https://www.972mag.com/ellisons-paramount-tiktok-israel-medi...
From my perspective the situation is that my fellow citizens who would be the most predisposed towards extrajudicial violence that might "bring their politicians to justice" are also the most steeped in propaganda and so end up getting their own itches scratched by that very state organized death and destruction.
There are. Check out No Kings. My smallish "city" has a protest every week, and organizes a larger one every few months. I go when I can. Most people driving by are even supportive.
> general strike
There was talk of this a while back, and I analyzed it at the time - I don't see how it would help. In fact it seemed like it would make our position worse. The regime wants economic destruction, so its cronies can swoop in to pick up the pieces. That's basically the main thing they want, and it seems like a general strike would be handing them even more chaos and destruction on a platter.
> Organizing groups that bring down whatever is left of US-justicias rotten arms on anyone trying to undermine democracy
From what I see, this is indeed happening at the state-by-state level. But it's happening slowly, and the distributedness makes it hard to see. And much of it gets stymied due to a lot of rotten interference by the federal government - they tend to get things moved things to federal court, where many of the judges are regime apparatchiks. And if they aren't, then the rioter in chief goes to work threatening them with stochastic violence.
> Organizing groups that offer support and counceling for any victim of the regime
There is definitely some of this at the grassroots level, but on the other hand it's pretty hard to help someone who has been dragged away to a concentration camp far away.
> Boycotts etc
Boycott who? The problem is all the corpos are basically in on it. I've stopped buying stuff at Home Depot, and now buy that stuff at Lowe's instead. Big whoop! I expect to find out down the line that Lowe's's corpo management is also full of fascists.
> start 40 years ago and don't let the country become this way.
While the issues have been apparent all along, the problem is that the corpo propaganda has been successful at stopping any sort of reform that would have alloed us to address this ahead of time. Glaring meta issues like campaign finance and non-plurality voting are basically opposed by both professional parties, who had been offering us the shit sandwich vs turd torta dynamic for decades.
This really betrays a lack of understanding of the structure of the government in the US. The Constitution, for better and worse, heavily insulates the government from tempestuous public opinion. The framers were readers of greek history who understood that democracy was a condition that a republic could devolve into. They built the system to give the voters the vibes that they had a say in the workings of their government while ensuring that in reality they had no such thing.
You used the term “us” so I’m playing along with that “us” vs. “them” state of mind.
So what exactly do you mean by my own choices? I do take responsibility for my own choices. I've done nothing that majorly supports this war.
What I have done that supports this war: 1. continue to pay taxes and otherwise participate in society. 2. voted for conservative (ie democrat) politicians that might work to oppose the con artist in chief regardless of their general support for Israel (although since we're talking about the Iran War specifically, I don't know if this actually counts)
Meanwhile I have protested, the regime in general not the war specifically. Stand out on a corner, sign, smile and wave. Most people honk in support, but once again what can they actually do? There is of course always more one can do to express opposition. But not working hard enough to oppose something is not the same as choosing to support it.
My point is that the US is responsible for its actions, and can’t excuse itself by claiming to be pushed around by anyone.
Some "really profoundly scary technology" was provided to the Israeli military by Oracle[2].
Given they're really happy to be political[3], this isn't your average 'no politics at work'.
1 - https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3912017...
2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8yo7_Inikg
3 - https://www.ynetnews.com/tech-and-digital/article/h1w11pj11a...
“The violent genocide committed against an unjustly occupied people.”
ftfy
> An anonymous Substack, Oracle For Palestine, written by a group of Oracle employees, claims that that “our leadership’s unquestioning public support for Israel” has led to a failure of the company to address the one-sided political positions taken by top management and the discrimination faced by employees who don’t share the political views of management.
> “In response to legitimate concerns, many of us have been referred to internal mental health resources rather than having those concerns addressed appropriately,” said the group in a post last year.
From a Ctech interview with Safra Catz: https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/t05ji8sue
> For employees, it’s clear: if you’re not for America or Israel, don’t work here
It sounds like internal opposition to Israel is punished at Oracle by systemically discounting their detractors as mentally unwell. You must love Israel at Oracle to avoid this discriminatory action.
The second mentions the US as well. I ask you - should a company want to hire people that are against its home country?
I could only find one publication of someone getting fired in this context, and even that was about this person using the brand logo for their protest as if it was on the company’s behalf. As evidence, none of the other employees participating in the same protest got fired for participating.
Edit: all this is far detached from your claim that you must “love” Israel. At most, don’t recruit the company’s brand to your protest.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
You've just been raised to consider this as "normal". There's nothing normal about it, and if any other new country had started doing this you'd have recognized it for what it is.
Before someone says "all countries do this" - no they don't. Scale matters, impact matters.
"Now I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds..."
not my downvote btw
I am sure no other country could get away with the amount of shit the Israelis pull on a regular basis.
German here. Assuming you're American, that's a rich list LOL.
> aggressively spying on all kinds of US targets incl by placing spy equipment on Secret Service vehicles during visits
The US spies on everyone, including allies as nominally close as Germany. Thanks Snowden for revealing that one. And both the US and Russia are known to use their embassies as SIGINT collection bases.
> dragging the US into wars that don't serve its interests or the interests of its other partners
The US has dragged all of NATO into the mess that Afghanistan ended up being. I might let that one slide because 9/11 was a thing, but a few years later Bush dragged a bunch of other European countries into the mess that Iraq ended up being, and just this year, Trump was pissed that we didn't want to join the fun of bombing Iraq.
> draining US military equipment meant to protect other assets
Trump gave all but zero warning about invading Iran to anyone (well he did toy with the idea, but everyone dismissed it as the usual "deranged madman" brainfarts), leading to everyone (funnily including the US) emptying their entire stockpile of anti-air missiles out of sheer necessity. Millions of dollars just to take a glorified lawnmower on wings.
Israel didn't need to drag the US into bombing Iran. Many parts of the US Republicans have wanted to bomb the Mullahs into submission for decades.
Hint: The lesson was supposed to be that genocide is bad, period. Not that it's ok as long as it is some of the descendants Germany hurt doing it this time.
> The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday granted Paramount Skydance’s request to allow Middle Eastern royal families to hold a substantial stake in a merged Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery.
> Foreign investors, including the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, are slated to indirectly own nearly 50% of the equity in David Ellison’s proposed mega-studio. That will give them a hefty stake in CBS, CNN, Comedy Central, HBO and two historic Hollywood film studios.
So foreign “adversaries” literally own enormous stakes in these companies and have been cleared by the FCC. Yet only possible pro-Israel influence by Ellison gets called out?
1: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20... 2: https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2026/04/15/qatar_is...
Most of the gulf states are pretty much controlled by Zionists at this point anyway, or at least heavily aligned with them.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/paramount-merger-settlemen...
Hypothetically California could have done something to prevent the merger. Then they [Paramount] leave California, as threatened, and then complete the merger.
The Federal government is the entity which needs to be the enforcer of antitrust. Otherwise major companies like these WILL pick and and leave the state blocking them. It's a 111 billion deal - this is worth moving states for the parties involved.
Here's the issue: nothing stops them from leaving the state anyway after the deal is made. The concessions lack any weight. California folded potentially for nothing.
At the same time, this promise to "support labor" falls flat when they have been actively combatting with it for recent years. Their words ring hollow.
And if we're being realistic: this is mostly Newsom trying to cover his tracks and look "strong" for 2028.
$111 billion sheds a lot of gratuity as it moves from one place to another.
The "big deal" is what it does for the shareholders in black & white.
A number of those very major shareholding individuals who have the most to gain have been pushing for a deal forever, and naturally all the retail investors will be entitled to go along for the ride.
But probably a greater number of insiders who are pushing for the deal are not that major of a shareholder or even shareholders at all. Corporate employees who are higher-ups and in accessory corporations like banks and consultants within range, can often be subject to bonuses and commissions anyway which can motivate them en masse much more so than whether they had any nominal amount in their retail portfolio or not. There might even be a legislator or two who stands to gain somewhere along the line, sooner or later.
The number of people who are going to get rich without having to have been opportune shareholders can really make the difference.
The big shareholders were already rich or were going to get richer anyway.
That's probably what the extra $11 billion is for, for everybody else close to the deal, and that's even more incentive for them to expedite.
You can only imagine that one guy negotiated an extra 10% more than a $100 billion deal was worth, especially since the buyers could easily afford it. But then gets 10% of that so he gets a billion, bringing the final total to $111 billion so no other numbers need to be adjusted ;)
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the political spectrum if you believe that establishment democrats will do anything to prevent this.
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/paramount-warner-bros-dea...
Sorry, I don’t follow
The Israeli government didn't need America to join. If they wanted to kill the ayatollah, they could do it alone. If they wanted to denuclearize Iran, every single expert affirmed that it wasn't a realistic goal, no matter how many allies they had. The net outcome of this war is extremely negative for the United States so far, and scott-free for Israel. Defense commentators had been predicting this Iran war manipulation for decades, and warned US policymakers to oppose it as far as they could. Israeli lobbyists now propose US enlistment laws, such is their need for wanton escalation under Trump: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260903-a-proposal-seeks-...
So, what was the goal? For decades, Netanyahu has used the threat of violence and war to secure his position as prime minister. He campaigned for Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, denied any incitement, and then took his place when he was killed. He's ostensibly corrupt and stands accused of manufacturing crises to enable his political support. His administration spends hundreds of millions of dollars rehabilitating his internationally reviled image. I wasn't born yesterday, you can't ambiguate Likud's history of escalation, assassination and manipulation.
My point, which you haven’t addressed, is that the US is responsible for its actions, and can’t blame anyone else for the decisions it makes.
Israel’s decisions are not About the US, and US decisions are not About Israel. I oppose both of these perspectives that you presented.
You can’t reason about this war without discussing energy and China. Yet many people gleefully volunteer their mal informed opinions about geostrategic affairs without addressing the biggest geostrategic factors that have been driving US policy for decades if not centuries.
That's why he said Israel. But good hasbara tactic conflating mention of Israel with "jews", keep it up.
Also, Israel is murdering women, children, lgbtq and attacking our freedom of speech (they also have murdered more journalists than any country in history and will not allow journalists into Gaza), so that's certainly a priority to address, especially since I as a US citizen am made complicit in these actions. The consent for these crimes against humanity was manufactured by the very MSM that Ellison is buying here. It's a move in the wrong direction.
I've said it once. This is the second time you've lied about what I've said in this thread. I don't feel the need to continue this conversation, but here's more background on Ellison (and other billionaires) donations to the IDF:
https://truthout.org/articles/these-billionaires-subsidize-t...
It's not antisemitic to criticize Israel, but this language is verging on antisemitic because Israel very much does not have "direct editorial control" over Skydance. David Ellison is the one with "direct editorial control" and you can certainly say he's "extremely pro-Israel" but he himself is not "a foreign adversary" by any definition of those words. So either you're being hyperbolic with the meaning of "direct editorial control" or you're insinuating that David Ellison will defer to Israel on everything because he's Jewish which is a common antisemitic trope[1]. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, but the latter is enough of a possibility that I would suggest rephrasing this comment to avoid giving supporters of Israel a legitimate line of complaint against your underlying point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Ami_Kadish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite...
https://greydynamics.com/sayanim-jewish-diaspora-mossad-supp...
Larry Ellison:
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/larry-ellison-vetted-marco-ru...
>Larry Ellison Vetted Marco Rubio for Fealty to Israel
Indeed Israeli media covers this also:
https://forward.com/fast-forward/853703/david-ellison-appoin...
>David Ellison appoints Israeli to lead merged Paramount-Warner studios
The same thing happened with the Tik Tok purchase, the entire point of handing control of the Tik Tok algorithm to Larry Ellison was so that they could clamp down on the discussion about the genocide in Gaza. You can see the results of it in the reports that the world Jewish congress put out directly:
>https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/YNN3...
>TikTok is the exception, removing 64% of content overall (and 71% of content formally reported to it), compared to 12–15% on every other major platform.
>you can certainly say he's "extremely pro-Israel" but he himself is not "a foreign adversary" by any definition of those words.
All you're showing is that his family is pro-Israel, but that does not mean they are controlled by Israel. These conversations about Israel always seem to remove the agency on the American end which is where a lot of the historical antisemitic tropes live. Whether it's intentional or not, it's phrased in a way that evokes the trope of a shadowy cabal of Jews pulling the strings behind the scenes, and other countries rarely get talked about in this same way. For example, have you ever heard anyone suggest Google and Microsoft are controlled by India because their CEOs were born in India?
>other countries rarely get talked about in this same way
They actually do, but the Israeli lobby has grown so powerful that it is now dominating most of the political action in the USA in a way that has become impossible to ignore.
There are actually plenty of conversations to be had about Indian ethnic affinity and lobbying. USINPAC is the Indian lobbying organization which is actually modeled after AIPAC (the notorious Israeli lobbying group which has political control over most of the US congress).
There is a looming argument which hasn't yet entered the public mainstream discourse about Indian foreign influence and Indian ethnic nepotism in the United States, but that is an entirely separate conversation.
Most Indian CEOs are the same caste (Brahmin) and there is a good argument that many of them have been nominated by the boards of their companies and institutional investors with large stakes so that they can navigate India's notorious bureaucracy and deepen ties to the country, which supplies much of the cheap labor for the tech industry. Many of them have direct ties to the Bharatiya Janata Party in India and can use the access to people like Modi to access more Indian labor as well as build more in India. Modi talks openly about exporting human capital and using its diaspora to wield influence in the United States. One can argue that they are taking a cue from Israel here.
>Narendra Modi urges the Indian diaspora to become an extension of foreign policy
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/narendra-modi-...
Yes it was. My comment was directly in response to someone saying "it's scary how much US media a foreign adversary now has direct editorial control over". I know that was not your argument, but it was someone's argument and I responded to refute it. I don't know what point you thought was being discussed, but it's now clear you misread the conversation.
If you want to split hairs between "controlled by Israel" and "controlled by people who's sole interest is supporting Israel", go ahead.
>But we have to fight with the weapons that apply to the battlefields with which we engage, and the most important ones are on social media. And the most important purchase that's going on right now is? Tik Tok. Number One.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3tdrO8bA7rs
Later, control of the Tik Tok algorithm was given to Larry Ellison and they immediately used it to clamp down on discussion of the genocide in Gaza (as well as any other types of discussion they deem "antisemitism").
Now Larry Ellison's son has been given control of all these other media companies and has appointed an Israeli to run things.
This is DIRECT evidence of Larry and David Ellison working directly with the highest levels of a foreign government to manipulate public opinion on behalf of that foreign government.
Obviously Larry Ellison had met with Netanyahu, or with someone in the Israeli government, and discussed the details of this deal. If the government of Israel can ask a citizen in a different country to do something on their behalf, that is a form of control.