If you needed proof the Gazan war was anything but a blatant land grab.
This is in the West Bank. Imagine all the real estate that will be available once the Gazans are eliminated.
Here's a 2-minute video Rich Seigel, a brave Jewish man from New Jersey. In that video he protested what he called the illegal property sale (perhaps one of the ones mentioned in the article) of Western Bank homes in a racially-restricted event. He also succinctly describes how the March 10th event broke both US and international law and why he refuses to let ethnicity = justification. "As Jews, we don't get to fly under the radar and break the law and hide it in a synagogue."
Not a single self-proclaimed "liberal" politician in the West ever complains about how, by trying to pass itself as "The Jewish Nation", Israel has been slandering the image of all Jews, including those Humanists who happen to be Jews, a large part of them being highly educated Westerners who are very much the opposite of the old-style ultra-racist religious supremacists that dominate in Israel.
If there is one thing this whole situation has made painfully clear is that if indeed it's all about "shared values" as we've been hearing from Western politicians for decades, then the values they share must be those of racial supremacism, as they're clearly not Humanist values.
Unsurprising you see the likes of Germany choosing "good jews" from "bad jews" (like how recently a german university revoked and invitation to an American Jew professor because he had criticised the acts of Israel in Gaza), same as in the old days.
Yes, I've noticed a lot of No True Scotsman fallacy as well, where dissenting voices are determined to be "not true Jews" or "antisemitic, self-hating Jews". In December the US Congress passed a law that explicitly states anti-Zionism = antisemitism, even over the objections of many members (mostly Democrats) including Jewish member Jerry Nadler. Here's a short video of Nadler calling the bill "either intellectually disingenuous or factually wrong" and explaining how Jews he has represented oppose Israeli policy without being antisemitic. Netanyahu has stated multiple times that anti-Zionism (in context = opposition to his policies) is the exact same thing as antisemitism.
There is an official, governmental, international battle to standardize what Jews are allowed to think. It completely disregards the fact that Jews are like any other ethnicity in that they represent a huge spectrum of beliefs and moralities, from saints to villains and everything in between. It's been proven time and again that judging people based on genetics or birthplace/residence only leads to injustice and suffering.
As I said in another post, the real problem is the cohalition of closet racist supremacist that has formed around Israel, who simply support genocidal white supremacism and colonialism (and remember, Israel has been heavilly portratraying itself as a Western nation for decades, so they're treated as "whites" at least when it comes to a conflict with those deemed non-whites such as Palestinians)
The reaction of most of Western power elites has nothing to do with Humanism or treating people fairly (Jews or otherwise) and all to do with Racism, especially Islamophobia, so you end end up with shit like non-Jews deeming actual Jews as anti-Semite (the kind of "traitor of the race" slander that the Nazis so loved)
I suppose that, for anyboy who hasn't been really thinking about it and observing the theatre of Western politics with a skeptical eye, the biggest surprise is how Liberals - who have always portrayed themselves as anti-Racism - turn out to be heavy supporters of genocidal racist supremacism.
There's a lot of shit governments calling themselves islamic, christian, hindu nations. Smart people won't let themselves be baited by any of these fucks
Couldn't agree more.
Maybe the thin, thin, "oh so thin" silver lining on this big black cloud which is the Israeli Genocide in Gaza and the behaviour of Western power elites with regards to it, is that more people with humanist principles who, because of being part of the majority etnicity in their country (thus unlikelly to have been the target of racism hence not quite as keenly alert to its many faces) let themselves be swindled by certain self-proclaimed anti-racist western elites, will become keenly aware of all the racial bating and profound racism still around us at the highest levels that's portrayed as natural and even as "positive".
Take away the bullshit that's been spinned around the subject in the West to make it "politically correct" and you get to the core, which is that judging or treating people differently because of their etnicity is racial descrimination, and doing it on the "positive" side is as much racial descrimination as on the "negative" side.
The NAZIs themselves didn't only do negative discrimination, they also did "positive" discrimination towards various favoured races, especially the Arian Race, so maybe people should be having a good hard look at the people with discourses excusing and supporting even the most evil of deeds of the governments of nations who are self-proclaimed representatives of "favoured" etnicities.
The entire mental architecture of racism is alive and well in the modern West, and in it's modern clothes it remains wrong, no matter how much some closet racists try and paint their kind of discrimination of judgement and treatment on racial grounds as "positive".
There was a CBC/frontburner episode on this, a real estate firm going around Canadian synagogues showing development projects on stolen land, its disgusting.
And even if you go out of your way and dismiss morals, ethics, and international law, who in their right mind thinks that's a good investment? These properties, the whole region, is rife for conflicts and terrorism for... decades. Now more than ever.
so was the american west.
Now guess how much that land is worth
that's "disaster capitalism (read N. Klein for full understanding of what that entails) mixed with a real sh#tty situation in Gaza that was brewing for a long time. For all I can tell selected elite (on both sides) lines their pockets nicely while people are bring brainwashed and dying on both sides. On some days I really despise humanity...
"He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.” ― Adolf Hitler
added: being downvoted for pointing this out won't change the source and it's info, though. Just shows you are very biased.
A self-proclaimed media bias fact checker, which itself is not independently checked, is a perfect central point for a state actor to control the narrative by marking critical news sources as "untrustworthy" so as to reduce their impact-
You couldn't think of a better Propaganda Op for a state actor in the modern Internet age than setting up a centralized "media facts checker" that makes sure media sources who go along with the Propaganda are trusted and those who are criticial of it are distrusted.
(If you know about the concept of Chains Of Trust from IT/General Security it's pretty easy to see how this is nothing more than another link that adds no actual trust because it in itself is not supported by a chain going back to a trusted entity, by which point you might wonder why exactly such a fake "trusted" link has been set-up and who would gain from it)
You couldn't think of a better Propaganda Op for a state actor in the modern Internet age than setting up a centralized "media facts checker" that makes sure media sources
But I could, I could simply write articles which are simply based on half truth and publish them for a wider public. Which is happening already on a huge scale.
So, I was asking for a better source, and then you are suggesting that I'm the one advocating state sponsored propaganda?
So, I wonder, out of curiosity, how would you objectively review news sources?
Here's another media factchecker: groundnews: mixed factuality rating.
Also the credibility score is handed out by an external party Pointer Institute for Fact Checking , and I wasn't talking about the political left or right bias.
A single media "facts checker" passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such "fact checkers" ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your "independent" fact-checker and its fact-checking aren't subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they're passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they're neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren't independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they're almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you'd actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
"As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate."
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You're the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World's newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I'm just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that "tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources" and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a "trust gatekeeper" with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as "evidence" of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World's newsmedia.
I'm not claiming they are anything, I'm pointing that we don't know what they are because:
There are massive risks in delegating trust on Press articles to any Trust Overseer given that well resourced actors stand to gain massivelly from setting up such an entity, and thus can derive large Propaganda gains from investing massive amounts of manpower and money in creating a fake one or taking over a genuine one.
There is nowhere near enough strength and quality of evidence that Mediabiasfactchech can be trusted with the extremelly high place in the Trust Hierarchy they claim to have.
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World's Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don't need to prove distrust, it's you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don't count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.
Read the article that you linked. 1 low credibility article in the past 2 decades.
Land-grab has been ongoing for decades. (link guardian
This has been the most successful land-grab strategy since 1967,” said Yehuda Shaul, a prominent activist who is director of the Israeli Center for Public Affairs thinktank, and a founder of Breaking the Silence, an NGO that exposes military abuses in occupied areas.
Over the last year alone, 110,000 dunams, or 110 sq km (42 sq miles), was effectively annexed by settlers on herding outposts, he said. All the built-up settlement areas constructed since 1967 cover only 80 sq km.
It was also the biggest displacement of Palestinian Bedouins since 1972, when at least 5,000 – and perhaps as many as 20,000 – people were moved from the northern Sinai to make way for settlements, Shaul added.
That doesn't talk about the topic of the original article though, which is the sales targeting religious US Jews
if the name "truth out" wasn't telling enough already.
I really wonder why so many people seem to fall so easily for propaganda? It's so obvious?
Like, I'm not talking about the well-made ones, the convincing ones, but these simple populist ones.
You published one biased story about GMOs 8 years ago, now we can't trust ANYTHING you say!!!
If you needed proof the Gazan war was anything but a blatant land grab.
This is in the West Bank. Imagine all the real estate that will be available once the Gazans are eliminated.
Here's a 2-minute video Rich Seigel, a brave Jewish man from New Jersey. In that video he protested what he called the illegal property sale (perhaps one of the ones mentioned in the article) of Western Bank homes in a racially-restricted event. He also succinctly describes how the March 10th event broke both US and international law and why he refuses to let ethnicity = justification. "As Jews, we don't get to fly under the radar and break the law and hide it in a synagogue."
Not a single self-proclaimed "liberal" politician in the West ever complains about how, by trying to pass itself as "The Jewish Nation", Israel has been slandering the image of all Jews, including those Humanists who happen to be Jews, a large part of them being highly educated Westerners who are very much the opposite of the old-style ultra-racist religious supremacists that dominate in Israel.
If there is one thing this whole situation has made painfully clear is that if indeed it's all about "shared values" as we've been hearing from Western politicians for decades, then the values they share must be those of racial supremacism, as they're clearly not Humanist values.
Unsurprising you see the likes of Germany choosing "good jews" from "bad jews" (like how recently a german university revoked and invitation to an American Jew professor because he had criticised the acts of Israel in Gaza), same as in the old days.
Yes, I've noticed a lot of No True Scotsman fallacy as well, where dissenting voices are determined to be "not true Jews" or "antisemitic, self-hating Jews". In December the US Congress passed a law that explicitly states anti-Zionism = antisemitism, even over the objections of many members (mostly Democrats) including Jewish member Jerry Nadler. Here's a short video of Nadler calling the bill "either intellectually disingenuous or factually wrong" and explaining how Jews he has represented oppose Israeli policy without being antisemitic. Netanyahu has stated multiple times that anti-Zionism (in context = opposition to his policies) is the exact same thing as antisemitism.
There is an official, governmental, international battle to standardize what Jews are allowed to think. It completely disregards the fact that Jews are like any other ethnicity in that they represent a huge spectrum of beliefs and moralities, from saints to villains and everything in between. It's been proven time and again that judging people based on genetics or birthplace/residence only leads to injustice and suffering.
As I said in another post, the real problem is the cohalition of closet racist supremacist that has formed around Israel, who simply support genocidal white supremacism and colonialism (and remember, Israel has been heavilly portratraying itself as a Western nation for decades, so they're treated as "whites" at least when it comes to a conflict with those deemed non-whites such as Palestinians)
The reaction of most of Western power elites has nothing to do with Humanism or treating people fairly (Jews or otherwise) and all to do with Racism, especially Islamophobia, so you end end up with shit like non-Jews deeming actual Jews as anti-Semite (the kind of "traitor of the race" slander that the Nazis so loved)
I suppose that, for anyboy who hasn't been really thinking about it and observing the theatre of Western politics with a skeptical eye, the biggest surprise is how Liberals - who have always portrayed themselves as anti-Racism - turn out to be heavy supporters of genocidal racist supremacism.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here's a short video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There's a lot of shit governments calling themselves islamic, christian, hindu nations. Smart people won't let themselves be baited by any of these fucks
Couldn't agree more.
Maybe the thin, thin, "oh so thin" silver lining on this big black cloud which is the Israeli Genocide in Gaza and the behaviour of Western power elites with regards to it, is that more people with humanist principles who, because of being part of the majority etnicity in their country (thus unlikelly to have been the target of racism hence not quite as keenly alert to its many faces) let themselves be swindled by certain self-proclaimed anti-racist western elites, will become keenly aware of all the racial bating and profound racism still around us at the highest levels that's portrayed as natural and even as "positive".
Take away the bullshit that's been spinned around the subject in the West to make it "politically correct" and you get to the core, which is that judging or treating people differently because of their etnicity is racial descrimination, and doing it on the "positive" side is as much racial descrimination as on the "negative" side.
The NAZIs themselves didn't only do negative discrimination, they also did "positive" discrimination towards various favoured races, especially the Arian Race, so maybe people should be having a good hard look at the people with discourses excusing and supporting even the most evil of deeds of the governments of nations who are self-proclaimed representatives of "favoured" etnicities.
The entire mental architecture of racism is alive and well in the modern West, and in it's modern clothes it remains wrong, no matter how much some closet racists try and paint their kind of discrimination of judgement and treatment on racial grounds as "positive".
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here's Rich Seigel,
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There was a CBC/frontburner episode on this, a real estate firm going around Canadian synagogues showing development projects on stolen land, its disgusting.
Yeah, and then there's the guy who fired a nail gun at pro-Palestine protesters at one of the events. "Hate was a factor in alleged nail gun assault on pro-Palestinian protesters in Vaughan: police"
It's disgusting.
And even if you go out of your way and dismiss morals, ethics, and international law, who in their right mind thinks that's a good investment? These properties, the whole region, is rife for conflicts and terrorism for... decades. Now more than ever.
so was the american west.
Now guess how much that land is worth
that's "disaster capitalism (read N. Klein for full understanding of what that entails) mixed with a real sh#tty situation in Gaza that was brewing for a long time. For all I can tell selected elite (on both sides) lines their pockets nicely while people are bring brainwashed and dying on both sides. On some days I really despise humanity...
"He who does not possess the force to secure his Lebensraum in this world, and, if necessary, to enlarge it, does not deserve to possess the necessities of life. He must step aside and allow stronger peoples to pass him by.” ― Adolf Hitler
FYI: medium credibility source Factual Reporting; mixed [mediabias link] (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/truth-out/) Any other source available?
added: being downvoted for pointing this out won't change the source and it's info, though. Just shows you are very biased.
A self-proclaimed media bias fact checker, which itself is not independently checked, is a perfect central point for a state actor to control the narrative by marking critical news sources as "untrustworthy" so as to reduce their impact-
You couldn't think of a better Propaganda Op for a state actor in the modern Internet age than setting up a centralized "media facts checker" that makes sure media sources who go along with the Propaganda are trusted and those who are criticial of it are distrusted.
(If you know about the concept of Chains Of Trust from IT/General Security it's pretty easy to see how this is nothing more than another link that adds no actual trust because it in itself is not supported by a chain going back to a trusted entity, by which point you might wonder why exactly such a fake "trusted" link has been set-up and who would gain from it)
But I could, I could simply write articles which are simply based on half truth and publish them for a wider public. Which is happening already on a huge scale.
So, I was asking for a better source, and then you are suggesting that I'm the one advocating state sponsored propaganda?
So, I wonder, out of curiosity, how would you objectively review news sources?
Here's another media factchecker: groundnews: mixed factuality rating. Also the credibility score is handed out by an external party Pointer Institute for Fact Checking , and I wasn't talking about the political left or right bias.
A single media "facts checker" passing judgment on media sources (rather than on individual articles reporting supposed facts) can manipulate perception of hundreds of thousands of articles by merelly adjusting the bias ratings on certain media sources, whilst each individual media source can only ever manipulate its own reports, which is what makes such "fact checkers" ideal for state actors doing Propaganda Ops: they act as a trust nexus that can be used to promote or defuse the impact of countless reports from media outlets all over the World, well beyond the borders of said states.
Fact checking should be limited to checking actual reports of supposed facts, not passing judgement over media outlets (and by implication on the trustworthiness of all their reports), and the fact-checkings and fact-checkers themselves need to be fact-checked, similarly to how Wikipedia deals with edits on their articles.
If your "independent" fact-checker and its fact-checking aren't subject to open dispute in a well-publicized forum out of their countrol and they're passing judgment over entire media publishers rather than only checking each article reporting supposed facts, they're neither independent nor fact-checkers.
(And no, Think Tanks with suspiciously manipulative designed-for-a-purpose names aren't independent jack-shit-anything, including for oversight of fact-checkers. In fact given the modern trends on Think Thanks they're almost certainly the opposite)
So, you claim lots of things, but I miss you backing up your arguments with substantiated evidence like a link. Instead of keeping attacking my argument it would be nice if you'd actually provide evidence based info.
For example, in addition to my earlier point via this article.
"As director of the International Fact-Checking Network, I’ve watched this movement label fact-checkers as part of a “censorship industrial complex,” claiming that fact-checkers are trying to suppress debatable information. Ironically, this deeply misleading argument itself is aimed at suppressing critique and debate."
Sounds familiar?
I am just critical about newssources with mixed credibility when we are already facing a very polarised situation.
You're the one claiming that this entity is so high in the Trust Hierachy that they they should be treated as Trust Overseers of the World's newsmedia, which is quite a gigantic claim.
I'm just doing a pretty standard Trust Requirements Evaluation as it would be done, for example, in IT Security, which yields the pretty obvious result that "tall claims require proportionatelly ironclad evidence from multiple trusted sources" and pointing out the gain that bad actors could get in setting up such a "trust gatekeeper" with only fancy web frontends, astroturfers and useful idiots as "evidence" of them deserving the guardianship of the Trust in the World's newsmedia.
I'm not claiming they are anything, I'm pointing that we don't know what they are because:
People should have very strict demands on proof before trusting any such Trust Overseers of the World's Press.
When it comes to Trust, the default is to Do Not Trust until proven otherwise, not the other way around - trust must be earned, the more important the subject matter the harder should it be to earn it - so I don't need to prove distrust, it's you, who are making sky-scrapper sized claims that these people are Trust Overseers of all the newsmedia of the World, who has to provide evidence from sufficient trusted sources (and, no, self-referential chains of trust don't count) and of enough quality to back up such outsized claims.
Read the article that you linked. 1 low credibility article in the past 2 decades.
Is this good enough? https://therealnews.com/illegal-real-estate-sales-of-palestinian-land-are-happening-around-the-us
Land-grab has been ongoing for decades. (link guardian
This has been the most successful land-grab strategy since 1967,” said Yehuda Shaul, a prominent activist who is director of the Israeli Center for Public Affairs thinktank, and a founder of Breaking the Silence, an NGO that exposes military abuses in occupied areas.
Over the last year alone, 110,000 dunams, or 110 sq km (42 sq miles), was effectively annexed by settlers on herding outposts, he said. All the built-up settlement areas constructed since 1967 cover only 80 sq km.
It was also the biggest displacement of Palestinian Bedouins since 1972, when at least 5,000 – and perhaps as many as 20,000 – people were moved from the northern Sinai to make way for settlements, Shaul added.
That doesn't talk about the topic of the original article though, which is the sales targeting religious US Jews
if the name "truth out" wasn't telling enough already.
I really wonder why so many people seem to fall so easily for propaganda? It's so obvious? Like, I'm not talking about the well-made ones, the convincing ones, but these simple populist ones.
Great logic there