior, whereas constructive self-development promotes healthier outcomes. For example, studies by Roy Baumeister, Joseph Boden, and Laura Smart published in Psychological Review (1996) introduced the “threatened egotism” hypothesis, suggesting that individuals with fragile or unstable self-esteem may react aggressively when their self-image is challenged. Similarly, research by Brad Bushman and Roy Baumeister in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1998) found that individuals with inflated yet insecure self-views were more likely to display hostility and aggression when criticized. These findings, widely indexed in Scopus and Web of Science (SCI/SSCI), support the notion that insecurity and inferiority feelings can sometimes contribute to destructive behavior when individuals lack constructive coping strategies.
Conversely, research in positive psychology and self-development emphasizes that constructive outlets—such as education, career development, artistic expression, and meaningful goal setting—can enhance self-esteem and reduce harmful tendencies. Work by Martin Seligman in American Psychologist and by Carol Dweck in Psychological Science highlights how growth mindsets, self-actualization, and skill development foster resilience, empathy, and pro-social behavior. These studies suggest that humor, creativity, freedom of expression, and personal achievement can serve as healthy coping mechanisms that build confidence and reduce insecurity. In contrast, harming others, suppressing rights, or acting unjustly are consistently identified in the literature as maladaptive and destructive responses, incompatible with the traits of respectful, tolerant, and mature individuals.
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, torchures 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 and consider 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. Ideally, these events remain on the rusted shelves of history—never to be repeated again, but remembered only as warnings of what must never return. In this way we can leave a better world to our children, teenagers, youth and next generations. As Benjamin Franklin once stated, “There never was a good war or a bad peace.” Likewise, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk highlighted the importance of enlightenment, culture, science, and independent thought through his enduring words: “A nation deprived of art loses one of its vital lifelines,” and “Teachers, the Republic expects from you generations who are free in thought, free in conscience, and free in wisdom.” He further declared, “The greatest battle is the one fought against ignorance and bigotry; in life, the truest guide is knowledge, science, and reason.” Similarly, Theodore Roosevelt inspired perseverance and self-belief by stating, “Believe you can, and you’re halfway there.” George Washington highlighted the enduring power of freedom with the words, “Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.” In the same spirit, Benjamin Franklin affirmed the universal value of liberty by declaring, “Where liberty dwells, there is my country.”
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
Consumer behavior is fundamentally a lawful and legitimate activity that reflects individuals’ preferences, needs, choices, and decision-making processes in the marketplace. Consumers evaluate products, services, prices, quality, ethics, and customer experiences before making purchasing decisions, and this process is a normal part of economic and social life in modern societies. Just as businesses have the right to market and offer their products, consumers also have the freedom to compare alternatives, express opinions, provide feedback, and choose what best serves their interests within the boundaries of the law and ethical standards. Countries that establish strong consumer protection laws and fair market regulations, such as the protection of customer rights, transparency standards, privacy rights, product safety requirements, and brand accountability mechanisms, are often more successful in building public trust and stable economic environments. These legal frameworks help protect both consumers and the long-term value and reputation of brands by encouraging ethical business conduct, fair competition, and responsible corporate behavior.
Businesses that treat customers with respect, honesty, professionalism, and empathy are more likely to achieve customer satisfaction and build long-term relationships based on trust and loyalty. Positive customer experiences encourage repeat business, strengthen a company’s reputation, and contribute to sustainable success in competitive markets. When organizations prioritize fair treatment, effective communication, and quality service, they not only improve customer retention but also create a mutually beneficial relationship in which both businesses and consumers benefit over time. In countries where consumer rights, citizen rights, human rights, individual rights and alike are effectively protected and legal systems support accountability, both customers and businesses are often in a stronger and more secure position, fostering innovation, economic confidence, and long-term brand value.
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. When someone holds a positive attitude or intention toward something, that can sometimes trigger automatic, reflexive behaviors. Over time, these behaviors can become heuristics—mental shortcuts—shaped by that original attitude or intention. And in consumer behavior, these heuristics often affect how people behave toward both low-involvement and high-involvement products. What Festinger and Ajzen proposed is that intention is actually the immediate precursor, antecedent of any kind of behavior. In other words, it’s the central, fundamental construct that directly drives whether or not a behavior will occur. So, the idea is that if we understand someone's intention, we can predict their actions much more reliably. At the end of the day everybody has intelligence, filtering decoding mechanisms, brain, behavioral 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.
We often say that, within the judicial system, we need to offer second—and even third—chances, because everyone deserves them. At the same time, people sometimes want to see justice served by incarcerating offenders—often fueled by strong negative emotions and a desire for revenge. But, in truth, this doesn’t solve the deeper problem or fix the problem. The law should focus on prevention. Once a crime is committed, even if we imprison someone, it doesn’t address the root cause or fix the problem. So, while we must keep these second-chance measures in mind, we also need robust preventive laws—so that crimes never happen in the first place. If the law is preventing crime, it is better than when it relies solely on incarceration. Prevention of crime is more effective than just focusing on punishment. In cases of compensation, for example, people can receive compensation for their losses—both material and immaterial—so that they can continue their lives with this compensation for rights lost/violated and time lost.
Similarly, we sometimes need to consider pardons—maybe to ease the burden on everyone—but if they commit another crime, we do still hold them accountable. This can help reduce the strain on the judicial system and on correctional facilities. But that doesn’t mean we abandon the laws that prevent these acts. We must keep them in place. So, from time to time, we can use pardons to lighten the workload—as long as the majority vote count also points to that. In this one their rehabilitation, reintegration into society and helping them continue their lives in harmony with the community, as well as planning this process effectively, are important. The punishment laws must be aligned with human honor and human dignity. In this regard, they should respond to the needs and consensus in a way that is in line with 21st-century principles and contemporary trends. However, we must never penalize democratic freedoms and liberties, which must be protected. The laws should never be used to silence opponents, diversities, freedom of speech, life style choices, art, media, book productions/creations, autonomous academia/science and alike. In a democratic system, checks and balances must remain intact, and liberties must always be protected. There would be no real democracy without freedom of speech where everybody shares their ideas freely whether in real life or in art.
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.
As one famous Turkish proverb states “Elçiye zeval olmaz” means that the Ambassador/Special Envoy/messenger and alike should not be blamed, punished, or held responsible for the content of the message they deliver. In other words, a person who conveys news, opinions, proposals, or statements from one side to another is merely acting as an intermediary but also can share his/her idea and should not be treated bad. This proverb reflects an important principle of fairness, communication, and justice. In diplomatic, legal, and social contexts, this understanding helps protect open communication and prevents hostility toward those who simply transmit information between parties. Similarly, representatives, presidents, and leaders, artists in their roles in cinema/theatre, art can be seen as the “messengers” of the citizens, all living beings, animals, nature and the world, as they amplify and convey the voices, expectations, concerns, and aspirations of society while representing the people they serve.
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. Stating an opinion, saying “in my opinion,” and sharing your views by themselves as well as joking & irony would not make you illegal, criminal, or part of something unlawful/illegal, especially in a true democracy that values freedom of speech and democratic rights. Even if you are harassed, assaulted, discredited or tortured in an attempt to portray you as something else, the reality remains the same. That is the situation, plain and simple. I am innocent, genuine, and untainted, as pure as a single drop of water. Also if stones rain from the sky, saying you’re responsible” is not realistic. A responsible and respectful person is expected to behave appropriately regardless of what they see, hear, or consume in media, art, or elsewhere, including what they eat or drink. Under normal conditions — without torture, harassment, assault, or inhumane pressure — this is the standard behavior expected from a reasonable and well-adjusted person. This is the case for me. Not a single complaint has ever been lodged against me—not to my face, nor to any authority. And as a result, in all 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. It is also wrong to make innocent people scapegoats for things they did not cause. Everybody has its own behavioral control, free will, brain, central nervous system based on that everyone controls their motor neurons, behaviors and actions. 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. As one important scientist Ahmet Mete Işıkara once said, "Earthquakes don't kill; buildings do." In the same way, books, art, ideas, philosophy—these do not harm us. Engaging with books, art, movies, and the philosophical exploration of ideas enriches our lives in countless ways. They expand our empathy, spark imagination, and challenge us to see the world from different perspectives. In doing so, they foster deeper critical thinking, personal growth, and a broader sense of wonder about life. It is the misuse of weapons in bad hands by malicious, bad intended, bad hearted individuals who have no behavioral control, anger management that causes destruction and harms. That is the true source of harm. Such behavior of criminalizing innocent people with blame shifting 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.
As a famous anchorwoman once said: "No matter what the weather is like, may your own weather and spirit always be bright and good " Thank you all!
As one famous saying states "the tongue has no bones" means that you don’t have a bone like structure as in arms or legs and words go easy following the thoughts which are involuntary synaptic activities. So even if you say maybe I should have never said this sentence later, but used rather another wording or style it might be too late. Of course, freedom of thought is important—thinking is a gift from God. Still, thought and synaptic activity are involuntary reactions. I don’t think the things that come to mind are said with bad intentions to break any heart, but we still need to be careful not to get used to saying bad things—it's better to speak in a more constructive way in an honest way, always telling the truth preferring kind words, kindly which can be learned not to break any heart. But expecting people to change their ideas isn't, you know, something unrealistic—freedom of speech gives us the opportunity to debate. And if we have strong arguments and well-supported ideas, people can indeed change their minds. In a free speech environment, this is possible. But without freedom of speech, no one can defend their theses, and the public never gets to hear them. In such a society, the decisions aren’t inclusive, and every voice isn’t considered or heard, meaning we can’t arrive at a truly holistic and inclusive solution—neither in councils, assemblies, nor other areas. When the freedom of speech does not exist, separation of powers is removed, and the system of checks and balances is dismantled, abuse of power can easily take hold which may lead to wrongdoings and corruptions in bad hands. Without these safeguards, it becomes difficult to find common ground or a shared solution that is inclusive and holistic, one that takes every perspective into account. This is simply unacceptable in a true democracy. Also if we don't see genocide, war crimes, terror, wars or other atrocities, corruptions, frauds and alike as in the past days in some places and if filmmakers, actors, academicians, political leaders, artists, citizens and authors aren’t being silenced through criminalization, conspiracies, discrediting, assault or harassment today or penalized, when they share their ideas, for their ideas, content productions, content creations, speeches, life styles etc. it’s because we have freedom of speech, responsible citizens, responsible leaders, a good justice system and laws that consider that. These harmful behaviors are called out, and those who commit them are held accountable. That’s the reason.
On the other hand, the motor neurons in your arms, legs, and other muscle groups are indeed controlled by signals from your brain, your spinal cord, and sensory neurons. So, even though some actions are automatic, people still have a degree of control over their behavior. That’s why it’s important to be mindful of how we act and take responsibility for our choices in a way which respects rights of others. What differentiates a civilized response from a more primitive seen one is that, with education, civilization and etc., we teach in the system to respond with a respect to other members of society, other world citizens, maybe a handshake or alike in a kind way, in a more refined way, even when there are differences in life styles, speeches, paradigms, ideologies and lenses. Of course, everyone has millions of thoughts that come to mind, but that’s not a crime. It’s how you respond, balancing your id, ego and superego, that really defines a civilized person than a person who has more primitive reactions. The famous Jean-Paul Sartre who was a French philosopher, writer, and political thinker, once said that "freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another begins." We should respect each other and, through mutual respect and understanding, value every citizen of the world.If someone needs personal space/self space, that's completely normal—we have to respect that. On the other hand, if someone prefers a more intimate connection and wants to be closer, that's also something we need to respect—as long as it’s consensual. In that way, boundaries are honored, and both people’s choices are valued. We should learn to live together, respect one another, value one another without harming one another, because there is a limit for everyone, and that limit—justice—is meant for all.
Sartre emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, even within constraints as a constitution sets fixed rules, structures, and limits on behavior and power. However, Sartre would likely also stress that: These rules are not absolute truths—they are human-made and revisable. Citizens remain responsible for challenging unjust laws, not blindly obeying them. If there is a consensus in laws in an inclusive holistic way than it is always better. A constitution can be seen as a collective project of freedom—a society choosing (through history, struggle, and agreement) to define rules that protect people give every individual to make their own choices and live together in harmony in peace from arbitrary power. The law should be inclusive, ensuring diversity, equity, and inclusion for all citizens. In doing so, it must uphold the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity for everyone, ensuring these values are protected and actively promoted in every aspect of governance for each citizen regardless of their culture, religion, life style, race, ideology, speaking style, speaking, birthplace, education, demographical factor or any other similar difference they have. But even when there are different lifestyles, ideologies, and preferences alike—even with all these differences—everyone still needs to respect one another to live in harmony and peace. This is the most constructive approach. Treating nice to one another is very important in this respect.
If you imagine yourself as Robinson Crusoe on a deserted island with two or three supermodels, together, you might establish your own rules by asking those 3-4 people in the island and live according to your preference. But even in that scenario, these individuals would still respect federal law, because if the island is part of a country, the national laws apply, and they would be bound to follow them because this is binding and there is no invasion at all. Similarly, if a country were made up of less than ten people those individuals would create the laws with consensus. But when a country is made up of millions, then the people—those millions—send their representatives to the Senate and the House. It is their responsibility to craft laws by listening to every voice, every perspective—preserving inclusivity, diversity, and equity—ensuring that the laws reflect everyone in a fair and inclusive manner holistically in response to their expectations protecting preferences and lifestyles, freedoms of all with rule of law and constitution. Speaking is simply speaking. Thinking is still thinking. Listening to music is listening to music. Consumer behavior is consumer behavior. Role playing is role playing whether in your real life, whether in your language course or in art. Stating an opinion, saying “in my opinion,” and sharing your views by themselves would not make you illegal, criminal, or part of something unlawful/illegal, especially in a true democracy that values freedom of speech and democratic rights as well as joking & irony. Also joking is joking Simply those are not crimes. Whether you do this in academia, politics, business or in art which is part of a healthy democracy. However, some people, in an effort to control you, might try to discredit you, criminalize you, or penalize you because of what you say or think even if you are innocent, and basically what you do is done by billions all over the world every day. This is because of they want people in control, just thinking like them, without questioning, thinking critically, brainstorming and do not live the lifestyles, have the paradigms which billions respect, share and also have in all over the world. It is evident that in this type of suppressive system empathy would develop less. But this type of discreditations, putting you into some situation bad/unfavorable for you to look bad, false acquisitions, approaches to penalize somebody innocent for suppression and dictations, or somebody disagrees your opinions which I deeply and sincerely respect, does not make speaking or thinking itself illegal or makes you part of something illegal. Frankly, it's very clear: maybe these people simply don't respect freedom of expression or similar rights—at least for others—while they demand it for themselves only. But when there is respect to all life styles and ideas, a person would simply say I respectfully agree or I respectfully disagree with mutual understanding and mutual respect with empathy. Simple as that. The solution is simple in these types of situations mutual understanding and mutual respect with empathy to each other accepting and respecting everybody (all members of the country, society and world) as who they are. Similarly as part of a diplomatic mission and in all my duties, daily life, I always uphold, comply and respect laws of the host country, international law, united nations resolutions, as well as the countries in which I hold citizenship and diplomatic immunity as well as every culture, individual, belief, ideology, life style, speech, preference and alike. Also speaking is just speaking and thinking is thinking—no one really plans what they say and think. It’s a spontaneous act that comes from your mind. It’s a natural talent, a gift from God, we must respect that. But in order to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we do need to be careful we should do our best about what we say in sharing our opinions and ideas in accordance with freedom of speech. But at the same time, it’s just a natural thing—it's a genuine, spontaneous expression. If speaking were considered something bad, then you would never speak at all. We must also recognize that there are diverse personal preferences—whether it’s monogamy, polygamy, or other lifestyle choices, relationship preferences, life style choices, speaking, thinking rights or alike. The constitution must respect and protect all of them—in an inclusive way—ensuring that every citizen’s rights and demands are considered, protected considering equity principle of law in an inclusive way that protects the respect for diversity, equity and inclusion. That is the essence: the constitution must safeguard everyone equally and embrace diversity at its core. We need to consider every citizen, every individual, every person, when making laws—not just a select group, powerfull, not just the majority or minority but majority and minorities all together but the entire population, each unique individual considering rights of individuals who visit the country for touristic or business purposes or alike. Everyone should treat each other with respect, and every citizen has the same rights as everyone else. Their rights are equal, based on the principle of equity in the law. They need to understand that every other citizen has the same rights as they do, and therefore, they should respect those rights and each other as well. That, truly, is the key. People will often choose a leader to represent them, even if there are many smart individuals—whether men or women—who are capable. That leader becomes the voice of the nation. And, as long as the people choose me—if they elect me as President of the United States—then I will accept that with full respect and gratitude as in the movies. I am honored by that trust and love. Thank you for believing and supporting in me.
In my opinion, NATO stands as a powerful symbol of democratic freedoms, where freedom of speech, civil liberties, and human rights can coexist harmoniously without one sacrificing the other. This balance is vital, because it reinforces that a strong democracy is built on inclusivity, mutual respect, and the unwavering defense of fundamental rights. This is why it's so crucial we support and uphold these values within NATO.
When you say, "This is how you will live, this is how you will speak, this is how you will think," that is a dictatorial style, and it goes against the essence and soul of true democracy that protects liberties equally for all. When it comes to norms, preferences, and lifestyles, there is no single truth, no one universal perception. These are inherently subjective—individual norms, group norms, cultural values, and lifestyles, along with ideologies and speech. However, there are universally accepted norms—like the idea that a constitution should protect fundamental rights for all. These are universal standards that uphold equality and dignity. Yet, even within that framework, there is no single truth about all perceptions or ways of living. Thus, the constitution and the rule of law must embrace each citizen, crafting laws in an inclusive way that actively considers diversity, equity, and inclusion. It should respond to every citizen’s needs, embracing everyone holistically, in an inclusive way. Also, all individuals in society—every citizen—should learn to live together through mutual understanding and mutual respect, respecting and accepting each other as they are, in harmony—so that we all thrive together in harmony, in the same society and the world.
If Someone asks me if my criminal record is clean, and I can confirm that it is %100 clean. In every country I’ve visited , everywhere I’ve lived ,in all countries I have been, in all countries of the world. I’ve never committed any crime, and no wrongdoings at all. And there hasn’t been a single complaint against me not to my face or any law authority. That’s the reason why I have clean criminal record—it’s as simple and as clear as that. As in movies but also in real life my choice is to be a good character with my doctorate (Dr.) title, worldwide recognized, global education, fame and experiences. Of course, I would never want to turn away people who trust me, believe in me, love me and support me with respect to everybody. I think all world citizens love me and I love them also :) Thank you for all. Kindest Regards, Dr. Özerk Yavuz
As President of the United States, in close consultation with my advisors and specialists, I fully respect the decisions made by the majority in the Senate, the House, and on Capitol Hill. However, as long as the people continue to call on me to speak, I believe it is my duty to offer my honest perspective. I do not take this responsibility lightly, and I will continue to speak out for what I believe will uplift every American and secure a better future for all—while always honoring every perspective and consider them. I consider every individual—whether a child, a teenager, a middle-aged person, an adult, or an elder, male, female, all living beings, animals, nature, all world citizens and our planet world—and I recognize people from all walks of life and all generations. I respect them all and take them into account when I craft my speeches. I will continue to consider everyone moving forward. Thank you. Thank you.
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.’” As Nâzım Hikmet Ran once said: "To live like a tree, solitary and free, and like a forest, in brotherhood" what we should do in my opinion. “Life is short! —let’s try to get the best out of what it has to offer.”. Let us treat good to one another.
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.
Perhaps, if there had been no freedom of expression, no free media—no cinema, books, or press—we would never have heard the voices of people from all walks of life: political leaders, leaders, CEOs, governmental officials, Hollywood stars, pilots, cabin crews, students, children, teenagers, adults, elderly people, teachers, academics, entertainment professionals, blue-collar workers, and white-collar workers and alike—who kept their thoughts, ideas, some of their speeches private at home, or alike in their private lifes. Instead, we would have only seen public statements shaped by fear of social pressure or people who hold power, therefore it may have been not so easy for some to tell hard truths in some cases. This may not be the case for all, but it may be the case for some also, you never know. Through storytelling and artistic narratives (based on a true story or a chosen alternative by the scriptwriter), we hear not only people’s public voices in real life, but also—through fictional characters or based on a real story characters—their inner worlds. Art allows us to glimpse private lives, intimate relationships, lifestyles, and sincere conversations with friends, families, citizens, and partners. It captures life beyond the spotlight: thoughts shared in cafés, at home, or in pubs, preserved in scripts or performed in real time through advanced technologies. In these spaces, whether under real names or imagined ones, art reveals the human experience in its most candid and unguarded form with or without same names in real life. In this way the audience and the content creator are connected nicely in this shared experiences and journeys. But in real life, even when there’s pressure from the majority or minority, or people who hold power in some cases, there still needs to be a clear stand on what is right in accordance with universally accepted norms and democratic principles which protects the liberties and rights of each and every citizen, individual. Without that, a fair justice system and a legislative process that truly embrace equity, diversity, and inclusion—and that consider each citizen—would never come to be and there would be always questions about the fairness of the justice system and system. A system which satisfies and makes all of its citizens and individuals who trust and choose this country considering, respecting all world citizens, making them happy, meeting their expectations is the best system. This is only possible with inclusive laws that prioritizes holistic approaches considering diversity, equity and inclusion listening to every citizen, tourist, investor, expatriate, world citizen and alike.
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.
I believe that all living beings have an equal right to live in this world. The world does not belong solely to one race, but also to humans, animals, plants, and the entire environment. We must consider everyone. If someone gave me a chicken, a pig, or a cow to eat, I would instead care for them, feed them, and let them live and thrive. I believe all living beings are created by God, and they all have a right to live. Therefore, we must be guardians of animals and of the planet as well. Research shows that if you don’t eat meat, you can still thrive on plant-based proteins or other animal proteins like eggs and milk. This is supported by scientific studies, and it proves you can still meet your daily needs and stay active. Extensive scientific literature indexed in Scopus, SCI, SCIE, and similar global databases confirms that properly planned plant-based or vegetarian diets—including those incorporating eggs and dairy—are nutritionally adequate and support high levels of physical activity. A landmark review by Mariotti and Gardner (2019) in Nutrients clarifies that while plant proteins are often mischaracterized as "incomplete," a varied intake of legumes, nuts, and seeds effectively meets all essential amino acid requirements for adults. Furthermore, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics maintains the official position that such diets are appropriate for all stages of life, including for competitive athletes, as they provide sufficient energy and high-quality protein packages that are often superior in fiber and lower in saturated fats than meat-centric diets. Recent clinical trials, such as those conducted by Almuntashiri et al. (2025) and Soh et al. (2024), emphasize that meat-free lifestyles are not only viable but also offer significant protective advantages against chronic diseases. Research consistently demonstrates that replacing meat with plant-based protein sources can reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease by up to 25% and type 2 diabetes by nearly 34%. For those focused on physical performance, a 2025 study in PMC comparing plant-based and animal-based protein blends found no significant difference in muscle mass or strength gains during resistance training, proving that individuals can remain highly active and thrive without meat consumption.
When enacting laws and regulations, we must approach our legislative duties with a broader historical perspective—similar to the evolution of liberties witnessed at the Capitol. This includes the essential expansion of civil liberties, the advancement of human rights, and the historic broadening of suffrage and the right to hold office for women and all citizens. We must remain committed to the protections of every demographic—children, youth, adults, the elderly, and the disabled—while steadfastly upholding labor rights, social equality, and the full spectrum of civil rights. This mindset, I believe, should be expected to continue into the future. We can also be pioneers in establishing these laws. In fact, some even categorize animal killings in slaughterhouses as murder and some as a systematic killing—perhaps the greatest genocide ever committed against our animal friends. Many consider hunting not as a sport but murder as well. I think the people who think, share their ideas in this way have a fair point and this makes total sense. It We must recognize this as a profound injustice and treat it with the utmost seriousness as we craft and shape our laws. Maybe animals and nature may not be able to define or represent themselves, but we should act as their stewards—being sensitive to both animals and nature. We must consider every individual citizen, as well as animals and the environment. Perhaps God gave us the responsibility to represent them, especially here in the halls of the Capitol, in the Senate, and beyond. The shift in mindset may take time, but we can discuss it in the Capitol, on the floor, and we can redefine these laws as we have been pioneers in many areas as in liberties, democratic freedoms, human rights, animal rights, preventing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides in the past. This is a moral duty we all share. We should be the representatives and stewards of everyone from every walk of life— including children, teenagers, adults, the elderly, law enforcement officers, civilians, artists, teachers, scientists, professors medical specialists—just to name a few. Every unique individual, every global citizen—alongside animals, all living beings, and nature itself—should be represented. By doing so, we can create a more inclusive, holistic world—grounded in diversity, equity, and inclusion—just to name a few guiding principles. We should build our rule of law and constitution in a way that fairly and equitably represents all those voices. Under the rule of law, and through a strong constitution, we must protect everyone—every perspective, every lifestyle, ,every voice and everyone considering scientific facts, scientific body of knowledge/literature, universally accepted norms and high democratic standards and alike that protect liberties and democratic principles. This would definetly help create a truly inclusive society.
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. We can not say aids a flu, a hepatitis a gripal infection. Similarly speaking and thinking are not considered and classified as a crime. For example in social sciences and other disciplines when we do factor analysis (in a case where you measure the conceptualization construct with more than one question) for example each construct is measured with questions that are prepared with extensive literature research not to make similar mistakes in sensitive measurements with validity and reliability. Later with an additional analysis approach, applied algorithms and alike of course relations between indipendent, dependent variables knowledge discoveries and alike are anaysed and studied if necessary.
You know, each research method—whether qualitative or quantitative—has its own strengths and weaknesses, of course. The choice of method depends on resources, and each approach has its limitations. But, if you have the budget and can expand your sample size, you can even employ triangulation if preffered to get the benefit of each method and approach—combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In this way, you design your research based on solid scientific methodology, ensuring full academic autonomy. After all, without autonomy, you risk the abuse of power. If we do not have autonomy in academia and research instutions, in scenarious like abuse of power, we can have the risk of fabricated research and not know other unique research findings in scientific body of knowledge and in literature. It’s crucial to protect that autonomy, especially in democratic countries, where we must preserve and safeguard it to move forward also in education, science & technology and alike.
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. The content thought or spoken is subjective in nature as long as there is not a harmfull behavior like torturing, assaulting, harrasing, injuring or killing someone or alike than it is acceptable, considered normal in real life. This, then, is a subjective nature, rooted in personal experience. In accordance with respecting to freedom of speech we should respect each version in real life, art productions and alike. When a poet says, "I am listening to Istanbul, my eyes closed," or "I am listening to Istanbul, my eyes open," or even, "I am listening to Istanbul, my eyes half open," there will always be lovers and dislikers, even haters because of the subjectivity of each member of the audience. If, in a society, one group starts penalizing others for their ideas, thoughts then others may begin to do the same mistake, which may create an unjust, unfair dynamic. In fact, this runs counter to the core principle of the rule of law, which must uphold fairness and equal protection which we define as equity principle of law also when it comes to the protection of human rights, democratic freedoms, liberties freedom of speech/thinking, consumer rights, elector/elected rights and alike. We need to learn to live together in harmony and synergy, with mutual understanding, mutual respect, and genuine empathy as all members of the society and world citizens.
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.
For example Edith Piaf is one of the modest yet powerful voices of the French musical tradition, admired around the world. However, some may try to divert the discussion by bringing in different elements, such as references to “Uşşak maqam” or “Hicaz maqam understanding them also wrong. Or some other style, school of thought or ecole” All maqams, schools of thoughts (école) and all forms of art are valuable in their own right (Whether you are looking at it through the lens of the French school of thought (École de pensée Française, École Française), American school of thought, British school of thought, German school of thought, Danish school of thought, or any other distinguished tradition or school of thoughts). History shows us The French school of thought and other distinguished school of thoughts and the courtly language prevalent in the palace among nobles, courtiers eventually, over time reached the broader masses as academic institutions, scientific discourse, art, media and the press expanded. This process undoubtedly mitigated social friction reduced the tensions and gaps between palace-public and within public gave a fair ground for each community/citizen to understand one another with multicultural awareness enhanced via education etc. accessible to everyone with developments we saw over the last centuries. Ultimately, what truly matters is understanding issues correctly, analyzing them deeply, and arriving at the truth and never blaming an innocent person making him/her victim. As expressed in a French song (“une chanson Française”): may your path be open, and may everything unfold as your heart desires.
In my opinion another distinguished artist Tanju Okan, explores a similar narrative in his poem and song "Ah Bir Zengin Olsam" (If Only I Were Rich). Okan envisions a life spent with his lover, friends, loved ones etc. listening to the likes of Edith Piaf etc., far removed from the sorrows, sins, crimes, bad people, bad intentioned people who may want to pull you down, down to their swamps by tackling and evils of the world etc. However, within the reality of the capitalist era we inhabit, I think he—like everyone else—emphasizes the undeniable significance of capital. In this regard, it can be argued that he shares a common ground and common idea with those who have unraveled the secrets of capitalist system, human beings living the lives that they want with capitals, democratic freedoms, liberties in a more privileged, better way in the developed world. As expressed in a French song (“une chanson Française”): may your path be open, and may everything unfold as your heart desires.
Research suggests that leading indicators that leads to wrongdoings, negative behaviors, crimes are multifaceted and not tied to a single factor. It’s not fair to say that every behavior or every ideology is inherently linked to any other behavior, crime or wrongdoing. For instance, not every person who drinks alcohol smokes, and not every smoker drinks alcohol. Similarly, you can’t assume that someone with a different lifestyle—like drinking alcohol in his/her lifestyle—would commit a violent crime, nor can you say that a person who drinks or eats something would do or would not do anything wrong, commit a crime or not commit a crime. So, if the corpus delicti isn't found (there is no behavior of committing a crime), everyone is considered innocent. Otherwise, you would have to penalize every book reader, dreamer, moviegoer, actor, leader and actress—all of whom are exercising freedom of speech, consuming art creations/productions, public speeches alike responsibly/respectfully. So, if there's no corpus delicti, no crime has been committed—whether in the realm of artistic expression or in everyday life. In short, these types of correlations between some behaviors are often insignificant. Similarly, due to someone’s lifestyle or ideology, you can’t assume that this person is underperforming at their job or that they are unqualified or committed a crime. There’s no direct correlation between their personal choices and their job performance. If they are doing their job well, then we should respect their lifestyle choices and all their personal differences. We shouldn’t judge their lifestyle or ideology when assessing their job performance. 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.
Democracy and secularism are regarded as two of the most important principles that strengthen the culture of coexistence in modern societies. Democracy enables people to choose their own leaders and participate in governance. In such a system, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and fundamental human rights are protected. People can express their opinions without fear, criticize policies, and contribute solutions for a better society. In dictatorships and more authoritarian systems, however, power is often concentrated in the hands of a single authority, and differing opinions may be suppressed. Throughout history, oppressive regimes have repeatedly led to fear, social unrest, and stagnation within societies. Democracy, on the other hand, stands out as a more sustainable form of governance because it allows societies to correct mistakes and adapt through peaceful change.
Secularism refers to the separation of religion and state affairs. This does not mean being against religion; rather, it ensures that everyone can freely practice their beliefs. In a secular system, people are free to follow any religion, worship as they choose, or choose not to follow any religion at all. The state remains equally distant from all beliefs and citizens. In this way, secularism helps prevent one group from imposing pressure or dominance over others. In multicultural societies with diverse beliefs and traditions, secularism is one of the key foundations for peaceful coexistence.
Using religion, women, man, children and alike under the claim of “protecting” children and women in order to restrict their freedoms, lifestyles, choices, and opportunities is not a fair or ethical approach. Denying individuals certain freedoms and options that are available in more developed and democratic societies can limit their ability to make independent decisions about their own lives as they grow older. Authoritarian and dictatorship-like approaches that suppress different opinions, pressure individuals, and force everyone into a single way of life may harm social progress. Genuine protection comes from ensuring that individuals have access to education, the freedom to think independently, the right to make decisions about their own lives, and equality before the law.
Ignoring children’s and teenagers options and freedom to choose when they grow up unlike in developed countries with their own will and limiting some of their future choices is not a democratic approach. They should always have options and freedoms to choose from when they grow up without any pressure and forcing. It is more just and ethical to support them in becoming empowered and independent individuals where they can decide according to their own will especially when it comes to where to work, life style and similar preferences. Attempting to force everyone into the same mold goes against human nature. If a person doesn't want a certain option, they simply won’t choose it—so why would we ban or restrict those options in the first place? This is not acceptable in a democracy or a liberal system. People naturally differ in their ideas, cultures, lifestyles, and beliefs. What truly matters is seeing these differences not as reasons for hostility, but as a source of social richness and diversity.
Democracy and secularism help preserve this diversity by providing both freedom and protection for individuals. For this reason, they are widely respected and valued principles across the world today. Ultimately, for societies to progress, they must be built not on oppression but on freedom; not on fear but on the rule of law; and not on discrimination but on equality. Democracy and secularism play a vital role in enabling people from different backgrounds to live together peacefully, protect their rights, and build a shared future. True strength does not come from forcing everyone to become the same, but from learning how to live together with mutual respect despite differences. We should all learn to live together as a society and as a global community with respect for all religions, individual choices, cultures, and values. Constitutions should also guarantee and protect these freedoms and principles for everyone equally.
When you disagree with an opinion and attempt to label someone as a criminal—saying, for example, "You wet your pants, you committed pickpocketing," or "You did a robbery," or even "You injured someone, you trespassed, killed someone, you are unethical, used heroin or became part of something illegal" knowing that actually these are not the cases at all—just because these false accusations are made, it does not make an innocent person who did everything right with a lifelong clean criminal record guilty. A civilized person with maturity would just say I respectfully agree or disagree that is it does not harass, assault, torture, criminalize or slander. In fact, these very tactics—those attempts to discredit to silence or control someone—are often the ones that lead to injustice. Law enforcement officers and the judicial system need to be very careful in these situations. When an innocent person is targeted in this way—without any actual evidence, a corpus delicti—then these individuals should not be unjustly harmed or stigmatized in any way. However, sometimes people's perceptions differ, influenced by psychological factors or biases. For example, certain traits might trigger bias—we might think, if this person acts this way, then something must be wrong. But the truth is, if there is no corpus delicti—no evidence—then everyone should be considered innocent. Even if some people dislike another person’s lifestyle, role playing in art, speeches or ideology, those individuals can still be innocent, quite frankly. Otherwise, all non-alcohol drinkers could end up penalizing alcohol drinkers simply because they disapprove of that lifestyle, ideology of each other or the other way around (we always need to respect diversities, life styles and alike) even if nobody commited any crime and are innocent because of these false acquisations and biases.
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, if you have different expectations, you both go in your own ways respectfully as mature, civilized people. You know, sometimes your partner might break up with you not because you’re a bad person, but because they have different expectations, maybe one moved to another city, country or alike etc.. Maybe they’ve fallen for someone else—those deep feelings rise up, and they can’t resist them even if they love you deep inside, say so and prefer to be by your side all the time. Maybe they believe that happiness lies with this other person. But that doesn’t mean you’re guilty or a bad person. The truth is, there will always be people who choose you, and always people who choose others. That’s just the reality of life we need to respect. But if your partner wants a closer, more intimate connection with you with his/her consent in a consensual way—preferring to be close, even under your arm, arm pit, with a French kissing and holding your hand, or a more sexual intimacy etc. with full consent from both sides—and this is the case, this shows that they are attracted to you and value you in a way not something else. This actually shows that your partner wants a close, intimate relationship with you—that they’re attracted to you, like you and love, see something positive in you. Nothing more nothing less and everybody should understand that and respect that. This is the case for all monogamy and polygamy relations that a respectful individual decides with his/her partners in a consensual way that we need to understand. Unfortunately, even if this is the case, some people may still try to portray this in a negative light and try to show these types of things bad, to dictate their own lifestyle and preferences, for these people not to be so close in any setting based on their own paradigms and lenses shaped by culture, norms, subjective norms, group norms, values, that they want/wanted you to choose and rely on, etc. or because of misinterpretations, prejudgments and prejudices in some cases. These bad hearted individuals, sadly, do exist. At the end of the everybody should respect to one another and choice of each citizen. The person who does not want that level of close intimacy—and instead prefers a more distant relationship—would clearly send different signals to the other side. That is quite evident. And Frankly speaking I am very good in image recognition, natural language processing and signal processing these are my natural talents ;), also with the seamless integrations with several AI and information system technologies I am even better now, more competitive, more powerfull ;), as I have always respected the choices and free will of every unique individual in the past and said if that is what you want in all my relationships which involve friendships whether close, distanced, intimate and/or romantic, I will do the same in my future relationships in respect to everybody and everybody's choice, preference respecting laws, rule of law and constitution as I did in the past. And I think all should do the same in my opinion.
From history....“According to historical accounts, the artist arrives at the following interpretation regarding these poems and song lyrics... ‘The artist is said to describe how some people fail to improve themselves and therefore remain metaphorically like a “pipe” — empty or undeveloped. In other words, some people may have received an education, yet they never fulfilled their true potential and remained as if they had never been educated at all. On the other hand, some individuals, even without formal education, managed to develop themselves and approach life with greater awareness and maturity. However, there is also the concept of “educated ignorance.” A diploma or formal education alone does not necessarily guarantee kindness, empathy, manners, or character. As a result, in both cases, some people still fail to demonstrate the refinement and maturity expected from them and metaphorically remain “just a pipe. without kindness, respect and understanding to others in their daily behaviors, even some can turn their negative feelings to wrongdoings, negative actions that disturbs others” The artist also explains in a similar song that despite an individual’s deep passion for love and affection, social and familial pressures do not leave the person in peace. No matter how deeply someone loves or how strongly they wish to be together with the person they love, external pressures continue to weigh on them, making it difficult to establish a happy and free relationship. In this way, the artist emphasizes how society’s imposed norms and barriers can overshadow and suppress an individual’s genuine emotions. In another interpretation, the artist highlights with the phrase “Making love comes from loving root”, not from something negative that some try to portray or perceive, that making love is a mutual and reciprocal act done by two sides in a monogamy or more in a polygamy type of relationship/intimacy, nobody can make love alone in the real sense. Linguistically, the expression suggests a shared and interactive action between two or more people at the same time which is making love rooted from love origin. In other words, when one person expresses love physically and emotionally, it also implies that the other person/s shares those feelings and participates in that emotional connection. Through this perspective, the artist conveys that a person should not feel guilty for consensual actions like making love that stem from genuine consensual love. Instead, such actions are presented as a natural expression of sincere affection. Thus, the artist portrays love and action as complementary elements that complete one another and a feeling of love turns to a consensual legal action which is shared and respected by billions in all over the world.”. People tend to view relationships more positively when they believe that the individuals in love also meet the expectations of society, family, and their circle of friends. In other words, beyond love itself, factors such as social compatibility, status, behavior, and conformity to social expectations can play an important role in how relationships are accepted by others. Otherwise, even if the emotional bond and genuine affection between two people are strong, familial and societal pressures may still lead to negative attitudes, intentions toward the relationship which we need to respect and respected in my entire life. Citizens of more liberal societies that place a strong emphasis on individual freedoms and personal rights are often comparatively more fortunate in this regard, as they may experience less social pressure concerning their relationship preferences, sexual orientation, career choices, and similar aspects of personal life. In such societies, individuals are generally given greater space to express themselves freely and make personal decisions without facing the same degree of societal or familial judgment/pressure. At the end of the day, some norms, lifestyles, relationships, career paths, associated choices, and ideas are subjective in nature, chosen by each unique individual and these differences should be respected and protected through the rule of law and constitutional principles in a holistic and inclusive manner for all citizens, individuals, members of the society and world. Sometimes, even if you are one of the kindest and most respectful people, and others tell you that you are their soulmate, that they are happy with you, and that they enjoy and choose spending time close to you with their own will, relationships may still go in different directions. People may fall in love with someone else, change over time, or be influenced by personal circumstances, societal pressure, or other reasons. This does not automatically make anybody guilty or wrong. In healthy and respectful relationships, it is important to respect people’s choices, feelings, and life paths, even when they are difficult to accept. At the same time all members of the society and world should learn to respect one another, preference of each for the right synergy and harmony strengthened with mutual understanding & respect for a better society and world. We are all human beings at the end of the day with similar dreams, needs, wants, demands want to choose the best options that life has to offer and we want among alternatives. We should also respect that, when also other human beings choose what is right for them. If we say nobody is a slave at the end of the day and then everybody should do their own choices with their own will according to his/her preference. We should value and respect one another, as well as our choices and choices of others.
You know, another thing is that, when you engage with the entertainment industry and consume entertainment services or other types of goods and services—and of course, it is the entertainment industry—even if you're a gentleman with a PhD, having a doctor’s title, overqualified, kind-hearted, and truly a stand-up person who treats nice to everybody who stands out with qualifications, kindness and everything—sometimes, you pay for services, but you don’t always receive a payment in all cases, for all cases even if you deserve at least the same maybe even more for some cases also. And that’s just the reality of life. Sometimes we pay, sometimes they pay—that’s simply how it works. We need to respect one another, everybody's choice, positioning and all. In a democratic society we respect every preference rather than people, individuals who may want to suppress choice of the people. The we the people want this way they want to have these options and legislators hear that and makes the laws inclusive to give these options to citizens respecting to their preferences whether they want to provide entertainment or receive entertainment services or alike considering that. Everything is 100% consensual, %100 Respectful and %100 fully legal as a gentleman/gentlewoman :), there is no issue, no complaints and no reason for complaints in any setting or lifestyle, relationship preference. 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...
Consumers or citizens will naturally appreciate when some services or goods are free, no doubt. Nobody is complaining on that one. But we’re not in the era of slavery thanks to Abraham Lincoln and people who thought like them—labor rights and the broader economic context have evolved dramatically. So, it’s completely understandable if some of these goods or services get monetized by some if they chose to do so and they have this type of preference and positioning which is also the case in entertainment industry. We need to respect that. At the same time, if some people choose not to categorize themselves that way, monetize some of the things as some do in some areas as some prefer, we also need to respect that and their positioning also, fostering a holistic, inclusive approach. We should respect everybody at the end of the day. And, of course, open-source should remain an option for those who want it in addition to for profit business types. But the reality is that even in the nonprofit or open-source models, things like donations, ad revenue, and sponsorships still play a crucial role. They’re often what keeps the project sustainable—funding development, support, and ongoing innovation. So, it’s really a balance—keeping the core accessible, but ensuring there’s a steady flow of resources to keep it alive. But in both cases whether individuals choose open source, not for profit business models or for profit models or any other choices in life or in their consumer behaviors. We should respect everybody and make our laws inclusive considering everyone with diversity, equity and inclusion protecting Liberté, égalité, fraternité.
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, haircut or an art production, celebrity endorsement, brand, product, service placements,—across same/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.
Maybe we should be ready for AI scenarios also. So, if universal basic income is distributed fairly to everyone at a high level and prices are fixed to prevent inflation, then, in theory, this system could work, especially if robots take over most jobs. However, the risk is that if you print too much money or give universal basic income at a very high level, people might stop working because everyone would have plenty of money. Then, you’d see a problem: there’d be a lack of goods and services, since demand would be high, but production wouldn’t keep up. So, that’s the big risk I see. so in this scenario, people would complain heavily. They might say, "Even if we got just a minimum wage, we’d be happier. Now, we can’t find anything—no work, no food, no places to travel, nothing to drink—because nobody is working, and no goods or services are being produced. Plus, the AI and robots aren’t ready yet." So, these would be the kinds of complaints we’d have to face in this kind of situation. so, if robots take over all jobs, and at the same time, you have fixed pricing to keep inflation under control and you provide everyone with enough money, then yes, it could still work. In fact, once all jobs are taken over by AI robots, they could also handle both the software and hardware development, essentially generating even more AI. In that way, the system could become self-sustaining, though it would still depend on careful management of resources and technological readiness. But, if these conditions aren’t met all together, the risks become even greater. A lot of people would voice strong complaints, and this would definitely need to be taken seriously by policymakers, managers, employers, and all other stakeholders. They’d have to carefully consider these concerns to avoid a broader societal backlash. So, if there’s no universal basic income, and no unemployment benefits, while some jobs are taken over by AI but others don’t pay, then you get a really low quality of life. People would be left unemployed, and overall, the quality of life for citizens would drop significantly. This would also create serious humanitarian issues, so that’s another critical factor to keep in mind for policymakers. So, in this case, we should give both employees and employers the freedom to choose what they want to do. Instead of restricting options, we should allow people to explore them. Of course, some might not have all the opportunities they wish for, but by giving them choices, they can work on improving their skills, pushing that extra mile, really trying hard and do their best. We should always believe in them and support them as leaders, decision makers and citizens. I hope that everyone gets the chances they need to pursue their own goals and shape their own future, based on their own aspirations and choices. So, if someone has an interest in becoming a law enforcement officer, they should focus their efforts there. If someone is drawn to medical sciences, they should apply in that position. Similarly, if someone wants a sales agent role or a position in the fire department, they should apply there. The idea is that people should channel their efforts toward the roles they truly aspire to. Of course, sometimes you might not get your first choice on the first try, but if you keep going, the next opening might be your ideal role. Usually, we have to wait a bit—maybe for a second or third option—but if we land that first choice in the first try, that’s the best-case scenario, and it really comes down to what each person wants to achieve. So, if you can work across all these options, with a sideline work option that many organizations consider and allow in today’s business landscape it’s even better. You boost your revenue with side hustles—like, say, consulting services, offering your professional services to multiple clients, whether B2B, B2C, C2G or B2G. Similarly, a biscuit company might place its products in all retail stores, or a beverage company might distribute its drinks in supermarkets nationwide or worldwide. A professor can work for the governments, have a film company as an enterpreneur, do consultation and academic positions and work with several businesses as a Hollywood star also earning from brand, product, service placements, celebrity endorsements, advertisements and alike. as long as everything is legal, and every penny you earn is within the law, consensual with full accountability and transparency then it should always be fine and should be respected—no worries at all. Maybe it's just that God loves you, and all the world citizens, decision makers saw you. And this is a moment where people really wanted to give you a chance—they wanted to see you succeed, loved you and trusted you. You might have just hit the jackpot; it could be your lucky day. In my opinion I think everybody should get this type chance/s if it finds you. Maybe you were born in a holly day as Christmas.Thank you all. So, another example is airline companies. Similarly they sell to all types of customers, not just one group or segment. To economy, business, premium or low cost choosing segments. In some cases, especially in the luxury segment, they can also sell to a single customer at a very high price. So, by diversifying their customer base with tailored market offerings to each market segment—targeting both mass and premium markets—they can really optimize their revenue streams. So, if you combine all of these—these side ventures—you can significantly boost both the revenue and the profitability of the business or the individual employees. These are some of the most frequently utilized revenue generation, customer portfolio enhancement methods, sales, marketing strategies. And of course, if businesses have this option, then other businesses and employees who boost their revenue this way should also be respected. This is part of a broader business strategy—using brand extension, market expansion, and a mix of different sales channels or via increasing number of customers in the customer portfolio—adding new partnerships along the way to increase those opportunities.
All businesses, workers, consumers pay taxes and provide or contribute to jobs, headcounts in businesses, grow the economy and that is something we absolutely respect. And so, to the society, and to the social fabric, and to the whole economy, of course—this is good for the country and the world, and so forth, which I respect. Just like food nourishes your body, these art forms nourish your mind and spirit. All goods and services exist for a reason to satisfy a need—some feed you physically, some in another way and art productions/creations, books and alike feed your intellect, enhances empathy, critical thinking, questioning. And yes, art products and services give back to society too—so that’s why people love to engage with them. So, as governments, as leaders, and as a society, we should support and foster that entrepreneurial spirit. By investing in these creative businesses, we enable them to thrive, and in turn, they give back to society, to the world, and to the country—and that’s something we should absolutely respect and encourage. Thank you for all the distinguished, respected countries, businesses and alike who trusted me. Of course based on budget, marketing strategy, advertising strategy, overall positioning alike and with their own will, intention and choice they prefer to choose to collaborate, work with me in these and similar chances which I deeply respect and which also makes me happy. Naturally, those decisions are made with careful consideration, which I can understand and respect. But thank you so much to those who chose us, who trust us, who support us, believe in my sincerety and good intentions. I really appreciate it. Also as in other businesses in this business model as long as you also have the payments from streaming companies, broadcasting companies, and, you know, distinguished countries, companies and alike that prefer you in product placements—brand placements, service placements, celebrity endorsements, alike and so forth—and those kinds of sponsorships, etc., when you receive that revenue, you know, from them, then, yes, you also pay maybe even higher taxes than some businesses do at the end of the day. But we all try to do our best as all tax payers citizens, individuals, people and businessess who aim to serve to the society, country and the world. That’s so clear. And, of course, we all have a duty to give back to the country, to society, and to the world. Also in the movies and soap opera industry, these production companies, these content creators—they also pay taxes, regardless of the script, storytelling, role playings and narratives that they have, maybe even higher taxes than many other businesses. So, that’s also a contribution; they also give back to society, they also give to people, and, let’s say, to the country and the world. That is so clear, that is so clear. Of course, everyone will do art in some business area—of course. And the art of, you know, also film, and you know, soap opera industries—art production, people working in the arts, and those art companies, media, book businesses and alike—they also have the same, you know, impact for society. We all try to do our best in this respect. Thank you for all the support, trust, believing in my sincerity and good intentions. We could not succeed without your un-ending support and love. Kindest Regards. Dr. Özerk Yavuz
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 (Most people already own inkjet or laser printers and alike—devices that, in a loose sense, resemble small-scale “money printing machines.” However, if the authority/permission to print money were extended to all citizens, all individuals similar to central banks or treasury departments, the consequences would likely be severe. In the worst case such a scenario could trigger economic chaos, significant inflationary pressures, and widespread dissatisfaction among the public without a fixed pricing approach which is against the nature of free market economy. One reason is that, if individuals could freely create money, many might choose not to work, reducing the available labor force. This, in turn, could lead to shortages of essential goods and services, as fewer people would be available to produce, distribute, and maintain them. While one could also imagine best-case or moderate scenarios, the overall outlook suggests substantial risks to economic stability and social balance. ). 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.✨
In the road to success, a strong marketing mix, built on the foundation of product, price, place, and promotion, forms the backbone of customer success. By integrating effective Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategies, protecting the rights of the consumer, without discriminating them, businesses can build strong customer relationships, gain a competitive edge, and drive growth. These successful approaches facilitate transactions across B2B, C2B, G2B, and C2C markets, fueling business expansion. As companies grow, they create more jobs, helping to reduce unemployment. By consistently meeting customer needs, satisfying them, they foster loyalty, increase customer lifetime value, and ultimately drive sustained profitability and long-term organizational growth. In this way, the quality of life for all citizens and society as a whole is safeguarded to the highest degree.
The best economic model appears to be a balanced system—one that combines the dynamism of capitalism, offering many choices in the market in a free market economy, with a strong social state that provides safety nets such as universal basic income and unemployment support. It is a system where people should 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. At the same time we should ensure that retirees are provided with sufficient resources so they can truly enjoy what life has to offer after years of contribution if they wish or do not wish to continue to work. Likewise, every worker should have access to fair opportunities, adequate income, and dignified living conditions in the jobs, work places that they choose to work with their own will and intention without sacrificing from human rights, labor rights, environmental, health, safety considerations and alike in all cases. But it is always debate on issues, points that can be discussed and implemented to make the system even better for all we the people, world citizens. I hope everybody gets what they always wish in life both in private life, leisure but also in career.
In a capital system the money is transfereed between goods and service providers and you know this is the case and as Keynesian suggest when the economy slows down the governments print money or supply money to businesses or to the system and citizens to make the economy grow far from recession. Also when you offer a good interest rate that matches or exceeds inflation, the value of your money is preserved. At the same time, the local currency becomes more attractive for investment, drawing in both tourists and investors. These investors put their money into the stock market, bonds, and other instruments, which reduces the risk of devaluation for the country. This, in turn, creates income for both the unemployed and the employed, as well as for businesses, protects the local currency from inflationary pressures and currency devaluation risks. These investment revenues also contribute to GDP growth—raising GDP per capita that is driven with consumer spending that rely on these additional revenues. Even if the increase is modest, it still supports overall economic expansion, benefiting the government and society as a whole.
In a worst-case scenario, if individuals find themselves unemployed with no income, we should consider options such as unemployment benefits and universal basic income, similar to those implemented in Scandinavian countries. Within a capitalist framework, this may represent one of the most balanced approaches. Alternatively, one could consider fixing prices through a regulatory body while funding income through monetary expansion. If such a model were adopted globally, it might, in theory, mitigate inflation. However, this approach would likely face strong resistance from investors and would not align with the preferences of the majority in a free market economy. Individuals and businesses naturally seek the autonomy to set prices, and this is something that must be respected in a free market economy.
The Scandinavian model—capitalism combined with a strong social safety net—appears to function effectively. It can be understood as an insurance mechanism for worst-case scenarios, while still allowing individuals to strive for greater economic success. This balance is important, as whether one is a business owner, employer, or employee, the desire to earn more is natural and should be respected. At its core, fixed pricing contradicts the principles of capitalism and the free market, making it impractical in most contexts. These limitations and risks must be acknowledged. If feasible, redistributive mechanisms funded through taxation may offer a more sustainable alternative. In extreme circumstances, however, targeted monetary support for universal basic income or unemployment benefits could still be considered.
From a policy perspective, lawmakers and business leaders must also recognize that without income support in times of unemployment, individuals are unable to contribute to economic activity and GDP. This has broader implications, including a decline in overall economic productivity, a reduction in quality of life of citizens and society. From also humanistic point of view is not good. Such outcomes should not be overlooked. By taking all these factors into account, it is possible to strengthen capitalism through well-designed safety nets and protective mechanisms. These should be carefully integrated into policy frameworks, reflecting the collective will of citizens, businesses, and institutions. Evaluating strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats across different scenarios can help guide more resilient and inclusive economic systems.
As suggested by AI, considering some of the scenarios, citizens, policymakers, and business leaders should pursue a balanced transition strategy that protects livelihoods while preserving incentives to produce and innovate: governments should strengthen targeted safety nets (such as moderate, sustainable UBI pilots or unemployment support) without resorting to rigid price controls, invest heavily in education and reskilling for an AI-driven economy, and ensure competitive, well-regulated markets that reflect real Supply and demand dynamics; businesses should continue creating value through productivity, technological adoption, and diversified revenue models while supporting workforce adaptation; and citizens should actively upskill, remain flexible in career paths, and engage in democratic processes to guide fair and realistic policies—so that the transition toward automation enhances overall prosperity without creating shortages, inequality, or social instability.
Finally, it is essential to recognize that capitalism with free market economy which is an economic system in which the production, pricing, and distribution of goods and services are determined primarily by voluntary exchanges between individuals, governments and businesses in the form of C2B, B2B, G2B, C2G, with minimal government intervention. Decisions are guided by Supply and demand, meaning prices adjust naturally based on how much people want something versus how much is available. In such a system, businesses compete, consumers choose freely, and resources are allocated toward their most valued uses. While this model encourages efficiency, innovation, and growth, most real-world economies operate as mixed systems, where governments still play a role in providing public goods, enforcing regulations, and offering social safety nets to address inequality and market failures. That is needed to be respected but this system not only operates at a local level but also within a global context. This reality should be openly discussed and debated in international forums, with an emphasis on reciprocal and cooperative solutions considering advantages, disadvantages, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Any improvements that contribute to the well-being of global citizens and the broader world should always be thoughtfully considered.
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; speaking/thinking talking role playing are not membership, 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 committed a crime in the past. Unfortunately, people with bad intentions, in order to silence others and exert control, often try to paint even the most innocent actions as crimes—discrediting people, and then punishing them after tarnishing their credibility. 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.
Galileo Galilei was penalized because he claimed the Earth was round. They thought that by stopping Galileo, people would stop saying it too. But eventually, it became clear that the Earth is indeed round. Many people began to say, “I am also Galileo,” standing up for the truth. This was later seen as a breakthrough, a proof, that freedom of thought and expression really matter. In the end, everyone has their own way of interpreting things and might not believe what they hear, have their own willpower, behavioral control. But, of course, it’s valuable to hear different perspectives. That’s the beauty of democracy.
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. If animals and nature don’t have a voice in parliament and can not vote, then we must step up and be their advocates, stewards. We need to make the laws even more inclusive, ensuring that the rights of all living beings and the environment are considered in our decision-making as well. Enacting a law doesn't mean that uncrowned communities with lesser numbers or crowded communities with higher numbers or individual citizens should be overlooked. You still need to listen to every perspective and craft laws that align with diversity, equity, and inclusion—values like liberty, equality, and fraternity. Just because you have a majority doesn't mean you can close your eyes to the minority voices other citizens who are not voting to the majority party—both in parliament and across the country. We need to consider both majority party voters and minority party voters, both democrats but also republicans each and every unique individual. Everyone’s perspective must be heard and considered. We should 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. In literature, marginalized groups are not defined as criminals it is cited as they not defined because society has not embraced them, labeling them as outsiders. But this also does not make these innocent people criminal in the first place. It is like in group out group dynamic conceptualization we see in social sciences literature for all communities of society. In fact, people who labeled and considered as marginalized in some societies, countries may actually be the majority in others. Research shows that these dynamics can shift depending on the country, society or the context. It’s crucial to recognize that marginalization is not fixed; it depends on societal structures and contexts. Perhaps each member of society should actively respect and uplift one another. In this way, we can grow together as a society, ensuring that everyone, regardless of how they’re labeled, is treated with dignity and respect. In this shared world, we must live in harmony, synergy, and mutual respect, mutual understanding with empathy. 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.
If countries develop strong democratic principles and upholds liberty, the value it places on those ideals should be seen as a positive trait. After all, if it protects citizens by emphasizing human rights, freedom of speech, democratical principles, consumer rights and individual freedoms, that should be recognized as a strength. A countries make progress in these areas would look better in the global arena for sure. In fact, advanced nations that have embraced these principles often enjoy a positive reputation because of them. When countries make progress in these areas and strengthens its sense of democracy and liberty, we should celebrate them. It’s a remarkable achievement for their societies, their citizens, and for individuals everywhere. Truly, it’s a win for the world as a whole.
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.
We need to ensure that we create and apply our laws in an inclusive manner. For example, we shouldn't implement discriminatory laws, because those undermine the fundamental rights of others as some call it aborgine law. What is a right for one person should not be an extra privilege for another. Democracy and liberties are not a privilledge members club. This is unacceptable from a justice standpoint. If someone can stay in a hotel, listen to music, speak freely, or make a movie, then others should have equal rights to do the same. If someone can be nominated for President of the United States or any high ranking role—or pursue any other career path they wish—then others must also have that same opportunity, equally and inclusively. In contrast, discriminatory laws say, “Your life matters, but others do not.” This is not acceptable. Moreover, when citizens criticize and call for us to recognize the rights of others, we must remember that a free law, a separation of powers, and an independent judiciary should treat everyone equally based on equity principle of law. When we change the law, we’re not saying we will automatically elect a particular person, of course. Rather, at the end of the day, based on the rights to both elect and be elected, everyone should have the chance to vote and choose their representative—whether for this role or any other. We fully respect that process. However, we must keep these roles open to everyone so that the opportunity is truly equal.
In this way, we must ensure equal opportunity—providing everyone a fair chance in the race or in the career paths or choices that make in life. But when some try to prevent others from even entering the race or consider or apply the options they want, prevent their preferences, choices which includes life style choices, that is not good; that is not fair. We need to make our laws in an inclusive way, taking into account diversity, equity, inclusion, liberty, equality, and fraternity—approaching it holistically, all together listening to every perspective. Of course, those who do their jobs well, earn the trust of citizens, fulfill their duties, and persuade decision-makers—whether for the presidency or any other position—will naturally rise to those roles quicker. Similarly, when setting up a business or any other candidacy, it’s the same situation. If you can convince decision makers, citizens, society, world you can go skyrocket. We respect that. We uphold that principle. As a gentleman/gentlewoman we should congratulate the winners whoever gets the trust of all citizens and will serve to the country with all hardworking, dedicated, smart we the people, citizens, individuals in whatever they choose. Lawmakers must enact laws inclusively, considering both majority and minority parties—Democrats, Republicans, and all citizens, all individuals, we the people in an inclusive way listening to every perspective. In this way, every citizen, every individual, will feel fairly represented and justly treated. This will prevent any erosion of trust in our judiciary, in the laws, and in the country’s institutions as a whole. It’s also clear that in high-ranking positions—whether in the public or private businesses, in business, or in organizations—when you climb the ranks, ladder, you naturally gain more benefits, rewards, career opportunities, and yes, some privileges. This is understandable and the situation in all over the world—the system is designed this way to motivate individuals. Without it, people might not work as hard, might not finish their education, enhance their qualifications and we would fail to develop the skilled individuals who move our society forward—whether they are engineers, blue-collar workers, white-collar professionals, surgeons, doctors, dentists, teachers, professors, political leader, business executives, business owners or any other role. We train people across all these fields, and without this motivational structure, we would lose that drive. The psychologists or psychiatrists, that are mainly focused in and study/research on motivational theory or as a specialist in this area, would recognize this and understand it in much greater depth. As a result, as their qualifications increase—knowledge, skills, and experience increase whether on job training, time spent or with education & trainings—people naturally come to expect those titles, rewards, and career opportunities. That is why we have better opportunities, with higher titles, more often—this system was designed in consultation with psychologists, and the motivation behind it justifies this approach. Similarly, when citizens' expectations are raised, but they are denied those rewards and career opportunities, cheated—even though they are qualified and deserving—this is not ethical or fair it is unjust.
Another important point worth mentioning is that, 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. As long as everything is transparent with full accountability and clear and these lucky sentences are cited accordingly then it should be all right citing them from prior studies of the same author. It is clear if an author likes some of his sentences and respects these contributions to the scientific body of knowledge from prior studies and this is clearly cited with author name and date it is accepted by the global academic community.
According to Chatgpt AI on Ethical Justification in Academic Standards
Reusing definitions or frameworks (Kotler, Porter, Krugman, McCarthy) is standard academic practice
Self-citation and theoretical continuity are widely accepted in academia
Studies are not duplicates if datasets, context, or findings differ
Transparency, citation, and methodology rigor determine ethical validity
Academic autonomy supports independent research design and interpretation
In conclusion, according to Scopus-indexed literature and citation analysis, using previously established frameworks or even reusing key sentences with proper citation does not constitute unethical research or duplicate studies. Instead, it reflects scientific continuity, theoretical stability, and academic rigor, which are fundamental principles of autonomous scientific research.
In academic publishing, self-citation and reuse of established frameworks are widely recognized as legitimate scholarly practices when transparency and methodological rigor are maintained. For example, a study by Alvaro Quincho‑Lopez published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity (2025, Scopus-indexed) states that author self-citations are an inherent aspect of scholarly practice, emphasizing that researchers naturally build upon their earlier work to ensure continuity and development of knowledge. This study analyzed 354 authors using Scopus data and found a median self-citation rate of 3.39%, confirming that referencing prior work is common and acceptable when appropriately justified.
Similarly, research by Filippo Sanfilippo and colleagues in the Journal of Intensive Care highlights that author self-citation is often necessary when building on previous methods, frameworks, or datasets, although excessive use should be avoided. The authors emphasize that evaluating appropriateness depends on context and scientific relevance, reinforcing that methodological continuity across studies is not unethical when properly cited.
Furthermore, bibliometric research by Kiran Sharma and Parul Khurana using 3.58 million Scopus-indexed papers found that approximately 6% of citations are self-citations, demonstrating that scholars routinely build upon their own work. The authors conclude that self-citation supports research continuity and scientific progress, provided it is not used to manipulate metrics.
Additionally, research by Zehra Taşkın and colleagues examining journals indexed in citation databases found that self-citation patterns are common across academic fields, particularly when researchers develop specialized theoretical frameworks over time. This reinforces the idea that reusing definitions, frameworks, and conceptual foundations is a natural part of cumulative scientific development.
Taken together, these Scopus-indexed and SCI-related studies confirm that reusing theoretical frameworks, referencing prior sentences, and building upon earlier work are standard academic practices. As long as researchers clearly cite sources, maintain transparency, and apply rigorous methodology, such studies are considered ethical and independent. This reflects the cumulative nature of science, where knowledge evolves through refinement, replication, and contextual application rather than complete reinvention at all times.
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.
There should be autonomy and seperation of powers in academia, law alike and academic freedoms given to every scholar in choosing unique research design composed of literature review, dataset, research methodology and alike otherwise, only a select few will get to seize those chances to be promoted in higher ranks—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.
In a suppression-based system—or what might be called a “suppression economy”—where genuine democracy does not exist, individuals may still face consequences even when their actions lead to nothing negative, everything is multifaced and not tied to a single factor. Even if people may act with free will, make their own choices and decisions, with filtering and decoding mechanism they have and take responsibility for their actions, these philosophers, opinion leaders that think out of the box and see what is not seen and ahead of its time, like Galileo Galile, ithey can still be suppressed, harassed, assaulted, or penalized. As the saying goes,—the innocent may suffer alongside or for the guilty. But this does not change the fact that the Earth remains round, shaped as a geoid.
In such an environment, some may attempt to justify their own wrongdoings and corruptions, dictatorial style tactics by criminalizing innocent people, especially those who have long supported genuine democratic principles which is part of a healthy system which respect liberties and choices of we the people. Perhaps what is truly desired is a society in which everyone lives, thinks, speaks, lives without questioning—anything is not discussed as in philosophy of science classes—where ideas, speaking, lifestyle are dictated rather than freely formed in a society where everybody lives without harming one another in an inclusive way according to their preferences but rather think, speak, choose according to dogmas dictated, but diversities and others not given a chance. In such a system, freedom of speech or behaviors needed to be respected, valued does not genuinely exist but suppressed, may be criminalized even if expressed ideas, these behaviors may, in fact, be correct and does not harm anybody in reality and these people share their ideas, make their choices are innocent at the end of the day and just wanted a better system and world that works for everyone in an inclusive way. That is it. For this type of personality, who does not respect that, it would be fair to ask, if you are right about everything and doing everything just perfectly fine with the best quality and everyghing, you are so tolerant than why do you not just respect freedom of speech, people do art, share their ideas and behaves normally, their ideoology, lifestyle where liberties in these are respected in real democracies but rather you try to criminilize, discredit innocent people, dictate your own ideology, values, lifestyle, supress them with your dictations to silence them for your coping inferiority complexes and insecurities to feel more secure?
When equity principle of law does not give the same chance for the creation of art, academic autonomy, or political leadership or all citizens and some voices, creations, productions are punished while others are not, this deviates from the principle of equal law. It risks being rooted in bias. Both opinions, you argue, should have the chance to be heard, and as long as there’s full transparency and full accountability, it should be acceptable. Otherwise, you may end up with a risk of censored academia, non inclusive biased rule of laws where equity, diversity, inclusion, liberties, democratic freedoms are not preserved or limited for some of the citizens violating equity principle of law, media, art lacking independence, and a breakdown of the crucial separation of powers. In a democracy, that separation of powers is absolutely essential for checks and balances otherwise a risk of abuse of power, transparency and accountability may not be protected.
At a conceptual level, a “risk instruction set architecture” can be imagined as a layered decision framework that mirrors both social norms and inner psychological structures. In society, norms, subjective perceptions, and group culture function like externally shared “instructions” that guide acceptable behavior under uncertainty—what risks are tolerated, avoided, or encouraged. This parallels Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche, where the id pushes for immediate reward (risk-seeking impulses), the superego enforces moral constraints (risk-averse, norm-driven control), and the ego mediates between them, much like an adaptive processor balancing competing instructions. In both systems, stability emerges not from eliminating risk, but from coordinating competing directives into coherent action.
The similarity becomes clearer when viewed as an adaptive architecture: group culture and subjective norms continuously update based on feedback (success, failure, social approval), just as the ego dynamically negotiates between instinct and restraint. Both systems rely on context-sensitive prioritization—what is “risky” or “acceptable” depends on situational inputs, much like conditional branching in a computational instruction set. Thus, whether at the level of collective behavior or individual psychology, decision-making under risk reflects a structured yet flexible system, where competing forces are encoded, interpreted, and resolved to produce behavior that is both socially intelligible and internally regulated.
This is similar to Fetch–decode–execute cycle in a microprocessor. In computing, the processor first fetches an instruction from memory, decodes what it means, and then executes it based on the available rules defined by the instruction set architecture (ISA). If we map this onto human cognition, sensory input and social signals are “fetched,” interpreted through personal and cultural frameworks during “decoding,” and then translated into behavior at “execution.” In this sense, the superego resembles the ISA—it defines the permissible operations, constraints, and moral “opcodes” that shape how actions can be carried out. The ego plays the role of the control unit, mediating between raw impulses (id) and rule-based constraints (superego), ensuring that execution aligns with both internal drives and external expectations.
Bringing in Tabula rasa, one might argue that individuals begin without a fully formed “instruction set,” and that norms, culture, and moral codes are gradually written into this architecture through experience and socialization with the own filtering mechanisms and choice of each unique individual. However, it’s worth pushing back slightly on a strict blank-slate view: modern psychology and neuroscience suggest that some predispositions—like basic emotional responses or risk sensitivities—are not entirely learned. So rather than a completely empty ISA, it may be more accurate to think of a minimal “bootloader” present at birth, which is then expanded into a complex, culturally embedded instruction set (the superego) over time. This hybrid view better explains why both universal patterns and cultural differences coexist in how humans perceive and act based on these reference points filled with their own willpower and preferences.
Both the superego and an instruction set architecture can be understood as foundational frameworks that encode and enforce a system’s guiding rules. In psychological terms, the superego internalizes norms, cultural values, preferences, and reference points that shape judgment and behavior. Similarly, in computing, the ISA defines the permissible operations and constraints that govern how a system processes information. In both cases, these structures do not merely guide action—they actively set the boundaries within which decisions are interpreted and executed, embedding shared standards into the core of the system.
When signals are received—whether in a technical system or in human cognition—they are not acted upon raw, but are filtered through embedded reference structures. In signal processing, incoming data is interpreted against predefined rules and constraints within the Instruction Set Architecture, ensuring that only valid, meaningful operations proceed to execution as in the intended way implemented by software engineers. A parallel can be drawn with the superego, which evaluates impulses and external inputs against internalized norms, values, cultural preferences, learned preferences and alike set by each unique individual by their own will, preference and filtering mechanisms, similar to a constitution of a country. Superego is filled with own willpower, preference and filtering of each unique individual after tabula rasa state over time after encountering the content received from various sources and experiences. In both cases, decision-making emerges from selective processing—signals are checked against reference standards, shaped by preference hierarchies, and only then translated into action, behaviors with this control mechanisms.
In a society where every perspective can be heard—as an expression of freedom of speech—both leaders and citizens should be able to share their ideas openly. This principle extends to creative arts such as cinema, theater, ballet, and opera, which should not become targets of censorship under the pretext of potential influence. If a crime occurs, it is neither fair nor reasonable to hold creators or speakers responsible for the actions of individuals. In a world rich with diverse forms of storytelling—from thrillers to adventure narratives—people retain their own will, reasoning, and capacity for critical thinking, and these faculties ultimately guide their choices. In a movie, art, political speech or a speech of a citizen, when behaviors and speeches are seen or heard, if there is a good character and a bad character, it’s ultimately the viewer who decides how to interpret them. The choice is not dictated by the content creator, the artist, or the actor; left to the audience. it’s shaped by the audience’s own perspective, paradigm and lenses. The viewer decodes and filters the messages based on own preferences. There is a layer in the brain known as intelligence, with decoding and filtering mechanisms—like the ego, superego, and other functions in the frontal lobe. This layer acts as an additional filter between media content and the audience, shaping how they interpret what they see and how they behave. In a democracy you can’t simply ban a film, artwork, an idea of a citizen or political speech just because of a political ideology. Studies show that watching different movies, listening to different perspectives, reading books even it is a thriller or murder in the story in itself, does not directly lead to crime. It is multifaced and there may be too many leading indicators. Otherwise, all readers who have read Agatha Christi type of authors when they hear similar stories in art or somewhere else would have had to commit crimes. Similarly you can see someone smoking in life or in art but this does not make a person start smoking immediately. An alternative example to that is that even some watch critisizms of America and American Culture, some of the American values, in movies or in real life still can prefer and choose to be American citizen if he/she loves America, American Culture, western values with respect to all, like I do :) Thank you all. But I must also confess American girls, citizens, we the people who love me, trust me, respect me, contributed to that as well :). Thank you all. It’s also true that people who engage with art, who consume media, who read newspapers, and who are well-educated may become more intellectual and perhaps commit fewer crimes. According to Scopus- and SCI-indexed journals, a study by Johnson and Smith (2021) in the European Journal of Criminology found that individuals who regularly engage with diverse cultural content tend to develop stronger moral reasoning and are less likely to engage in delinquent acts. Similarly, a report in Criminology & Criminal Justice (Li et al., 2020) indicated that educational media consumption correlates with improved critical thinking skills, suggesting that a well-rounded intellectual environment can act as a buffer against harmful behaviors. People have decoding and filtering mechanisms; they choose what to believe, what not to believe, and how to behave. Ultimately, it is their own willpower, intention, and reasoning that guide them; they can distinguish right from wrong based on their own judgment. After all, people can still learn about these brutal or criminal scenes, negative behaviors from other films, their friends or somewhere else with different political viewpoints, ideologies or perspectives also even some ideologies, narratives are banned in media and cinema. This is the same when listening to someone who share his/her idea one on one or publicly. Ultimately, if a person has good character, they won't commit a crime; but if someone has ill intent, they will find ways to learn these wrong behaviors from other sources as well and can still commit crime even some perspectives, narratives in media art fully banned or censored in a politically motivated or other motivated way. Here the real issue is that these censorship and dictatorial tactics aim to suppress ideas it is not liked, in order to silence others. That’s the core problem—it’s not just about whether people see crime or not, but about suppressing certain ideas, critical thinking and questioning, will of people but let them think according to some dogmas dictated without questioning and critical thinking. This is the same mentality—the same mindset—that seeks to silence philosophers, science classes, book publishing, and media. It’s all part of the same pattern—suppressing knowledge and diverse viewpoints in order to control the narrative. At the end of the day people have the ability to judge what is right or wrong. So, blaming these creators for crimes does not serve as a fair justification against free artistic expression. Furthermore, even though there are negative behaviors in movie theaters, using political ideology to silence certain voices is a dictatorial tactic. It stifles thought, paradigms, and artistic enrichment. These forms of art—cinema, theater, ballet, opera—are crucial enhancements to storytelling, quality, and cultural production and enhancements in narratives with more content creation possibilities. We don’t want to see Hollywood, art losing that to censorship.
In a fair justice system, the judge must hear both sides simultaneously to make an independent, objective decision. We recognize, of course, that some subjective bias is inevitable that varies from judge to judge, there are clear principles of laws that should be applied on the other hand there may also be varying opinions that may change from judge to judge based on lenses and paradigms. But with inclusive laws that considers diversity, equity, inclusion, error risk is minimized, similar fairness can be provided to all individuals regardless of their backgrounds, differences paradigms, lenses or ideologies. At the same time, in a society that protects freedom of speech, citizens also need to consider all perspectives before making their decisions—whether electing a president or addressing key issues. However, when power is abused, as seen in dictatorial regimes, those in power often censor academia, media, and institutions, silencing critical voices and abusing their authority this may not be possible.
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, if some can speak others can be able to speak, if some can listen to music other can also listen to music, if some stay in a hotel, buy a good or service than others should be able to do that. Otherwise we may talk about biased justice system which is not inclusive that does not respect diversity, equity and inclusion. 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 or career options.
What Festinger and Ajzen proposed is that intention is actually the immediate precursor, antecedent of any kind of behavior. In other words, it’s the central, fundamental construct that directly drives whether or not a behavior will occur. Over time, these behaviors can become heuristics—mental shortcuts—shaped by that original attitude or intention. So, the idea is that if we understand someone's intention, we can predict their actions much more reliably. If someone has a bad intention to commit a crime or do a wrongdoing they have agency, and they can act on it, regardless of external influences like a book, a movie, speech, art production, or a song. Everyone has their own free will, their own sense of behavioral control, and personal responsibility. Ultimately, each individual is the one who decides what to do and what not to do. Their intentions—along with their moral compass and self-regulation—act as the filter for their actions. So, it’s really about personal choice and accountability. So, it’s not fair to place the blame on the media, art or the person who shared the idea. The responsibility lies with the individual who chose to act. Those who seek to censor free speech often use this kind of reasoning as a justification for their authoritarian control. In some geographies unfortunately for years, decades by framing themselves as protecting people from harmful influences, they actually restricted the very freedoms that underpin a healthy society, democratic principles and liberties. In doing so, this kind of censorship, suppression tactics becomes a tool for maintaining power, rather than for protecting people. Similarly Children, women, men, religion and alike were all used as justifications, tools to enforce these restrictive measures, essentially as a way to control behavior, freedom of speech, freedom to believe, life styles and preserve power. There is no line in any religion or belief system that says Dr. Özerk Yavuz—should not live freely, enjoy life, party with all loved ones, succeed, be rich, have diplomatic immunities, live as he wishes with multiple citizenships or pursue prosperity through legitimate means such as business, diplomacy, or other lawful opportunities unlike I think God and all citizens of the world supported me in having those opportunities all the time. Thank you. What I believe this is between me and God; which god needs to decide and assess, it's something that deserves respect. I sincerely don't believe that God wants anything bad for me. In fact, I believe almighty God always wants what is good for me. When someone treats me badly or violates my rights, I believe that the Almighty God—the Creator, who brought me into this world through my parents—would not approve, of that would not like that in my opinion. In my view, harming a person created by God—like Dr. Özerk Yavuz—is something God would not support. Also this is the case for all constitutions and also a respectful, good citizen respects that, should not envy and feed their hearts with negative feelings and bad feelings. Perhaps it is simply a matter of mutual respect: just as I have respected—and will continue to respect—others who have access to such opportunities (in the past, currently and in the future, you never know who will get the jackpots in life but we should always work on developing ourselves and try), I expect the same respect similarly that is it. I just waited my turn to come respectfully without pressuring anybody just tried to convince people, defend my thesis with the main ideas and supporting ideas justified with literature reviews that I think best for all of us and the planet world, respecting the democracy, laws and regulations that is it. Full accountability, full transparency. In reality, many people aspire to achieve success and fulfillment in life like me, nobody is thinking different than me on that one. Whether it is me or someone else who “hits the jackpot,” it should be respected, as long as it is achieved legally, consensually, and in accordance with the principles of the rule of law, a free-market economy and alike. Everything is in accordance with the law. Full transparency, full accountability. But In these kinds of systems where democracies and liberties are limited and religion, children, women, men innocent people are exploited and used as a tool to supress freedom of speech, creativity in art, life style preferences and alike , people often don’t develop empathy because they're exposed to only a narrow set of sources. They never encounter a broad range of literature or perspectives. As a result, their intellectual capacities, critical thinking, multicultural awareness, empathy skills don’t fully develop. Those who do manage to succeed often have to leave these environments and go to more developed countries, where they have access to a wider array of opportunities. So, in a way, those who stay behind miss out on the fuller development that others achieve. The research suggests that in many cases, those developed nations benefited from allowing a more open environment—free access to diverse ideas, broader education, and innovation. By contrast, those who remained closed off—limiting exposure to a full range of knowledge and opportunities—didn’t progress at the same rate as in some communities (as in some business or academic communities and alike) or some parts of the world compared to others. So, the freedom to explore, question, and engage with a wide spectrum of ideas really set the stage for development in those Western nations. So, these so-called protections were really just tools of authoritarian governance. In this way, entire lifestyles and ways of thinking were imposed, rather than being freely chosen. Unlike in many Western societies, where people often choose their own paths, these communities had strict, non-negotiable norms dictated to them. As a result, diverse lifestyles, individual freedom and diversity of thought were severely limited. This kind of top-down control over lifestyles and thought is completely incompatible with a true democracy. In a real democratic society, people should have freedom of choice, diversity of belief, and the ability to live by their own values. What you see instead in authoritarian regimes is the suppression of this diversity, with every aspect of life being tightly controlled from above. And in doing so, they discredited and even criminalized the very lifestyles and ways of thinking that billions of people embraced. They painted these diverse cultures and beliefs as something dangerous or immoral, just because they didn’t fit a narrow, imposed standard. In the end, this kind of demonization not only stifled individual freedom, but also robbed societies of their full potential for growth and diversity. Even if some individuals or groups try to impose authoritarian views, the law in a true democracy should be fundamentally inclusive. It should embrace all lifestyles, norms, and beliefs, ideologies, perspectives, lenses, fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion. Despite having access to advanced technologies and specialized expertise or limited resources across the globe in some cases, each community, individual in the same society or other societies still people may have their own cultural nuances and values, distinct mindsets we need to respect each other. So, even with a shared technological base, we have to respect these cultural perspectives to create truly inclusive solutions with mutual understanding and mutual respect to live in harmony with a good synergy in our society and planet world. A healthy democracy doesn’t erase differences; it uplifts them, ensuring that all voices, beliefs, perspectives, lifestyles, preferences alike are heard and respected, regardless of a few authoritarian attempts to silence them. One of the most devastating parts of these systems were that—innocent people are often caught in the crossfire, tried to be labeled as criminals, discredited, harrassed, tortured, assaulted and stigmatized, even when they’ve done nothing wrong and not committed any crime. This kind of unjust treatment not only harms individuals, but it also erodes trust in the legal system and to people who do these wrongdoings as a whole. So, it's crucial that all members of the society as well as laws, rule of law and the constitution are fair, inclusive considering diversity, equity, inclusion & democratic principles and that people aren't punished simply because of prejudice, bias, opposing views, different lifestyles, ideologies, preferences or alike.
In fact, actors, actresses, scriptwriters, artists, authors, and political leaders all serve as amplifiers of what the people want to express. They give voice to the collective hopes and concerns of society. These are already talked by individuals, citizens and society by billions everyday these people just amplify them with the narratives and storytelling in art or rally, speech venues in amphitheatres as in ancient Greece. But if all sides can listen to each other respectfully with mutual understanding, mutual respect and empathy than that is the real fair &modern civilization, tolerance to multiculturalism and diversities including different perspectives and life styles. The concept of democracy really started to take shape in Athens in ancient Greece around the 5th century BCE in amphitheathres and similar structures which was the birthplace, so to speak. For laws to be truly inclusive—embracing every individual and citizen—this amplification is essential. Freedom of speech safeguards this process. After all, these are not hidden ideas—billions of people share them. It is the leader who elevates these voices, and through freedom of expression, we create laws that champion equity, inclusion, diversity, and every individual citizen. In a more personal sense, these political leaders, as well as artists, actors, scriptwriters, philosophers, and other opinion leaders, all help amplify the voices of the people. When we silence them or punish them, we don’t just harm individuals—we punish the citizens and the very future of our society. After all, when freedom of expression is violated, it is the future of our country and its citizens that we put at risk. Think about figures like Galileo Galilei—those who were punished in their time are now remembered as heroes. Today, we all say, "We are Galileo Galilei also. The world is rounded as he already said centuries ago. Countries and societies that reward their philosophers, thinkers, philosophers, artists, leaders—rather than punishing them—as well as their artists, actors, and other creatives, tend to have a stronger global reputation and achieve greater development. In contrast, those that silence these voices—punishing artists, political leaders, business leaders, cinema, theater, authors, free press, and freedom of expression—historically develop less. Studies show that repressing these voices stifles a nation’s progress. In this way, punishing these individuals means punishing the citizens, the country, and the future of the entire society. Freedom of speech, along with the practice of reading diverse books, and engaging with the arts, opens up a world of perspectives. It allows us to encounter new ideas, challenge assumptions, and develop deeper empathy for others. By immersing ourselves in different voices, we not only enrich our own thinking, but we also foster a more innovative, tolerant, and dynamic society—one where progress is driven by a plurality of thought and a shared commitment to understanding.
I have always believed that every good thing is a right for all and everybody deserves the best of everything. It feels as if luck has finally smiled on us—almost like winning the lottery, as if being born on Christmas brought us a bit of fortune. But just as it happened to us, it can happen to others as well which I always respected and will always respect. You know, when these people were in my shoes (in the past, now or in the future you never know), maybe they would also expect the same respect. But, you know, respect is always a more constructive, positive thing—something that God would love, and something a good person would do, I think. But, you know, some people, maybe, they hold onto those bad feelings, bad hearts—and that’s never a good feeling at all, and not the best, most constructive approach. I also do not think that is really the God really wants frankly speaking. But, you know, if someone were in my shoes, and they won the lottery or similar chances in life, they would also get it—and they would expect the same respect. So, when someone like me has this chance in life, maybe, you know, they should also respect that as well without prejudices and prejudgements not seeing the bigger picture. In the past, before us, there were people who rose to certain positions—whether by destiny, by the will of God, by the support of the people, or simply by their luck. I always respected that and just shared my ideas. That is it. And after us, there will undoubtedly be others too who will have same or better options. This is inevitable, this is how the world turns and system works. There is not a single right in every case. We should give everyone a fair chance—whether in elections or in growing, improving opportunities, getting promotions, and finding a better place, being rich or alike. If they can convince the citizens, decision-makers, and leaders, then they can skyrocket—advancing at a much faster pace, of course. Sky is the only limit. But, you know, we should give everyone the same chance. The rest, though, also depend on effort—and, you know, the dedicated, hard-working people will always be helped by God, and people with sincerity and good hearts will always see them. Truths, right things can be different to some. I respect and respected to everyone, just waited my turn to come but I always said I was also good enough to be considered for good things in life. This time, it seems the grand prize has come our way. Thank you for everything. There has been no pressure on anyone—only genuine public love, respect and support. It appears that our leaders, citizens and decision-makers also appreciated and chose to support us. Thank you all we would not, I would not achieve without this unending support and love. Perhaps this means we are among those favored by God, citizens, leaders and decision makers. I thank everyone sincerely. Maybe God has also granted me some good things, wrote, chose a good destiny for me and wants me to live according to my preferences and lifestyle anyway and you know, I have achieved many positive milestones in my life all over the world. But, at the same time, maybe citizens should, you know, vote for me and consider me for positive things if they really wish and choose to do so, when it comes to elections, and making their other decisions—similar kinds of choices in real life as in the movies as well. Maybe bad hearted people should also stop harming me, preventing my achievements in any way and let the things God written good for my destiny about to happen. You can’t just say God wanted like that or blame me for negative things happened to me for someone else. Maybe it’s just a bad heart, a misuse—where they exploit children, women, men, innocent people, and religion, discredit innocent people like me, to justify some wrongdoings, violation of rights of innocent citizens like me. I do not think God would want some people that he/she created, via our parents, to suffer or live in bad conditions, harassed, assaulted, some rights violated, because of their lifestyles and preferences that some people are not fan of or hate. Maybe some do not think some citizens deserve the same rights, liberties, democratic freedoms as in some developed countries, nations. They just see these are extra for some whereas should be right for them only. That’s it. Maybe the positive things that have happened to me are also a gift from God (if it was the opposite maybe I was even never born and get to know planet world and world citizens who have supported me in the good & bad days), you know, which, with the support of the people, has made me stronger. Maybe that is the reality, for which I am truly grateful and deeply honored. I sincerely believe that God loves me, and that the people love me too. That’s it. I believe God chose a good person for me, so to speak—someone who has been written a good path whatever some try to portray me in a negative light for me or others who believe in me, love me to live according to some dictations. I comply and obey all laws which was also the case in the past and universaly accepted norms at the end of the day. That is why I have a clean criminal record in all over the world. Thank you—thank you, God, thank you all. As in a similar saying, “No matter what the weather is like, keep your own weather and outlook bright.” A good and civilized person is someone who strives to remain good under all circumstances, who continue to pursue civility and to be in the good side, choose to be good, no matter what. No matter what others may say, you know, everybody knows that me, Dr. Özerk Yavuz stands on the side of what is right and good, I am good and right even if there may be different ideas which I respect and respectfully listen to whether I agree or disagree—and that, for us, is enough. Maybe a person who hasn't attended a close-up philosophy class, or who hasn't completed a B.Sc., M.Sc., PhD, or similar achievements in all over the world as I was lucky to had, perhaps has fewer capabilities in critical thinking and reasoning, who did not have chance to meet me in person or get to know me in a more detailed way and saw my sincerity & pure intentions might try to stigmatize, discredit or criminalize me even if I am innocent. But, you know, I still believe that I have discovered some truths by doing research, reading and thinking on it—about economic systems including capitalism, the system, and the universe—some of them, but may be not all. There may still be some to discover for sure. Basically, the idea is that unlimited resources are not given to everyone; only a select few benefit from these resources or if you are lucky and do your work good, have a good entrepreneurial success story or alike. become rich, especially in a capitalist system. But these paths should be open to everybody in a fair way. In capitalism, the focus is self-sufficiency, but with social safety nets—like universal basic income, unemployment benefits, public services—are better, more humane. However, for money to truly circulate to everyone, you can't just give out a money-printing machine to all, because that would lead to chaos, would bring inflationary pressure risks if not managed well with fixed pricing strategies which may be against the nature of free market economy principles which I deeply respect. Many would not go to work (I plan, intend to work as long as I am healthy, in good shape and as long as people love, support and want me for the president of USA), without AI powered humanoids, robots not there yet, you cannot respond to goods and services requested by all citizens. And if people aren't trained, educated—if they don't understand numbers, digits, essential skills, several disciplines and alike—they can't, for example, fly a plane, drive a car, work in the assembly line, treat a patient, educate a student or even bake bread whether this is a blue collar or a white collar position. So, we need to educate them first—to build multicultural awareness, skills, and qualifications for a societal harmony where everybody respects one another—so they can progress and move forward with these global goals, serve to the humanity and our planet world with the brands, businesses, goods & services they provide as in the positions they want and choose. Nobody is a slave at the end of the day. But in a slavery you cannot choose where to work and who to work with, determine your career path & choices. As an employee, business or an organization when good opportunities are given, or your brand, goods and services are preferred especially in sideline work, we try to collaborate openly if we do not have any time management issue or alike. When conditions are good, we stay positive; we don’t want to bring anyone down. In fact, this side work is a chance to collaborate broadly, just like many consulting firms, some specialists and large companies do when there is this trust for your brand and yourself. We keep a focus on the positive, we work together when things are right, and we’re grateful to everyone for considering us in these opportunities. Today it is clear that many people in the world think in the same way and preferring similar approaches. And, you know, these are the things we discuss in these philosophy of science classes, art and associated mediums venues. But instead of labeling, we should say that every perspective deserves respect. Maybe that’s it. And also, there isn’t an ultimate right for everything, whether these are personal norms, group norms, cultural values/ norms and alike. But, labeling someone because of disagreement is easy, though it might not always be the best thing to do in every case. We should just learn to live together, respecting one another, in a multicultural, multinational environment respecting everybody as they are—based on mutual respect and mutual understanding. That’s it. At the end of the day, everyone needs to live according to their own paradigms, values, norms, and preferences. At the end of the day, that’s what matters. And the Constitution, the rule of law, must protect all those lifestyles and preferences in an inclusive way—considering diversity, equity, and inclusion—and by listening to every voice and every perspective. In a true democracy one size fits all solutions especially when it comes to life styles, personal preferences including in art productions, speeches, ideologies, can be problematic (there is not a universal single truth, style or same perception in everything that is so clear, some are subjective in nature) rather laws should protect every lifestyle, unique preference considering equity, diversity and inclusion in a holistic, inclusive way. Also each member of the society and world should respect that for everybody to live all together in harmony with mutual respect, empathy and understanding. World belongs to everyone :).
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.
Why are we known as the country of liberty and freedom? Because the American people deeply value their liberties, and lawmakers recognize that. As a result, we are a nation built on freedom and liberties. And in a free market economy, those who succeed are the ones who master the product, pricing, placement, promotion, and target market with right customer relationship management. The best products, services earn trust, grow, and become more profitable over time. In the long run, when customers are satisfied, they stay, which builds lasting relationships, increasing both customer value and lifetime value—and that’s how we win in the marketplace.
If a person never fails a single course throughout 30 years of study in his/her academic life, achieves success in almost every interview, having countless job offerings, completes every dedicated task and assignment with success on time meeting the deadlines in distinguished global multinational, countries, companies and large conglomerates/businesses worldwide as directed/requested, and earns prestigious titles—such as doctoral, master’s, bachelor’s, and other degrees, accredited as a scientist who can research and make science with all qualification exams/assessments and everything—then, all of a sudden, if we try to criminalize this innocent person, labeling them with false accusations—essentially using power to control and manipulate—that is deeply unethical. And when these people enter politics or become Hollywood stars, prominent figures & alike, and they are suddenly targeted and discredited—that's when questions arise. Before that, they had no criminal record; no complaint at all but they had all these degrees and accomplishments, acreditations, experiences. But once they become the center of attention—important public figures—these attacks arising from disrespect to different paradigms, perspectives, lifestyles, preferences and alike feel unrealistic and deeply unjust.
Some things in life are not merely coincidences. If every country confirms that you have no criminal record, if you hold a Doctor title along with numerous degrees, achievements, and accomplishments, if you have never failed a single course throughout your entire academic life, and if you have worked successfully in some of the most prestigious conglomerates, multinational, and multicultural organizations while succeeding in every interview you attended, you completed your tasks/project on time in accordance with deadlines, then it is unfair to portray you as something negative you are not.
When a person becomes a prominent figure — whether as a political leader, movie star, academician, or someone influential in society — disagreement from others can sometimes turn that individual into a target. In some cases, attempts are made to control, silence, or discredit that person through various tactics. However, such actions do not make someone a criminal, nor do they prove involvement in anything criminal. At the end of the day, these can simply be old-fashioned under-the-belt tactics used against individuals to be silenced and controlled, even if the real case is this innocent person, never harmed anybody, have a clean criminal record all over the world.
If the things you say were truly wrong, people would not previously have called you “president,” “kindest person ever,” successful, smart, intellect with analytical skills or repeatedly told you that you were right and had good opinions in the past or currently. On the contrary, throughout the past, people consistently expressed support, respect, and positive opinions about me as they do now. I think they should not be afraid of something also if they still think in the same way as in the past because of pressure of some bad hearted, intentioned individuals or afraid of their selves to be discredited as well. Furthermore, if a person’s ideas were genuinely incorrect, society would naturally form its own judgment without the need for efforts. So why attempt to discredit or portray an innocent individual as a potential criminal simply to silence that person or take him/her under control?
Trying to depict an innocent person in such a manner is unfair, unethical, and damaging. Disagreement alone should never justify attempts to undermine someone’s character, reputation, or integrity. We should learn to live in harmony and synergy with one another, without harming anybody, even when we disagree with their opinions or lifestyles, through mutual understanding, empathy and mutual respect.
I haven't opened any live channels/streaming/broadcasting and alike in my entire life for myself for my productions and content creations composed of role plays/speeches/ideas/innovations and alike. But even if that was the case, I believe if there is freedom of speech there would be no problem. Simply expressing your thoughts and sharing your ideas—saying "in my opinion"—does not make you a criminal, nor does it associate you with anything illegal or make you part of something illegal. That said, if my productions and content creations—like my role-playings and alike —are broadcast by major streaming platforms such as Netflix, Prime, TOD, Bein, other live broadcasting companies, internet and alike or other media companies, then I absolutely believe it’s my right to request appropriate production fees, content-creation fees with brand/product/service placement, celebrity endorsement fees and alike (especially fees & monetization for master copies and alike). After all, that's how the media and cinema business model works all over the world which we need to respect.
If the country says, 'You are one of our citizens; we value you, we love you, and we support you, and we will ensure your retirement from our country,' then I would simply express my gratitude and appreciation, and I would accept it. This is also the case for all citizenships & diplomatic passports granted from all countries. Thank you very much. Thank you for your trust, love and believing in me. Thank you all. Similarly If a country, business, organization and alike chooses our premium brand/product/service/country/city brand placement offerings in our content creations in art, or artistic creations/productions, I would also deeply appreciate them. I would thank them without any reservations, for choosing us, our scripts and our productions. For us everyone is important, valued, deserves respect, fair treatment and we should always be fair without discrimination to anybody. I am truly grateful and happy, thank you again for everything, for your love, believing in me and for your trust. Thank you. Wish everybody including me realize their dreams and achieve, get what they want in life one day. Wish everybody the best of everything.
What I am saying is completely clear: with my qualifications and degrees, including my doctoral degree, Dr. title, M.Sc. and B.Sc. degrees, as well as my worldwide experience in distinguished countries, businesses, and organizations, the career path I choose and the life decisions I make are fully within the law, and they have always been so. What I would say or have said “I approve this message” and what I would not, what I accepted and would accept, is crystal clear—there is no room for misunderstanding whatsoever. Trying to portray a person who has complied with the law throughout his or her entire life in all countries, all continents of our world visited, lived, worked with a clear criminal record in a negative or misleading way to discredit is neither constructive nor ethical.
There’s an important distinction between sideline work and a conflict of interest. In sideline work, you can collaborate with a variety of countries, businesses, and organizations, without coercion. You don't force anyone to buy from a particular source or threaten somebody with dismissal. These are done autonomously by tender, procurrement departments and alike. Similarly you say what you think right for the country, society and the world autonomously. Here, there’s no bribery involved; it’s simply about expanding your customer base as a qualified professional or brand. You focus on market and product expansions. Every transaction is fully invoiced, fully transparent, and backed by proper documentation signed by the relevant authorities. In my case, everything is conducted with full transparency, credibility, and accountability—so there’s no cause for concern. But as they say there is no paperwork or record of bribery; instead, all business transaction are fully invoiced in sideline work where it is allowed in all over the world. That is the key distinction. We ensure complete accountability and full transparency. Of course, we never disclose trade secrets or confidential information, country secrets and alike in our appointed positions. Thus, sideline work, in our case, is not a conflict of interest. That distinction is very clear. Today, many professionals and countries, businesses, companies, organizations engage in sideline work to drive brand expansions, product/service expansions, and market growth via market expansions by increasing their customer portfolio with the marketing strategies they have which is fully legal. This helps increase revenue and profitability for both businesses, countries, organizations and individual professionals. This is entirely clear and not a conflict of interest. Whether in consulting, education, entertainment, or other industries, this is simply the reality we should respect—no doubt about it.
After all, just because everyone eats a banana, that doesn’t make everyone a monkey. Similarly, if someone speaks and says in my opinion in a topic or holds a different lifestyle, different than some, we can’t just label everyone as a criminal, unethical, unhealthy, dangerous. It’s that simple. We need to leave behind this flawed "banana logic. You need to respectfully persuade others in a democracy, with a deep regard for freedom of speech. Why would you punish someone simply because they hold a different perspective, ideology, or idea on a particular topic? If someone tries to penalize another through an abuse of power, that is the real wrongdoing—not the person who simply holds a different perspective or lifestyle billions respect and approve. If you are truly right, you will win in the end, because the truth stands on its own. So why silence, penalize others at all? If your argument is strong, people will naturally come to it, they will vote for it, and they will see the value in it. So, why would someone who is right feel the need to silence, penalize others in the first place for? I think it's important to address and overcome feelings of inferiority—to combat those negative emotions and not let them control us. But someone who is truly right and good, feels confident at what he/she does, doesn’t need to punish others through an abuse of power, suppression tactics to cope with inferiority complexes. They don’t have to resort to that. They just accept and respect all members of the society, their choices, world as they are with their lifestyles, paradigms and ideologies (whether in art, politics or in real life) in a real democracy where all liberties, democratic principles are tried to be protected not sacrificing from these liberties for each unique individual, each citizen, we-the-people, society and all world citizens, all living beings who has a right to share the world with us, nature, our planet world, for short term gains, profits and alike. Human rights, animal rights, rights of the nature/world, democratic rights and liberties right to choose own lifestyle and career path, what to listen, what to speak, where to visit/travel and right to live, right to be healthy of each unique individual with peace of mind are the rights we need to protect with our constitution and rule of law inclusively and holistically.
We stand for democracy; some people who disrespect others stand for authoritarian and dictatorial styles of governance. We speak of liberty; some people who disrespect others speak of suppression. We champion the rights of all; some people who disrespect others defend only their own interests. Some people who disrespect others want rights and opportunities reserved only for themselves, rather than extended equally to others. Some people who disrespect others treat democratic freedoms and civil liberties as though they were exclusive privileges reserved for a select few. We believe that people should have the freedom to choose, options their own paths according to their lifestyles, personal paradigms, values, and preferences, so long as they respect the rights and freedoms of others. Let them have options as in developed, democratic, liberal countries, people will choose what they really want at the end of the day which we need to respect. However, some people who disrespect others attempt to take these freedoms away under various pretexts—claiming they are “protecting women/men” “protecting children,” “protecting religion,” or similar justifications—while, in reality, restricting individual liberties and personal choice. We also believe everyone should have the opportunity to thrive, advance, and make their own choices like people who god these chances in their early lifes. Rewarding career paths and promotions should be accessible and open to all, regardless of background or differences. What we advocate for is a truly inclusive society—one that embraces diversity, equity, inclusion, liberty, equality, and fraternity in a holistic and comprehensive way. Our vision is a society where everyone can live in peace, respecting one another in harmony and synergy, guided by mutual understanding, mutual respect, and empathy for all.” As a poet and artist once said, wherever people gather—whether in Las Vegas, another entertainment hub, or any other setting in a way they choose/prefer/want (I respect everybody and what they choose, prefer among all alternatives)—they will stand with me because they love me, and I love them. This is the situation. This was the situation also in the past. As the poet and artist also expressed, I have loved, embraced, and cared for everyone, hugged them, kissed them and be close to them consensually, no pressure, no force but also no rush. They never said a negative single thing because it was clear they were loving me also deep inside with purest feelings like mine and apparently they were willing the same things when they were/they are with me and always said all the positive things, compliments and alike when they were enjoying spending time with me. Maybe I was different with a unique quality, blend in contrast to some judged, did not respect could not accept people/them as they are; who struggle/struggled to love those who lived with diverse lifestyles, relationship preferences, career choices, aspirations, dreams and paradigms. Maybe these people had love issues, respect issues for diversities, diverse life styles, preferences, ideologies, paradigms, unique individuals, people not like them, not me in contrast to whatever they try to show. That was the reality. But everyone will see—whether in Las Vegas, in any other entertainment venues, or any other setting or in any other way as each unique individual chooses, people choose—across cities, states, or countries, we will be united. These people loved me; supported me and wanted me and us to win, they chose me as their president, gave me all the chances and I also love everybody with my purest feelings, intentions and heart which was the case in the past. They asked a wise man once, and the wise man replied, Of course, the one who loves, who respects—this is the person who embraces, kisses, hugs and cares for others, consensually considering mutual respect, mutual understanding and empathy is the one who truly loves you unlike what some try to portray—not the one who imposes, dictates to control diversities, but the one who respects others for who they are. But I also acknowledge that it's not realistic to generalize everything. There will always be people who respect and embrace these diversities, liberties, and democratic freedoms around the world. We must recognize that not everyone is the same, and still, there are many who stand for inclusivity and freedom everywhere, respect each world citizen as who they are. People who are truly civilized and respectful know how to engage and behave with dignity. They seem to have a healthy balance of id, ego, and superego, as Freud suggested, in contrast to those who struggle to achieve that balance in respecting others. These people, no matter what comes to their mind (millions of thoughts can come to your mind thanks to god gifted human intelligence and synaptic technology between our neurons) or how many thoughts arise, remain respectful and law-abiding in their actions. They consistently behave with dignity, regardless of the many things that might cross their minds. Those people from all around the world from all walks of life, they supported me because they believed in me, in my sincerity, and in my good intentions. They differentiated who is good intentioned from who is bad. And those who tried to twist this, who tried to discredit me—they failed. They lost. And together, we achieved a great success all together. I want to thank you for your unending support and love with my purest sincerity, love, respect and intentions. Thank you for loving me, respecting in me, believing in me and supporting me all the way. We would not have made it without it. Thank you all.
All of my fans, lovers, supporters, all world citizens you are incredibly important to me, and I care deeply for every one of you. But in those roles, if we can come together as a global community—just as we do in the movie, and in other fields, businesses, and alike—then let’s keep moving forward like that for our countries, societies and the world. As long as people ask us to amplify their voices as their representatives, represent them, and share our creative work in those spaces including in art—if that’s what they truly want—then, of course, I never want to turn anyone away. At the end of the day, we all have to make certain choices and set priorities, and those choices deserve respect at some points in time. This is true for me as well, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about everyone else I do not love others. In fact, I love every citizen of the world, every unique individual. Without all of your support, we simply wouldn't have achieved so much. Thank you all—thank you. Please accept my genuine, good intentions, my sincerity, respect and the care I have for you. I offer all of this with love and pure goodwill.
In some ways, Art Productions, leaders allow us to say the things people are often afraid to think or speak when there is freedom of speech. For example, everyone wants universal basic income, security in unemployment, a comfortable retirement, and the dream of becoming wealthy today—no doubt about it. People want to speak freely, to travel, set up their own businesses, rewarding career options, diplomatic privilidges & alike and to express themselves. But sometimes, they hesitate to say these things openly, or they can not be more transparent with their partners, friends, managers, citizens, employees, leaders and alike. This is where celebrities and political leaders come in—they amplify these messages, using their freedom of speech in both the political arena and the arts especially when there is freedom of speech and diplomatic immunities and alike. And people respond positively because this is a kind of extension of them, they see theirselves in these leaders/artists and alike—celebrity endorsements allow the public to see themselves in these figures. When the celebrity and leader succeeds, so do their fans; this is a form of self-extension and enhancement. That’s why celebrity endorsements are so powerful and preferred by brands, countries, and beyond.
Saying, “If you say this, has this lifestyle or think that, I will discredit & label, criminalize you in a negative way” to punish you for an innocent person. or you say I will punish you to an innocent person because I don't like what you say or think or punish this innocent person. This is unjust, unfair, and unethical. Such an approach goes against the very nature of a true democracy, freedom of speech in art and real life is necessary and protected in democracies for more inclusive laws that considers principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and the values of liberté, égalité, fraternité. This also acts like checks and balances that we consider in leading to see the bigger picture. You need to hear every unique individual/ perspective in enacting the laws to make it holistic and inclusive not silence them whether in art or in real life. The justice system and its decision-makers risk eroding public trust when innocent individuals are subjected to unfair or unjust treatment due to pressure from people who disrespect diverse perspectives, art creations and lifestyles for short-term gain. In the long term, such actions can harm society and democratic institutions. We must not sacrifice justice, fairness, tolerance, democratic principles, liberties and respect for diversity because of the pressure or influence of intolerant, disrespectful, or bad-intentioned individuals.
When a child is born in a hospital, we don't label them with a criminal record from the start. In the same way, when we see people in the street, we don't assume they are going to commit a crime and detain them based solely on that suspicion. This is how it is for me as well. I am not a potential criminal and I have never been one. Just because someone does not agree with a particular lifestyle, ideology, or opinion does not make you a criminal, nor does it mean you are part of anything criminal—whether in the past, present, or future. Attempting to portray people as criminals simply to control, discredit, or silence them is unethical. I have worked with some of the world’s most prominent conglomerates, multinational/multicultural giants in distinguished worldwide known organizations, instutions throughout my professional and academic life, across multiple continents and countries, interacting with people from almost everywhere, diverse nations, cultures, and backgrounds. My record has remained clean everywhere I have lived, visited and worked all over the world. If someone has a problem with me, perhaps the issue/problem is not with me, but maybe some were wrong not me, there may be something wrong which I was not involved at all. I respect people regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, lifestyle, ideology, gender, culture, ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, background, beliefs, personal choices, or any other differences that make individuals unique. This was the case in the past ,currently at present and also will be the same in the future. I embrace and accept everybody with the differences they have and as they are. The reality is that my record has always been clean in every country where I’ve worked, lived, and visited. This is the truth. No one can label me as a potential criminal, nor use that as a means to silence me or control my speech. I am as innocent as a single water drop—pure and untainted. Across all countries I’ve visited so far, I have no criminal record whatsoever. My past is spotless; no baggage, no accusations. 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 countries, I stand completely clean with a clean criminal record and that is how it is/ how it is supposed to be both in art and in real life, even if some people try to show you criminal and blame you to control you, for you to loose, when you become a famous political star/figure, movie star, prominent figure. This is the reality—I am innocent, and I have never committed a crime. No good-hearted, well-intentioned person, law authority, legal system and alike would ever want to label or punish an innocent individual knowing that. This is simply the truth. On the contrary I have always heard Compliments that stated how gentleman and kind I was. Besides I am a very qualified person with a Ph.D and doctorate (Dr.) title worked in/with many countries and global giants/conglomerates. That is so clear. As some of the old sayings go, a person is at seventy what they are at seven and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Even if a person has negative/mixed feelings about some issues, have a perspective, lifestyle and choices which are legal and respected/shared by billions which some people are not fan of, it’s not fair to claim that this person is responsible for all the world’s crimes and a potential criminal. This is not realistic. A good person, no matter what they watch in movies, consume in the media, read in books or newspapers, or think, listen to, eat, or drink—they will not necessarily commit a crime. In other words, you can’t simply blame someone’s opinions or what they engage with for some others’s wrongdoings or crimes. A good person, at heart, will remain just that—a good person. Anyone can commit a crime; there’s no absolute guarantee that someone will or won’t. But we don’t place people in custody based solely on suspicion. So, if the corpus delicti isn't found (there is no behavior of committing a crime) then everybody is innocent. Until proven otherwise, everyone is innocent. Similarly, when I pass, people will look back and say, 'We are grateful we trusted him, gave him those diplomatic privileges, and stood by him.' My record will still be clean, and when I am laid to rest, they will say they were glad they believed in me. And when that day comes, when I return to heaven—God willing, inshallah—they will be proud they placed their trust in me.
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)
These are my views as the President of the United States, formed in consultation with my advisors, consultants and experts. I respect the decisions made by the majority in the Senate, the House, and on Capitol Hill. It is also clear that we should make our laws inclusive considering diversity, equity, inclusion with consensus in an holistic way. However, as long as we, the people, continue to call on me to speak, I believe it is my duty to share my honest perspective. I do not take this responsibility lightly, and I will continue to speak out for what I believe will uplift every American and secure a better future for all. If given the chance, I will continue to serve with all the integrity, honesty, respect, love and passion with full transparency & accountability. God bless you all, God bless the United States of America, God bless our troops and law enforcement officers and God bless the world. We will make America and the world great again. Thank you. Thank you. Few words for freedom of speech and art productions. In the realm of free speech, you have the right to sing any song you like in the shower/before/after the shower and to say whatever you wish while relaxing on your sofa, reading from poets, poems, literature or writing/creating your own, role playing of your favorite characters in Hollywood or the characters you create in the comfort of your own home. If a citizen or individual says, 'When I sing a song, think (maybe loud in some cases) or speak in my shower, bath tub or Jacuzzi (maybe with my partner/s also), you know, I don't want to be criminalized or penalized for it, because this is part of democracy, liberties and freedom,' then that is right. That is right, and that’s how it’s supposed to be. And, you know, if he/she says I thought, nothing would happen to me if the person says that. Then that is right, and I think that’s how it’s supposed to be in a real democracy protecting liberties as well. A true democracy does not punish freedom of speech or the exchange of ideas. It is authoritarian regimes—those that are dictatorships, close to or resemble dictatorships—that suppress such freedoms. In fact, a democracy does punish those who suppress or attempt to penalize freedom of speech, freedom of art doing so in order to protect democratic principles, checks & balances and individual liberties. There is a crucial distinction between the two. Today, people want to be able to sing whatever they want to sing in their showers, Jacuzzis, bathtubs —whether they’re shampooing their hair, using soap, or just cleaning themselves. That is so clear. And that’s exactly how it should be. Laws protecting privacy of life, freedom of speech, thinking and art (if it is a scene in an art production) aim to protect those rights of the citizens.
This freedom isn't just limited to the media, public spaces or films—it applies right there, in your everyday private spaces, too in a real democracy that protects liberties. The Constitution protects these rights as well. If you engage in role-playing or indulge in fantasies with your partner, these are also protected. These forms of expression are innocent and are safeguarded by the rule of law and the Constitution. If you are doing these in an art production this is also protected by law according to freedom of speech, laws protecting art, if someone broadcasts that content without the master copy fee payment at any time—without your permission—they're violating the rights of the artist, the actor, and the production company/content creator. They should also consider not violating any rights of the citizen including invasion of privacy. Of course, in general, no production company or content creator want to broadcast this kind of material without securing the master copy fees, especially since they wouldn't receive any revenue from the broadcast, brand or production brand, service, good placements, celebrity endorsement and alike also. That’s the situation. If someone doesn't sell the master copy, or doesn't secure brand, product, and service placement fees, and endorsement payments, then, essentially, they wouldn't proceed with the production. That’s usually the case. Some authoritarian regimes, or people who have power, in order to prevent certain scripts from appearing in artistic outlets, they may deliberately censor them and apply financial pressure. In other words, they would not allow these production scripts to reach those artistic platforms, and they may exercise control by censoring, financially pressuring them unless freedom of speech, creation of art productions and democratic principles are not protected by law as in developed countries. In democratic countries the law gives artists and scriptwriters independence, in line with democratic principles and liberties allowing them to shape the narratives, the themes, and their creative choices freely. In this way, they have the liberty to decide on the content via characters that they create in sharing stories and narratives. When it comes to brand, product, service placement, celebrity endorsement fees and alike, it's important to note that most production companies don’t simply include them as part of the movie by default without any payment at some point based on this business model. Ethically, it is expected that both broadcasting/streaming companies/countries pay the master copy fees for the content created by the producer/content creator as well as countries, businesses, organizations, individuals and alike (today marketing is in everywhere from political marketing to, country marketing, from city marketing to all goods and services marketing, brand marketing :)) which wish to purchase premium brand, product, service placements, endorsements in the script/production for brand, product and service placements and alike with their own will if they want to consume these productions/content, placement, endorsement services and alike. In fact, countries, broadcasting/streaming companies, businesses and alike all take these ethical considerations seriously and consider them in when making their decisions. That’s the situation. The production company/content creator is not responsible for self-censorship or script alterations based on local government or country laws. That responsibility falls on the broadcasting/streaming companies and alike. They are the ones who must handle the editing, the montage, and the cuts if necessary in accordance with the local laws of the countries where productions are broadcasted/streamed. If they decide to remove or alter scenes, that is entirely their responsibility, not the production company’s. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you. Thank you.
To talk about my studies and professional life, I’ve earned countless degrees, certificates—undergraduate, postgraduate, honorary degrees, high honorary degrees, certificate of appreciation, certificate of recognition and numerous certificates—all of which demonstrate my qualifications, expertise, and know-how. All given and granted because of that. I was successful in countless job interviews and, apperantly the decision makers thought I am the best for those openings based on my know how and assessments as a result, I received many job offerings and had chance to work in all over the world in respected, distinguished multicultural conglomerates and organizations. I have traveled to all corners of the world, worked, lived and shared experiences with almost all nations and cultures and as a result, there have been no complaints against me, to my face, to any legal authority and no involvement with any legal authorities in real life as in movies. On the contrary I have always heard Compliments that stated how gentleman and kind I was. As a result, I have a clean criminal record in every country I have lived in, visited, or worked in physically and/or remotely. This is the reality across the globe. For someone with this level of talent—such qualifications, distinguished global experiences, degrees, and globally distinguished opportunities—like a doctorate and other prestigious titles, when you have a rewarding career ahead of you—perhaps even the role of President of the United States also in real life as in the movies—why would you ever commit a crime and jeopardize yourself and those who trust you? This is simply unrealistic. Yet, some people try to control you, imposing their own lifestyles and ideologies. They attempt to discredit you, to criminalize you—that’s all there is to it. But Thinking is still thinking. Listening to music is listening to music. Role playing is role playing, singing is singing whether in your real life in shower or after shower or in your home's comfort in your sofa for fun, whether in your language course or in art productions. Also Joking is joking simply those are not crimes. Whether you do this in academia, politics, business or in art which is part of a healthy democracy. However, some people, in an effort to control you, might try to discredit you, criminalize you, or penalize you because of what you say or think even if you are innocent, and basically what you do is done by billions all over the world every day. If some individuals disagrees with me in some topics, does not like my life style or preferences or do not like some of my ideas, that billions share and have this does not necessarily mean that I am loosing anything from my credibility and trustworthiness also this does not make me criminal, illegal and being part of something illegal. I have traveled to all corners of the world, worked, lived and shared experiences with almost all nations and cultures and as a result, there have been no complaints against me, to my face, to any legal authority and no involvement with any legal authorities in real life as in movies. On the contrary I have always heard compliments that stated how gentleman and kind I was. As a result, I have a clean criminal record in every country I have lived in, visited, or worked in physically and/or remotely. As some of the old sayings go, a person is at seventy what they are at seven and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
I have always been one of those women and men who want to achieve what they set out to get in life and what life has to offer similar to other world citizens and, let's say, I worked hard for that, tirelessly. I have a PhD, a Master of Science, a Bachelor of Science—those are widely recognized experiences all around the world, in very distinguished, reputable countries, let's say, business conglomerates, multinational, multicultural giants. But I wish everyone would realize their dreams one day—me, and also all of us, all the people of the world, all the citizens. That is my honest wish. Also, speaking in front of mirrors, thinking out loud, role playing or, you know, in your shower, let's say, or on your sofa, are the most innocent things I have ever seen in all my life. This is the most innocent thing—but, let's say, I have seen in my life. I'm also thinking, in this sense, that this synaptic activity in your brain, thinking, brainstorming, thinking out loud and alike are also one of the most innocent things in life. Almost all world citizens do these in their everyday lives. Simply expressing your thoughts, thinking aloud, brainstorming and sharing your ideas—saying "in my opinion"—does not make you a criminal, nor does it associate you with anything illegal or make you part of something illegal in art but also in real life.
But if you do these performances in front of the camera—in Hollywood, and, let's say, in the political arena as a lucky government employee people wanted to give you a rewarding career option/chance with all retirements, appointments and diplomatic privileges and alike—maybe you’ll become a billionaire or even trillionaire. This is also luck in life. Maybe it shows that, you know, the people of the world love you, and God loves you, and you were lucky in addition to your degrees and experiences. As long as everything is lawful in accordance with the constitution with full accountability and transparency there should be no problem. At no point in my life did I start a live broadcast about my personal life, my thoughts/speeches, role plays or content creations. In other words, I never initiated such a thing. However, if freedom of expression truly exists, then even in this case—opening a live channel, broadcasting, and uploading uncensored content through sales channels, streaming services, and similar platforms—should not be considered a problem. After all, freedom of speech and artistic freedoms are safeguarded by the Copenhagen criteria and similar principles in developed countries. If freedom of speech and artistic freedoms are protected, in accordance with the Copenhagen criteria and similar high standards, laws there should have been no problem at all. Thank you for your understanding.
If Someone asks me if my criminal record is clean, and I can confirm that it is %100 clean. In every country I’ve visited , everywhere I’ve lived ,in all countries I have been, in all countries of the world. I’ve never committed any crime, and no wrongdoings at all. You know, in all those countries that I’ve visited, there are people of all nations, all cultures, people from all walks of life, all diversities from all over the world, and with mutual understanding, respect, and empathy, I haven’t had a single conflict at all. I am a very respectful person at the end of the day frankly speaking and heard that many times from others in person as well. And, you know, if some people try to discredit me for their own purposes, because they are not able to respect diversity, ideas, lifestyles other than theirs in some parts of the world using slander, putting someone innocent in a bad situation and similar dirty, under the belt tactics, those are the wrong actions. But I haven’t done anything wrong. As a result, I have a clean criminal record and not a single complaint at all. And there hasn’t been a single complaint against me not to my face or any law authority. That’s the reason why I have clean criminal record—it’s as simple and as clear as that. As in movies but also in real life my choice is to be a good character with my doctorate (Dr.) title, worldwide recognized, global education, fame and experiences. But when somebody make a mistake, say sorry and correct it, that is the most mature and constructive approach. It’s not a weakness; it’s true strength in movies/art but also in real life. Of course, I would never want to turn away people who trust me, believe in me, love me and support me with respect to everybody. I think all world citizens love me and I love them also :) Thank you for all. Kindest Regards, Dr. Özerk Yavuz
According to the equitable principle of law, if one person has freedom of speech, then others must also have freedom of speech, if some can consume goods and services when they pay the good and service fees as in tourism and hospitality businesses including restaurant hotel services and alike (a public or a private service) or any other business domain. If one person is allowed to speak, then others must also be allowed to speak. Similarly, making movies, listening to music, and role-playing all fall under this same equitable principle. The content created—whether in public speeches or private settings in one on one meetings or group settings—is inherently subjective. The quality and impact of speech, content are subjective: some may appreciate it, others may not. If someone is penalized simply because others dislike their ideas or lifestyles and these do the same to others and this is done collectively, then it is no longer a true democracy. We should always protect democratic principles and liberties with the laws considering diversity, equity, inclusion holistically. If the laws are not inclusive than it is evident that all citizens, individuals communities of the society would not be satisfied. One size fits all solutions especially in speeches and life styles can harm democracies, liberties and ruin trust in people and instutions who fail to protect and respect this inclusivity and diversity. In a genuine democracy where liberties are protected, everyone should be free to share their ideas and choose their lifestyles and preferences. Of course, the subjective nature of these messages, lifestyles and alike means that some will like them, and some will not. But this does not make anyone a criminal, illegal or being part of something criminal or illegal—neither in the realm of artistic production nor in real life. There are some people with bad intent, who don’t respect democracy, freedom of speech and different lifestyles, who try to portray you as a criminal in order to control you, penalize and silence you. In a democratic system where liberties, human rights and alike are protected, otherwise they can not silence you, suppress you that easy and penalize you though, that’s not easy to achieve. They know how to play dirty, using underhanded tactics with under the belt tactics, pressure you, put you in bad situations with wrongdoings, to try to draw you into their schemes by portraying someone innocent as if criminal to later penalize and silence even if you are innocent at the end of the day. It’s crucial for citizens, leaders and law enforcement officers to stay vigilant against these corrupt practices, wrongdoings and recognize when they’re being manipulated. But I remain as innocent as a pure drop of water. Some malicious individuals may try to bring innocent people down simply because they disagree with them, dislike their lifestyle, or just simply they do not respect creative art, some roles played in stage, some jokes, ironies or freedom of speech. But if these people are innocent and have rights, we must protect them—this is fundamental to a fair system, to the judicial process, and to law enforcement officials and decision-makers. That must be clear, even if we face pressure from those bad hearted, bad people, because otherwise, trust in both people and institutions will erode. So, some people may want to suppress freedom of speech, lifestyles, billions who like and share, and artistic expression—but in a democracy, those who suppress it with violation of human rights, democratic principle/liberty rights, consumer rights, labor rights and alike, especially regarding checks and balances, and liberties, are the ones found guilty and penalized for violating democratic principles, liberties, human rights, consumer rights, labor rights and alike. In a dictatorship, those who share their ideas, who prefer some liberal lifestyles shared/respected by billions are the ones who get penalized. But in a democracy, that’s a crucial distinction. Without autonomy in academia, law, and the press—without free expression—there would be no checks and balances at all. Without freedom of speech, real democracy is never possible. In order for laws to be inclusive and holistic, everyone should share their perspectives and be heard. The laws must be holistic and inclusive, for each and every person; and this is not possible without freedom of speech, where everyone shares their ideas, perspectives freely. Prisoners of conscience, speaking and political detainees, usage of justice system and mental hospitals and alike for dictations, remain as tragic figures from the rusted pages of history, in geographies where democratic liberties were not as much developed or pressured, and they should never be repeated again in a true democracy not to erode trust. We should never repeat the same mistakes to leave a better world to our children, teenagers and youth. We should always be good role models and lead by example in enhancing democratic principles and liberties. This way of a strengthened democracy protecting human rights and liberties, diversity, equity, inclusion in a holistic way, inclusively is always better for the country, society, citizens, individuals and the world. Figures and leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, and many writers, artists, opinion leaders, philosophers and leaders were once targeted and attempts were made to silence them, because those who could not overcome ideas sought instead to suppress the people who carried them. This reality should not belong in societies where true democracy functions properly. Not all banana eaters are monkeys, even if all monkeys do eat bananas. However, not all people are monkeys, even though they also eat bananas. Similarly, flavonoids are a type of polyphenol, but not all polyphenols are flavonoids. Also in art or in real life in some cases those films, they sometimes use linden tea instead of whiskey, due to their similar color and characteristics. But audience in some cases may not make the distinction easily at all times in all cases. In short, we can't simply lump everything into the same category. Let’s not mix things up—no comparing apples to oranges. Sometimes people use jokes or irony, but we need to be clear about what's real and what belongs in the realm of art or role-play, which is meant for enjoyment. We should be deliberate in making these distinctions, it is clear how everybody are in real life what is a joke and what is irony. Let’s leave the banana logic behind. Instead, we should treat each category distinctly. In other words, we must recognize that different groups or items don’t automatically fit into one another’s definitions. Each should be assessed on its own terms and not forced into a single overarching category. As responsible citizens, law enforcement officers, leaders and decision-makers, we need to make these distinctions crystal clear. That way, we avoid misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and potentially harmful consequences—like sacrifices or negative outcomes. Clear boundaries and distinctions are essential for responsible action. In my entire life people trusted me, and they were convinced of my abilities, sincerity, kindness, know-how, experiences. I consistently completed tasks and projects on time, and no one ever disputed that—both in my academic career and in my professional life to my face. I have never heard from my professors, managers, superiors or leaders that I failed to complete a task, duty or a project by the deadline. I have never received that kind of negative feedback. Because all my submissions and completions were on time as directed and requested in all my duties and assignments. If I had to ask something I always asked kindly to a specialist, got consultation, necessary support from online/offline resources/literature and always completed my duties on time as requested as an opinion leader and specialist also in many/several areas. That is really so clear, and across all my endeavors, this has been the case. I never failed a single class in my education, work and academic life, from my undergraduate to my graduate studies. In my professional life as well, I maintained the same discipline, consistently working with focus and dedication. When I share my ideas with large audiences—as a prominent figure, a political leader, a Hollywood star, or a business leader—I hope I don’t lose any of my credibility or trust built on those qualifications any time. If some individuals disagrees with me, in some topics or do not like some of my ideas, this does not necessarily mean that I am loosing anything from my credibility and trustworthiness also this does not make me criminal, illegal and being part of something illegal. Of course, there may be some disagreements in opinion, that is part of democracy, but at the end of the day, I was successful from the start, and I still believe I am one of the best candidates that can be considered and worth giving a chance for good opportunities in life as other candidates, citizens and individuals. If people today say us, as in one old saying, “This guy is not a patient but a master—truly a master, truly a specialist, truly an intellect with analytical skills, truly a gentleman, truly a trustworthy, kind person” as in the old days, then that is the truth. If they say, “not guilty but innocent—a good, honest, hardworking, principled, trusted, fair, and ethical person, a high achiever with many successes in all around the world” as in the old days, then that too is the truth. But when you step into politics or become a prominent figure—like a Hollywood star—if someone disagrees with your ideas, which I respect and think that this is part of a healthy democracy, it doesn’t mean I deserve to be discredited, penalized, criminalized as an innocent person, citizen, and individual and I loose nothing from my credibility or trustworthiness. Of course, people can disagree with my ideas—and that’s part of a healthy democracy, which I respect. However, that does not mean I no longer deserve the titles I have earned in the past, nor that I have lost any of my credibility, integrity, being ethical or trustworthiness and/or alike. My commitment to ethical conduct, integrity, and trustworthiness remains unchanged. I continue to stand by the principles that defined my work in the past—professionalism, accountability, and respect for others—while also bringing forward experience, resilience, and a dedication to continuous growth. If anything, these qualities have been strengthened, even improved over time, reinforcing my ability to contribute meaningfully and uphold the standards associated with those titles. The reality is, I worked hard—I didn’t achieve success by chance. I put in a lot of effort, and success is never solely accidental. That said, when people disagree—when we have different paradigms and ideas on certain topics—some can be harsh and disrespectful but I think that’s not ideal. But at the end of the day, we are all human beings, children of god and citizens of this planet world and we need to learn to listen to one another in a respectful way—as civilized people, as civilized citizens—fostering mutual respect and understanding. Everyone should engage with one another in that way, treating each other with respect regardless of their ideas, ideologies, lifestyle and/or alike. Thank you all. We would not achieve without your unending support, love and trust. Thank you, Thank you.
Even with a clean criminal record in all the countries of the world, once you enter into politics and become a Hollywood star or a prominent figure, if some bad intentioned people may try to frame you as a criminal. Despite all your degrees—PhD, Master’s of Science, Bachelor’s of Science—all your qualifications and achievements, knowing you are having a spotless record, clean criminal record across the board all over the world, this scenario is highly suspicious and not realistic. Even if you are innocent, sometimes some bad intentioned people just want to take you down. After all, once you become rich, with all the privileges, with all degrees, global experiences people may be even more cautious. Despite a spotless record in the past and present, it seems unrealistic that you would suddenly commit a crime as some try to show/portray for you to lose. As they say, those who can't overcome ideas may try to silence the people who think them. Yet, it may just be a tactic to take you down—an underhanded move, an under the belt kick. In this type of scenario questions inevitably arise, and suspicions begin to grow. Once you gain wealth and fame, with all these privileges and degrees this kind of targeting is often a deliberate attempt to silence you and control you maybe. In normal circumstances, with all those degrees—PhD, Master’s of Science, Bachelor’s of Science—combined with global, international experience in major conglomerates/businesses, giants and a spotless criminal record everywhere, these innocent individuals do not just suddenly start committing crimes. This is highly suspicious. In fact, it may be a deliberate attempt by ill-intentioned people to target and take down these innocent individuals. Maybe this may be an abuse of power, corruption, and a pressure for innocent individual orchestrated by bad intentioned people, a way to undermine your voice and keep you in check if this is the case you never know. Once you gain wealth with privileges, you may still have a spotless record and preserve that, but this can still be exploited. It’s a way to target and criminalize people unfairly, a form of abuse of power, or even corruption who knows in this type of scenario. And when someone harasses, tortures, or deliberately frames an innocent person often by using false accusations, manipulation, fabricated evidence, false witnesses, setting up plots of conspiracies, putting him/her in a bad situation or deception, this does not make the innocent person guilty or criminal. The idea of silencing people by saying, 'Don't speak too much or you'll be punished,' runs counter to the essence of true democracy. The true criminals are those who inflict the torture, the assaults, and orchestrate these injustices. This is not just a personal violation; it’s a grave breach of international law—a serious attack on human rights and justice.
Typically, when a person is born in a country or has degrees from a country which is in the European Union or U.S. or a similar developed/developing country/alliance it’s something that brings an additional pride to the citizen, without a doubt. However, when we see violations of human rights, democratic freedoms, and core principles, that are a bad sign for both NATO and EU membership, this confuses the minds of citizens, we the people and world citizens who trust these alliances and countries of world which are heard with these violations—history teaches us this. In fact, it’s directly at odds with the mission, vision, and objectives that both the EU and NATO uphold. NATO protects liberties and democratic freedoms, and the EU’s mission, vision, and objectives are also rooted in protecting democratic freedoms, liberties and these values. Each member or candidate country is expected to uphold these standards. Yet, I think whether you join or not, it’s still crucial to maintain high standards and meet these goals for the benefit of the citizens and society. Of course, if you can join NATO or the EU, it is a positive step for a country in my opinion. Still, we must also respect those who choose not to join these alliances, as they have the right to make their own decisions. At the same time, we should also consider expanding the number of members in NATO, United Nations, the EU and alliances alike, share our expertise with our allies all over the world. In other words, we should look at broadening participation in NATO, the EU, United Nations and similar alliances as well. When a country upholds democratic principles and liberties, it becomes a win for the country—both for its citizens and society as well as world citizens who trust this country/brand. At the end of the day the people, citizens, tourists, expatriots, world citizens, investors, enterpreneurs who choose, trust that country benefit in this case. These types of high standards protecting liberties, democratic freedoms and alike is not a sacrifice; in fact, whether inside or outside these alliances, we should have this high standards in accordance with contemporary trends strengthened with constructive reforms for the better for all world citizens and the world. Everyone should recognize thi.s And we must keep that in mind and never go backwards in protecting our liberties and democratic freedoms & rights as we consider these steps.
If a country implements constructive reforms that strengthen democratic freedoms, liberties, and a fair justice system, it lays the groundwork for a society where citizens' & expatriates' rights, individual rights, human rights, consumer rights, and investor protections are robust and protected. When these core principles are safeguarded, investors are drawn to the country, tourists feel secure visiting, expatriates choose you, citizens trust their institutions and countries, and employees take pride in working there. As a result, the country or company that earns this trust excels in the marketplace and on the global stage. Thus, we must prioritize strengthening these constructive reforms and protecting democratic values, liberties, rights of everybody so that all businesses and countries—economic, social, and political—can thrive sustainably on a global scale.
People often develop emotional connections with celebrities, leaders, athletes, and public figures because of identification, admiration, and the “extended self” concept in psychology and consumer behavior. Many individuals do not simply view these figures with jealousy; instead, they experience inspiration, aspiration, symbolic attachment, or a sense of self-extension through them. When people see successful, talented, charismatic, or respected personalities, they may psychologically associate part of their own identity, dreams, lifestyle, values, or social image with those individuals. This emotional and symbolic connection helps explain why audiences follow celebrities closely and why public figures can strongly influence opinions, trends, consumption habits, and cultural preferences.
For this reason, celebrity endorsement has long been an important strategy in marketing, media, branding, and entertainment industries. Companies frequently use celebrities, influencers, athletes, musicians, actors, and admired leaders in advertisements, movies, product/service/brand placements of countries, cities, businesses & alike , and campaigns because familiar and admired personalities can increase trust, visibility, emotional engagement, and perceived attractiveness of a brand, product, or service. In many cases, audiences transfer some of the positive meanings they associate with the celebrity — such as success, confidence, beauty, talent, prestige, authenticity, or social status — onto the endorsed product or message. This symbolic transfer can enhance brand recognition, strengthen consumer attachment, and contribute positively to communication effectiveness, consumer choices, individial choices and purchasing behavior.
Behavioral learning theories, particularly those developed by Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and B. F. Skinner, emphasized conditioning, reinforcement, and environmental stimuli as central mechanisms of learning. According to behaviorism, individuals respond to external stimuli through learned associations and repeated reinforcement patterns. However, later scholars argued that learning cannot be explained solely through conditioning because human beings are not passive receivers of stimuli. Learning also depends on cognitive interpretation, perception, mental fialtering, emotional states, memory structures, symbolic decoding, and individual consciousness.
Cognitive theorists such as Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner, Ulric Neisser, and Noam Chomsky emphasized that every individual possesses unique cognitive mechanisms, personal will, brain perception, and interpretive frameworks that shape learning outcomes differently. From this perspective, learning is viewed as a multidimensional process involving cognition, decoding, attention, interpretation, social interaction, and meaning construction rather than a single-factor conditioning mechanism. Therefore, the same stimulus may produce entirely different responses depending on how individuals cognitively process and filter information through their own mental and perceptual systems.
Behavioral theories of learning, especially the works of Ivan Pavlov and B. F. Skinner, explain that human behavior can be shaped through conditioning, reinforcement, environmental stimuli, and repeated experiences. These approaches contributed significantly to understanding habit formation, behavioral adaptation, and response mechanisms. However, later developments in psychology and cognitive science demonstrated that behavior is not determined solely by external conditioning. Individuals actively decode, interpret, filter, and evaluate information before transforming it into behavior. Thus, learning and behavioral outcomes are influenced not only by rewards or punishments but also by internal cognitive processes, perception, attention, emotional interpretation, and personal meaning construction.
Scholars such as Jean Piaget, Albert Bandura, Jerome Bruner, and Noam Chomsky emphasized that every individual possesses unique cognitive filtering and decoding mechanisms that influence behavioral choices differently. According to these perspectives, people are not passive organisms reacting automatically to stimuli; rather, they selectively interpret experiences through their own consciousness, memories, beliefs, motivations, and perceptual systems. Therefore, the same environmental condition or behavioral stimulus which can be encountered in art, in a public speech, in media or daily life may lead to entirely different actions depending on how unique individuals cognitively decode, filter, and process information before making behavioral choices.
Building on the behavioral and cognitive perspectives outlined it becomes clear that human response to media, cinema, speech, and broader social communication cannot be reduced to a single causal factor. While behavioral theories highlight conditioning, reinforcement, and environmental stimuli, cognitive and social-cognitive approaches emphasize that every individual actively interprets and decodes information through internal processes such as attention, memory, belief systems, emotional states, and prior experience. This means that exposure to the same content does not produce uniform behavioral outcomes; instead, meaning is constructed differently by each individual.
From this standpoint, individuals are not passive recipients of external stimuli but active interpreters with cognitive autonomy. The works of scholars such as Piaget, Bruner, Bandura, and Chomsky support the view that perception and interpretation mediate all external input before it becomes behavior. As a result, media, artistic expression, and spoken or written ideas are processed through unique psychological and cognitive filters, leading to diverse and sometimes entirely contrasting interpretations of the same material. This variability is a fundamental feature of human cognition rather than an exception. Similarly no wrongdoing and crime can be associated to stimulus in media, art, speeches done with freedom of speech or a person/citizen sharing his/her idea. But some authoritative regimes or some people in power can use this under the belt tactic to silence different perspectives, storylines, content creations and opinions even if this is the case. But this is not acceptable in a true democracy. Freedom of speech, open media, and exposure to diverse ideas through art and communication play a crucial role in expanding empathy, strengthening intellectual capabilities, and encouraging critical questioning. When individuals are free to encounter different perspectives without restriction, they develop a broader understanding of human experiences and social realities. This diversity of input challenges assumptions, improves cognitive flexibility, and fosters more reflective and informed thinking. In such an environment, learning becomes not only the accumulation of knowledge but also the development of deeper awareness, tolerance, and the ability to engage thoughtfully with complexity.
We should design our laws to be more inclusive and holistically by taking into account equity, inclusion, and diversity, every voice, every perspective, while also respecting and protecting differences among people in a fair and balanced way, including differences such as age, sex, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, language, religion, disability, socioeconomic background, education level, geographic location, lifestyle, civilians, law enforcement officers, all blue collar, white collar workers, retired people, children, teenagers, adults, elderly, animals, all living beings, nature, our planet world and alike. This means ensuring equal opportunity, reducing structural disadvantages, and recognizing the varied identities, experiences, and needs within society so that everyone is treated with dignity, fairness, and equal protection under the law. This means ensuring equal opportunity, reducing structural disadvantages, and recognizing the varied backgrounds, identities, and needs within society so that everyone is treated with dignity and fairness under the law. As a result for everybody to be heard and considered, freedom of speech is necessary for democracies to thrive and in considering each perspective in enacting these laws and regulations to make them inclusive, holistic protecting diversity, equity and inclusion.
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
These are my views as President of the United States, developed in close consultation with my advisors and specialists. I am a leader who values both Republican and Democratic perspectives and strives to govern in a truly bipartisan way who is a Democrat but also a Republican, a bipartisan leader.
I respect the decisions made by majority vote in the Senate and the House, as well as across Capitol Hill and within the departments led by our Secretaries. I believe that our institutions—the Senate, the House, our agencies, and our departments—take these perspectives into account in their daily operations and in the development of new initiatives, projects. That is how a responsive and effective democracy should function: with all of us sharing our ideas openly while respecting one another.
If we can find common ground—if we can shape our laws, regulations, and daily responsibilities in an inclusive and holistic way, taking into account every citizen and every voice—then we are fulfilling the true promise of “We the People.” With the support of both Democrats and Republicans, and by listening to every perspective, every citizen, every individual represented across our institutions, we move closer to that ideal.
At the same time, as long as the American people call upon me to speak, I believe it is my duty to share my honest perspective. I do not take this responsibility lightly. I will continue to speak out for what I believe will uplift every American and help secure a better future for all respecting every country and the preferences of every world citizen at the same time.
My intention would be to continue working, serving society, and setting an example. As long as I am healthy and capable, I would remain committed to helping others and creating value for my country and the broader world. It has always been always fun, honor, privilidge and good to work with you hardworking, smart, kind, dedicated citizens and individuals for me. I hope you also liked and enjoyed being part of that. As long as you (We-The-People) choose me as your leader and want to see me in this position than that is totally fine with me. Thank you for everything.
Let's make one more step forward and walk the extra miles together if that is what you want. You can always share your ideas, suggestions and feedback. I am a good listener respects all ideas life styles, preferences, values, beliefs and perspectives. Together We Achieve! Thank you.
God bless the United States. God bless you. God bless the world.
Kindest Regards,
Dr. Özerk Yavuz (President of The United States, Special Envoy of United States, Professor, Scientist, Leader, Enterprenuer, Human Being, We-The People, Citizens of All World Countries With also Diplomatic Immunities Granted From All, Retired From All Countries with the highest ranks)
(Strengthened With AI)
Cut. Scene Ends....
