Agree with this outside of those opposing genocide being labeled as antisemites.
That’s because non of you truely only criticise genocide
There’s always some other crap or implication attached
Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying… calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn’t see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I’ve been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around “Zionist” are just as obnoxious as people slinging around “antisemite.” The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
Is Zionist not a neutral term?
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting asside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel “The Turner Diaries” for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term “Zionist occupied government” (ZOG).
The word Zionist in “Zionist Occupation Government” is used to equate being Jewish with the ideology of Zionism, depicting Zionists as conspiring on behalf of Jews and Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory
And when Hamas leaders use the term Zionist, then they mean Jews more often then not either.
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel’s statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there’s a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.
Sadly he joined the GOP.
While I may like the sentiment, his actions are contrary to it.
Perhaps have a look at what he achieved instead of the label he achieved it under. His policies were pretty far removed from what you would expect from a Republican.
Then maybe he shouldn’t be registered with a party that’s against all his values.
He’s a Republican because he fell for the Reagan bling, he’s said multiple times he got in it for him. I think he never really understood what that actually meant, and he did side with leftist ideas more often than against, and he did do a bunch of things that are more leftist than he understands, but he still had some pretty entrenched ideas of what a Republican is that he never managed to question despite having reality shoved in his face, so he’s still a Republican by religion and lack of reckoning of what that really does.
Imagine this, though: Imagine the above comment was made by a conservative, upset at AOC, a deeply progressive politician, for joining the Democratic Party, a group that supports Israel and tends to work quietly against universal healthcare.
It’s sometimes poor logic, but people do successfully cherry pick reasons to feel the same about the Democrats - fans of progressives especially.
It’s not a very good analogy. AOC has two choices in American politics: Democrat or Republican. She may not be a perfect fit for the Democratic Party, but she’s significantly closer to them than she is to the Republican Party (even before MAGA).
Schwarzenegger had the same options. He would have fit fine in the Democratic Party, but he, for whatever reason, chose the Republican party; a political party that has been overtly racist for as long as any of us have been alive.
Maybe he had some good reason to throw his support behind the Republican party pre-MAGA, but it is still a valid criticism that he made that decision.
Valid, but I have to admit, it’s not a very useful criticism. What’s he going to do; time travel back and prevent himself from making that decision?
Part of my point is, I think everyone has had “romantic, classical notions” of what their party used to represent, and defer to that notion when considering which party a good person should join.
For Democrats, that involves protecting minorities, a strong government, etc. For some Republicans, it’s about more state-level government, and strong businesses. The wishful often want to believe it’s just those - that racism isn’t built into that party, only “protecting the border from criminals”.
And if you look way back in history, there are “hints” to that too - Lincoln freeing the slaves, Reagan welcoming immigration to strengthen the economy. They’re not true anymore, of course, just as the Democratic Party won’t lift a finger for anything that stands against Israel, or could actually pass universal healthcare. But I could imagine an older guy like Arnold remembering that image when he signed up. Maybe to some degree there’s a Code Geass’ Suzaku style of “The only right way is to change them from the inside!” thinking.
Decidedly have no love for the GOP, but he was a politician in a time where the GOP was immensely different from what it is today, and the focus of the party was not overt bigotry and absolutism. Iirc, he was also talked about as a bit of a black sheep during the Bush Jr.-era GOP politics, but I might be misremembering things based on my own impressions from that time.
The GOP in 2016. “We can’t have Hillary as President. The world will laugh at us!”
The GOP in 2016. “Who cares what anyone thinks of us?? USA! USA!! USA!!!”
The GOP back then when Arnie joined was more socially progressive and actually fiscally conservative. This was the party that allowed more migrants in the 1980s, and courted Muslim voters in 2000 presidential election by tapping into the mostly immigrant Muslim’s entrepreneurial spirit-- and it worked. I won’t vote for any conservatives because I inherently disagree with them on economics and I am not religious, but 2000’s GOP is the kind of conservative that I identify as conservative.
“socially progressive and fiscally conservative” is and always has been a copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people’s lives, but dont want to be yelled at for it. Its the “thoughts and prayers” group.
copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people’s lives
Well they are called conservatives for a reason. Because they value “conserving” whatever it is.
He’s referring to people who claim to be “socially progressive and economically conservative” because those two concepts are diametrically opposed
Because those who are “socially progressive and economically conservative” are operating from the classical liberal sense of personal freedom and freedom from government control on the market. Liberalism and capitalism are progressive ideas when they first came out, as these ideas were opposing the aristocratic hierarchy and government control of economy to turn profit (mercantilism). Now, with aristocracy pretty much gone, personal liberty is practically non-questionable, and free market is widely adopted, these are given and hence became “conservative” in the modern sense.
Notice that everyone who claims to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative still always votes Republican. It’s basically their way of saying “I don’t personally want to kill all gay people, but would gladly vote for politicians who do if it means I might get a tax break.”
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
The GOP glorifies personal responsibility while making sure that individuals without wealth have little to no power.
He forgot to say MAGA are losers didn’t he?
Iirc, I think I remember this speech of his. It was about magas and telling them to go the fuck home, shut the fuck up, and grow up. Basically trying to Daddy them and tell them to stop acting like the losers they are.
IIRC this is from quite a while ago, I’m not sure but it might even be from before 2016.
It was specifically about that movement getting big. Like, around the years following the period where some guy in a car ran through an anti-far right protest and killed a woman, and where a neo-nazi protest marched through a town with tiki torches. This was about them.
MAGA is losing, they haven’t lost yet like the Nazis have.
The Nazis didn’t lose, they are still here and going strong. They are called maga now, or just republicans
Weren’t the allied powers a movement joined together in their hatred of Nazis?
No, joined together because of them all being threatened by Nazis.
Don’t forget, the Soviet Union was totally fine with the Nazis marauding in Eastern Europe until they started invading their territory. Only after that, they decided the Nazis had to go.
That’s very reductionist. I’m no tankie but you have to admit the soviet leadership were no bad strategists. They were well aware that there would be war and they needed every bit of time to build up their heavy industry to be prepared. Without the masses of tanks they had by 1941, the soviet union wouldn’t have stood a chance.
And acting as if the Western Allies were any better is quite laughable. They were acting out of pure self-preservation as well, not for some great ideals or honor or something.
Nah Nazism was totally fine and even applauded until they started expanding and were going to pose a competition problem for established capitalists. The allies won because they had the common interest of crushing a competitor that would cost them profit and power. The axis lost because the 3 of them were empire building and didn’t have common interest beyond “don’t fight over the same stuff. Maybe help each other?”
The axis lost because the 3 of them were empire building and didn’t have common interest beyond “don’t fight over the same stuff. Maybe help each other?”
I think this is probably the best response. The allies wanted to protect the status quo including their own colonial empires. There was talk of “self determination”, but that did not apply to their own colonies.
Here is a list of British Colonies, Protectorates and Dominions in WWII
When Japan attacked the US, they were actually attacking their colonies of Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island and Wake Island.
There’s a picture of a young Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth) being taught by her uncle, the then King, how to make a NAZI salute.
At least the British upper classes actually liked NAZIsm, they only started having a problem with NAZIs when Hitler invaded Poland.
More broadly, the white supremacist ideas have always been appealing in Britain - even Churchill himself committed a Genocide in India years before he became PM and the Battle Of Britain. Certainly a continued love for such ideas would explain Britain’s posture even since: unwaveringly supporting Pinochet in Chile, the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and right now the Zionist Genocide in Palestine.
At least for Britain their relation with NAZIs wasn’t hate, it was mainly geopolitics and actual fear when Hitler blitzed through France and ended up on the other side of the Channel from Britain.
Don’t get me started on the US: from the NAZI movements in the US to how long they kept selling to both sides (famously IBM supplied the computer systems used to manage the Holocaust), only turning against the Axis and entering the War after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
And then there’s of course how Stalin actually had a pact with the NAZIs until Hitler broke it and invaded the USSR.
Yeah, when you consider a nationals an entity sure, but pretty sure the hundreds of thousands in the trenches and their families back home had a pretty solid hatred for nazis
No?
Britain and France declared war in Germany on Sept 3, 1939.
This was triggered by Germany invading Poland. The USSR and Germany signed a pact and Britain signed a pact with Poland in response. When Germany invaded Poland, Britain had to respond.
Before this, Britan, France and Italy signed a treaty with Germany which basically let them have Sudetenland??. This is an example of appeasement. There was no appetite for war after WWI. People were kind of hoping Hitler would just chill tf out of they gave him some stuff, including permission to re-militarize. LMAO.
Italy wanted to take advantage of the war to gain territory, so they linked up with Hitler. They were also colonizers in Africa (along with Britian, Germany, France) so fighting happened there too. Italy’s war in the Balkans got Britain to respond (gotta protect the oil!) which then got Germany involved.
Other aggressions that were largely ignored but the allies:
- Japan invading China
- Italy invading Abyssinia (Ethiopia and Eritrea).
Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941. And that point the USSR joined the Allies with the Anglo-Soviet agreement.
For some reason the US was taking part in the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) months before they entered the war?? The US and China didn’t enter the war until December 1941, but this was because they were attacked by Japan. The US declared war on Germany and Italy a few days after they declared war on Japan, the did so after Germany and a Italy declared war on them.
I’m not an expert or even really an enthusiast, so this is pretty simplified. If I want to take it a step further I would say the war was about protecting empires (including colonies), more than opposition to Nazis.
MAGA/GOP? Losers. Zionists? Losers.
And yet they cause incomprehensible suffering. We must stop them now.
I wouldn’t say either of those groups are losers right now as they control the most powerful government on earth right now.
So Israel is a loser then.
No, he means weak like the weak diaspora ‘jews’.
he also endorsed orban before election. he can fuck himself.
On his final day in office, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “announced in an executive order signed on December 31, 2010, that he had commuted Nunez’s sentence from 16 years to seven years. Back-room dealings were apparent.”.
Just swinging through to say fuck Schwarzenegger.
I remember the comments in that video. Dog whistle after dog whistle
Whatever your views on him as an actor or his political affiliation, you should watch the original speech in its entirety, rather than keep this soundbite in and of itself and hijack its meaning. It’s also worth noting this was recorded in early 2023, so a lot of things have changed since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I think it’s a powerful message and well delivered. Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed. And all around the world, as more of these populist movements rise or have risen.
as an actor
Schwarzenegger may have had a very specific niche he fit within as an actor, but when he worked within that niche he was excellent. If you look at Conan the Barbarian, it should not have worked as a movie, and yet it absolutely does, and no small part of that is his acting. Dude can smolder stoically. Terminator, T2, Running Man, Total Recall, Predator, they’re all excellent uses of his very specific type.
Then jump ahead to True Lies and Last Action Hero, where he’s arguably at his height of fame, and he makes basically a couple of parodies of his acting persona, during a time when action heroes were largely taken much more seriously than they are today, and he nails both of those roles, too.
Sure, he’s got a bad habit of trying to make movies he maybe shouldn’t have, and yeah, he’s always a huge muscly Austrian with a thick accent, but I think he might be the best Western action star who’s ever lived.
As a person or a politician… ehh… could be a lot worse.
Hes a really great example of what you can achieve when you put literally all your time and energy into one thing. Gotta give him credit.
Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed.
Yeah, well, the people who need to hear it wont because of algos.
That’s what no leaders seem to get. Twitter or YouTube is shouting into the void.
Not that I have a good solution for someone like him.
I dont know how true this is but i also heard his dad was a nazi(not all that uncommon in austria…) and he basically based his worldview on being a better person than him and helping people who nazis hurt. He also got a lot of shit and got called gay for bodybuilding by his dad and basically single handedly redeemed the sport so id say he was successful.
decrepit clueless sexual abuser tells pedophile cult not to be antisemitic while not understanding its not the same as STOP HOLOCAUSTING
he is a deep, deeply stupid human
Well alright could you please also forward that note to the genocidal child killers that are ranzig Gaza and Lebanon?
I really don’t want more antisemitism but that’s not something I can control as Israel itself is currently the biggest driver of antisemitism in the world
Also they’re apartheid by definition.
Then why are you a Republican?
Because he immigrated to the US after hearing a speech from Reagan and promptly went from having almost nothing to starting his own business and becoming a multi-millionaire before he got into acting. He’s what the Republican party used to advertise itself as. He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
Ok but why is he republican today?
Because he’s old and he’s always been a Republican.
Now he just hates brown people. It’s the circle of life.
Because the dem primary in CA would have been too crowded. Same reason Bloomberg ran as a republican his first NYC mayoral election. As a republican he could get to the general election uncontested. They’re both independent types, it was just easier to win as a republican than an actual no party Independent. And if they had run as Democrats they would have been blue dog clinton conservative democrats. (IIRC Bloomberg did run as an independent when he could run as an incumbent.)
He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
Ahh finally an analogy my Lemmy brain can understand.
Wow brave. \s
