George Soros Asserts Facebook Smear Campaign

 

Conflict Resolution Network:
http://www.crnhq.org/content.aspx?file=66138|37424w

My poem ‘Respect’:https://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2016/11/only-respect-is-real/

Hate crimes:
https://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2011/12/hate-crime-legislation-is-a-solution-for-the-middle-east-and-worldwide/

And one more for the road: I just saw this and posted on Facebook. It reiterates the same issues I posted on Facebook after this blog was posted.  I wrote it on

The key reflections for both parties in this dispute are as follows:

Is it better to be right or happy?
How would you feel if you were the other party?
What do you truly want?  Ask this 7 times per day (clarity, succinct)
How can you  expand possibilities to create a win/win?

An important note: Did you know contrast/conflict/shaking it up is meant to happen so you can creatively expand?  It was never meant to be about harm.

From a conflict resolution perspective the President of Open Society Patrick Gaspard has written to Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook) to state grievances of his belief that Facebook hired a right wing PR firm to smear George Soros.  It is alleged that Facebook is going after critics and it is perceived there is a right wing campaign to demonise George Soros.  He speaks of death threats and a pipe bomb.  It is stated that hate and anti-Semitic information is spread via Facebook.

It is alleged that Facebook seek to discredit and contravene the First Amendment in the US Constitution (Freedom of Speech) and that they have a role in propaganda.  He raises the issues of the pursuit of corporate interest over public interest.

What this is really saying is that George Soros is feeling threatened.  The issues raised allude to a war between the right and left wing.  It is speaking of the fear of suppression of freedom of speech and at the same time suppressing hate speech and discrimination.  This is an interesting dichotomy as both will argue for freedoms but will qualify it.  For me as a peacemaker the qualifier is ‘do no [intentional] harm’.

From my perspective I step back.  What I see is people who do not know how to communicate face to face to resolve a problem, to openly discuss fears, issues, concerns and listen to both sides and then find a middle ground. The middle enables people to coexist with diverse viewpoints. This accommodation is not capitulation it is learning to live with diversity which will always be.  The challenge can be that pain bodies can magnetise conflict as people can unconsciously feed off the drama as it enlivens the ego, it is a false aliveness.  The real aliveness is inner joy which is experienced when aligned with truth.

What I am noticing, as it has happened to me to my great surprise, is that there is indeed a war between the right and left wing political beliefs.  I was caught up in this as I am into peace and realised I was confronting mindsets that saw themselves as right wing and me as left.  In truth I was just speaking my own mind, belonging to neither camp but following what I felt inspired to create – peace, poetry, self expression, conflict resolution and empowerment. My dream of peace became Worldpeacefull.

I came to realise there was this underlying war happening around the world at this time.  Before it happened to me I had no idea as I am not at war.  I may see differently but I am fine with diverse views as I regard challenges as grist for the mill, it helps me define my truth better and find inner peace which is my goal. So all are teachers to me.  I have no enemies.

I cannot validate the grievances and have no desire to say this side is right this is wrong.  I don’t know the truth of the matter but I can speak generally and offer ideas.  The intent of smear campaigns is to undermine the other.  It can be done through propaganda or legal means to create an impression that the other person is a problem person, to stimulate questions about their reputation and character to disempower them publicly.  It is a form of covert bullying I have come to realise.  The allowance of Hate speech is to create glee clubs (groups) to feel power around hating a common enemy, it builds the inner group, this is a war tactic to justify hate so that the other is harmed and this is seen as right.  Natural empathy is blocked as the other is ‘wrong’.  It is to incite violence to cause harm.  This subtle form of violence is used by the one orchestrating it inciting others to become hateful, take vilifying action to either drive the other to suicide or physically harm that other.

From a peace perspective it is coming from a level of consciousness that is insecure, immature and regards any opposition as a threat to power from which identity is strongly attached.  Unchecked power can become totalitarian, form glee clubs (agreement), paranoid and exhibit narcissism.  Narcissism is increasing as emotions are suppressed and natural empathy that joins us to others is detached or the other objecfied (not connected).  The person feels anger and he or she regards business as warfare. Business literature reinforces this in strategy. This is men playing out war games in business arenas as they have not learned to take responsibility for their thoughts, words and actions and there is no social levy to keep perception in balance by encouraging and confronting (nonviolently) contrasting views.  Vilification and demonising is to build support that you are right the other is wrong.  It is to be seen to be on the high ground or to be seen to be a victim or that the other has mental health issues imagining persecution.  This can be the case for either party.  Rather than both as mature adults come together and working the problem out.

This left/right wing battle has manifested in the USSR/USA conflict since WWII and all the various proxy wars that are off shoots of an unresolved conflict in search of power.

It can be profiled as the right regarding itself as the ruling elite and propertied class born to lead vs the working class, proletariat who are born to serve.  It can be capitalism vs communism (I just had an insight here).  Both propositions are the old paradigm dying in my view.

The new paradigm emerging is wholistic realisation.  It can be articulated as:

what you see in another is in yourself
what you focus on you attract
what you put out comes back
what you resist persist what you look at disappears
Denial is not a river in Egypt (I like this one)

The finger pointing is not the place of blame it is the 3 pointing back at the accuser where the real source of the problem is. Life is a mirror reflecting back what you believe and then see.  There is no right and wrong in this holistic world view, there is no enemy, only what serves you and what does not.  Does it feel good or not?  This is a deep question not a superficial win. This is the Oneness perspective where we are responsible for the shape of it.  There is no blame or shame but realisation.  It reflects back to us in our image (projection).  Until we are prepared to look into the mirror at our own stories, issues, worries and have the courage to face them squarely, then question them for truth (www.thework.com), own them as self created (not the other) then the war games continue as the real delusion of an enemy and it escalates to the point of misadventure where ultimately no one wins.

What I would advise George is to encourage an Open Society and understand that whilst hate is destructive it actually returns to the one projecting it.  What you resist persists what you look at disappears.   This is not punishment it is universal law. Hatred has no real power, only love is the power as it unifies.  Openness is a form of unity consciousness when lived, it is really about the open mind.  It is not to fear those demeaning you but to recognise they fear you and are acting from this place.  Truth can be very threatening as it holds a mirror to the other and they are not ready to face it, so they attack as to stop this from happening.  If you greet it with an open mind and open society embracing diversity this creates a space for dialogue to open to catalyse learning.  There must be no negativity in attacking that other, only a space for understanding.

It is up to Sheryl Sandberg to go back to Mark Zuckerberg and his senior associates to discuss this public and personal issue playing out.  If it is true that a right wing PR campaign has been run then to look at this honestly as it appears the PR is turning back on the one sending it (fingers turning back).  It would be wise to have a meeting to discuss what has happened as a result and be open to critique as this helps people to work on the problem rather than action more hate (glee clubs) which is self-defeating.  What you resist persists is the key philosophy to focus on.  What is the resistance? What is the fear running people (it is not the people, it is the fear)? Can they see that what they fight grows stronger?  That is what happens when you find enemies you strengthen them by attacking.  It could be interesting to ask:

What is Facebook about? What is the culture? 
What is the ethos? 
Do they align with the open platform perspective of bringing people together? 

I can see already how George with his Open Society and Mark with Facebook assert they are bringing people together to reveal shared interests. The key questions here are:

Are they able to allow people to come together who are different?
Are they able to accommodate diversity without blocking the other? 
Can they find a pathway out of the conflict where both win?
Are they able to look for the gold in the conflict (real purpose)? 
Are they capitalist (making money, markets) or democratic or both?

If they are uninterested in democracy they will be face with more critique for those who believe in democracy will feel affronted.

What is democracy?  Is it sharing power?

People who are on the Facebook platforms do they dominate conversations, do they speak politely to each other, do they share different viewpoints with respect? 
What would Facebook subscribe to? 
Or if it is not about democracy then should we just say what we want, including hate and have no moral or standard provided by those running Facebook? 
Should there be ethical standards? 
What is the mission?
Are there others in the background who have different agenda’s that may skew an open platform bringing people together to unite our world? 
Who has the wisdom to make judgements of what is okay and what is not? 
Is it to filter out left wing or right wing (Twitter)? 
Is that appropriate or political infiltration? 
By what measure do we decide? 

For me – I use the ‘do no harm’ principle and then allow people to clash it up as they learn from conflict. This is how we grow and evolve.  If we suppress violence festers in covert or overt ways. It distorts what is healthy (normal, balanced).

What is the real fear felt?  What does George Soros represent to them and what does Facebook represent to George Soros?  To look at both from an archetypical point of view?  What is the left?  What is right? How do those in senior management feel about themselves when they react?  Reaction always comes from fear and fear is never true.  Why do I say this – fear is False Evidence Appearing Real.  I understand the feeling of fear too, but if they want peace (harmony, happiness) then look at what is feared and face it. It is there for a purpose.  Life is a mystery and it is not made by us we came from life.  Life has its own order to recalibrate to equilibrium (balance).

I believe Facebook is a wonderful platform for people to meet, discuss, dialogue and learn from others.  Yes people can block what is offensive.  I don’t believe in that as a first step but wouldn’t it be interesting if Facebook had facilitators when conflicts broke out to help them learn to reconcile the opposites?  Jesters are about reconciling the opposites, look into the Fool’s Journey.  Poking fun makes us think. Challenges force us out of our comfort zones. Good can come from conflict.  Why is it important to reconcile opposites? Because we learn the most from our critics.  They are friends in disguise.  They are the teachers whether you like them or not, you will learn something.  Life is about you looking at you and if you react it means there is an emotional trigger. What is a trigger? It is a psychological hurt (likely from childhood) that comes up as anger or a pit in the stomach when evoked.  If people learn how to talk constructively to each other without demanding they change, they will learn more without hating the other, then an opportunity for healing appears. We are all carrying wounds camouflaged as defence.

We are living in a world of suppressed anger, internalised hurts, bitterness, embarrassment, inner pain where we have believed in moments we are less than we are as someone told us and others confirmed.  None of it is true in truth, every person – George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Patrick Gaspard are worthy people of great value.  Not better or less than anyone.  Each are equal to the other, regardless of perceptions or lifestyle.  Respect is the feeling that all people have the right to be who they are, even if we disagree, they have a right to express their perspective as this is their uniqueness. Who knows maybe 5 years later the penny drops (at the perfect time). This openness is how we de-escalate violent conflict and we get a sense of where people are at.  It brings things into the open to discover the other is more like you than you thought. Interestingly ‘like attracts like’ on some level in a conflict as there is something they believe about themselves that mirrors the other.  We mask our insecurities and use words to pretend we are right, Lawyers and organisational barriers can be used to block the resolution of conflict which would really get to the truth of matters so people can resolve.  Conflict resolution is an exciting place of self-discovery and learning to share power which is not a deficit it is a growth. Many, particularly men, have been taught to be right and to be wrong is to lose, this is not true, it is to simply acknowledge that we cannot know the truth of any matter, we have imperfect information, awareness and not privy to the whole truth, so we perceive the way we do given the information at hand.  Conflict resolution enables parties to see the bigger picture which is not just about their needs but to live with others in respectful relationships. It is to learn to meet in the middle and stay in your own business. Conflict resolution offers wise agreements this is the real wealth of individuals and nations.

I would encourage Sheryl and Patrick to organise a meeting between George and Mark to discuss how they both feel.  I use ‘feel’ deliberately as all conflict is coming from how we feel not what we think, that comes after we feel hurt or angry or out to get the other.   The reactions and narratives are really just dealing with perceptions the feelings is where the real hurt is. As I said it is masked behind rhetoric as people feel vulnerable exposing themselves as they are in war mindsets.

What I would say to both left and right wing camps, until you both learn to co-exist in a world of great diversity your denial of responsibility will culminate in innocent people being hurt.  Until you accept that not every worker wants to serve the elite and not every elite person wants to rule.  That we live in a world where it is time to cooperate, to work together and discover our collective strengths to build unity.  Even the misogyny issue is about power not love.  The power over idea comes from ego and power within is when we silently recognise we are one with life.  This is where love, compassion, truthfulness, kindness arises which feels good as it is.  The hateful narrative comes from insecurity, inadequacy, unchecked power, discrimination (fear of difference), jealousy, gossip and put downs which overall has its base in a desire to take power rather than give it.  Powerlessness is the place where all violence arises from. None of us like the feeling of powerlessness as we feel vulnerable, it seems to evoke a primitive part of the brain that feels vulnerable to attack so we look for protections to sure up our security – could be lawyers, smear campaigns, financial shenanigans (stock market) or some other way to hit back. Many think hitting back is being a ‘man’ to take him out rather than walk out together with a greater understanding. The war mentality is futile and as Eckhart Tolle states it is doomed to failure.  He is right.

So we wait in the public realm to see how long it takes for men and women to work out their problems, to stop blaming others, to take responsibility and to make peace not as some lofty notion but a statement of who we are.  Until this happens the wars continue and people are hurt whilst the ecological crisis unravels more crisis on our planet. These wars (lack of peace) distract us from the real issues that need our attention and the possibilities for humanity when we unlock real potential.

I look forward to a time where the power of love overcomes the love of power then will our world know the true blessings of peace.  I love that quote.

I will still write my little comments on Facebook ‘to Facebook’ as they are still blocking me from posting links to friends.  I will try and slip this one in so they get this blog posting.  I also believe in Freedom of Speech and dialogue to resolve all conflict.  No person has the right to tell another they cannot speak.  Even if they are inappropriate the group can help them by modelling respect, that is how physical community worked. Hate in truth comes from hatred of self-projected out, it is a call for help in actual fact.  So it is not to fear hate but to embrace it as a mistaken belief that is intense.  I will always reflect love to those who hate me.  I will never hate them as I recognise they are believing negative thoughts and believing it is people, this is a mistaken belief, it is not who they are.

Proposal:

I just felt to offer to help both if you want me to.  I dreamed I was teaching peace.  I would be fair as I see people first, politics last, although what is last is driving the wedge.  For me the only winning is learning.  So what I propose is to come to Facebook and the Open Society Institute separately and run workshops on conflict resolution, active listening, personal inquiry and a laughter session (lighten up).  I will find out what the grievances are from both sides presented in a way that highlights the facts so both sides are fully informed (perfect market).  Then we come together in mediated sessions to get to know each other, to discuss the issues (concerns, underlying feelings) in a mediation and look for options and solutions to ensure the public conflict does not escalate.  It is to learn from each other’s perspective.  Would be fun!  It would be confidential as well.  No lawyers they are not fun.

Here are some free resources to give you insights.

Conflict Resolution Network:
http://www.crnhq.org/content.aspx?file=66138|37424w

My poem ‘Respect’:https://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2016/11/only-respect-is-real/

Hate crimes:
https://wpas.worldpeacefull.com/2011/12/hate-crime-legislation-is-a-solution-for-the-middle-east-and-worldwide/

And one more for the road: I just saw this and posted on Facebook. It reiterates the same issues I posted on Facebook after this blog was posted.  I wrote it on my world trip. I am sharing as you are me.

Environmental Forum on BBC 5 Nov

So now to the grievances in this now public dispute, it would have been good to have had the reply from Sheryl to know their point of view as there are always two sides …

 

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I wanted to share OSF President Patrick Gaspard’s letter to Sheryl Sandberg, below, which he wrote last night in response to revelations that Facebook hired a Republican PR firm to smear George Soros.

It is alarming that Facebook would engage in these unsavory tactics, apparently in response to George’s public criticism in Davos earlier this year of the company’s handling of hate speech and propaganda on its platform.

The Times’ story raises the question of whether Facebook has used similar methods to go after other critics or public officials who have tried to hold Facebook accountable. Zuckerberg and Sandberg’s claim that they were unaware of what the company was doing is more alarming than reassuring. What else is Facebook up to?

The company should hire an outside expert to do a thorough investigation of its lobbying and PR work and make the results public.

Until then, this episode further demonstrates that Facebook continues to pursue its narrow corporate interests at the expense of the public interest.

Sincerely,
Michael Vachon


11/14/18

Sheryl Sandberg
Chief Operating Officer
Facebook
1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, CA  94025

Dear Ms. Sandberg:

I was shocked to learn from the New York Times that you and your colleagues at Facebook hired a Republican opposition research firm to stir up animus toward George Soros. As you know, there is a concerted right-wing effort the world over to demonize Mr. Soros and his foundations, which I lead—an effort which has contributed to death threats and the delivery of a pipe bomb to Mr. Soros’ home. You are no doubt also aware that much of this hateful and blatantly false and anti-Semitic information is spread via Facebook.

The notion that your company, at your direction, actively engaged in the same behavior to try to discredit people exercising their First Amendment rights to protest Facebook’s role in disseminating vile propaganda is frankly astonishing to me.

It’s been disappointing to see how you have failed to monitor hate and misinformation on Facebook’s platform. To now learn that you are active in promoting these distortions is beyond the pale.

These efforts appear to have been part of a deliberate strategy to distract from the very real accountability problems your company continues to grapple with. This is reprehensible, and an offense to the core values Open Society seeks to advance. But at bottom, this is not about George Soros or the foundations. Your methods threaten the very values underpinning our democracy.

I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this matter with you in person, and to hear what steps you might take to help remediate the damage done by this deeply misguided—and dangerous—effort carried out at Facebook’s behest.

Sincerely,

Patrick Gaspard
President
Open Society Foundations

 

Mohandas Gandhi

“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

Archives
Categories