Current political discourse is insane because it's basically nazis (antisemites) vs nazis (zionists)
me_irl
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
I'd say let 'em fight but that's like the extra-spicy book in the Bible.
Zionists are way more powerful. It's not even close.
Israel might have became Israpel, that still doesn't mean the Jews are running everything (also the Israel project is being pushed by antisemites).
Israel is basically Hitlerland now. Ironic.
Mossad is pretty much behind 90% of everything wrong in the world, because they want to ethnic cleanse the rest of the world.
Not that other bad people would not have taken their place, but they are particulary bad. They could not just let us live in peace anf prosperity.
The number of ZOG comments I'm seeing, even here on Lemmy, is pretty disgusting.
even sometimes in TF2
I understand the historical neo-Nazi ties, but I mean, AIPAC has its fingers in practically every politician. Practically every politician is a Zionist. It follows that the US government is occupied by Zionists, no?
I also am confused by how the article you linked seemingly equates Zionism with Judaism; haven’t anti-Zionists been putting effort into emphasizing that those two things are not the same? Yes, the neo-Nazis often use ZOG and JOG interchangeably. But the recent adoptees of the term do not.
I’ve been hung up on this issue specifically for a few weeks. My belief is that the use of this term does not automatically make one an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi, despite its history. Are you concerned about the rising use of this term radicalizing people into neo-Nazisim?
Also, as an aside, I feel like there’s some disagreement as to what Zionism means. Zionism is the advocacy for a Jewish colonial state in Palestine; my understanding is that if one supports Israel’s right to exist, they are a Zionist. Do you disagree? Last time I brought this up I got downvoted and my comprehension skills were insulted, but I mean it’s literally the first sentence of the linked article.
Please try to engage with this comment in good faith.
What I dislike about it is the infantilising of our own governments and the conspiratorial nature of the accusations. Also, anyone using white-nationalist talking points deserves to be side-eyed untill they prove otherwise
Infantilising: Our governments are quite capable of being shit on their own. Them taking bribes and acting accordingly is not an argument they are occupied. No one says their government is occupied by BP, or Marlborough, it's called 'corruption'. This, I think, is my strongest point. This seeming double standard that when it comes to Zionism they call it 'occupied', but for other forms of bribes it's just corruption. America wasn't labeled 'Russian occupied' while trump was acting in their interests. Our governments are corrupt, not occupied. Corruption not occupation is more explanatory so a better insight of how our governments will/behave/d. You kick out AIPAC, good job you treated a symptom of the disease but America is still sick. Everywhere, in every argument, you'll see people distracting from the Epstein class, zog is merely one of them.
Conspiratorial nature: life isn't as simple as one puppet master pulling the strings. Our governments are a series of individuals acting accordingly, this tendency to over simplify leads people to - gestures at other conspiracies.
I don't think I need to justify why people using white nationalist talking points do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, they deserve suspicion. They can overcome that suspicion, but they deserve it, stop quacking if you don't want people to think your a duck. We can talk about Israel's genocide, and it is a genocide they are committing and we are supporting, without the nazi rhetoric. I encourage anyone to stop using white nationalist tropes, lest they wish to invite white nationalists - see meme
I don't identify as Jewish but am (based on genetic website) 19% Ashkenazi by heritage. As an atheist I used to (mistakenly) believe the conflicts in the middle east were religious in nature and it took me awhile to realize it was about land, power, and oppression. Once I came to that realization a couple decades ago, everything I've seen since has peeled back layer upon layer of false assumptions which I believe are intentionally injected into the public consciousness. For one, I dislike this term antisemitism. The Israelite's were not the only Semitic peoples, and the descendants of those peoples are dispersed primarily in the area of Lebanon and Palestine. A very large percentage of modern Jews on the other hand (like myself) hail from European origins. The genetics have been traced and show that by in large, the Jews who emigrated to Europe were men, and mated with European females before then interbreeding once they had sufficient populations. Point being, I don't think its reasonable to describe anti-Jewish attitudes as anti-Semitic, especially when some of the worst things being done to actual Semitic people are being done BY Jews. Further, and regardless of what you call it, the most damage being done to Jews in the world today is done by the so-called state of Israel. How many more people will be attracted to anti-Jewish messages after baring witness to the horrors inflicted upon the people of Palestine? How much damage does this do to the "soul" of those Jews in Israel? It's not healthy to harbor such evil, its a cancer that attacks outwardly but also destroys itself internally.
So, for me I prefer to say anti-Jewish (just like I would say anti-Islamic or anti-Christian.) The distinction of Zionism I believe is important because there are many Christian Zionists, and as you've mentioned, its Zionists in particular who want to promote the idea that Israel == Jewish and Jewish == Israel. In my mind, I see Zionists as truly anti-Semitic & anti-Jewish.
Hate the state of Israel ≠ Support Nazi
Support Palestine ≠ Support Hamas
Its getting harder to believe that if we could do this to the Thiel's of the world this rhetoric wouldn't disappear.
revolution means more than just killing the enemy
Does it? If a loudspeaker is pushing a madness through its coils that drives animals mad is the solution to change the structure of animal behavior or turn the loudspeaker off so it can never make animals fall to madness again?
look i aint no cowbee and i just woke up, revolution means a lot of things, and it isnt a one and done deal. your analogy kinda masks what youre trying to say so i don't really know where to start.
there are much smarter people than me that have written a greater amount then i ever could, go read their stuff.
edit: oh and to answer your question, yes, revolution means more than just killing the enemy.
And all I said was this rhetoric, I didnt actually believe my big hand squish hypothetical was a real revolution, just that if you could magically do this problems would vanish overnight, not all but surprising ones for sure. Though in 2026, simply murdering billionaires with no other plan is revolutionary.
Yep! This is what Israel understands but pretends not to. I have no issues with Jewish people but I have plenty of issues with Israel.
They have lost the narrative so badly that even the Jews are openly speaking out against them.
I wish I could do this to racists and fascists in real-life.
Kek is one of those words I've never wanted to look up on urban dictionary
Its origins are fairly benign and kind of interesting imo: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kek
Ofc still unfortunate that it's been adopted by obnoxious memelord racists.
It's lol. In the game world of Warcraft it scrambles enemy faction global coms through a Caeser cipher. 4chan adopted it as an in joke.