Accepting News

Accept News you don’t like?

Implications

News could be false. News could be truthful, timed by the enemy.

Anger is good? No, it is blinding

The enemy has no reason to play psychological tricks?

The enemy has no capacity to deliver psychological tricks? I have ideal capacity to comprehend all psychological tricks? Nothing I haven’t seen before, I can comprehend everything possible?

Anger let is get

Allow no time cost is always ideal set and get?

15 days of computer cycles on a lie? Lies have no cost?

People and computers always trustworthy with truth plus less than ideal comprehension. There is an x and y, there are only x and y in the equation. 10-ed no Z in the mix, never happens like that?

https://g.co/gemini/share/6d01e3e9463f

Wiser won’t always be listened to in the storm, gets us from pointvA to point B (safety)

You wake up and your room is flooding. It is news, it is data, news you have to act upon. Requires action is a less than ideal system, can be switched on.

Less may A may A

Less seen as may A might be more A in reality, practice

may A – might see perfection, might lead to ideal outcomes

may A – news that might or might not make things better

Sold as an ideal might lead to confidence required for it to deliver more like an ideal plan – say an economy is good might be what actually leads to more sells, more supply, more demand

If you are given a false piece of information call it TruthA. Then you make a plan and move forward with it. Then 15 days later you find out TruthB is actually correct, how does that change things? Allot of gains in moving forward not knowing all of what is at the bottom of the ocean. Doesn’t mean the Truth is completely less consequential in the longterm, that TruthA didn’t get you from point A to point B, that TruthA to TruthB going forward is not valuable, wise to turn up.

People will dive to scary depths to get real truth? Truth is more than fluff?

Some updates –https://g.co/gemini/share/0b5806b5877f

AI Research on Peace, November 26th, 2025

The conflicts that arise from divergent “ways of life”—whether theological, political, or economic—are fundamentally rooted in ideational factors, transforming material disputes into existential crises. Unlike classic security competition, which focuses on the distribution of power, ideological warfare is primarily explained by Constructivism, asserting that a nation’s belief systems, identities, and norms define who the enemy is and why conflict is necessary . This inherent clash of worldviews (e.g., Capitalism vs. Communism or Freedom of Speech vs. Censorship ) breeds deep-seated distrust that resists diplomatic resolution.[1]The Psychological Engine: Propaganda and MobilizationThe bridge between abstract ideology and the concrete act of war is built by propaganda and the bandwagon appeal. Propaganda functions as a set of persuasive strategies that appeal to emotion over logic, converting ideological differences into a moral imperative for conflict . Techniques like Demonization portray the rival system as inherently evil, solidifying public resolve and providing moral justification for aggressive action . The Bandwagon Appeal is critical for mass mobilization, convincing citizens to join a cause by suggesting it is an irresistible popular movement headed for “Inevitable Victory” . In the contemporary digital arena, Computational Propaganda weaponizes “half-truths” about institutional problems (such as mobilization issues) to degrade public trust and weaken the state’s internal resilience, directly impacting its ability to sustain the war effort .The Financial Weapon: Predatory Lending and CoercionSystemic conflicts are also fueled by financial coercion, which serves as a strategic weapon short of kinetic war. Historically, “Gunboat Diplomacy” involved using military force to compel debt repayment and assert political control over delinquent sovereign borrowers . In the modern era, Predatory Lending is politicized at two levels: * Geopolitical Coercion: The concept of Debt-Trap Diplomacy (DTD), often associated with major power lending (like China’s Belt and Road Initiative), functions as an information tool used by adversaries (such as the United States) to label a rival’s financial practices as predatory . This discredits the rival’s economic model and foreign policy in the global ideological contest.[2] * Internal Destabilization: Predatory financial mechanisms, such as localized microfinance that ignores a borrower’s ability to repay, create profound societal fissures, including coerced land sales and loss of access to essential services . This micro-level financial hardship degrades the target state’s internal stability and resilience, making it highly susceptible to external geopolitical demands and coercion.[3]Pathways to Lasting PeaceDe-escalation of ideational conflicts requires more than just military truces; it demands Conflict Transformation, which must address the cognitive (changing beliefs about the adversary), emotional (reducing hostility and fear), and behavioral (negotiation) roots of the dispute.[4, 5] Successful de-escalation, as seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis, relies on creating secure, direct, and secret channels of communication between key leaders. This allows them to bypass the domestic pressures of ideological posturing and public rhetoric, enabling rational security exchanges and reciprocal concessions that circumvent the constraints imposed by mass media and public Bandwagon appeal . Ultimately, mitigating these conflicts requires strengthening both internal governance against localized financial predation and promoting information transparency to deny propagandists the “half-truths” they rely on to degrade state authority .

https://g.co/gemini/share/22614e83eccc