I find it quite concerning just how much propaganda the US seems to get from Israel. Where I live there are big billboards around, I regularly see ads on YouTube.
I know propaganda is a thing, but it feels like we are getting more about a foreign government than our own.
I feel like before what is going on now I was aware of some of the groups responsible for this being a thing, but was not fully aware just how much money there was in it those organizations until recently.
Some of the practices are concerning, like I found out recently apparently the Boston police regularly go over to Israel for training?
Regardless of what is going on right now, I don't understand how this much power over the US was ever deemed acceptable?
Weirdest thing about their propaganda is that it seems squarely aimed at older wealthier Americans and politicians. The amount of content produced targeted at anyone under the age of 40 is much smaller and less sophisticated. There's this narrative that Israel is "losing the propaganda war" but I think they're just targeting it towards major stakeholders. We're not the intended audience of the billboard - it's the editorial writer, the business leader, the member of congress (and their staff).
The Israel / Palestine conflict is one of those low-valence issues with the general public where a politician rarely gets punished for voting one way or another with the notable exception of cash lobbying and super PACs for/against a given candidate.
The best part is when it comes from our own "newspaper of record" i.e. with the extraordinarily dubious "mass rape" article the NYT published. They finally dismissed the one Israel-connected reporter who had liked tweets calling for a brutal response against Gaza, but that of course has seen about one billionth the attention that her original claims continue to receive.
You also get stuff like the POTUS repeating lies like "40 beheaded babies" and "a mother and child had kerosene poured on them" with none of the usual media freakout you usually see over "misinformation."
I have struggled to even look at my News app anymore.
Next to articles about the protests or other things, there are the articles about the hostages or something else that just feels like a propaganda piece aimed at one thing.
The wiki article on Media Coverage of the Iraq War[0] is an enlightening read. Most of the same tactics for manufacturing consent that the mainstream media used during the Iraq War are still being used in today's conflicts.
> An investigation by the New York Times discovered that top Pentagon officials met with news analysts where they gave the analysts 'special information' and then tried to convince them to speak favorably about the Iraq war. The discovery was based on 8000 pages of secret information that had been revealed to The New York Times through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The article states that top Pentagon officials would invite news analysts to secret meetings, and urge the analysts to speak positively of the war. Often, the US would give "classified information," trips, and contracts to the news analysts.
> You also get stuff like the POTUS repeating lies like "40 beheaded babies" and "a mother and child had kerosene poured on them" with none of the usual media freakout you usually see over "misinformation."
Yeah. The politicians who repeated this also never apologized for inflaming tensions without any evidence or investigation whatsoever. But anything Israel is accused of, requires thorough investigation by Israel (or sometimes independently - without ever mentioning Israel will not allow independent investigators into Gaza), before we can even think about trusting the people they're killing currently, regardless of affiliation.
And you see that 20 children 15 and younger were killed in total, and out of them 10 by rockets, which starts to paint very different picture. So militants killed 20-36 children depending on how you wish to define a child, out of 1200 people in total. So that's 1.7-3% of killed victims.
On the other hand, you get at least 16 000 killed children by Israel in just the last 8 months. 60 a day at least.
And you can see 10-5 a day individually just scrolling through video posts on telegram https://t.me/eyeonpal/
And we're supposed to think that Hamas are child killing monsters and Israel is not and somehow uniquely righteous. Yeah, right. Just the math alone on this doesn't compute for me, at all.
What if I told you modern forms of propaganda are more sophisticated than the mere blunt force repetition of a single obvious and consistent message? When is the NYT willing to stretch truth and credulity, and when is it not? What is the likely net effect of a world-weary, cynical (and false) both-sidesism as applied to the Israel/Palestine war?
Ah yes, a public company is somehow conducting a super sophisticated and secretive propaganda campaign.
I guess you're not a fan of Occam's razor? The simplest explanation here seems pretty straightforward, and no, it doesn't involve some NYT conspiratorial behavior.
> The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000.
You could copy this paragraph verbatim into Manufacturing Consent and it would fit in perfectly.
They were told to not used those words because they are disputed and not consider facts, pretty sure they can and still use those words in opinion pieces.
Spouting off someone's talking points without verification makes you propaganda. It's just a question on if it's due to an agenda or incompetence. It's one of those.
I agree, but to be a "propaganda outlet" that intent does not need to be by the republisher. If some news outlet is just reprinting garbage without thought they are culpable for spreading someone else's propaganda through negligence.
This line of propaganda is kind of infuriating. Separate from this incident, Israel bombed afaik every hospital in Gaza. They claimed Hamas was operating inside them or under them and produced absolutely zero credible evidence of it. They killed a lot of doctors and patients. But if they start out polluting minds with the claim that one time at the Al Ahli parking lot, there was an Islamic Jihad rocket once, they then by extension use that to imply that Hamas is somehow responsible for all the deaths in hospitals that happen by Israeli hands on every other day.
You are changing the subject, I'm just disputing that NYtimes is Israel propaganda, I'm not claiming anything about the righteousness of Israeli actions.
My personal opinion of NYT is that their record is mixed on the subject.
If you'll allow me to change the subject to one that is less presently divisive to provide an instructive example, NYT's conduct in the lead-up to the Iraq war is a great example of where they acted as a pro-war propaganda mouth piece, and maybe the institution doesn't deserve our total trust.
I don't want to go back and forth because it's off topic for HN. If you have seen images of destroyed hospitals and you're saying this, it seems insane to me. What you're saying is on the level of genocide denial. Ps. My family was targeted by the Holocaust too.
You and I have different definitions. I'm saying they're commiting mass murder in hospitals and you're saying they don't do it with air strikes. So I guess it's good then.
> I'm saying they're commiting mass murder in hospitals and you're saying they don't do it with air strikes. So I guess it's good then.
I didn't say it was good.
This thread was about whether NYT is biased or not, with the specific mention of them incorrectly stating a hospital was bombed. You then said that it's infuriating that people are correcting this and that this is propaganda, because every hospital has been bombed.
There is an actual, objective truth here - have hospitals, and especially have all hospitals in Gaza, been bombed, or not. You can decide it doesn't matter, because bombing a hospital is equivalent to raiding a hospital, that's a valid inference. But:
1. I think the truth matters. It always matters, and it especially matters when talking about something complex and divisive.
2. I think that the reason most people say things like "all Gazan Hospitals were bombed", even though it's not true, is because they know that that sounds worse than stating what actually happened.
I don't know what is more clear-cut propaganda than saying things that are not true to deliberately make the truth appear worse.
Look, I understand we don't agree. I understand you think I'm just nitpicking or something over things that don't matter, just to pretend "no genocide is taking place" or something.
I disagree. I think the truth matters. If you think I'm wrong on the facts, I want to be proven wrong - I've been wrong before, and after I'm shown the truth, I stopped saying the wrong thing. I think that's the basic level any person should operate at - not deliberately saying things that are untrue.
But if you think I'm right on the facts, but they don't matter - then I think we have a very different idea of what's important and what isn't.
The common reporting is that all hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed. I saw that written in mainstream media just today. I've seen it dozens of times. I've seen the word "bomb" used, but I am not an expert in explosives or artillery.
If you deny this, then no, you are not correct on the facts. If you want to split hairs with me about what specific mechanism Israel used to destroy those hospitals, I frankly do not think it matters. But I believe you are likely splitting hairs on that in bad faith as means of genocide denial.
> It seems to me the the NYTimes is trying to be somewhat objective
"Somewhat" is doing some heavy lifting here. The NY Times internal pro-Israeli editorial guidelines were leaked. NY Times is a pro-Israel biased source:
CNN even sends all stories to Israel to be approved/disapproved and/or edited to ensure pro-Israel bias, so I guess NY Times is at least better than CNN:
Israel also has put fear of god into US government officials through their lobby group, AIPAC (the only foreign lobby group of its kind that is not required by the U.S. to register as a foreign agent). While no fan of former president Reagan, he called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a "holocaust" and stopped Israeli atrocities against Lebanon by threatening cutting off US aide. Now all our representatives line up behind Israel in their perpetration of genocide-- especial Biden.
> The real problem here isn't the POTUS repeating some rumour that was going around.
It wasn't “a rumor going around”, it was Israeli state propaganda which both started and continued for a long timw to be pushed by Israeli state organs (official sources like the Foreign Ministry, not just proxies.)
On the other side of town where I live, billboards appeared with slogans like "Be pro-Semitic." This happened almost immediately after the latest conflict involving Israel began. So I can't just be against anti-Semites, but I have to be pro Jewish ethnicity? Interesting. There was also one stating that anti-zionism is anti-Semitic; I guess my Jewish friends and family who are not Zionists didn't get the memo.
I can't prove that these are somehow connected to funding from Israel, but it seemed like these billboards were ready to go at a moment's notice.
As far as why we deem foreign propaganda as acceptable, I like to think that we play dumb about it in part so we can strategically point it out when it is in the favor of politicians and/or elites. Remember how Russian propaganda supposedly got Trump elected even though it was going on during prior years when the establishment insisted on the integrity of the elections? On the other hand, maybe we are just dumb.
> I can't prove that these are somehow connected to funding from Israel, but it seemed like these billboards were ready to go at a moment's notice.
Right, that is what we got in Boston. The timing is just too convenient.
Whether or not it is from Israel themselves or funding here for Israel is kinda a moot point when both have the same purpose: Propaganda for a foreign government.
If there is overwhelming evidence for a claim, it's absurd to smear it as "trope".
So when Nancy Pelosi says: "If the capital crumbles to the ground,one thing that will remain is our commitment to Israel"[0] that's because she has in fact dual loyalty, to dismiss that as "trope" is to dismiss & deny reality.
Some of "our" politicians work overtime for israel's interests and neglect their actual job and obligations towards America.
Do you find it concerning that no presidential candidate can even pass the primary without first kissing the ring of AIPAC? That Zionist lobby openly attacks insufficiently pro-Zionist candidates and then openly brags when they lose elections? With Zionist lobby trying to outlaw any criticism of Israel in direct violation of 1st amendment? Etc, etc. IDK about others, but I think this is insane.
TBH when I said "propaganda" I was grouping a lot of that under that when I should have been more specific.
But that and similar things is what I was referring to with "I don't understand how this much power over the US was ever deemed acceptable".
I remember seeing the articles about them funding the campaign of someone opposing someone else who had been critical if Israel. I don't remember which state or what position, but it wasn't just a one off either.
The MO is basically to try and defeat democrats in primaries who aren't giving carte blanche in terms of spending or support. If their candidate wins the primary, it doesn't matter much who wins the general election, since they have support of R's.
Every single point I made is 100% documented and verifiable. It’s also anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. There is a difference. And even if it were antisemitic (which it is not), I’d be within my constitutional rights as a US citizen living in the US.
You cannot call any criticism of Israel or its hold over US politics anti-semitic just because Israel happens to be Jewish majority. When people criticize the US they aren't automatically anti America, any other country holds the same.
US presidents always visit Israel and cater to it if they want to be elected, it has 0 to do with Judaism or the fact that Israel is founded on Jewish principles.
How do you propose we determine the fine line between the antisemitic "The Jews run the World" and "being critical of their actions"? What would e.g. be the piece of evidence that convinces you that we're dealing with antisemitism and not legitimate criticism?
We shouldn't shut down conversations about Israel with antisemitism but we also shouldn't shut down conversations about antisemitism with "being critical of their actions".
"According to ProPublica, 4 of the top 10 governments lobbying in Washington are Arab, in terms of spending. The United Arab Emirates places first, having spent $10,914,002 in 2007 and 2008. Iraq, Morocco and Saudi Arabia also each spent over $3 million, and the non-Arab, Middle Eastern nation of Turkey also spent over $3 million."
That is the what the article is about and there is something going in involving Israel.
I can't find the article I read a while ago with a graph showing their massive increase in spending, but according to a few articles AIPAC plans to spend $100Million this year.
As far as how to distinguish between them. I really don't think this should be complicated.
Criticizing a government is not criticizing a religion or people.
If I start to attack a religion or to attack a group of people based on those beliefs, then yeah that is antisemitism. Actually having and voicing a problem with jewish people.
A government is not that. We criticize our own government all the time and we are not anti-American (ok, admittedly some do try to make those claims but that's a different story).
yes I will also admit that this got complicated with the protests.
"Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." ...
"Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Because Israel is a Jewish collective then some criticism of it can be and is antisemitic.
One test of whether specific criticism of Israel is anti-semitic or not is to s/Israel/OtherCountry/ and ask yourself whether similar criticism would be made. E.g. comparing criticism of Israel on its war in Gaza contrasted with the US war on Afghanistan or Iraq or the war on ISIS. For example, when the US bombs a hospital in Afghanistan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike ) do we see the ICC issuing warrant for the arrest of the US president and secretary of defense?
This is grasping at straws at an insane degree. If you compare the international blowback the US gets to any other country you are going to have a bad time because it has an extremely unique position in the world.
And even if that wasn't the case, if you argue that pointing at how Israel does godawful stuff is antisemitic, all you are achieving is I no longer care about antisemitism because I'd have to be morally repugnant to justify actions on such basis. Because if you argue that antisemitism is needed to criticize the systematic abuse of a population then my logical conclusion is that antisemitism is sometimes the right thing to do.
Because the original post is about Israel using fake social media accounts to get US representatives to support genocide in Gaza. We’ve literally just passed some laws to _sanction the ICC_ for their daring to say anything negative about Bibi Netanyahu. Does the Arab lobby also have this kind of power? I mean, are you going to seriously argue that this is normal: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/aipac-israel-spendi... ?
I'm not American so I can't comment on US politics but I feel like there's a small difference between "daring to say anything negative" and asking for arrest warrants (without jurisdiction as well). The Arab lobby seems to have plenty of power, e.g. it looks like they managed to make the US stop (or at least pause) shipping weapons to a long time ally that's being attacked and is at war.
AIPAC is a lobbying group of Americans that think the US should have pro-Israeli policies. It's operating within the framework that many other lobbying groups are operating in. It's a large and influential group reflecting the large number of Americans that believe in pro-Israeli policies. I guess it's "normal" in any sense that US politics are "normal". Ofcourse Americans are more than welcome to pass laws to limit the influence lobbyists can have, like many other countries do.
We get it, you’re a Zionist. Just say so outright. I’d like to think, however, that the US paused weapons shipments because Israel uses them to indiscriminately kill women and children, and commit ethnic cleansing of Gaza. I might be wrong on that account, but if I am, that’s utterly indefensible.
No I am not, I am still engaging in the conversation.
But there is very little I can actually say when your response is that it is anti-semitic.
You are no longer responding to what was actually said and instead pivoting it to something else that does not leave anything to respond too since you are not addressing what you are responding too in the first place.
And again you are doing the same thing here, instead of actually trying to have a conversation you shut it down by claiming it is antisemitic. That isn't a conversation, that is a pivot to try to end it.
I also never claimed it did not exist.
Over the last several months I have seen many conversations just end with "that's anti-semitic" because it was any amount of criticism as if we have to accept that and that's the end of the conversation.
Well it's not and shouldn't be, you made a claim and I am challenging it.
> Do you find it concerning that no presidential candidate can even pass the primary without first kissing the ring of AIPAC? That Zionist lobby openly attacks insufficiently pro-Zionist candidates and then openly brags when they lose elections? With Zionist lobby trying to outlaw any criticism of Israel in direct violation of 1st amendment? Etc, etc. IDK about others, but I think this is insane.
Edit: If I can figure out what you are trying to say
Was the person I responding too slightly exaggerating? Sure.
But we know for a fact that a lot of money flows from AIPAC to candidates that support strong ties with Israel. That isn't a secret. Saying that isn't anti-semitic.
If that is not your point, please let me know what it is so I can properly respond.
Then you have a somewhat unconventional personal definition for "propaganda". Almost always people use that word to imply something clandestine, misleading, or both.
What you showed is a paid advertisement from a US-registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, JewBelong, with public accounting on all donations, and a relatively clear mandate for how it spends its money.
Again, you're simply saying that a (really only slightly edgy) billboard paid for by your fellow americans with their own money and aimed at changing your opinion via argumentation should be disallowed as "propaganda" simply because you disagree with it (and again: I disagree with it too!).
Tough love: of the dueling philosophies at play here, yours is by far the most dangerous. Let people argue with you, for crying out loud.
Both very famous pieces of propaganda the US put out during War. Neither of them are misleading. They were put out to encourage people to take an action.
Then maybe cite the definition you're using? And explain why it doesn't fit every kind of opinion broadcasting. Like, are flyers for a protest "propaganda"? Is grafitti propaganda? Is writing an opinion essay propaganda? Hosting a blog propaganda? Where does it stop?
Do you cite a definition for every word you use? Of course not. I am using the definition as defined by Webster and every other source I can find.
I am using it the same way that the pieces I referenced, were also considered propaganda.
I am using the excepted actual definition of Propaganda and there is zero reason to expect I need to define otherwise. That is just not a normal expectation when communicating. You having your own definition that does not follow the accepted definitions of the word with examples, is not my problem.
You also didn't answer my question about rosy the riveter which if we would consider that propaganda (which it is considered propaganda) I would consider the billboards propaganda.
Like, are flyers for a protest "propaganda"? Is grafitti propaganda?
They easily can be. Same with opinion broadcasting. It's not a matter of some strict definition, just whether you prefer a negative connotation with "propaganda" and how you feel about the thing being propagandized given that the negative connotation is the most common English usage.
Generally, Propaganda is used to sway opinion, get action, or similar when people may not be inclined a certain way on their own.
Ask yourself this: if there was not opposition to what Israel is doing right now, would they have made these billboards. Most likely no.
Would Rosie the Riveter happen if there was not a need for Woman in the workforce during the war?
Could keep giving examples, but you get the idea.
There are plenty of examples out there of established propaganda that isn't misleading or negative. It depends on the message they are trying to send and the action they are looking for.
> sway opinion, get action, or similar when people may not be inclined a certain way on their own.
This is tiresome and seems like it's in bad faith. Once more: that's just a definition for "argument". You can apply it to "propaganda" if you insist, but I can only repeat that this is not the way others interpret it.
You don't go around calling your friends propagandists when they try to sway your opinion, so don't do it here just because you dislike seeing billboards by Jewish advocacy groups.
I find it tiresome that I have given you 2 examples of established propaganda, there really is no debate as to whether or not these are considered propaganda, that do not fit your definition and you continue to ignore those.
Yes propaganda tends to be negative, but my point (again with examples to back up my point) is that it does not have to be.
You claim others do not see it that way, but that is obviously not true. Or we would not consider Rosy the Riveter as propaganda. It does not fit your definition.
Ignoring that there are examples of propaganda does not make your definition correct.
The reality is these words are murky, what is the line between advertising and propaganda. and similar comparisons.
But I will die on this hill and it is well established by this point, propaganda does not have to be negative.
Unless you are going to acknowledge rosy the riveter and either explain how that is not propaganda (which for the record you would be in the minority with that opinion) or explain how it was negative or misleading I see no point in continuing this conversation.
The question isn't about your digressions and nitpickery about whatever definition you think I proposed (which I'm ignoring quite deliberately), it's whether a billboard by a non-profit can reasonably be considered "propaganda". And your insistence on digressions instead of defending that (IMHO ridiculous) notion is the part I called "bad faith"
Just stop. JewBelong is a group of your fellow americans and you need to treat them like that and not call them propagandists as a way of dismissing their ideas. Your freakout here is everything wrong with Trumpist america, and I hate it.
Don't know about other countries, but in the Bay Area a bunch of those billboards have been vandalized/edited by non-Zionist Jewish groups.
Anyway, advertising media are antithetical to debate, which presumes approximately equal access to an audience to lay out two or more competing ideas at once. You can't argue with a billboard, you can only rent another billboard, and pretty soon you have billboards everywhere. This is a garbage concept of political discourse.
> Almost always people use that word to imply something clandestine, misleading, or both.
No, propaganda is often quite blatant. Look at the posters from both of the World Wars, depicting US enemies as vicious, inhuman monsters.
Even the “Rosie the Riveter” and Uncle Sam imagery is propaganda.
Propaganda can be any sort of one-sided media used to manipulate public opinion. It doesn’t necessarily have to be banned, but people need to learn more media literacy to recognize it.
> I don't understand how this much power over the US was ever deemed acceptable?
Free speech sometimes applies to things you don’t like. There’s pro and anti propaganda for just about any foreign interest. Some of it’s just more subtle such as recommendations on TikTok.
Ukraine had really obvious pro Ukraine requests for military aid and images of destruction, but quite a bit of pro Russia propaganda was more subtle aiming for people to stay out of it.
With Israel you see some really blatant pro Israel propaganda, but both sides also have a lot of more subtle stuff.
That’s incorrect. There’s zero US laws that make it illegal to boycott Israel.
Open a carwash in Texas and you can put up big posers saying you’re boycotting Israel and the state isn’t going to do crap. There are state laws that prohibit state agencies from contracting such companies, but that’s a different question and only really applies to a small percentage of companies.
If you disagree try and post full text of the actual legislation it’s completely clear what’s going on.
The distinction might seem subtle, but even then it’s not illegal.
Also it’s not every contract between companies and the state. Texas uses 10+ employees companies and 100,000+$ contracts as the minimum threshold before language must be added to the contract during the terms of the contract.
But after signing such a contract the company is still only bound by a contract. Breaking contracts happens all the time it’s not illegal. Excluding Fraud etc it becomes a civil rather than a criminal matter.
It's illegal for any company that works with state agencies to boycott any of our allies.. Israel is a common example because most (all?) countries surrounding it in the middle east try to sneak in Israel boycott terms into every little contract, so it's the most common.
But the same is true if someone wanted to boycott Canada. That company wouldn't be able to work/contract with state agencies.
somebody needs to pay for the billboard, or rent a hall to give a speech, or printing the flyers for your lost cat. How is money not essential to speech? Your proposal is that to support a cause, one should only be allowed to go outside and yell, because that's purer than the corrupting influence of money?
Once money gets involved, you inherently have a commercial interest. What's the ROI?
I personally think people misunderstand to whom "freedom" is granted and defended in the US, it is demonstrably not freedom of the individual, but of the powerful.
free speech is a legal concept, and ROI is not a legal concept; when debts are enforced by courts, they frequently don't even enforce interest as if time value of money doesn't exist.
The nature of the strawman you've stood up to to represent my "proposal" (who knew I had a proposal?) suggests you're not even familiar with the history of the legal debate in the United States surrounding the 1st amendment and political donations. So I guess I would propose you read up on that.
I believe the issue here is how much sway Israel has on the US and how rabid many US politicians are about Israel (to the point where many straight up accuse you of anti semitism if you just criticize the country or their policies)
Also issues like where you are not allowed to refuse to work with Israel if you are an arms manufacturer in the US (but you can refuse to work with the US military). I know that part of that is due to Israel being part of the FMS list but they are also the largest recipient on it...
There's nothing inaccurate about what he said. These laws make it illegal for Americans from boycotting Israel. As an American state employee, organizing a boycott against Israel will get you fired or arrested because allowing it would be breaking the law.
Nope, being illegal means something else. Nobody is going to be fined or go to jail for openly boycotting Israel. An amusement park can boycott Israel, they can say so in big bold letters on their commercials etc, and the state isn’t going to do anything.
Not doing business is something else. States regularly prohibit companies over 500 employees from signing specific contracts, that doesn’t make it illegal to be a company with over 500 employees.
There is an interesting caveat in the law: it only applies to boycotts against u.s. allies that are promoted or imposed by intergovernmental organizations (IGOs)
The moment anybody else in the world stops boycotting Israel then finally Texas citizens will be fully free to boycott Israel
It's a law designed to stop and prevent the individual political speech of US citizens, call it what you will.
My point was that there is a foreign country that has successfully written laws (using a 'model act', i.e. copy-paste) for 38 US states that is not intended to serve the interest of US citizens, but that of the foreign country. I'm not aware of any other examples of that amount of reach by other countries or foreign interests. Maybe petrochemical/energy?
AIPAC is dwarfed in comparison to some other countries in terms of wielding influence. Just look at how much Qatar has spent trying to influence the top universities in the world.
I know propaganda is a thing, but it feels like we are getting more about a foreign government than our own.
I feel like before what is going on now I was aware of some of the groups responsible for this being a thing, but was not fully aware just how much money there was in it those organizations until recently.
Some of the practices are concerning, like I found out recently apparently the Boston police regularly go over to Israel for training?
Regardless of what is going on right now, I don't understand how this much power over the US was ever deemed acceptable?