6 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

I read today that Axel Springer, who owns the largest media company in Europe is telling his journalists to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a proIsraeli bent. https://theintercept.com/2023/10/19/upday-news-gaza-israel-axel-springer/

While one of the members of the German Left Party is starting her own, which sounds very right wing in agenda. Sahra Wagenknecht is starting a populist party named after herself. Democracy is on shaky ground everywhere. https://www.euronews.com/2023/10/23/new-left-wing-german-political-party-headed-by-sahra-wagenknecht-could-draw-votes-from-far#:~:text=On%20Monday%2C%20Sahra%20Wagenknecht%20presented,east%20will%20follow%20next%20fall.

The Russian bots are very effective at getting people to join populist parties that are utterly supporting fascist ideas.

Expand full comment

I use to support, financially, the Intercept, still get their news letters, but stopped when I discovered Noam Chomsky, the DSA, the Intercept and Democracy Now, obliquely supported Putin, and now they support HAMAS and Islamic terrorists. Democracy Now, has a number of Palestinian Americans on their staff.

Even hosts on MSNBC, Mehdi Hasan, Ayman Mohyeldin, and Ali Velshi were “quietly taken out of the anchor’s chair" following Hamas' operation on Israel.

I saw Ayman on TV yesterday, saying that HAMAS is not antisemitic, and his show distorts facts on the ground, and all of them pounced on the lie that Israel bombed a hospital.

As regards the Antisemitism of HAMAS

Article 7 of the HAMAS convention is quoted from the haddith of al Bukhari, sahih 1295 and 1296, Book 56, Haddith 193

"The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him."

Ayman had the balls to say, on TV, that HAMAS was not antisemitic.

The HAMAS charter says:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." (Article 6)

On the destruction of Israel:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (Preamble)

My opinion is that Islamic Jihad was using the parking lot of the Al Ahli Arab Hospital, to launch rockets and there was a misfire, that killed the terrorists, and did some damage to the facade, but did not kill patients. And of course HAMAS lies, anyone believes their lies, is a sucker and fool, or a disinfo agent.

Expand full comment

I first read about Axel Springer in Politico Europe, so the Intercept may have picked up from them. I read the Intercept from time to time depending on the article, and the Volt, the Lever, ProPublica, and other publications which I do not support all of the positions they take because I want to know what those positions are. I certainly don't support the positions of the NYT but must pay to read them, and the same with the WaPo. There is no publication where I support all of their positions. Reading is not the same as supporting.

Expand full comment

Agreed Linda, reading is not supporting. I do not get all of those "publications" (what do you call digital publications anyway? But I do read what I get, like the Intercept. By support I mean donating cash.

NYT and WAPO have two departments, and often they seem at war. The editorial department which is conservative to right wing and the news department, which is a little better, but still has editors who squash news, or decide what is news. Like when NYT championed the invasion of Iraq.

What bothers me is the utter willingness to believe propaganda (so called news like the misfire of a rocket by Islamic Jihad at Al Ihla Arab Hospital in Gaza and attribute it to an Israeli Bomb, stuff like that

Expand full comment

Hi William, I support a lot of the things I read, but not everything. The things that I skip more than I read I do not support. However, I should be supporting more of them.

Expand full comment

I subject everything I read to scrutiny and try to use the one facility that I have not yet lost.

Critical reasoning.

Not bragging, though it might sound like it. I've been an avid reader since I picked up my first Alphabet book, as far as I can recall the age of 5, by age of 8 I was reading the Odyssey by Homer, the Bible by age 12, my tastes are eclectic, and aside for about 150 classics, hardly any are fiction. I certainly don't read fiction today.

By and large, even non fiction is actually stilted by peoples beliefs, so I approach everything with caution, and try to filter out fact from belief or opinion. One tool to use is who benefits (cuo bono), but I have my own gold mineof information, 84 years having to cipher the truth from the constant barrage of propaganda.

When I was young, and inexperienced, and even though well read, was still quite ignorant. I was an anti communist conservative, over time my conservatism expanded, beyond my anti communism shameful depths.

It was only a series of circumstances that resulted in my relocation, and found myself in company of old hippies, ex SDS, even weather underground, and as a shop foreman, I found myself enjoying, along with 10 other union offices, the compay of Angela Davis at a lunch.

The result is that I question everything, even those with whom I otherwise agree. For instance I stand for diversity, equality, civil and voting rights, and anti bigotry, but as of late I am sad to report that the Democratic Socialists of America, and many leftists, are solidly in lock step with Putin, Xi and the mid east terrorists, even secular Jews.

I may like to look at the Pie, I may even nibble, but I'll be damned if I will eat the whole thing, and am certainly not a joiner or entrapped, cajoled by those who try to use my sentiments, to steer me in an anti Democratic agenda. Such as the troll farms of Russia and China, and they don't have to be troll farms, there are legions of gullible non thinking people who are easily triggered to advance a cause inimical to their own best interests.

The right wing is an obvious example, but it appears that they have companions on the left.

Expand full comment