Posts by Nathan Kelly5

Kyle Lee7 said:I’ve hired several people over the last few years, and honestly, I’ve been happy with everyone I’ve brought on board.

The first thing you look at is whether they actually know how to do the job—do they have the right qualifications, the experience, or at least the genuine potential to learn the ropes?

That’s just the baseline requirement. When it comes down to picking the final candidate, that’s where personality takes over. And I don't mean grilling them with a checklist of "five strengths and five weaknesses." Instead, I prefer to just sit down and have a conversation—often over coffee. We start with technical topics and then naturally drift into more casual territory, talking about their interests or what they do outside of work. I make sure to participate too, so it doesn't feel like a police interrogation.

Once you observe someone and they finally start to relax, their true self really comes through.

For me, the most important things were finding someone who was grounded, easygoing, and confident. I look for people who communicate easily, show real initiative, stay positive, and demonstrate a certain level of maturity.

I won't get into the smaller details, since those vary depending on the industry.

As for faking it, giving rehearsed answers, or putting on a polished act: please don't.
Anyone with even a shred of intuition will see right through you in a heartbeat.

Whatever role you’re applying for, you need to do your homework on what the requirements are. If you aren't a fit, don't pretend to be—even if you do get the job, you're only doing yourself a disservice in the long run. Just be honest.
If you haven't put in the effort to research everything possible before the interview, and reflected on why you actually want to work there and what you expect from the role, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Even the title of your thread gives it away—what is it that an employer wants to hear?
It sounds like you think you can just tell someone exactly what they want to hear, regardless of whether it's true. That’s actually quite condescending toward a potential employer, and it doesn't fly with us.
A better approach would be to ask the employer what they specifically need to know.

The relationship between an employer and an employee isn't a one-way street. You have every right to expect respect, appreciation, and fair treatment, but the same standard applies to you.

Well, it is telling; it speaks volumes about employers. If actual expertise were prioritized over optics or pseudo-psychology, this wouldn't even be a conversation, right?🙂

My advice to anyone who can afford it is to just be themselves—be whoever you are and whoever you feel comfortable being. Don't fake it, provided you have the breathing room to do so, given the current job market in the US. Some people will appreciate your actual character, and you'll be able to show up as your true self. I suppose a little extra professionalism doesn't hurt, but some people play the part so poorly that it backfires; at my last two companies, three women had complete mental breakdowns because of it. Look, the pressure is intense, but if you lack the backbone to handle things when they hit the fan at work—where expectations are naturally higher—you aren't going to get far. Trying to say "yes" to everything and pretending to be perfect until you eventually snap isn't sustainable. Just be yourself, speak your mind, and call it a day.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:One thing you absolutely cannot do is lie or try to play games when it comes to your actual skill set. You have to be real and just lay it all out on the table. The trick is to keep those weaker points to a minimum—and if you absolutely have to bring them up, frame them in a way that makes an employer feel like investing their time and energy in you is actually worth the payoff. Focus on your strengths and explain exactly why those qualities make you the right fit for the role. But please, don't cross the line into sounding arrogant or overconfident. And seriously, watch your first impression. People love to say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but let's be honest... we're only human, and you can't escape the halo effect. That’s why you need to show up looking professional, know your basic etiquette, offer a firm handshake, and maintain eye contact. If you don't, you've lost before you've even started. Besides, most studies show that what employers value above everything else is pure MOTIVATION.

You're right; that's how most people choose, but it doesn't surprise me at all that some companies end up collapsing because of it. As long as style is prioritized over substance, they aren't going to last.

I saw this firsthand at my old company. They didn't trust anyone with much responsibility, so as the youngest, I was sent to proctor technical exams rather than psychological ones. Not once did they hire someone based on actual expertise. 🙄 When you spend a few hours watching people work through problems, observe their attitude, and grade their responses, it’s incredibly easy to tell who is just a poser, who actually knows their stuff, who is resourceful, and who is insecure.

As for who actually got called back for interviews, I couldn't say. I wasn't there for that part. I don't know if it was all about connections or if management is simply so inept that they pick whoever performs best in a social setting instead of who has the skills. But I can tell you that looks matter immensely; whenever a good-looking candidate walked in, the women in the office would start campaigning for them to be hired immediately.😁

Eric Jackson11 said:Let’s clear things up for those employers who seem to think people in marketing and management are automatically delivering an immediate return on investment.
The reality is that demand for marketing and "management" roles is actually quite low right now because many sectors in those fields are facing significant losses. So, that whole argument about the current state of that job market just doesn't hold water.
Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent.

Personally, if I were hiring someone, I wouldn't require them to walk in with a forced smile or a fake sense of cheerfulness.
That kind of positive atmosphere is something the employer needs to cultivate 🙂
Employees are definitely an investment, but they aren't just mindless assets.
Their rights should be clearly protected by law.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is that both the employee and the employer feel satisfied in their shared workspace. They need to realize together that they are building something that benefits both themselves and the company paying their salary.
When you go above and beyond what was expected, your confidence grows—that's the real engine behind everything, and it deserves to be rewarded.
You should hire people based on their ambitions and give them enough room to breathe without micromanaging them.
Encourage them to highlight their flaws, too. It's much easier for people to be honest about where they struggle, whereas others can be the ones to judge their strengths.

@James Rogers4, please don't let that kind of negativity make you an employer.
With a mindset like yours, you'll end up crushing any motivation a worker might have to help build your collective success.

Unfortunately, because jobs are hard to find lately, people often settle for bizarre conditions like the ones you're describing. The real question is how much profit those conditions will actually bring to "your" company in the long run.

Exactly. When I read that part about the director crucifying people just because they won't make eye contact, I couldn't help but laugh. First of all, a significant number of people deal with social anxiety or discomfort regarding eye contact with strangers—you see it every day. Second, some people don't even think twice about it (and honestly, they shouldn't have to). It tells you absolutely nothing about a person's character, let alone their ability to perform their job. Unless, of course, you're hiring a TV anchor who needs to stare intensely at a camera lens all day.

Psihič: Paravinja is above average in intelligence, socially deviant, and manipulative

Thomas Rodriguez14 said:I honestly wonder if people even have a conscience—like, are they actually aware of what they're doing in the moment? 😕

I watched a movie about Ted Bundy today. I’m not quite sure how to process it... it was unsettling, yet strangely gripping. It felt like he was a prisoner of his own mind; he clearly needed help, but there was none to be found, and he couldn't escape the impulses and fantasies that haunted him.

The trial was particularly fascinating. Unlike many criminals, he seemed almost relieved to be caught. He confessed to everything, essentially asking to be removed from society because he knew he couldn't stop himself. He talks about his actions—much like everyone else does—as if he's just trying to figure out where it all went wrong, though he doesn't have an answer.

His level of psychopathy is equally chilling—that total absence of feeling. You see it most clearly here: he is incapable of remorse or empathy. It gives you the impression that he views the whole situation through a detached lens, like, "some woman is screaming at me hysterically, but I suppose I'm guilty, or so they say, so I might as well be polite."🤷
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4hb_...eature=related

There is a certain irony in the fact that he was eventually killed in prison by another psychopath. Apparently, he didn't even bother to defend himself, acting as if he simply didn't care whether he lived or died.

"It's just a sick, pathetic, wretched, miserable life story, that's all it is. How it can help anyone, I've no idea"

Maria Thomas48 said:

I don't know. It just seems like everything is moving so fast lately. One day you're looking at one thing, and the next, the whole landscape has shifted under your feet. It's hard to stay grounded when the ground keeps moving. I was thinking about it earlier, just staring at my screen, wondering if anyone else feels that constant sense of flux. It’s quiet, though. Just a lot of noise that doesn't actually mean anything. Anyway, just some thoughts. The user says:
It feels like you’ve basically re-engineered the entire field of macroeconomics just to make sure everything fits inside your own little theory. Look, I get it—there's definitely a psychological component to inflation, maybe even the biggest part of it, but you can't just ignore that. It's baked into the very nature of how inflation works. You can't escape it. It reminds me of what happened back in the day when we tried to fund deficits simply by printing more money... you remember how things went in America, right? And we all know exactly where that path leads.

It isn’t really about the government. It’s about the people. Around here, we have always spent more than we actually make—honestly, we usually spend even more than that. That is the core of the issue. Pernar talks about how you take out a $1,000 loan today, then an $1,100 loan tomorrow, and nobody is forcing you to do that. Either you're just overspending, for lack of a better word, or you aren't earning enough. But neither one of those problems gets solved by taking out loans to cover daily expenses, and it certainly doesn't get fixed by printing more money.

It’s not even really my own theory. It’s just the truth. Anyone could go out and find it if they actually looked.

Look, can we please just stop linking controlled money supply with this frantic, mindless printing? It’s not that complicated. Everyone knows exactly what the goal is here.

Make state money issuance exclusive if you want to actually boost the money supply.
We need to stop banks from being able to just inflate the money supply or pile up endless layers of debt whenever they feel like it.

Non-credit-based policy is basically a tool for national financial sovereignty. But like any kind of weapon—or any kind of power, really—if you handle it the wrong way, you’re going to cause some serious damage. You can't just possess a powerful weapon and expect it to be impossible to misuse. It's just how things work.

I’m saying it again because I know exactly why Marković's reform fell apart: the government's money supply was essentially fighting a losing battle against massive credit expansion from the banks. That was a deliberate move designed to systematically dismantle the American economy. You can't claim to be an expert on par with someone like Marković and somehow not realize the fallout of those actions. It’s nothing short of high treason. Honestly, Ante Marković should be facing trial for treason.

Next up in line was Škegro, one of those guys responsible for pegging the currency to credit lines. It turned out to be a disaster, basically ballooning the old America debt by fifteen times. Then you look at how they aligned the Federal Reserve's laws with the European Central Bank, and that just pushed America right down a path of ever-accelerating debt. When you're doubling the national debt every four or five years, you're looking at an annual growth rate of 15 to 19%. Honestly, I don't know of any business model that can actually pay that back. I really don't.

Regarding that point about Pernar, he actually just pulled that example straight from my own analysis. I can't really make sense of this. It looks like you just sent me a single word, "article," without any context or the actual content you want me to work on. If you have a specific piece of writing you need me to overhaul, just paste it here. I'll take that source text and rebuild it from the ground up—making sure everything sounds like it belongs in the States, swapping out all those foreign references for things like the Fed or major US corporations, and keeping the tone exactly how it needs to be. Just send over the text whenever you're ready.It just shows how keeping those banking profits on hand creates this massive debt pile and a huge cost down the road. It’s basically a recipe for a debt crisis.

Who exactly is forcing us into this debt cycle? It’s pretty simple. There's just no cash left. The government budget is bone dry, and since that’s the only way they can actually pull money together, they have to lean on credit. It’s how things work now. Taking out a loan today basically creates the capital needed to chase profits—you know, that growing pool of savings—because there isn't any other path available. Then tomorrow comes, and the only solution is to take out another loan, just an even bigger one this time. You can see the pattern clearly from the examples we're seeing.

Are we spending way too much? Are we living beyond our means? Yeah, probably. It’s because we’re running on credit. And credit is just a debt that hits you harder tomorrow. Without credit, there isn't any money. You can practically count on one hand the number of companies out there that actually operate using their own accumulated capital instead of borrowing.

Does anyone here actually have the skills to put something together? A closed system. That's how it works. Everything stays within its own loop. No outside influence, no external variables coming in to mess with the math. It just cycles on itself. Just a self-contained loop. Always has been. How would you even prove that living on exactly what you earn—no more, no less—is actually doable? I honestly can't wrap my head around it without someone injecting extra cash into the equation. There’s really only one scenario where you don't need to add money to make the math work, and that’s when absolutely nobody is making a profit. But that’s a situation none of us actually want to be in. If there's no profit, there's no savings, and the business just isn't growing.

Anyone who can actually prove there's a way out of this system where the total amount of money stays constant deserves a Nobel Prize. Honestly, if someone comes up with a solution that's actually viable and sustainable, I’ll officially admit my own idea was wrong.🙂. I'm just sitting here waiting for you Nobel laureates to show up!

Controlled money printing? Let’s be clear: today, money is printed with actual backing. What you’re advocating for is printing money without any reserves at all. I’m not sure you realize that if we just flooded the market with unbacked currency, the sudden surge in supply would trigger a rapid devaluation of the dollar. To put it simply: you can't just print money out of thin air. $33If you’re working with just ten bucks, the ratio shifts from 7 to 10. At that point, everything you're doing becomes essentially pointless. You're just fueling inflation, devaluing the currency, and destabilizing the economy all at once. It's basically just moving money from one empty pocket to another.

Stop banks from accumulating debt? Good grief. Let’s take that logic further: imagine we just amended the Constitution to abolish banking and all forms of borrowing entirely. There. No banks, no interest, no debt, no credit. Happy now?

Where exactly do you think the problem lies in America? It should be obvious that the issue stems from sluggish economic activity, low employment rates, bloated government spending, systemic inefficiency, and low productivity. A massive shadow economy combined with a GDP that can't keep pace with rising costs doesn't help. We have an oversupply of labor but a shortage of capital, skilled workers, and technology.

So, instead of spinning your wheels and moving nothing from one empty vessel to another, maybe use that extra free time to brainstorm actual ways to stimulate the economy, lower unemployment, boost productivity, or drive exports.

I honestly don't know how to respond to such nonsense. You've built this entire philosophy around the idea that printing unbacked money and stripping banks of their functionality will somehow fix things—a concept even a high schooler would recognize as nonsensical. Reading your posts feels like being lectured on something that isn't even true.

coastalmarlin64 said:I've gotta know, is there actually anyone pulling the strings on how much money exists in the world? 🤷
So, (I'm guessing) because of what was quoted above, that's why there's so much hunger globally and so many people facing debt collectors here in the States?

Look, I'm a total amateur and monetary policy goes way over my head, but it seems like every single country is drowning in debt.
Sure, plenty of nations invested in manufacturing or something (like Ireland) or poured money into stuff meant to create new value, so (according to what they teach us in school) they should eventually pay those debts back.
But instead, it looks like every country is slowly sinking under the weight of it all...
Is it just that every nation has citizens who aren't taught any financial literacy and just spend like crazy?

Does that mean places like Germany, Spain, and Ireland are also being super reckless? (I mean, Greece and the US definitely have their issues)
It feels like the debt crisis everywhere started the moment people began piling up credit cards, right? (It really seems like that real estate bubble in Ireland was the culprit)

Btw, @Nostradamus, I suggest you take that question you didn't get an answer to from the Fed and run it through your local Congressman.
When you hit up a Minister or a Cabinet official like that, they actually HAVE to give you a response within 30 days.

The "PIGS" nations—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain—along with us, represent the group hit hardest by the crisis and crushed by debt. They tend to share that Mediterranean, laid-back, high-spending mindset. If it were purely about the population's attitude, why wouldn't we see countries like Sweden, Denmark, or Finland on this list?

brightlynx11 said:Exactly. Interest rates in America have never hovered near zero, and they aren't about to start now. People just have broken intertemporal preferences—they couldn't care less if the rate is 7% or 8%.

Exactly. There’s no real tradeoff here between grinding and just dealing with the bullshit. If your cost of living spikes because of whatever, you fix it by working more, switching jobs, or picking up side hustles. Honestly, the side gigs aren't even that bad, even if they're off the books. Better to hustle under the radar than sit around the house starving.

Back to square one. The government failed at its most basic job: protecting property rights. Everything else falls apart after that.

Let me give you my take on this plan... 🙂

I don't know what to tell you. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone's cheering for the crash. Just pure chaos. kaže:
Islamic banking as a model here in the States—and I’m saying this as an atheist, just so we’re clear.

Funny idea, but it’s never gonna fly in the States. Most banks here are owned by massive foreign conglomerates, and there's zero real competition in the sector. Toss in the high country risk, and you're just looking at sky-high interest rates. Let's just leave the banking sector alone—it's probably the only thing running efficiently around here.

The real question is what the US actually has the capabilities for. If you want to manufacture high-tech gear, you need capital, specialized know-how, and top-tier engineers... You have to figure out where our strengths lie first, then see what we can actually churn out efficiently.
Check this out... it’s totally unorthodox, but the guy makes sense - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRp382ynu-Q

Again, what kind of markets are we talking about? Is there even a profit margin there? Do we even have the 🙂capabilities
?

America isn't going to become a developed powerhouse just off tourism. Name one global superpower that's also one of the most advanced nations on earth solely because they're good at hosting vacationers. 😉

Heh, yeah right. That's never happening. 🙂
Plenty of studies show the issue isn't that the government is too big, it's just incredibly inefficient. You can fire people all day, but nobody's promising the system will actually run better afterward.

I don't know what to tell you. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash on the I-95. Some people just love the chaos. kaže:
Full transparency. Every single document needs to be public. I want total visibility into what every government agency is doing at any given second. If taxpayers are footing the bill, there’s no such thing as a "business secret." Period.

This is a solid move. Think about it: make every contract under a certain threshold public knowledge. If someone else can provide that same service or product to the government at a lower price, they get the deal. Back when we were booming, working with the feds was the way to go. But during a recession? It turns into a total nightmare because the government becomes the biggest drain on liquidity in the country.

Look, I don't want to be just another critic, so here’s my two cents from an economist's perspective. This country doesn't just need economic reform—we need a total cultural overhaul. I don't necessarily agree with that columnist over at The Washington Post, but he hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that America needs some serious nation-building. We have to stop acting like vassals to outside powers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be part of global institutions, but it means our leaders and individuals actually need to own their actions and face the music when they screw up.

Take those people who went all-in on Swiss franc loans... if they actually understood basic economics, they’d realize nobody is coming to save them from currency risk. Sure, the interest rates looked better, but that's only because the exchange rate was working against them. Interest rate parity exists for a reason. 🙂

Listen, I don't know if you guys caught that segment on 60 Minutes a few months back. They went out and asked people on the street what their interest rates were, and most of them—people who literally have massive mortgages—didn't have a clue. As long as the population stays uneducated and just doesn't give a damn, the status quo isn't going anywhere.

I agree. There is a clear correlation between the quality of political decisions and the education level of the citizenry. It's hard to expect high-quality governance when the primary obsession of both the public and the politicians is nothing more than identity politics and old-school partisan bickering.

If we view education as a way out of this mess, things aren't looking entirely bleak. Access to higher education here in the States is actually quite high. While the trend elsewhere is toward increased competition between universities and rising private tuition, our college system remains largely accessible and affordable, and the quality is solid. So, really, the advice is simple: keep learning. It’s the only thing that truly pays off today. 🙂

Nicole Gomez38 said:The whole point of non-credit money issuance is to balance debt against the money supply—if you don't have that balance, debt outpaces liquidity almost immediately (under the American monetary model 4 x)

Basically, any monetary system that relies solely on long-term credit rather than primary (non-credit) issuance is a fast track to total economic collapse; it just uses interest rates to bleed every bit of value dry. We see the evidence in real life every day—people just refuse to admit it.

The real killer is what I call "cumulative interest." Picture an American city with a million productive citizens. If everyone takes a one-year loan from $333 at a 10% interest rate, they’ll eventually have to pay back $367. After that year, they owe a combined $1.1 billion. The bank pockets $100 million, leaving everyone with $33 less than they started with. To bridge the gap, they take out a new loan, but this time it's for $367. By using $33 to cover the initial loss, they end up with $333 in debt. But now, the repayment requirement jumps to $403. Two years in, everyone is left with $70 less than their starting point. Meanwhile, the bank has raked in another $110 million, totaling $210 million in profit. As people take larger loans to stay afloat, the cycle repeats—you're drowning in deeper debt while your actual cash disappears.

To maintain the same level of purchasing power, we have to borrow more and more just to keep up. And what do the political elites do? Instead of fixing the broken monetary model, they push the country and its people into even deeper debt—essentially driving us toward modern-day debt slavery. Sadly, most folks won't realize how unsustainable this is until it's too late—until the day their accounts are frozen or the collectors come knocking. And honestly, some won't even realize it then.

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party claim that a monetary model where the Federal Reserve acts as an exchange bureau (with currency clauses) is fine, yet they also argue that long-term non-credit money issuance isn't sustainable. But those of you reading this can see the truth! Unfortunately, to see it clearly, you practically have to bang your head against a wall. The system will keep deceiving you until enough people hit that wall and realize the entire model is unsustainable—it's predatory, plain and simple.

The current American monetary system looks a lot like the Argentine system right before its crash...
http://zelenapolitika.wordpress.com/...veo-u-propast/

Is this some grand revelation about how the United States works? It seems simple to me: capital has a price and a required return, much like real estate. If you own a condo worth $300,000, you aren't going to rent it out for free; you're going to charge rent. Similarly, if you have $300,000 in cash, you aren't going to hand it over for nothing—you lend it at an interest rate. Just as property value stays relatively stable compared to the eroding value of currency due to inflation, the nominal return on capital naturally scales up.

Maria Thomas48 said:The banks are pulling a money expansion move right now. Why aren't we trying to stop them? Credit keeps climbing, and at the end of the day, the money supply is just credit.

The loss in currency value isn't really an issue because the influx is tiny—maybe 3.5 to 5% a year. Because of that, banks can keep expanding credit for years on end. It seems insignificant at first, but eventually, all that debt builds up and leads to endless crises.

Where does inflation actually come from? It's not from having too much money. It comes from greed and the inability to cover costs. Take a look at this article.

Even when prices drop, it doesn't mean manufacturers are finally covering their overhead; they're just trying to minimize the damage because there's a lack of liquidity in the system. I've written a bunch of pieces that push back against the usual economic clichés. Read them all. You'll see how much you've been misled.

It looks like you've over-theorized all of macroeconomics just to make it fit your own theory. Obviously, a significant portion—if not the largest part—of inflation is psychological, but that’s unavoidable; it's inherent to inflation itself. After all, we didn't have long ago what you're describing: financing a deficit through money printing... back in the South, right? And look where that led us.

The issue isn't the government so much as it is the people. Around here, people have always spent more than they actually have... maybe even a little more than that. That's the root of the problem. As > points out, if you take out a $1,000 loan today and an $1,100 loan tomorrow, who is forcing you to do that? Either you're overspending, or you're simply not earning enough. Neither issue will be solved by credit or money printing.

I don't quite follow. You're suggesting development should be funded through money printing rather than credit? Even if you increase the supply, the total value remains the same—you're just diluting the value of every dollar in circulation.

You just reminded me of something. I was walking along the sidewalk when some idiot parked just inches from a building entrance. It was winter—lots of snow and slush everywhere, and the only way to get to the curb was through a patch of mud. It wouldn't have even bothered me if he hadn't stepped out and started chatting right in front of his car, completely blocking the tiny bit of space he’d left for pedestrians. I approached slowly, waiting a few seconds to see if he’d budge, but then the old lady he was talking to gave me this look, like, "Ugh, move along, loser, can't you see we're being cool here?" She eventually started moving, but only reluctantly, and I just snapped. I walked straight over the hood of his car. He tried to make some threats at first, but once he realized I wasn't intimidated—that I was actually just itching to teach him a lesson—he started apologizing and scrambling to move the car.

So, look: be polite with the intellectuals, but be blunt with the idiots. You'll learn eventually. You might hesitate five times, wondering if you should wait for people to move, but the sixth time? You'll just push right through them.

ambermason16 said:Honestly... given what Emily Kim67 pointed out, I find it hard to believe you'd even get banned for being that insulting... 🤷

Banned for what? They literally start threads titled "Why being a slut in bed is bad," don't they?

Anyway, just drop this topic; this question is meant for the head moderator here.

AMERICAN MEDIA
ITV - The Independent Television (ITV) network is divided into 14 regions—all under the control of companies owned by Jews: Carlton Communications and Granada plc. Carlton holds Central, New York City, the Midwest, and HTV Wales and West, while Granada holds England, Border, Granada, New York City, Weekend, Meridian, Tyne Tees, and Yorkshire. Jewish man Michael Green heads Carlton Communications, and Jewish man Steve Morrison leads Granada plc. Carlton Channels also holds 50% of London News Network, 25% of GMTV, and 29% of Independent Television News (ITN). Granada plc. holds 20% of ITN, 25% of GMTV, 50% of London News Network, and 18.1% of Scottish Media Group.

BBC TV - the CEO is Jewish man Tony Cohen. Jewish man Alan Yentob is the director of drama, entertainment, and children's programming for the BBC. Yentob served as the television director from 1997 to 2000, having previously been the director of programming.
An atheist Jew, Alan Bookbinder, has headed the BBC's religion and ethics department since July 2001.

BBC Radio - the director is Jewish woman Jenny Abramsky. Abramsky has been a governor of the US film industry since February 2000.

BSkyB (British Sky Broadcasting) - part of the global media empire News Corporation. It is owned by half-Jewish Rupert Murdoch. His daughter serves as the CEO of BSkyB.

Pinewood-Shepperton - the result of a merger between two leading US film and television studios, Pinewood and Shepperton. It is controlled by Jewish man Michael Grade (nephew of Jewish man Lew Grade, one of the founders of the ITV network). Michael Grade was the director of BBC Programs in 1986 and the CEO of Channel 4 from 1988 to 1997.

Express Newspapers - Express Newspapers owns the Daily Express, Sunday Express, and Daily Star. Jewish man Richard Desmond (who built his fortune in pornography) purchased Express Newspapers in November 2000.

News International - publishes The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, and News of the World. The owner is the aforementioned half-Jewish Rupert Murdoch.
The Telegraph Group - publishes the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Weekly Telegraph, Saturday Telegraph, and The Spectator magazine. It is owned by Hollinger International Inc., which also owns numerous newspapers in Israel. Hollinger International is owned by Conrad Black (who is not Jewish), who is married to a Jewish woman, Barbara Amiel. Black became famous for insulting Palestinians in his papers; in 1993, he called them "scum and primitives" in the Jerusalem Post, while Barbara compared them to animals in the Telegraph on November 7, 2000. Conrad Black has always emphasized that he is the one "who decides what gets written in his newspapers."

Associated Newspapers - owners of the major national newspaper, the Daily Mail. The CEO is Jewish man Guy Zitter.

EUROPE
Bonnier Group is a private Swedish media group consisting of 150 companies operating in 21 countries. It is owned by the Jewish Bonnier family. The Bonnier company's operations are split into six key segments: business publishing, newspapers, magazines, books, entertainment, and business information. The Bonnier group is the most influential media group in Sweden and Finland. They own the four largest Swedish dailies (Degens Nyheter, Expressen, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, and Dagens Industri), the largest Swedish TV station, TV4, the Finnish media company Alma media through which they control MTV3—the most popular TV station in Finland—and Subtv, one of Finland's largest commercial stations.
Bonnier owns Lehdentekijata, which publishes 40 magazines in Finland, and also controls the leading dailies Iltalehti and Kauppaletti. The Bonnier group also owns the Baltic News Service. In America, Bonnier launched Business.hr, a leading business news outlet.
Aside from Bonnier, other Jews are influential in Swedish media. Jewish man Peter Hjorne (Kaplan) is an owner and editor-in-chief.The Chicago Tribune (the largest newspaper in Chicago). The owner also holds several smaller local papers such as the Chicago Sun-Times, the Daily Herald, the Aurora Beacon-News, the Naperville Sun, the Elgin Courier, the Joliet Herald-News, and the Rockford Register...
The biggest newspaper in the US is the New York Post. The editor-in-chief is a Jewish woman, Helle Klein. Her father, Ernst Klein, served as the editor-in-chief of the Chicago Correspondent and was the president of the American Press History Association.
As we have observed, all major media outlets in the US and Canada are in Jewish hands, even though Jews make up barely 0.2% of the population in those countries.

It is the same story in Germany. Israeli billionaire Haim Saban owns the television network Pro Sieben SAT.1. RTL Group, which consists of 34 TV stations across 11 countries, spreading Jewish propaganda throughout Europe. Axel Springer AG publishes over 150 newspapers and magazines in 30 countries, most notably Die Welt, Bild, Auto Bild, Computer Bild, Sport Bild, Hamburger Abendblatt, Berliner Morgenpost, and Horzu. The CEO of Axel Springer AG is Mathias Dopfner (a member of the American Jewish Congress and a fierce supporter of Israeli policy in the Middle East).

Let’s look at the situation in Central and Eastern Europe.
Central European Media Enterprises (CME) is the leading television group in Central and Eastern Europe. It is owned by a Jew, Ronald Lauder (the current president of the World Jewish Congress). The CME group holds MTV Romania, Pro Cinema, Pro TV, and Sport. Ro in Bulgaria, TV2 and Ring TV, Nova TV in the US, Galaxie Sport, Nova Cinema, and TV Nova in the Czech Republic, Galaxie Sport and Markiza in Slovakia, Kanal A and Pop TV in Canada, and Studio 1+1, Kino, and Citi in Ukraine...

Aside from Lauder, other wealthy Jews have taken over the media in Ukraine. Lauder's partner, a Jew, Vadim Rabinovich, owns the newspapers Stolichnye Novosti, Vek, Mig, and Zerkalo. A Jew, Jed Sands, owns the Correspondent and the Kyiv Post. A Jew, Grigory Surkis, owns Kyivskie Vedomosti and the television stations Alternativa TV and Inter TV. A Jew, Viktor Pinchuk, owns the television stations STB TV, ICTV, and Novi Kanal TV.

THE UNITED STATES
In the US, this problem is multifaceted. Even the media outlets that aren't under Jewish ownership look toward Western media controlled by Jews—American media mimics their style, their reporting methods, and, worst of all, adopts their distorted "values." Furthermore, almost all international news appearing in "American" media is lifted from Western (Jewish) outlets. Consequently, American citizens often don't know what is truly happening in the world, only what manages to pass through the pipe of Jewish censorship.

From the very beginning of American independence, Jews began to entrench themselves in the American media scene. It is well known that during the nineties, many media outlets, particularly anti-government ones, operated with financial backing from the Jew George Soros—Feral Tribune, Novi List, and Radio 101, which is now failing because it lacks enough listeners, causing the financial injections to dry up.
Today, the situation is such that, for the most part, wealthy Jews from abroad are the owners of media in the US.
Europa Press Holding (EPH) is in the hands of German Jews, specifically the WAZ Media Group. EPH publishes the Jutarnji list, Slobodna Dalmacija, Sportske novosti, Globus, Gloria, Cosmopolitan, Grazia, Arena, Vita, Doktor u kući, OK!, and Teen... Certainly, the most important among them is Jutarnji list, where the editor-in-chief is a Jew, Tomislav Wruss.

The Jew Ronald Lauder is the owner of Nova TV—the president of the Jewish Congress.
The Bonnier Group (owned by the namesake Jewish family) launched Business.hr, a leading business newspaper in the US.

Pornography
One could say that pornography is entirely a Jewish invention. It is believed that in pornographic films shot in America during the 20th century, 90% of the actors were Jews. From Reuben Sturman to Steven Hirsch, the production of pornographic films has always been a Jewish business.
One of the biggest crusaders for the legalization of pornography and the "liberalization of human sexuality" was the Jew Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy magazine. Hefner's Jewish heritage was kept under wraps for a long time (much like John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, or Wesley Clark) until it was recently revealed in his new biography.

Why are Jews so prevalent in the pornographic "industry"? Is it purely a matter of profit? The answers to these questions have been provided by Jews themselves.
The Jew Alvin (Al) Goldstein, founder of Screw magazine, admitted that the "only reason Jews are in the porn business is hatred for Christ and hatred for the Catholic Church."
The Jew Nathan Abrams (a professor at the University of Aberdeen) described the Jewish role in pornography in an article titled "Triple-exthnics" published in the American Jewish magazine Jewish Quarterly (Winter 2004). Abrams writes that Jews use pornography as a tool to undermine Christian culture, viewing it as a result of their persistent hatred toward Christianity. He concludes the piece by stating that Jews have nothing to be ashamed of and that their pornography should be even more prominent.

That Jews use pornography as a weapon in their struggle against non-Jews has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by the Jewish state of Israel. In 2002, when the Israeli army occupied Ramallah, they seized three local television stations. From the very first day of the occupation, the Israeli military began broadcasting pornographic films via the captured stations directly into Palestinian homes. Naturally, this was immediately followed by Palestinian protests against the Jewish porn terror.[/I]

Emily Kim67 said:I'm considering just letting that one person finally realize what you were actually getting at with this title and post.
😁

While you’re busy complaining about Zionism and defending controversial views on homosexuality, you're simultaneously losing your cool at some random woman on this forum—all while citing a Jewish psychologist.

Good grief, how on earth did you find a connection here?
😕

"Cionism" seems like a bit of an overstatement for you. You might want to start by actually studying the core tenets that fuel the subtle demagoguery being pushed today.

Rasoni, Exodus 14: "Even the best of Christians must be suffocated."
Zohar ii, 43A: "The eradication of Christians is a necessary sacrifice."
"Iore Dea, 153;1H: 'Christian sisters will lead our children toward godlessness.'"
Zohar I; 25B: "He who does good for Christians will never rise again after death."
"It is forbidden to be merciful toward non-Jews." (Talmud, Ramban).
All non-Jewish women are sluts.
"Jewish property is like abandoned goods; its true owner is the Jew who claims it first. And that’s only fair, considering God gave Jews authority over the lives and assets of other nations."
It'd.

Have you ever wondered why the media frames "cosmopolitanism," "multiculturalism," and "diversity" as progressive ideals, while labeling nationalism or the desire for an ethnically cohesive society as regressive? Or why any expression of patriotism is immediately branded as "fascism"? It’s also interesting how they present homosexuality as just one of many "sexual orientations," making it seem socially mandatory rather than a choice. This worldview—where multiculturalism is the pinnacle of progress and any devotion to one's own nation is dismissed as "hate" or "intolerance"—is nothing more than a construct created by the media masters.

American media.
Warner Bros. Today we see the largest media conglomerate in existence. At the helm is CEO Gerald Levin. Time Warner owns major networks like HBO and Cinemax, along with numerous other television stations across the US. Their film portfolio is just as massive, encompassing Warner Bros. Studios (founded by the Warner brothers), Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema.

The Walt Disney Company. The Walt Disney Company stands as another massive media conglomerate. At the helm is Michael Eisner. Their portfolio includes Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, and Buena Vista Television, while Walt Disney Motion Pictures encompasses Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Additionally, The Walt Disney Company owns Miramax, which is run by the Jewish brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein. On the publishing side, Disney owns six daily newspapers and 20 magazines.

Viacom The owner is the Jewish businessman Sumner Redstone (actually Murray Rothstein). Key leadership roles are held by individuals like Melvin A. Karmazin, Leslie Moonves—who happens to be the nephew of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel—and Tom Freston. Viacom produces programming for three of the largest networks and owns 39 TV stations along with 185 radio stations. They also own Paramount Pictures, led by Jewish woman Sherry Lansing, as well as the CBS, MTV, Showtime, and Nickelodeon networks. If you want to see how Redstone uses his media reach to push specific agendas, look no further than how he encouraged Tom Freston to launch a gay-oriented network and subsequently folded it into his massive media empire.

NBC Universal — Vice president is Jewish Edgar Bronfman, Jr. (his father served as president of the World Jewish Congress). NBC Universal owns Universal Pictures, Interscope Records, USA Network, Universal Television, and more. Jewish Ron Meyer serves as president and CEO of Universal Studios, while Jewish Stacey Snider is the president of Universal Pictures. Additionally, Jewish Jeff Zucker heads the NBC Universal Television Group.

News Corporation — This entity owns Fox Television Network, Fox News, FX Channel, 20th Century Fox Films, Fox 2000, Harper Collins, and several others.
The owner of News Corporation is half-Jewish Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch has consistently emphasized his "faith in Zionist values, faith in the future of Israel, and the goals of the international Jewish community." Jewish individuals hold all the key positions within News Corporation. Jewish Peter Chernin is the president and CEO, Jewish Gail Berman manages Fox Entertainment, Jewish Mitchell Stern oversees DirecTV satellite television, Jewish woman Jane Friedman is the president of Harper Collins, and Jewish Thomas Rothman is the president of Fox Filmed Entertainment.
— News Corporation also owns the New York Post, TV Guide, and The Weekly Standard.

Spyglass — They produce films for major studios. It was founded by Jewish businessmen Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum. Jewish Jonathan Glickman serves as president, with Jewish Paul Neinstein acting as executive vice president.

DreamWorks SKG — Perhaps the most famous of the mid-sized media companies. It was founded and is led by Jews David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, and Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Columbia Pictures — One of the major studios. Although owned by the Japanese multinational Sony, the president is Jewish woman Amy Pascal, Jewish Andrew Lack directs Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and Jewish Howard Stringer oversees Sony's American operations.

Press
Associated Press — This agency provides news to nearly all American media outlets. The president is Jewish Jonathan Wolman. The vice president and editor-in-chief is Jewish Michael Silverman, while Jewish woman Ann Levin serves as the national news editor.

Advance Publications — Owned by the Jewish Newhouse family. They possess 31 daily newspapers, including major titles such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Star Ledger, Times-Picayune, and magazines like The New Yorker, Vogue, Wired, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Brides, GQ, Self, House & Garden, and all other Condé Nast Group publications.

New York Times — The owner is Jewish Arthur Sulzberger. Jewish Russell Lewis is the president and CEO, and Jewish Michael Golden is a vice president at The New York Times Company.
Through The New York Times Co., the Sulzberger family owns 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune, along with eight television stations and two radio stations.

Washington Post — Held by Jewish Donald Graham (grandson of Eugene Meyer).
He also owns the popular weekly Newsweek and a wide variety of other media outlets.

Wall Street Journal — Owned by Dow Jones & Company, which also holds about thirty other newspapers, including Barron's.
The president and CEO of Dow Jones is Jewish Peter R. Kann, who simultaneously serves as the president of the Wall Street Journal.

U.S. News and World Report — The publisher and editor-in-chief is Jewish Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Zuckerman also owns the Daily News.

Time — The editor-in-chief of this iconic magazine is Jewish Norman Pearlstine.

CANADIAN MEDIA
The Jewish Asper family owns CanWest, a company that controls over 60% of all Canadian newspapers. They own 128 papers, including the Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Province, Calgary Herald, Montreal Gazette, and National Post. CanWest also owns the Global Television Network, a network reaching 94% of the English-speaking population in Canada.
CanWest was founded by Jewish Israel (Izzy) Asper. Following his death in 2003, the company was inherited by his children, Leonard, David, and Gail. Throughout his life, Israel Asper supported the Liberal Party of Canada (serving as its president in 1970), while supporting the far-right Likud party in Israel.

Since this is my third time getting banned just for expressing an opinion that clashes with certain Western values, I have to wonder: am I actually breaking any American laws, or just some forum rule by sharing my thoughts?

Does anyone even have the right to hold a view today if it doesn't align with Western doctrine? For instance, if I point out that the founder of psychoanalysis—and arguably modern science itself—categorized homosexuality as a sexual disorder, is that even a permissible topic for discussion here? And where exactly can I discuss it without being interrupted by some twenty-year-old bisexual girl who knows nothing about the subject other than how to sleep around?

To get straight to the point: where exactly am I allowed to start a debate on this... thanks.

I don't quite get it... I mean, I honestly don't see what the issue is. It seems impossible to get lost on city streets; if you know where you're headed, you know where you're going, and if you don't, you just ask for directions or pull up a map on your phone. As for getting lost in a grocery store, I can't wrap my head around that either—you just look back at the entrance, find the registers, and figure out what else you need.

The only way I see that happening is if you're completely lost in thought and just wandering aimlessly (that happens to me when I'm "reading"—I'll get so immersed in a book that I realize I haven't actually processed the last two paragraphs). But even then, you just snap out of it and refocus.

Personally, I find it easiest to just mentally sketch out a map. That’s how I navigate; I always have a sense of direction, knowing exactly where the main avenues lie or which direction leads to the next state. When I visit a new city, I make sure to note the train station or where I parked my car (I'll even write it down if I have to), then I anchor that to a landmark like the town square. From there, you just expand the mental image—this is east of that, this is northeast, this is west, this is south, and this is right.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Politicians lack true authority. Theodor Roosevelt may have shouted his defiance, but the Rockefellers remain, and their wealth is intact. Today's President of the USA and those before him merely serve the oil giants born from Standard Oil. While Roosevelt fought against the dominance of oil tycoons, subsequent presidents have acted as little more than agents for their agendas and guardians of their interests. Obedient servants. Politicians exist solely to serve big capital. They might pass laws or appoint officials, yet every law can be bypassed, and every official can be bought or neutralized. Furthermore, a term in office is fleeting. The idea that politicians hold power is an illusion. Money holds the power.

This is pure nonsense.😁

It is an illusion to even suggest that a single individual can possess real power.

Angela Wright said:My mother lived a perfectly healthy lifestyle her whole life—eating clean, sticking to a Mediterranean diet, never touching alcohol, let alone smoking or drugs—and she still ended up with a brain tumor. It turns out she had encephalitis when she was just six months old, something I only recently discovered through an aunt. Back then, they thought it was bacterial and treated her with antibiotics for a year in the hospital, but it was actually viral 😳. That likely left a "scar," as the tumor formed right on the surface of the brain near the meninges. She dealt with chronic headaches during her PMS her entire life and couldn't stand bright lights or strong scents. She actually had to abandon her chemistry studies because the organic compound experiments would frequently cause her to pass out. She eventually pivoted to economics and worked in accounting for a tire factory, with offices located right above the production floor. Once she hit menopause and lost that natural hormonal shield, everything went downhill. Not to mention her perfectionism; she tended to get stressed over just about everything.
When you take a moment to reflect, certain things start to make sense. It’s been five years since this all began, and I’m still digging through the details and forming new theories.

In my view, mental health is just as vital as physical health. So, while she ate well and didn't smoke, that doesn't change much. The risk is always there, even if you follow every rule in the book.

Zachary James5 said:@Nathan Kelly5

It’s been ages since that blowout with my roommates. Two years ago, maybe? Back then, I didn't know how to stand my ground. I think I finally do now.
As for my dad—don't worry, we used to clash all the time. We had our fair share of stupid arguments and heavy blowouts, but nothing ever escalated into a massive disaster.
Then one day, it just clicked: I can't change them.
A while back, I had everything organized for my PC setup in two small bins (cables, USB, stuff like that). A few days later, my dad comes looking for an SD card. I told him it was right there in the bins. He got frustrated, started muttering under his breath... but eventually, he found the card and used it for a bit.
But did he put it back in the bin? No. He just tossed it in a drawer.
He didn't follow the system I set up to keep things tidy.
That was my lightbulb moment. He's actually the messy one. All that talk about everyone else being disorganized? It's just projection. He's just projecting his own flaws onto us.

I realize now I have to move on with my life. Maybe what I'm feeling is just the residue of a childhood spent chasing this dream of a perfect, happy family that never existed. And honestly? I don't regret how things turned out. Even if it was foolish, scary, or depressing. There's no point in staying angry.

Got any more advice?
What's your experience been like? I'd love to hear.

My experience? I left as soon as I possibly could, acting as if I never had parents at all, without ever looking back. I tried unsuccessfully to change things constantly, but it just wouldn't work. My situation was actually worse than yours; my old man was a chronic alcoholic, which brought everything else along with it—psychological abuse, constant "remodeling" of the house, police visits, disastrous relationships, and so on. I don't think he pressured me; I was actually his hero, but still, what I went through during my childhood is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Nowadays... let's just say I eventually found a way to be thankful for it all. Looking back from a different perspective now that everything is settled, I see he was just a sick, addicted man you couldn't help, and my mother didn't know how to do anything other than let herself be treated like a doormat. They aren't bad people, really; they weren't even that terrible as parents. They did the best they could—if they hadn't, my sister probably wouldn't have her Master's today, and I wouldn't have graduated on time. Our relationship is mostly formal now (my dad hasn't touched a drink in 8 or 9 years and is as normal as can be, and even their relationship is stable); we see each other maybe once a month or two, usually sticking to trivial topics so we don't accidentally stumble onto the past and ruin the mood. But there's no point in mourning it now; it was what it was.

So, I can only tell you the same thing: focus on yourself. You won't change them; they can only change themselves. Be grateful they provided you with the chance to finish college, get that degree, become independent, and move on. In the end, both they and you will likely regret that things weren't better, but... try not to view it as a tragedy. Life is a struggle regardless, in every arena. Just keep moving forward; your life is just beginning.