The Open Source Truth Process

Following The Way of Yo, our core doctrines and beliefs, including The Book of Yo, are created and refined through the Open Source Truth Process.

This process is an emerging social technology that was developed by Yoans working with students and faculty at The Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

The project aims to create a new way for a group to explore and articulate the nature of reality and a common vision for our world. The goal is to include the broadest range of human experience, while minimizing the degree to which the articulation of truth falls victim to factionalization and power struggles (politics).

You may need to install or update Adobe Flash Player to listen to this audio file.

Placing the development of the Truth Process—a new technology for deriving our collective "meaning," values, and beliefs—at the heart of a community of action is a necessary and unique safeguard against the dogmatic pitfalls that plague communities built on shared beliefs.

Chimpanzee Politics: Authority vs Leadership

This is a major issue that we must struggle with as a community: How do we prevent power factions from forming, competing, and then perverting our original mission/vision? We call this the problem of “chimpanzee politics,” following Riley Sinder (a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Leadership). The idea is that human history is characterized by rampant, political power struggles. There appears to be a universal tendency among human males to form aggressive, power seeking coalitions. Furthermore, this tendency to engage in "Chimpanzee Politics" (click the link to see real chimps demonstrating their "politics") may be an innate evolutionary carryover that, in rudimentary form, goes all the way back to before the human line separated from the other great apes.

Regardless of the roots of such tendencies, true "leadership," in this analysis, is comprised of actions taken by individuals that further the group’s genuine aims. For an example of leadership, consider Rosa Parks, the black woman who, at the right moment and time in history, refused to move to the back of the bus and helped spark a major struggle that advanced civil rights in the US. The civil rights movement itself took its form under the true leadership of Saint Martin. Despite whatever shortcomings he may (or may not) have had as a man, he bravely led the U.S. through a difficult transition, even when it became clear to him that, like Moses in the Biblical tale, he was unlikely to survive long enough to be able "to enter the promised land."

Two examples of leadership:
Martin Luther King & John F. Kennedy
You may need to get Adobe Flash Player to view this video.

"[E]very past generation has had to disenthrall itself from an inheritance of truisms and stereotypes . . . For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic . . . [S]o in our own time we must move on from the reassuring repetition of stale phrases to a new, difficult, but essential confrontation with reality." (John F. Kennedy, Yale University Commencement Address, June 11, 1962)

"Authority," in contrast, is typically the result of a successful struggle for power, in which a small faction ends up exercising control over the group, its resources, decisions, and actions. The controlling power coalition then exercises power in the pursuit of its own agenda, often to the detriment of the larger group, e.g., the Religious Right’s rise to power in the US.

Obey Authority!
You may need to get Adobe Flash Player to view this video.

Compare the tone and ideals presented by a leader like John F. Kennedy (in the video above) with the values and ideals of the Bush Administration, an authoritarian coalition that was put in power by the highly organized support of the fundamentalist, religious right. Especially consider the profound disrespect for reality—a complete failure to exercise even a semblance of empirical responsibility—demonstrated by such authoritarian coalitions.

You may need to get or update Adobe Flash Player to view this video.

Rather than lead the group forward, the authority acquired by the Bush Administration's successful right wing, religious coalition was used to undermine vital constitutional safeguards of democracy. In addition to eroding the hard one freedoms for which America had stood, the control exercised by the Bush Authority did extensive damage—global political, military, environmental, and economic damage—to the larger group (including most of those who voted for Bush) within the U.S., not to mention the damage outside of America. In contrast to what we would call genuine "leadership," the U.S. was controlled by an authoritarian coalition, whose interests, goals, and values were not in line with with the true interests and best aspirations of the larger group.

Authority may be used to lead a group forward in pursuit of its genuine interests, needs, and aspirations, i.e., to exercise leadership. But since successful power struggles are based on effective coalition forming that often has little if anything to do with the larger group’s genuine interests and goals—e.g., consider the history of religions in general, or the rise to power of Nazism or Soviet Communism—there is no reason to assume that leadership will coincide with authority.

Indeed, all other things being equal, the coalition that places its rise to power above all else (including the interests of the group) is likely to be more successful in the competition with other coalitions. Therefore, there is good reason to expect that authority and leadership will diverge. This is a central problem for Yoism (as well as for all humanity and for any attempt at creating a functioning, sane democracy). We see our current solutions/safeguards as a work-in-progress. Further contributions to this solution are needed. We hope you will join in the effort to forge an effective, lasting solution.

Evolving Truth

The Open Source Truth Process aims to ensure that the Yoan Community's core writings and beliefs will evolve over time, as everyone—based on each person's own direct experience of Reality—is invited to provide input and improvements. Through this process, participants will gradually uncover, refine, and document the Truth.

By "Truth" we simply mean the clearest expression of a system of ideas and beliefs that is most consistent with Reality as it is directly experienced. Ours is a truth that you can test and experience directly, with your own senses and mind. Our truth is not based on narrow human authority (dogma, received wisdom, and "imposed truths"). Rather, it is based on the broad authority of the collective, human experience of being-in-the-world, i.e., the human experience of reality.

"Belief in the supernatural as a necessary power for apprehension of the ideal and for practical attachment to it has for its counterpart a pessimistic belief in the corruption and impotency of natural means. That is axiomatic in Christian dogma. But this apparent pessimism has a way of suddenly changing into an exaggerated optimism. For according to the terms of the doctrine, if the faith in the supernatural is of the required order, regeneration at once takes place. Goodness, in all essentials, is thereby established ... Belief in a sudden and complete transmutation through conversion and in the objective efficacy of prayer, is too easy a way out of difficulties. ... The position of natural intelligence is that there exists a mixture of good and evil, and that reconstruction in the direction of the good which is indicated by ideal ends, must take place, if at all, through continued cooperative effort." (John Dewey, "A Common Faith" lectures at Yale University, 1933-34)

For Yoans, the most profoundly meaningful experiences are found in our involvement in community, our engagement with one another, our struggle to find ways to act cooperatively without denying our conflicts, and our commitment to our shared, emerging vision for the future of humanity. We commit ourselves to this collaborative effort for ourselves, our families, our species, and our planet. Thus the Yoan Truth Process—a process thoroughly embedded in deep human engagement designed to produce our most accurate view of ourselves and our world—is sacred.

Our Truth Process depends on the increasing involvement of many people with diverse life experiences. Only through such diversity will our truths always be improving. If you would like to get involved, if you have a suggestion about how to improve our articulation of the Truth, or if you see something on these web pages that doesn't jibe with your experience, please register and add a comment or use the link in the box at the bottom to send us a message.

Find out more about how to get involved and participate in creating
The World's First Open Source Religion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Open Truth Process

The Kennedy Speech was from JFK's speech to Yale University one month before he was assassinated (the word assassin origins as we know it comes from the Nizaris or more commonly known the Assassins: a religious sect (secret society) which extolled the virtues of mind altering drugs as a way to achieve mystical enlightenment. They were also a fighting organization that came up with the tactic for which they were famously feared: the "lone Assassin".) I doubt Ron Paul would touch the video I put up with a ten foot pole... Your JFK video above has either edited out the 1min6sec part I included (where he talks about the dangers to our republic by secret societies that have huge and vast resources: political, monetary, religious, and secular. That hold power by secret meetings using secret plans (another phrase would be Conspiracy) as it's main tool. The problem is that 911 is not my focus. There are family members of the heroic fire fighters that died that day, and the people working in the building that have the support of people with expert knowledge in physics and engineering. The 911 commission could not answer their simple questions: how did the building fall at free fall speed? Where did the money come from for this terrorist attack? Just to name a few, there are a lot more; however, anyone that wants to research the families of 911 quest for justice: we live in the information age. Distract from the message of this page? I thought this was an open truth process? Truth is it's own message; in my subjective reality, as a result, how could truth distract from truth? For your sincere consideration and any open minded individuals.

Open Source Truth Process


THIS page is meant to DEFINE what "Open Source Truth" means, not to debate about a specific topic. Getting a debate going on this page detracts from its function.

If you would like to create a page to explore conspiracies (on which the video you posted might be quite appropriate) or some other topic, that could be arranged. THIS page defining a major, i.e., sacred, core tenet of Yoism is simply not the place.

[BTW, I don't know who cut out the one minute segment of the video in the excerpt we used above, but I do know that it is included in a Ron Paul ad.]


Open discussion

Dan, I enjoyed your perspective on resource scarcity, political power, and evolutionary factors. The "dogma of finite resources" refers to resources as in comparison to people that need to use those resources. Thanks to emergent reality, I will not defend the position of that our political, religious, and economic realities are a result of limited resources. However, I do believe that the 3rd party force that has been the source of breeding war, dogmatic religion, caste systems, monarchies, and the monetary system as practiced by the world bank and the federal reserve is no longer in power. Therefore, each individual holds the ultimate key to writing this play on this stage. This key is personal responsibility.

Discussions in an open source truth process

After you removed the 1min 8sec video of an unedited speech by John F. Kennedy that weaved images of his presendency and assasination did you give thought that you hurt the open source truth process by censorship? A lot of people have not heard that part of the unedited speech by John F. Kennedy. Therefore, you denied those people an opportunity for a new experience. You said something to the effect that if you didn't remove the video people would think yoism supported the perspective I offered with the use of JFK's own words. However, the comments and vids were clearly my comments with evidence for rational people to engage in discussions about the reality of politics and whether the masses get a "show" version (fake). I gave a perspective with supporting evidence for rational minds to analyze. It has been said that for humans to be happy we need the following three things: Freedom, Friends, and Constant Analysis. I am saddened by this "open truth process". For when I gave evidence by using JFK's own unedited voice and words, this evidence was censored... I thought I had found a truelly maverick religion based on using one own's observational and reasoning ability. However, the control and manipulation of what is allowed to be observed and reasoned with because it may go against a dogmatic perspective is not an open truth process. I offer you a truelly open truth process: everything we know about the truth is subject to change. In recognition of your own growth cycle, I bless you and send a frequency of love.

Open discussion

Yo Earl,

Please correct me if I am wrong. But I believe that the Kennedy piece came from a Ron Paul commercial. That Ron Paul is a dangerously deluded ideologue does NOT make it bad. Yoism intentionally uses and incorporates good stuff that we find in dangerously deluded religions (which almost always have some valid, powerful expressions within them). Indeed, this very page already made use of some of the same Kennedy material. (I'm actually not sure if the video I removed wasn't a repetition of part of the first video that is still on this page. Did you view the videos above?)

The reason for the deletion of the video from THIS page is that it and the ensuing discussion of these issues can detract from the focus of THIS PAGE. When I removed the video, I also offered you the opportunity to create other pages on the Yoism site, pages where such videos could be appropriate as it would be the focus on those pages and not detract/confuse the message of the page.

I am saddened to see that you took the attempt to protect the focus of this page coupled with the offer to use our resources to expand the exploration of the issue you were focused on to be censorship :-(

I hope you reconsider.


911: Jet fuel took down the twin towers and building number 7

The problem with a lie is that it is not the truth... Therefore, many anomalies arise; for instance, How does jet fuel burn hot enough and long enough to melt Huge gigantically thick construction beams that take 3,300 degrees fahrenheit to start melting when the jet fuel burned at tops 1,700 (though some even say it is much lower: 536 degrees fahrenheit)? Also, building seven wasn't even hit by a plane, what brought that building down? Also, if that isn't a enough of a jolt: we have NORAD that protects the airspace of the United States. And, the pentagon has anti-aircraft devices (it is a military installation!). How does a commercial jet airliner hit the pentagon? The answer is simple, a commercial jet airliner could not penetrate the defenses of our military to attack the pentagon. Also, the very people that preposed the pancake theory for the twin towers have disproven that theory! Thermalite has been found in the remains of the twin towers! The towers fell at free fall speed! I am confident that any person with an open mind to the facts presented will find that the official 911 story is a lie and therefore; the question must be asked, who benefited from the lie? And, since no democrat or republican has been willing to question this really glaring and obvious lie: it must mean this lie is off limits to politicians. Who has the power to make subjects "off limits" to politicians?

Re: Jet Fuel, the Twin Towers, & Building 7

Yo Earl,

(1) I don't think the conspiracy theorists have presented solid evidence for their specific claims. I think the second video you posted in your comment took statements/claims out of context and wove them together to imply things for which no evidence was presented (which is somewhat understandable in that the presentation was limited in length).

(2) Both videos, which I removed, were also attempts to promote a particular point of view/belief; they had links to certain organizations or promotional material that Yoism does not necessarily support. We have very few promotional, external links to belief systems/ideas that haven't been fully explored and deemed to be consistent with Yoism. Even our YouTube videos don't have "related videos" at the end and don't link through via clicking to YouTube (unless one is using an old version of Flash Player). Generally speaking, the only external links on are to give credit for material/ideas we have used.

Regarding the first point, I believe that there are some valid claims and even more valid questions raised by many people. While I remain convinced that the popular conspiracy theories are wrong, I don't believe we have been told the full truth about 911. For example, there appears to have been a cover up of the ties between the Bush Administration (and the U.S. in general) and the Saudi family and the military/economic arrangements that have been made. The U.S. appears to have protected members of the Saudi family and their close allies, e.g., the Bin Ladens.

But the biggest problem I have about posting the second video you posted is that it threatened to transform this particular page into something other than what it was intended to be; this page is not meant to be focused on an exploration of the realities behind 911.

If you would like to set up a page at to explore/debate the truth behind 911, that could be arranged. You could edit/control the page as long as the ideas and discussion were presented as an exploration and not as something that has been accepted (i.e., as long as it is not implied that a consensus has been reached) by the Yoan community.

Let me know if you are interested.


Abundant Resources and the Dogma of Politics: finite resources

Thank you for the time, energy, and work it took to reply to my previous post. It was very well thought out and presented; however, the dogma of finite resources was presented as factual reality. As a result, the statement that monetary systems are a needed tool for civilization is understandable. Only when there is an understanding that there is an abundance of land, food, energy, or in other word; resources, does the monetary system become obsolete, dangerous, and self-defeating. The dogma of finite resources is a major theme for monetary fundamentalist and in the early part of the 1900's was kept in place by suppressing the inventions of Nicola Tesla and Thomas Henry Moray. What does this have to do with politics? Politics is a substrata of Economics. Economics is not the substrata of Politics. Freedom of resources equals freedom for individuals. With the suppressed inventions of the 1900's and the suppressed inventions of the new millenium the dogma of finite resources will become history.

Finite vs. Infinite Resources

Earl, I don't understand what you mean by "dogma of finite resources."

If you mean that there could be more than enough to meet everyone's needs, I agree. If you mean that any resource, substance, entity on our finite planet is really "infinite," I don't follow. And until there is an abundance of resources available everywhere (and Zeitgeist presented no social technique for attaining and maintaining such a state in the face of the common human tendency to hoard resources and to vie for power) then, for all practical purposes (i.e., in Reality), there will be a shortage of resources, i.e., NOT enough to go around.

The question is how we get from here (horribly acute shortages) to there (abundance for all) and stay there. Zeitgeist presented no answers to these questions.

Yoism is our best current answer.

[And I also don't understand what "substrata" means. Politics are used to obtain/control resources (which inevitably means controlling people). Economics is a set of theories about the factors that affect how humans make exchanges of or control/use resources. While politics could thus be seen to be a subset of economic theories, there are those who would argue that the human desire for power and control (which in an ultimate sense came into being through evolutionary pressures related to resource accrual and control) has become a powerful driving force in its own right in the proximal sense. If this is so, then economics can be seen to be used to pursue political ends. It appears to depend on whether, from an evolutionary perspective, you are engaged in a proximal or ultimate analysis.]


Bush and the Religious Right

I realize that a new idea cannot be graft onto a closed mind; therefore, I submit for examination by open minded people that politics is a show much like professional wrestling. The power that runs the United States is not elected into office. Examine the fact that with the huge amount of diversity that make up the peoples of the United States, we are told there is a choice between two people for president who in my subjective reality don't question the 1) Federal Reserve system of monetary control, 2) World globalization, 3) Profit based motivations. Is debt the modern form of slavery? Are the resources on this planet our birth right? Is competition destroying and repressing innovative inventions like zero point energy? Is there technology that make words like finite resources and scarcity obsolete?

right on Earl

right on Earl infinite, clean energy is within our technological reach and the systems which thrive on scarcity resist our collective progress .... plug infinite, clean energy into almost any societal/developmental problem and how does the equation change? the world awakening to its potential, the final never ending enlightenment is upon us

Re: Bush, the Religious Right, and the video above.

Yo Earl,

Welcome to Yoism. I have been meaning to watch that video for quite some time. I thank you for posting it. However, I personally have a lot of qualms with what it presents. I hope you won't find my response too negative. OK. Here goes:

While there is a great deal of truth in the analysis presented in the video (much of which we have been presenting on our other pages, e.g., The War on the Middle Class), there also seems to be a rather simplistic polemic against money and banks. It's true that the abuses of the banking industry and the impact of such abuses on all of us are all too apparent today, and while we clearly pay too high a dividend to people who "manage money," and while we have ceded way too much power and control of our economy (and thus our lives) to an unelected board of money supply managers (the Federal Reserve), and while the world sinks further and further into what we call global slavelization to the corporatocracy, there is another side to the "money" part of the story.

All human societies have used this strange tool called money. And while, again, there is much truth in this video's critique of our money creation and management system, no society of any complexity has been able to manage its economic transactions without some form of money.

While the video claims that we can live in a "resource based" system without money and with plenty for all, it is much more vague than communism ever was about how we get there and can maintain such a system. But more of that in a moment.

If money is a useful and maybe even necessary tool for facilitating economic exchanges, for money to be able to represent value/wealth/resources and to be exchanged for such, someone has to manage the supply of a society's money and keep it from being counterfeited. The latter task is simplified by using rare commodities like gold. But (1) even gold coins can be counterfeited, (2) there is no reason to give great wealth to those who have this metal ore on land they control, and (3) the value placed in gold is just as arbitrary as the value placed in money that is printed/minted to make it rare and limited (i.e., as hard to counterfeit as possible) so that it can serve in the same way as something like gold.

So money as a tool appears to be indispensable: I know of no complex economic system that has existed without it. Once we have a tool (money) that represents and can be exchanged for real wealth/goods/resources, as with any necessary tool, folks who manage/maintain that tool provide a real service to society.

And once reified as having real value (and all money is so reified), money can be accumulated, borrowed, and used by (lent to) others. Indeed, if someone has accumulated wealth that they may need at some point but that they are not using today, it makes sense for a society to enable the individual to lend that money out so that others can use it to create things that benefit everyone. Aside from the fact that much economic activity benefits no one and is destructive, lending and borrowing and paying someone for the use of their accumulated resources/money (to compensate them for the risk and the loss of other economic benefit they could obtain from using their resources on their own or lending it to someone else), i.e., paying interest, in many situations also makes sense.

So the very serious problems that are accurately identified in this video are not necessarily due to the mere existence of money, interest, banks, or even the controlled increase of the money supply and some inflation. While it is true that this whole system transfers wealth to the money managers (in part through the diminution of value of the money in the money supply), remember that they provide a service and this can be seen as part of the payment for the management and maintenance of a necessary tool.

The problem seems to me to be that (1) we are paying too high a price for the service they provide, (2) that we have ceded too much control to this small group of money managers, and (3) that the electorate can be too easily manipulated without any understanding of how they are being manipulated. The last fact makes the whole arrangement difficult to regulate properly and thus allows those with influence/wealth to maintain and increase their influence/wealth. And, of course as we have seen lately, it enables them to cheat (misrepresent, lie, deceive, etc.) and become absurdly wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

Though this video suggests that things are really very simple, and though such simplistic presentations are the basis for the popularity of folks like Ron Paul---a potentially dangerous, religious demagogue---is it really possible that the entire field of economics is a ruse that Ron Paul has mastered? Where is his Nobel Prize in economics? [I know, I know: Nobel prizes are controlled by those in power and thus a truly brilliant simplistic analysis that explains EVERYTHING would never be considered for a Nobel prize. I guess I'm just not convinced.]

Yes, we have been bamboozled by those in power. Yes, absurd economic notions are routinely, glibly passed off as obvious truths. Yet, even in truly radical pockets of academia, the economists don't agree on any simplistic presentation of economics such as this.

I think it is unfortunate that this video's valid and important critique of our economic system and corporatization is obfuscated by an oversimplified presentation of our monetary system and its evils (even though, again, much of the presentation of the monetary system's problems seems valid).

Likewise, the discussion of terrorism is somewhat simplistic.

It's true that violent "revolutionaries" become heroic "Founding Fathers" IF they win, e.g., the American Revolution. If the revolutionaries lose, they are labeled as such ("revolutionaries" or today "terrorists") and put to death. However, there is a real difference between revolutionaries who target those in power and may inadvertently kill bystanders who are not directly part of the conflict and those who intentionally kill as many people as possible---regardless of the victims' roles in the society---precisely to produce terror and a disruption of that society.

And there is a real difference between those revolutionaries who fight against injustice---e.g., against some of the very economic injustices and corruption that are documented in this video---and those who are willing to use violence to force people to accept domination by their religious worldview.

Even if in real life the two (fighting for justice and violence to force one's religion on others) are often linked and impossible to disentangle, the more the actors' motives are produced by genocidal racism or religious fervor, the more the violence will tend to be directed at large groups of indiscriminately selected (or racially or religiously or ethnically selected) human beings. Genocide and terror can be meaningfully distinguished from revolution against economic or political oppression, even if they are often somewhat intertwined.

The Nazis were really able to convince a large segment of the German population that the Jews were responsible for their (real) economic woes and their loss in World War I. Yet Jews comprised less than 1/2 of one percent of the German population. Damn, those Jews must have been Superhumans!

The point is that labeling acts as "terrorism" is indeed something that is done by those in power; terrorism is always, by definition, something done against those in power. If the State engages in even worse evil or destructive violence, by definition that is not "terrorism." It's "war" or "ethnic cleansing," or "genocide" or "oppression." This does not make it necessarily any more moral than terrorism. Terrorism, on the other hand, is defined to mean indiscriminate violence in an attempt to induce terror in the masses in order to disrupt the existing power structure; if violence is carried out to maintain the status quo, it is, by definition not something that those in power do.

(Though self-manufactured terrorism could be used by the elite---in which case it would be a deception or fake terrorism and in reality would be a murderous form of oppression by those in control---to generate fear and acceptance of the existing power structure, I believe that the evidence from 911 does not support such an interpretation. It does, however, as noted below [and explored more fully here], support one that could be seen as equally bad.)

Thus, the video's analysis of such forms of organized violence does clarify the fact that there is no greater morality on the side of a violent state or corporation (whether the state's or corporation's acts of violence are military or economic) just because a state or a legal construction committed the acts rather than those opposed to the state operating illegally (whom the state labels as "terrorists"). However, the insistence that there are no differences, in my view, impedes the analysis of human group violence, be it valid attempts to protect a society, revolution (morally justified or not), oppression, corruption, and/or a wide variety of injustices.

Thus, while the evidence does indicate that the corporatocracy is intimately linked to actions that produce horrible human suffering and murderous human violence---i.e., if the full extent of their involvement in the violence were known and examined in a court of law, in many cases they could be found guilty of murder---mislabeling them "terrorists" (which is a word that, in English discourse, refers to different phenomena, phenomena that may be no more horrible than many corporate or governmental acts, but that simply aren't the same thing) doesn't tend to generate progressive discourse; it tends to end the discourse except among those on the radical left or those enamoured by conspiracy theories.

Likewise, labeling the 911 attacks "false flag terror attacks ... so the corporatocracy can control ... opium production for Wall Street profit" goes way too far for even many reasonable people who can see a good deal of truth in this radical analysis.

I doubt we know the full truth behind 911. But the accusation that it was arranged by America for an excuse to go to war is simply unsupported by the evidence. It seems highly unlikely that the collapse of 7 World Trade Center was a "controlled demolition" as claimed in this video (see the Wikipedia discussion of this conspiracy theory).

And, anyway, if you want to blame America for 911, such a conspiracy theory is unnecessary! It is undisputed that America set up and trained the Taliban in a CIA funded war against the Soviet Union. It is undisputed that America has been instrumental in setting up the economic arrangements and military support for the Saudi family in exchange for oil. It is undisputed that the Saudis have been using their enormous wealth provided by this arrangement to fund extremist Islamic schools all over the world. It is undisputed that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and his allies are recruited from among those indoctrinated in such schools. I could go on and on.

So there is no need to generate a conspiracy theory/false flag operation explanation---based on speculation and a loose construction from the available evidence, some of which is misrepresented in the conspiracy theories---of 911 to demonstrate that America directly set up the conditions that led to 911.

It is also a bit too facile to say that the news on the major media outlooks is "pre-filtered." It is to a large degree, but not in the way or to the degree that is suggested by such wording. It is pre-filtered because networks hesitate to report news that will distress its major advertisers or owners. If those in control are distressed too often or too much, a news director is not going to keep yos job very long. And the same is true of the writers and reporters who know their jobs will disappear if they act in a manner that threatens their news director. So there is a good deal of self-censorship going on without any need for some actual censor to sit down and "pre-filter" anything. While you could simply claim that that is the way the pre-filtering occurs (and I would agree) and while some actual censoring of the news surely does occur, again there is less of an active, organized conspiracy suggested by such an analysis.

Though you may not believe this, almost EVERYTHING in this video HAS BEEN reported in the mainstream media. For a period of time (for reasons not relevant to this discussion ;-), I watched Katie Couric and Matt Lauer on the Today Show every morning. All sorts of radical ideas were reported and discussed. Yes, it's true that they were often dismissed by an "expert" who explained why we shouldn't believe them and/or they got relatively little air time compared to mainstream notions. But the proponents were often given a chance to present their views in the best light; introducing a topic as a potentially valid controversy makes the debate with the "expert" much more interesting and this increases ratings. On the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, some of the main proponents of many of the views in this video are given time and air space to present their views, e.g., just last week Naomi Klein was on the Colbert Report presenting her "Shock Doctrine."

But the problem of censorship and supporting the interests of the powers-that-be is real. Here is a recent news analysis from the NY Times (a censored tool of the corporations explores the way in which the interests of the powerful wield censorship) of how this is playing out at Google.

The other interesting fact is that the powers that control the media DO allow their interests to be undermined when the news is undeniable. I am sometimes shocked to hear reports that expose some of the massive destructive greed referred to in this video, knowing that it is the owners of the media outlet or their major advertisers whose wrongdoing is being exposed. For example, there has been a spate of reports in the mainstream media of massive fraud and monetary (and literally deadly) poisoning of the data produced by the pharmaceutical industry---one of the most wealthy and powerful corporate groups of them all.

Regarding politics: The video is right that the fundamental assumptions underlying a profoundly destructive socioeconomic monetary system are not challenged by either candidate in the American political system. But the notion that it makes no difference which candidate is elected is bizarre.

Can you imagine what the world would look like today if Al Gore had won in 2000? While the Democrats have no solution to unsustainable, wasteful, destructive, and brutally unfair and murderous global slavelization, at least the rapidity of the destruction of our world and the extent of the suffering today and in the immediate future could have been dramatically different with Al Gore as president for the past eight years.

There are many reasons to elect Barack Obama rather than John McCain (and that religious wing-nut, Sarah Palin). Yet it is true that if we believe that Obama's election is a turning point or the start of a solution to dire problems (problems that can't even be fully acknowledged) then we are deluding ourselves.

But back to economics, which I don't claim to understand. Indeed, I found some of the "simple," straightforward presentation in the early part of the video to be thoroughly confusing.

The video presented no explanation for why monetary systems (which I assume means that there is some form of money that represents wealth and can be stored up, exchanged, and loaned out/borrowed) are universal in human societies (i.e., arise repeatedly and independently in all complex social settings). They provided no explanation of how we would transition to a resource-based economy and how such a "share-the-world/abundance-for-all" system could be created and maintained.

Their vision of technological solutions does emphasize a primary Yoan value/belief, i.e., that understanding Reality and how different aspects of It relate to one another and how our actions can affect it/us is the key to solving problems and enhancing human experience.

Yet, rather than what is commonly understood as "technology," it is an understanding of human experience, nature, motives, behavior, responses to contexts, and social influences that can lead to the only "technology" for changing our relationship to one another and how we share (or don't share) our planet's abundant but limited resources. They say we need to change our consciousness, and this is surely true. However, other than presenting their ideas (which is a legitimate and validly important beginning) they have no notion about HOW to change consciousness or why a religious meme system/ideology like Yoism is needed; why proselytising, ideological meme systems are the main way that consciousness rapidly changes on an organized large scale. Indeed, our "technological" solution to this problem---which is a work-in-progress---is Yoism: The World's First Open Source Religion!

Flaws are inherent in any evolving open source meme system. So I hope you will not be put off by my response and will engage with us in further development of these valuable ideas.

What do other people think?



PS. BTW, the discussion of money and wealth should probably take place on one of our economics pages such as this one where we call for participation in the creation of a Yoan understanding of property rights and the ownership of wealth and our need to share our limited, finite world.

Discussion of terrorism versus state sponsored violence should probably take place on one of our pages focused on those issues, e.g., Toxic Memes.

FIRST open source religion?

Though they've never claimed to be "open source" per se, the Discordians invented kopyleft and "All Rites Reversed" long before the open source movement even existed. The Yoan claim to be the first open source religion is raising a few eyebrows in the Discordian community ;)

Truth is a tiger.

Discordianism is not an "Open Source Religion"

Yo Snappy,

Open source has different aspects to it, only one of which is that the content is freely available. If "freely available" = "open source," then anything that has entered the public domain, e.g., the collected works of Shakespeare or Charles Dickens, is "open source."

While that is an aspect of open source, that is not what open source means, i.e., it is not just another term for uncopyrighted. Anyone can modify Shakespeare's words that are now in the public domain (i.e., uncopyrighted) and publish them, but that doesn't make Shakespeare open source. If a GROUP of people, however, were doing a systematic modification and had a system for COLLECTIVE participation and the original work and any product produced from the collective effort were FREELY available, THEN the collaborative revision could be seen as an open source revision of Shakespeare.

While freedom to use and revise the content is ONE aspect of open source works, what makes a software project like Linux, Apache, or a text compilation product like Wikipedia "open source" is a system for collective modification and revision of a single product. Discordianism—which to most people is a tongue-in-cheek "religion"—hardly has such a system as Discordians are noted for their individuality and non-adherence to any rule structure ;-)


WikiYo link missing

There should be a link from this page to the WikiYo -- "To get involved and find out more" O

WikiYo link missing

Good idea. Link added.