Authority is a powerful thing and people are simple creatures: the government says it, the institutions say it, the news says it, everybody seems to believe it - it must be true.

Not to mention, all the common information sources I named have teams of experts that advise them on exactly what their messaging should look like to manipulate people into exhibiting the desired behavior. People who aren't aware of how this type of manipulation works are basically chanceless against it.

Even if you have a natural distrust for the first three, being confronted with an apparent majority of people who speak and act as though what's being presented is truth will seriously test one's trust in their own observations and intuition. — Tzeentch

Well said. That pretty much breaks it down. The funny thing is that everybody (particularly those in liberal societies) already have authority over the most important aspects of their lives. And still the majority seems to have no problem relinquishing it all to entities whose existences are entirely based on power and control. The scariest thing (as you so aptly bring up in the third ¶) is how the majority tends to behave like the blob once it becomes mobilized - assimilating anybody it can get a hold of into its mindless mass.

From the letter: — Tzeentch

You are indeed correct to point out that COVID-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission frome one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individual only.
— European Medicines Agency

getting vaccinated to "protect grandma" was nothing but emotional blackmail on a national scale.

Blackmail is still as despicable as the experimental vaccine mandates which turned out to be quite ineffective... and detrimental to the livelihoods of those who did not want to risk their health or dignity with a relatively untested experimental drug. And now there are cases of people claiming vaccine injuries all over the world who face an industry that has been protected by law in case of damages due to off label use. It is sickening how corrupt it all is.

The immunity generated from an infection was found to be “at least as high, if not higher” than that provided by two doses of an mRNA vaccine, the authors wrote.

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine. — Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds

Have you seen this letter from the European Medicines Agency to members of the European Parliament in response to an inquiry? — Tzeentch

I have not. Thank you for sharing.

Big pharma and national governments clearly engaged in some sort of unholy pact that made the industry non-liable in case of damages due to off label use, in exchange for rapidly developed vaccines. Rampant off label use is what governments all over the world (including my own) engaged in. — Tzeentch

I'm amazed at the lack of skepticism from the average person towards both big pharma and government. It's not like they do not have clear record of nefarious and outright deceptive behavior. Why do people so easily keep trusting them with so much shit? Where is a speck of suspended judgment to be found? It is insane.

I'm not defending Pfizer. — Janus

Sorry, it sounded like you were. I was taking a pot shot at Pfizer.

why are you so quick to defend Pfizer? Do they pay your grandmother's pension or something?

:roll: — Janus

Hey, I was going to use the eye roll on you in my previous post, but it seemed lame

This is merely a claim, not established fact. — Janus

Oh really, you don't say. how in the world were you able to come to such a conclusion

More fuckery surfacing over vaccine trials.

"Pfizer intentionally misrepresented the efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine and censored persons who threatened to disseminate the truth in order to facilitate fast adoption of the product and expand its commercial opportunity"

Paxton said it was misleading for Pfizer to claim its vaccine was 95% effective because it offered a "relative risk reduction" for people to who took it.

Paxton said the claim was based on only two months of clinical trial data, and vaccine recipients' "absolute risk reduction" showed that the vaccine was just 0.85% effective.

He also said the pandemic got worse even after people started taking the vaccine, developed by Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech (22UAy.DE). — https://www.reuters.com/legal/pfizer-is-sued-by-texas-over-covid-19-vaccine-claims-2023-11-30/

It just keeps coming.

We don't need to invoke any intent to get the results we got. — AmadeusD

Of course. The results was that the covid pandemic was declared over. Everything was peachy, and worked out perfectly. Any perceived fuckery throughout the whole scenario is kooky talk.

thanks

Regardless of the possibility that it was, in hindsight, right, there’s always a niggling Kantian asking whether that matters — AmadeusD

Goddamn Kantian n********, all concerned about things that may matter :gasp:

You also can't (No, you can't) be sure that those public health protocols didn't ensure a far-less intense negative outcome from the pandemic than without. — AmadeusD

Indeed! It is like disproving God. The fact that we will never know the possible outcomes to alternate strategies is a testament to its irreproachability. We survived, and the policy saved us all. What else do we have to go on.

Its just...I can't stop thinking about how the process of law was so rapidly abandoned as the fundamental liberties of citizens in "so-called" free societies were blatantly trampled upon. People lost their livelihoods over vaccine mandates - experimental vaccines which turned out to be quite ineffective.

Whatever...We survived, and the policy saved us all. What else do we have to go on.

Finally there are politicians on the national level, who probably realized at some point that they had made a grave error, but did not want to take the fall politically, and instead doubled down on the narrative. — Tzeentch

They are a bunch of flatterers. I believe it was Diogenes that said the flatterer is the beast with the sharpest bite. They follow the sheep as much as the sheep follow them. Mostly a bunch of useless swine that need to be held to account with strict penalties by the sheep. One can dream.

The people themselves are simply not equipped to deal with this kind of fuckery. Under normal circumstances people are reasonably capable of critical thought, but not when the information landscape is thoroughly poisoned on this scale, from places of authority no less (WHO, national governments, etc.). — Tzeentch

It was to become the best funded, and most effective propaganda campaign in world history. And it directly targeted our basic rights as the enemy to the greater good of humanity. Freedom of speech and press were met with censureship everywhere...Everywhere. Freedom of assembly met with massive home confinement and social distancing. Freedom of petition met with ridicule, cancelation and blacklisting. Freedom of religion met with lockdown of churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, &c.

As you say:

A perfect storm of all the worst elements of humanity — Tzeentch

Then there's big pharma, which clearly had perverse incentives to contribute to the media storm, and did so on a gigantic scale. — Tzeentch

Ill repeat what I posted about the fuckery over covid-vaccine-injury-claims.

[...] pandemic-era emergency declarations bar the vaccine injured from suing vaccine manufacturers in civil court. Those with a COVID-19 vaccine injury are also prohibited from pursuing compensation through the standard Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

CICP is designed to provide compensation to individuals who suffer serious injuries as a direct result of the administration of certain countermeasures, such as vaccines, drugs, or medical devices, used to respond to public health emergencies. It covers injuries resulting from pandemic vaccines and other countermeasures.

VICP, on the other hand, specifically focuses on compensating individuals who experience injuries or adverse reactions caused by vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program primarily deals with routine childhood vaccines.

WHY????

How fortuitously convenient that the live public covid vaccination experiment falls within protected cicp guidelines. So very convenient for those pharmaceutical companies that suffered so much under the weight of record profits during the pandemic.

On one hand there are people in high places who probably felt they should "never waste a good crisis" - people like Schwab, Bill Gates, etc. - they've long had some funny ideas about what the world should look like. There's little hard evidence to implicate these people, but I have no doubt they have major influence on politicians on the national level. Schwab famously called the pandemic a "window of opportunity" to roll out his ideas. At that point, hard evidence or no, I know enough. — Tzeentch

Too little hard evidence is what makes it all so murky. That's what gives the herd the right to deem anything that does not conform to the official narrative as wackadoodle conspiracy theory. However, there are indeed super elites with massive stake in the Game, and unimaginable influence over ngo's, igo's, io's, and mnc's, They are out there in public making their intentions known, it is no secret. Why can't people see that something is afoot?
It is obvious that they are unelected nonofficials pulling strings on national and global levels, with far more leverage and fewer restraints than any existing government. Perhaps they are completely altruistic and are genuinely concerned about everyone's best interest. But what have they ever done to show that is the case. They just keep shitting out these weird ideas and agendas, which by the way, seem to only apply with a double standard to the Modern West, and never to anyone else. Peculiar. Luckily it is all just a bunch of wackadoodle conspiracy theory, we can all rest easy that there is no fuckery going on with the most powerful men in the world.

Modern day Israel has assimilated western culture as much as western culture has assimilated judeo-christian ethics. However, western culture definitely does not have its birthplace in modern day Israel. You are right in tracing it to Rome, particularly starting with Constantine. It was in the Renaissance period that ancient greek philosophy really came back into style, and it fit like a glove on a culture in which the judeo-christian ethic was well established. That glove proved to have an acid lining that would slowly corrode the judeo-christian structure beneath it (subjects covered in Nietzsche's "death of god" and the work of a few other post-moderists). Needless to say, the glove of Liberal reason don't fit so well these days on Western Culture.

Generally speaking, it makes sense to be wary of groups that try to establish religious speech through government (as many conservatives seem to want), as well as groups that if their policies came to fruition would limit the rights of others (Nazis, religious nationalists, supremacy groups, you name it). So, what do you do when you are protecting their right to speech, but their right to speech is advocating for the abolishment of everyone else's freedoms of speech or otherwise? — schopenhauer1

It is a tricky situation. I believe free speech goes hand in hand with the right to peaceful assembly. As long as the "peaceful" part is honored and obeyed, I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage free speech to the fullest extent. Obviously, any group that would use their freedom of speech to call for violence (qua "hate speech") should be flagged, monitored and dealt with appropriately. Barring such radicalism, there should be no restrictions on free speech, it is our best weapon against flatterers, liars, and charlatans.

As for establishing religious speech in government, I don’t see it as a problem, as long as the government doesn't appeal to some religious authority as a way to arbitrarily apply the law. I can totally agree with the religious speech like: "thou shalt not steal"...especially if it is codified into fair and impartial law. And not only that, all governments are insecure by default and need that lofty language in order to project that air of authority, and since all governments are about as creative as a sack of turds, what better source to copy from than religious doctrine.

To me the politics was the least interesting aspect of the counterculture. What fascinated me were the new philosophical, spiritual, social and sexual attitudes it spawned. — Joshs

I can agree. The internet would never have been tolerated as it is if not for that.

I don't buy that it was some nefarious plot by government to tyrannize citizens. I think the lockdowns were was just an overreaction, and if we had to do it all over again, with the facts we have now, we wouldn't do lockdowns — RogueAI

It it a hard thing to prove, indeed. The initial lockdown was more than likely an overreaction. However, the later lockdowns combined with mandates of an experimental vaccine wreak of coordinated corruption more and more as time passes. I disagree about doing it over again, I believe next time it will be just as easy to get people to willingly comply, and this time noncompliance will be met with real violence from the state (arrests, workcamps, guns pointed at citizens, &c).

I can safely say that it has changed my outlook on humanity as a whole. Perhaps worst of all is the deafening silence afterwards. As all the lies were exposed and myths dispelled, there is still scarcely a sign of any reflection. — Tzeentch

For me as well. Prior to this, I always suspected a portion of humanity was highly susceptible to such a charade, but in my wildest dreams I could never have imagined that it was this widespead. It is unnerving seeing the absence of any reflection or remorse over the lies and manipulation, it is very likely to happen again, and next time they may be more aggressive towards any who fail to comply.

You say sheep, but I'm more reminded of stampeding wildebeest who don't care whom or what they trample in their blind panic. — Tzeentch

:lol: very true

Is what I call people that summarily declare large amounts of other people essentially subhuman — Echarmion

Maybe so. Perhaps it is also pathetic to declare Nazis and Soviets subhuman. Nevertheless, it is certain that if one is born homo-sapien and proceeds through life as an undignified, prideful sheep, what else is one but subhuman.

Obviously if you call someone an undignified, prideful sheep they'll not make a very great effort to second guess their choices. They'll just label you an anti vax conspiracy nutjob and ignore you. — Echarmion

It is also obvious that if someone is an undignified, prideful sheep, they will possess zero capability to second guess their choice to do what they are told. There is absolutely nothing that anyone can do or say to change this. And part of their programming requires them to label people anti vax conspiracy nutjobs when a person does not fall in line. Pathetic

No one gave a fuck about healthy people who did not want to take vaccines - at no point during the hysteria were their concerns taken seriously, so I don't buy any allusions to community.

It was 'us vs. them', and healthy people were on the receiving end of it. Critical voices were silenced, people treated as second class citizens, etc. , European leaders went on national television overtly threatening healthy people who refused the vaccines.

There was no community. It was tyrannical one-way traffic and the damage this has done is enormous. — Tzeentch

We were able to see just how many people (the vast overwhelming majority of people) are willing to throw away their basic rights simply because they are told to. We also saw how they will defend their choice to abandon their basic rights with the weakest, flimsiest bullshit, and then go on to indiscriminately impose the same upon everyone else.

It is pathetic that these sheep continue to double down on it all, despite the fact Coronavirus-2020-hindsight has proven lockdown and vaccine policy to be an absolute disaster. It is a case of too much pride and zero dignity.

Breaking News: Hamas did not rape a Jewish baby in the past hour. What exemplars of humanitarianism.

"

CICP is designed to provide compensation to individuals who suffer serious injuries as a direct result of the administration of certain countermeasures, such as vaccines, drugs, or medical devices, used to respond to public health emergencies. It covers injuries resulting from pandemic vaccines and other countermeasures.

VICP, on the other hand, specifically focuses on compensating individuals who experience injuries or adverse reactions caused by vaccines covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. This program primarily deals with routine childhood vaccines.

How fortuitously convenient that the live public covid vaccination experiment falls within protected cicp guidelines. So very convenient for those pharmaceutical companies that suffered so much under the weight of record profits during the pandemic.

I think the 2 biggest causes of the 1960s counter culture were the Viet Nam War and Civil Rights. — Relativist

The civil rights movement was the only substantive thing about the 1960s counterculture. Everything else was fluff. We are a far cry from all the drugs, wars and politicians of the 6070s, but the civil rights are here to stay.

What is Israel's end goal here? — RogueAI

To be a sovereign state that can exist without its next-door neighbor threatening its women and babies with rape and mutilation. :grin:

Hamas funneled billions of dollars to their leadership but mainly to military operations like missiles and building tunnels and weapons rather than making Gaza into some thriving resort city. Okay... And then Hamas didn't let other elections take place since... Okay...

Now, you can completely blame Israel for this (that seems to be the trend in this forum). But that doesn't seem to add up. So the response from Hamas, to its own poor leadership in Gaza was to rape, behead, and mutilate Israeli civilians. And then Israel responds... So who is the enemy of whom here? It seems Hamas is he enemy of any person who simply wants to live a life where one thrives in a modern economy and have peace with its neighbors. — schopenhauer1

Perfectly stated. I personally think that there are many antisemites on tpf (including some of the mods), and I've directly called out a few and received "nothing" but their silent antisemitic cowardice. They are total pussies.

What do we see here? These woke-leftists are NOT actually concerned about the geopolitical question of a Palestinian State living in harmony with an Israeli Nation; after all: "from the river to the sea!!!!" Wooo wooooooo!!!!

Nope...Woke-leftists ARE condenming Jews as classic oppressors, while supporting Hamas. Ironically , they support an oppressive regime that has an indisputable record of inflicting immeasurable oppressive tyrrany on its own people. There is not a single Leftist that would tolerate anything that Hamas has to offer. Yet they support them unconditionally against a Jewish state which only exists as a last refuge for a people that has been endlessly oppressed everywhere since the historical exile from their motherland.

Yes, the woke leftist has claimed to defend the oppressed by upholding the principles of Western liberalism, but the Israel-Hamas Wars has forced them to show their true colors. They could have condemned the Holocaustal acts of Hamas and supported Israel as a new hope for Palestinian people to achieve true sovereignty over themselves in an adjacent land, but they chose to throw their hat in with one of the most horrible oppressors of all time: Hamas. There is no excuse for such a blunder...it is a Freudian Tell. They are deconstructionists, not progressives... it is evident that they would rather see the destruction of Israel, than the creation of a free and prosperous Palestinian State next-door.

yup. It was all a bunch of tyrannical fuckery. The more time passes, the more it will become apparent. For instance: the fuckery over covid-vaccine-injury-claims.

[...] pandemic-era emergency declarations bar the vaccine injured from suing vaccine manufacturers in civil court. Those with a COVID-19 vaccine injury are also prohibited from pursuing compensation through the standard Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)

In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel." — Benkei

Yeah right, that will happen.

From: Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip
"Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats:"

One-State Solution for Two Peoples: 5.4%

Two-State Solution for Two Peoples: 17.2%

A Palestinian state from the river to the
sea: 74.7%

@schopenhauer1

And if the West is willing to refuse its standards to non-Western societies, is it possible to justify such a betrayal of values? — Merkwurdichliebe

Another standard is climate change policy. The only group that the Left condemns for their climate change policy are Right-wing conservatives in Western societies. Where is the cry over those non-Western industrial societies that pay little-to-no attention to the Green agenda? How does the Left justify applying its standard to one but not the other? It doesn't.

This thread has increasingly come to be about the Israeli-Hamas war. It's such a tedious and exhaustingly pointless subject, I find it gets rather boring to go over the same arguments that have been floating around for decades...over and over with no end in sight. :yawn:

The generational rift that explains Democrats’ angst over Israel

“You can be pro-Israelis and anti-Netanyahu. You can be pro-Palestinians and anti-Hamas,” he said. “The false binary that we’re presented with in the media and in this polling is really damaging.”

It's such a complex issue, it's almost hubris to take a final position on it. However this article does tie back into the topic here, and it brings the contradiction of the left back to the forefront.

The Israeli-Hamas war is an interesting case study of a Western culture (at least Western adjacent) colliding with a decidedly non-Western culture. It brings up many interesting issues such as how the West should relate to those cultures which have antagonistic dispositions toward Western values. To what extent is the West expected to extend its standards towards those non-Western societies that will reciprocate nothing? And if the West is willing to refuse its standards to non-Western societies, is it possible to justify such a betrayal of values?

Another issue, the one relevant to this thread is how the woke-Left, the self appointed champion of social justice, can support a group that abhors Western values like social justice. As of yet, those on the Left (who support groups like Hamas) have not once attempted to justify why a group that openly denies its people fundamental rights and liberties deserves any power over anything. They just get angry like lunatics and scream lame insults like "You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something." They never proffer anything of substance or value. Whatever the case, it is certain that the woke-Leftist would never tolerate a party like Hamas in his/her own society, this is where the contradiction becomes hypocrisy.

This contrasts with the rare Leftist support for Israel. Israeli citizens enjoy many of the same rights and liberties as those in Western Europe and America. In this position, we may need to occasionally justify the betrayal of our Western values, however, ideally in the end, these Western values will triumph through non-Western means, and be extended to traditionally oppressed people of non-Western societies. Someday, we may have a world where there is no necessity for utilizing non-Western means, but until then, we may find it necessary from time to time.

I should add that postcolonialism speaks of Eurocentrism, the history of colonialism, cultural hybridity, and Globalization as being key components of Western Culture.

Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me. — I like sushi

On paper, it is obvious. But in reality, it is a fantasy. The non-barbaric response is long dead at this point. It was tried, and it failed. Diplomacy and half measures will do nothing but guarantee a future October 7th, and if that is to be avoided, Israel is going to have to get medieval. It is unfortunate.

There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception. — I like sushi

Nevertheless, postcolonialism has made a strong case that there is such thing as western culture, and in civilized societies in which western culture reigns, we can say that these belong to Western civilization.

This wording is very particular. — mcdoodle

Israel has something called Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Hamas has something called the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement. The former intends to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Israeli citizens. The latter makes no significant mention of the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people.

What is "particular" about that? :chin:

How is Israel respecting 'the basic human rights and civil liberties' of the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank? — mcdoodle

The people of the Gaza strip and West Bank are not Israeli citizens, hence they are not recognized under the Israeli constitution and are not eligible for its protections. Hamas and PA are responsible for the civil administration of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. I suppose their way of protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people is by embezzling billions in aid and infrastructure meant for civilians...or committing terrorist acts that provoke heavy military responses, and using their own civilians as human sheilds.

Sounds a little ‘barbaric’ though. — I like sushi

It is a shame that innocent and honorable Palestinian civilians are being held hostage by Hamas, and many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages, but that is the hand that has been dealt. It is unfortunate, but sometimes barbarism is the only language barbarians understand. If those savages were civilized there would be every reason to treat them with civility and avoid barbarity. But alas, it is not so, and it would be embarrassingly naive to think otherwise.

‘Subjugate’ how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy? — I like sushi

Subjugate through force of arms, diplomatic means are obviously no longer an option. For the purpose of exterminating all traces of Hamas - for the betterment of the Palestinians that are tyrranized by Hamas, and Israelis too. There is no reason for a group like Hamas to exist.

I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two. — I like sushi

Most likely. It only takes a handful of assholes to ruin things for everyone else.

I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other. — I like sushi

Well, as long as there are nation-states and things beyond human understanding, there will be patriotism and religion.

? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More ‘Western’ than Syria or Jordan? 100%. — I like sushi

Agree. Israel is not a proper Western state as such, but relative to the other states in it's geopolitical region, it falls most in line with the values of the West, evinced by it's generally favorable relation with many Western states.

We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means … that might be a good idea? ... Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself. — I like sushi

The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I would not call myself Left or Right. I do not think many people hold purely Left leaning or Right leaning views on every topic. I would say the same for Liberal and Conservative.

This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem. — I like sushi

I think Left and Right make up a spectrum, which is why there are designations like of center, left of center, right leaning leftist, &c. I agree that no one conforms purely to one side, except for radicals.

I don't think people are choosing which side they are associated with. It is a a byproduct of one's morality and view of human nature, which are difficult for people to change. However, as a category that explains particular political dispositions and opinions, it works perfectly well.

People in Gaza and West Bank and citizens of what nation? How are they treated by this so-called ‘Western Civilisation’? — I like sushi

It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary.

As for people on the left supporting Hamas … there are people on the right who support Nazism. — I like sushi

That is true. I'm not as informed about Nazism on the Right, but I'm sure their position is mired in contradiction as well.

Either way, the ‘left’ vs ‘right’ thing is silly. I hold some views that more liberal and others that are more conservative. I think it makes more sense to say Conservative and Liberal that some distanced term like ‘left’. — I like sushi

Right-Left are general political orientations rooted deeply in one's beliefs on human nature. Despite one's disregard for the category of Right vs Left, nearly every political economic or sociological opinion can be comfortably classed under one or the other, whether liberal or conservative. On the other hand, liberal and conservative are actually political ideologies for designing the state. They are so broad in their reach that they bleed into every other modern ideological system. It's not gospel truth, just political theory, but it explains a lot in many cases.

have no real idea how to define western civilisation either. I know most people everywhere are pretty much the same. The differences accumulate with education. Education is key. — I like sushi

Western civilization is global. It has spread it's influence everywhere, especially when capitalism has driven it, and for both good and bad, but overall for good. Western civilization is any place where an athiest, Trangender, lesbian with different color skin than the local population can visit and voice radically divergent opinions in public, while expecting to be reciprocally respected for simply being a human being, and with no threat of being stoned by a mob and strung up in the streets. Western civilization is also a place that happens to be more or less dedicated to the protection of civil liberties and basic human rights of all the citizens within it's respective sovereignties (ideally). Again, just political theory, not gospel truth.

Western? Not much to speak of here of Western civilisation as far as I can tell. Just another hate vs hate scheme orbiting religious dogmas and bigotry. — I like sushi

Western civilization is relevant if we consider that out of the two, Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens - uniquely Western values. We also see that portion of the Left, which despises everything about the oppressive West, has wholeheartedly sided with Hamas - a group which also despises everything about the West, including the infidels on the Left who support them, and especially Western values like civil liberties and basic human rights that those same Leftists claim to champion. It is rather ironic.

I think it's real too. Leftists have always had a soft spot for oppressed peoples, and Israel, with it's vastly superior military, can't help but come across as a bully. I can see both sides' reasoning, and they both make compelling arguments. — RogueAI

No comparison. Under the original un charter, every sovereign is to govern itself. So why is it that the Palestinian authority has been given its own sovereign land to govern, and done nothing but wreak tyrrany upon its own people, and violence to its neighbors? No excuse.

Does the liberal Left continue to regard "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a legitimate source of scholarship?