Footer Pages


Zionists, Anti-Zionists & Anti-Zionist-Zionists


Linguistic and Possibly Anti-Semitic Considerations…

Paul Eisen, elsewhere on deLiberation, objects to the use of such terms as zionists, anti-zionists, and anti-zionist-zionists (AZZs) on the grounds of their imprecision, seemingly confusing connotations, and their effect of simplified sloganeering. His arguments can be read here.

Gilad Atzmon objects to the use of the term “zionism” as applied to any current Jewish ideology because he considers it an anachronism, a term whose “sell by” date has expired once the original express goal of zionism —  the creation of the state of Israel — has been attained.

Nevertheless he uses the term anti-zionist-zionist (AZZ) not by way of contradicting himself but as an ironic denial of the claim of today’s “anti-zionist” Jews, who are the exponents of Jewish power and act in ways meant to appear adverse to the state in Israel as long as their actions are not seriously threatening it.

It is understood by those who have read Gilad Atzmon that AZZs represent the “greening” (not Gilad’s term but mine) of the Palestinian movement by the Jews who freely state that their presence in the leadership of the movement is essential to “kosherize” it, i.e., the defend it from accusations of anti-semitism.

The dispute over the appropriateness and accuracy of the term anti-zionism resembles to some extent that over the term anti-semitism, whose critics object that

  1. the Ashkenazim are not Semites and/or
  2. that the term never extends to signifying animosity against Semites like the Arabs.

I have forgotten most of what I once learned in linguistics, but clearly remember this: nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, decides the ultimate fate of a word in any language, except usage.

Linguists, historians, or etymologists can write more books than you can shake a pencil at and pull their hair out by the roots, they may implore, beg, threaten, ridicule, all to no avail. They cannot stop a word from being consecrated into misuse or altered usage by the unshod and underschooled majority of users.

Who uses nowadays the word “cynic” in its original meaning? How would the Epicureans feel about their philosophy having been debased to mean more or less the life-style of people inclined to gorge themselves? I guess hoi polloi has not been tread heavily enough and, through misuse, is still hovering in between two complete opposites. It would not be surprising at all to see it stabilize in English in the wrong meaning, contrary to the original one, simply because “hoy” sounds similar enough to the English “high.”

“Zionist” may have denoted at one time to the whole world a person supporting the creation of the state of Israel. It may still mean that and only that to Israelites of Gilad’s generation and younger.

Nevertheless the rest of the world is still made up mostly of Goyim due to the inability of the laudably fertile orthodox Jews in settlements to overcome the huge headstart of the Chinese and Indians. For them, by observing the usage,  a zionist is a supporter of Jewish power and/or of the state of Israel (too bad for the AZZs, they get no breaks). Why is that?

Perhaps it is because the general sense of most people is that the self-declared anti-Jewish power zionists and the anti-Israel Jewish power-friendly Jews are both either hypocrites or supporters of one, the other or both in effect if not necessarily by conscious intention, their seemingly judicious and objective criticism of either notwithstanding.

To the majority of speakers who use the terms zionist or AZZ, Israel and jewish power are in final analysis inseparable.

The rejection of such terms, which Paul calls “labels,” or their acronyms, would be reasonable, paradoxically, only if the analysis and deliberation he proposes instead would in the end result in new terms, labels and acronyms.

Unfortunately language is like that: it demands names for the objects signified. In my garden I don’t have a deciduous, sometimes semi-deciduous member of the Ulm genus found in temperate and occasionally tropical mountainous regions that may or may not harbor acomycete microfungi that will eventually kill it. I just have a bloody elm.

Perhaps soon “zionist” will come to be an even more comprehensive term, signifying a supporter of any aspect of jewish political culture considered nefarious by the Goyim. Israel seems to make efforts to expand the term in that direction.

Perhaps it will come to mean “any Jews except those I know personally and can vouch for and not further than I can throw them.” Jews in the US, UK and western Europe act as if they, too, would like the connotation of the term maximally expanded.

Conversely, perhaps the Jews, the smartest people in the world by their own reckoning, and the heads of almost all Ethics departments in American academia, will rise up (make that soon, please) and accomplish a revolution in Jewish culture of such magnitude as to change the dictionary (and popular) definition of the word zionist. It may be: “a Jewish exponent of the movement of humanist ethics and universalism at the beginning of the 21st century.” Inshallah!

© deLiberation

68 Responses to Zionists, Anti-Zionists & Anti-Zionist-Zionists

  1. who_me July 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm #


    is it possible to combine this article from Ariadna Theokopoulos with the Zio-ghastly one before it by Paul Eisen? perhaps by placing one after the other in the heading? they are both excellent discussions about aspects of the same subject, from what i can see. much of what can be discussed about each aspect covered by these two articles can be discussed about the other, why not have the discussion all in one place so we all wont have to jump back and forth between articles?

    • deLiberation July 23, 2012 at 8:28 pm #

      Nice idea but no.

  2. Paul Eisen July 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    I don’t object to the words ‘zionists, anti-zionists, and anti-zionist-zionists’ being used on account of their imprecision. I worry about them being used imprecisely.

    But if we all want to agree that a Zionist is just a general Jewish pain-in-the-arse and we don’t see the need to distinguish between one kind of pain-in-the-arse and any other kind – that’s fine with me.

  3. Lasse Wilhelmson July 23, 2012 at 8:20 pm #

    The end of Jewishness and other forms of supremastic tribalism? I think there is a long way to travel. And first we have to crush the head of the snake.

  4. Lasse Wilhelmson July 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    There are no concepts thar are “clean”. They are always disputable and changes simply becaus the language is only an approximation of what we se and feel out there and put words on to communicate::

    ” Judaism, Jewish mentality and Zionism are conceptions with fluid boundaries. They are connected but must at the same time be kept apart. This is because of the diverse opinions amongst religious Jews about Zionism, and because the number of non-Jews influenced by Jewish mentality and Zionism is much bigger than the number of Jews. Modern research has shown that Jews are neither a homogenous ethnic group or a people in the common meaning of the word, but rather, instead, a scattered group held together by a common tribal mentality and religious rules (Halakha) that give guidance as to how matters stand with non-Jews (goim) who, in this context, are considered less than human.”

    And of course Paul, we try to be precice, but “times are a changing”.

  5. Ariadna Theokopoulos July 23, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    “I don’t object to the words ‘zionists, anti-zionists, and anti-zionist-zionists’ being used on account of their imprecision. I worry about them being used imprecisely.”

    I thought you did just that Paul:

    1. “I found Gilad’s “Anti-Zionist Zionist” a ‘poor description’.”

    2. “I also think the term is inaccurate.”

    3. “And this brings me onto my second reason why I dislike the term
    It, and its even worse abbreviation of ‘AZZs’, is just one more slogan.
    “We need properly developed ideas – not soundbites.”

    Properly developed ideas end up expressed in words and words may be used as “soundbites.” Only silence is sufficiently and uniformly ambiguous although some will say it speaks for itself and they try to interpret it this way or that way.

  6. fool me once... July 24, 2012 at 1:19 am #

    “It, and its even worse abbreviation of ‘AZZs’, is just one more slogan.”
    Would you be comfortable with a more precise acronym, as…
    “But if we all want to agree that a Zionist is just a general Jewish pain-in-the-arse”
    …would require a J to step out of that AZZ and create JAZZ. Now that’s gonna cause serious grief for Gilad. Can you imagine the myriad of perceived contradictions to avoid, so as to convey precisely, his love and hate relationship with JaZz?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

      JAZZ stands for
      Jazz Artists Zap Zionism

  7. Sarah Gillespie July 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm #

    This thread brings to mind Simone Weil’s succinct description of language being ‘at once indispensable and inadequate’.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm #

      well observed

    • who_me July 24, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

      “language being ‘at once indispensable and inadequate’.”

      have you ever had someone hand you a box of matches and ask you what it is? then after you answered, the person, as a way of replying on whether they thought your answer was correct or not, retrieved the box of matches from you, took a match from the box and used it to scratch an itch in that hard to reach place between the shoulder blades?

      that probably doesn’t make much sense… 🙂

  8. who_me July 26, 2012 at 10:48 pm #

    quote of the day:

    you jews are like skipping records

    (a response to a hasbarat) 😉

    perhaps calling the various zionists, jp, associated wannabees and mysterious lookalikes “skipping records” might be workable?

  9. etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 8:06 am #

    “I have forgotten most of what I once learned in linguistics, but clearly remember this: nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, decides the ultimate fate of a word in any language, except usage.”

    here Ariadna’s text accidentally triggered the trip-wires of my anti-reductionist sensors.


    “I have forgotten most of what I once learned in nutritional studies, but clearly remember this: nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, decides the ultimate fate of a food in any culture, except diet.

    reductionism is a widely-used rhetorical device, which may be regarded as a subspecies of the persuasive definition.

    reductionism reveals its presence by the occurrence of keywords/phrases such as just, merely, only, merely, in the final analysis, nothing more than, when you get down to brass tacks, when we have eliminated all unverifiable claims, when we have starved, strangled and beaten to a pulp all the soft toys which tender-hearted fools clutch to their breasts, if i take my kid gloves off and really go for your jugular … these form a progression, but merely represent the sequenced phases of transformation we observe as a mild person gradually morphs into the Incredible Hulk. they are collectively intended to convey an impression that i am not well-disposed to reductionist rhetoric, without wishing to deny it some small role in intelligent discourse.

    an amusing metaphorical example occurs in the song cock-eyed optimist

    i could say “Life is justa bowl of jello

    despite the sentimental context, this <South Pacific reference is central to the pragmatics of reductionism used as tool in ideological debate.

    at least in my own experience, by far the largest category of reductionistic utterances occur in a context where the writer is arguing for one of those subspecies of philosophy known to their opponents as soul-less materialisms



    a spiritual philosophy is merely a failed attempt to counter the wholly convincing rhetoric of reductionism.


    male sexual arousal is an acidulated itch


    a word is absolutely nothing whatsoever, at any time, in any conceivable context, more than a certain arrangement of letters.

    when a highly intelligent contributor resorts to reductionism, i experience a sense of shock.

    ultimately reductionistic language is no more than a method of pissing on an idea, using words instead of urine.

    to elevate usage to the position of High Arbiter of Truth is unworthy, and certainly unwise. at some point this spills over into conscious disingenuity.

    what determines usage? is all usage praiseworthy?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

      Bullcrap, eto.. etc
      The kind of bullcrap I have a weakness for: pretentious bullcrap.

      Your comparison food blah-blah diet is nonsensical. It’s simple:
      USAGE is the traffic, the volume of traffic by those that use that word in a certain accepted definition. Like a path in the forest to get from A to B that is the most trod on. It is one taken by most walkers even if some would argue that t was not the “original”path.
      “Epicurean” did not mean what it does today to most people (other than philosophy students) but USAGE by most people over time in a narrowed and even to some extent falsified meaning has consecrated it. Deal with it, purists.
      Who determines usage? Hoi polloi does. Who determines the exact trajectory of a stampede? Lexicographers and grammarians may fight the stampede but invariably they lose.
      It is nonsensical to ask if it is praiseworthy. It just IS.
      If you wish to communicate you have to follow accepted CURRENT definitions of words or else you have to explain them by long footnotes every time you open your mouth.

  10. Jonathon Blakeley July 27, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Persuader words are another often used rhetorical prop. Naturally, obviously, clearly… In the end words are just strings of letters whose meaning can be argued over at length, but at the end of the day, in the the final analysis, when all things are considered … does one have a valuable message and does one have any style to deliver it and it be absorbed and understood.

    Ariadna has good style, but was her rhetorical gaff conscious of unconscious. Maybe she was just baiting us…

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

      What gaffe?

      • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 12:42 pm #


  11. etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm #

    i do have a genuine beef here, which i would like to attempt to articulate more clearly. however, it might be better, first, to allow Ariadna the opportunity to explain the sense in which the bold-type words are used in the following two citations, which, at a superficial level, appear somewhat contradictory.



    I guess hoi polloi has not been tread heavily enough and, through misuse, is still hovering in between two complete opposites.

    nothing, decides the ultimate fate of a word in any language, except usage.

    (my emphases)

    is misusage a species of usage? or is there some secret observer who classifies our utterances on the use/misuse axis?

    even if there were, it is an unfortunate fact that we remain the mere fallible users of a language still languishing in a lamentably non-ultimate condition.

    i will, however, give a clue to my drift: that it is easy to adopt a very oversimplified view of both use and meaning of words. every language has many registers, which suit different social groups, and different occasions/purposes.

    take, for example, a term relevant to our debates on deLiberation, the (certainly ‘clever’) coinage zionazi. i am happy to hear what others have to say on that one, as that might hopefully illustrate the point i just made more clearly than further clumps of male bovine faeces from my keyboard.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 4:37 pm #

      OK, here it is:
      MISUSE. It happens more often with ‘neologisms’ and words imported from other languages. I gave the example of hoi polloi because it is the most extreme example – a word that gets to mean the opposite of its original connotation. The term means ‘the riff raff,’ ‘the demos,’ ‘the common people,’ and it was used like that until some Anglo-Saxons came along and started using it to mean the high and mighty (I suspect because the sound similarity between ‘hoi’ and ‘high’). That is a misuse. It has not not caught on. Yet. But since it is not a “high-traffic” term it may take a while before it stabilizes its generally accepted meaning in English. Needless to say no Greek would use it to mean ‘aristocracy.’
      ULTIMATE. Yes, many words do eventually become ossified into a stable definition, especially words that become part of the BASIC VOCABULARY (like be, have, go, dream, eat). Even neologisms become part of the basic vocabulary if the technology is durable: e.g., to telephone, and if the technology falls into dessuetde, they retain only their metaphorical meaning, e.g., to telegraph (an intention).

      3.”every language has many registers, which suit different social groups, and different occasions/purposes.take, for example, a term relevant to our debates on deLiberation, the (certainly ‘clever’) coinage zionazi.”

      There are two issues here: (1) stylistical level (e.g., wonderful/splendid vs nifty/awesome/groovy or disgusting vs shitty, etc; and (2) slang. I am sure I don’t need to elaborate on stylistic level, since I assume we all know that is precisely the function of synonyms: to provide a stylistic choice.
      So on to slang.
      That is, believe it or not, a whole separate subdiscipline of linguistics, the study of slang. Argots/slangs are in a way exclusive clubs of the language, characterized by (1) cryptic expression (at least initially) accessible to members only; colorful or euphonically expressive form; intrinsically ephemeral existence (they die out or enter the general vocabulary, to be replaced by others in group slang). They arose and continue to appear out of a need for defined social groups to share an exclusive mode of reference. Initially they are cryptic, understood only by the select users. There is the argot of thieves, just there is “bureaucratese” or medical jargon.
      Emergency rooms are famous for their slang: “we have a spurter (hemorrhage) in #3″ and a lunger in #4.”
      deLib is a club in its own way, or perhaps a wing of a larger anti-zionism club. It is not surprising that it uses slang. A quick references to concepts the “members” share if not in agreement, at east in understanding.
      ZioNazi is a slang term. My conviction is that, contrary to what Paul says, the intention of this slang slur is not to disparage Nazis/Germans but to use “Nazi” knowing it is the worst and most hurtful addition to “zio” for the jewish person at the receiving end.
      Is it too “oversimplified” for you, e..etc?

      • Paul Eisen July 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

        No, the intention may not be to disparage Germans, but the style comes from a lefty, sixties culture for whom ‘the Nazis’ were the ultimate in evil.

        I suppose, although the taunt of ‘Nazi!’ is in many ways, very fair to throw at a Zionist, I do prefer a more polite form of attack.

        I suppose the thing is, I believe that when the very rightful confrontation with Jewish power comes, it won’t come from nice folks as on deLiberation, but from the mob. And, although I believe a confrontation of some kind is necessary, at the same time, I fear it – and ‘zio-nazi’ has that mob feel to it.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

          “the style comes from a lefty, sixties culture for whom ‘the Nazis’ were the ultimate in evil.”

          That could be but if so it has not changed in the West more than a generation later, fed by the MSM and entertainment industry, although the young people today do not resemble the young generation of the 60s in anything (except youth). “Nazi” continues to be the worst slur and — for the purposes of combining it with the prefix ‘zio’ — the worst slur to throw at a zionist.
          If and when a confrontation comes words will contribute less than you think.

          • Paul Eisen July 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

            “If and when a confrontation comes words will contribute less than you think.”

            You don’t have to tell me that.

            There must be a confrontation but I want it to be firm, intelligent and peaceful – some hope!

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

            “There must be a confrontation but I want it to be firm, intelligent and peaceful – some hope!”

            I am not a historian but just from what I learned in school I don’t recall ANY confrontation on a large social scale that was intelligent or peaceful. There was one that I know of that STARTED that way: the Tupamaros in Uruguay, called by some the most sophisticated, peaceful and intelligent revolutionary movement. AT FIRST.
            During the dictatorship they would go to the exclusive dancing clubs of the superrich, burst in scaring the daylights of the well-healed who expected to be robbed or worse and all they did was to spray paint their social protest message on the hall mirror “O Todos Bailen, o Nadie Baila” –Either Everybody Dances or Nobody Dances.” They did some Robin Hood acts–robbed banks (no violence) and distributed the money to the poor. Nevertheless the security apparatus got down on them in the way most dictatorships do: arretsd in the night, no charges, no trails, imprisonment for years, torture, some died. The Tupamaros got violent in response: they kidnapped the CIA agent at the American Embassy who also hapened to be the torture specialist who trained the Uruguayan secret service in torture and demanded the release of their people in exchange. In the end the dictatorship fell.
            Uruguay’s current president, Mujica, is a former Tupamaro.
            The republic has a constitution that enshrines some rights for the citizenry that no future government can take away: cheap universal health care, free education including university level aso.
            The ideologue of the Tupamaros is now in his 70s (like the president ) — a famous national writer and poet.
            The CIA agent, however, died in custody…
            But in general…. no, small hope for peaceful confrontations

      • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

        not a single iota oversimplified, A..whatsit, imao a most welcome contribution to semantic clarification 😉

  12. Paul Eisen July 27, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

    I dislike the term ‘zionazi’ firstly, because I always hate any use of the word ‘nazi’ because it’s unnencessarily insulting to Germans and their history, secondly, because I dislike the use of all abbreviations just as a matter of personal taste, thirdly, because I dislike anything that demonises and dehumanises, and finally, because I dislike abnything that becomes common, shoot-from-the-hip slang in these debates and causes everyone to repeat (and think) the same.

    Apart from that, it’s just terrific.

    • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm #

      thank you Paul. as it happens i concur with all four of those reasons. such terms offer a vent for negative emotions, but are not conducive to clarity of thought. perhaps suitable for chanting on ‘demos’:

      “Wher’eer ye gang, dinna fail tae shout:
      ye Zio-Nasties, Out, Out, Out!!!”

      historically the term zionazi perhaps has some connection with the name of the ‘Anti-Nazi League’ (whose game-plan was recruitment through street-level opposition to manifestations of the ultra-right wing National Front, forerunner of the BNP), which i felt uncomfortable with way back. the ANL as far as i am aware was a spin-off from the SWP formerly the IS, a splinter-group of the “Trotskyite Fourth International (c.f., IMG, WRP, RCP)

      index of historical acronyms

      ANL Anti-Nazi League
      SWP Socialist Workers’ Party
      IMG International Marxist Group
      RCP Revolutionary Communist Party
      WRP Workers’ Revolutionary Party
      NF National Front
      BNP British National Party

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

      “I dislike anything that demonises and dehumanises”

      Other than zionazi, give me an example of other words you think dehumanize and demonize.

      • Paul Eisen July 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

        ‘queer’, ‘paki’, commie, ‘yid’, – there’s loads of them though of course they do vary in intensity.

        Actually, it’s just come to me, the one I hate the most is ‘scum’

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

          I undeerstand.

        • Jay Knott July 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

          Anyone who uses those words should be banned from commenting. “Zionazi” is a particularly dumb word, because it implies that Nazis are worse than Zionists, therefore its particularly insulting to Zionists to call them Nazis – it has the opposite effect to the one intended. Nobody would do it the other way round.

          “Idiot” and “moron” are fair. Political descriptions like “Stalinist” should be OK. “Troll” is massively over-used – it implies the user of the phrase can read the mind of the person they are insulting.

          Being called “scum” isn’t bad. It only shows one’s critics’ impotence.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

            “Anyone who uses those words should be banned from commenting. ”


          • who_me July 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

            Jay Knott

            “Anyone who uses those words should be banned”

            see my post below from 6:14 pm 😀

        • fool me once... July 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

          With “queer” and “yid” it can depend on the context. For instance the followers of the London football team Tottenham Hotspur have adopted the name The Yid Army;

          And the word queer is also being “reclaimed”;

          • Jay Knott July 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

            Agreed. Me to Mathis: “If a group of skinheads outside a London pub shout racist taunts at a Bangladeshi heading home on a dark rainy night, arguably, their language may constitute an actual threat. If they sing songs about gas chambers (actual example) when visiting the allegedly Jewish football club Tottenham Hotspur, that is more offensive but not a threat at all. Therefore I think the latter behavior should not be illegal, but it is.” –

            Mathis agreed with me. He’s not a moron.

            BTW, any thoughts on how the yids will do under AVB?

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

            “Mathis agreed with me. He’s not a moron.”
            Or a stalinist. But maybe a …. zionazi?

          • fool me once... July 27, 2012 at 8:30 pm #

            Hang on a minute, first Laura and now you Jay bigging up my comments. I must have lost me touch somewhere along the way of the pen. I wasn’t agreeing with the use of the word “yid” as a derogatory term or condoning songs about “gas chambers”. I have no thoughts on how the “yids” will do under AVB (whatever that means!) I have no interest in football.
            I don’t agree with you Jay or Mathis or Laura. You all seem pretty twisted in your world view and void of compassion.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 8:56 pm #

            I agree with you on this but you must make concessions for Jay–his method is scientific.

          • Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 8:53 am #

            Football is dreadful, the worst of all sports.

          • who_me July 28, 2012 at 9:07 am #

            “Football is dreadful, the worst of all sports.”

            any sport that doesn’t involve a lot of attractive women in skimpy clothing tends to be dreadful:


            i guess that wasn’t a sport video, was it. 😉

          • Jonathon Blakeley July 27, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

          • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

            thanks Jon, nice track!

  13. Paul Eisen July 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    The whole lot of them get on my nerves.

  14. who_me July 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    zionazi is a wonderful term. it portrays how zionism and nazism are similar ideologies in a simple short, easy to write term and also it aggravates zionists no end. 😉 😀

    one other value i discovered this word had was on progressive sites, it quickly outed who the zionists were, especially the zionists who pretended they were not zionists, as they would get irrationally upset over the use of the term. and literally on several occasions, using this term exposed “friendly” web sayanim who were using “friendship” as a way to data mine.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

      ” it aggravates zionists no end”

      That is, as I said before, probably the main reason for its use.

      • Jonathon Blakeley July 27, 2012 at 7:34 pm #

        SO thats a good thing..

        • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm #

          aggravating people, although a valid tool of polemic, is not necessarily such a desirable end that ugly neologisms need be coined for that express purpose.

          nor do i think use of a word as a stratagem for ‘flushing-out’ crypto-zionists, though undoubtedly effective at times, should be recommended best practice. one good reason is that there may be danger of simply labelling as a zionist anyone who had a negative emotional reaction to the term zionazi greater than 1.8 standard deviations beyond the norm. as any student of signal detection theory will tell you, that discrimination can never be flawless – at best you must make a trade-off between the rates of convicting the innocent and exonerating the guilty.

          the accusation that someone is a zionazi actually mirrors the accusation of antisemitism very neatly. but who is playing into whose hands, in that little corner of the game?

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 9:11 pm #

            Pardon my personal reference but those of us who are not blessed with the aspergerian sang froid that would help us bypass cathartic expletives like ‘zionazi’ are bound to fall into temptation.

            As for “signal recognition’ that must be another aspergerian tool, or perhaps it is prosopagnosia. Prosopagnostics memorize word description of facial features (e.g., hair parted on the right side, mole on the left cheek) to be able to recognize the faces of their own wives, sons, etc.
            I wouldn’t go as far as to say ‘you known’em as soon as they start talking about a, b, c” but it is not such a hard science either.

          • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

            no, signal detection theory is a branch of statistical analysis which deals with problems of information loss due to the fact that signals are mixed with noise. for example you could guess fairly accurately the gender of each person in a set of photographs. but if you gradually mixed in an overlay of visual random noise (e.g. mist, or removing pixels etc), this discrimination would become progressively more difficult. just an example, perhaps not a very good one, but it will suffice.

            it is not such a hard science either

            some speak of a psixth psense. in any case i agree, but again, it seems more useful to strive to identify and articulate with clarity specific errors of thought, feeling or behaviour, rather than merely to seek occasion to apply a catchall categorization.

            otherwise one surely runs the danger of helping to create a more coherent monster, rather than to demonstrate dispassionately the conceptual and ethical weaknesses which make its long-term persistence as unlikely as it is considered undesirable.

            however, i would not wish to deny colleagues the cathectic luxury of a favoured and philosophico-politically sophisticated expletive. after all i rejoice in a repertoire of tourette’s-like compulsive behaviours myself – the verbal component is rather small in my case, but i understand that urge.

          • who_me July 28, 2012 at 12:19 am #


            “one good reason is that there may be danger of simply labelling as a zionist anyone who had a negative emotional reaction to the term zionazi greater than 1.8 standard deviations beyond the norm.”

            the point is not to label somebody a zionist, but to flush those who are sensitive to anti-zionist criticism. the latter pegs the person as zionist in the sense they give zionists that little extra room in the world of obscenity. the problem with a lot of progressive/”left” discourse and thought is that zionism is considered exceptional to normal, decent standards of human existence. the exceptionalism attributed to this fascist world view (zionism) is irrational, as it is learned behaviour imposed by institutionalised ignorance and prejudice disguised as superior knowledge. the usual root of bigoted thought, btw. it is not based upon rational thought.

            the sensitivity is usually an unconscious response to criticism of zionism by associating it with what is the “ultimate evil”. as the difference between zionism and any other bigoted, hierarchical, fascist ideology is one of minor details, that sensitivity to comparison, as the term zionazi implies, exposes the individual as one who accepts the exceptionalism of zionist bigotry as being exempt from it’s non-jewish fascist brethren.

    • Jonathon Blakeley July 27, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

      zionazi interesting is this the worst word we have recommended to ban from comments?

  15. Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

    Apparently 🙂

  16. Jonathon Blakeley July 27, 2012 at 7:37 pm # great name for a website not sure about the market, probably a big market looking at the world today.

    Zion Nazi – lovely portmanteau word.

    • etominusipi July 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

      The Urban Dictionary. one of its more erudite articles, although some of the terms need more careful definition. for example i do not see zionism as a religion. an ideology, yes, a religion, not for me.

      1. Zionazi (votes so far 448 up, 179 down)

      Useful mix of the words ‘zionist’ and ‘nazi’ to compare the fascist mentality which has been passed down through the years by abuse of certain religions. The new religion in itself (zionism) being practised by mostly jews but also christians in the United States as of indoctrination from the old testament, as opposed to europe’s great distancing between the two major religions. The current zionazi ideology has grown as a result of the nazi atrocities committed during the early part of the 20th century, and seems to have adopted many of its fascist ideas of ethnic cleansing, especially in Israel. In this holocaust memorial state and its surrounding areas (occupied Palestinian territories) you will find evidence of racism being practiced against the arabic speaking populations – even those who were born citizens of the state of Israel are regarded as 2nd class citizens. Segregation is the plan as is shown by the ‘seperation barrier’ (more of a segregation wall) designed to ‘keep out suicide bombers’ or more likely to keep muslims and jews seperated through apartheid of the former Palestinians by stealing their arab lands!

      Zionist – “We are god’s chosen people, Israel belongs to us from the river to the see according to our holy book!”

      Nazi – “The aryans are the superior race, we must conquer europe and the rest of the world!”

      Sound familiar zionazi? Of course not i’m “anti-semitic”.
      buy zionazi mugs & shirts

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 27, 2012 at 8:55 pm #

        Great idea, the Urban Dictionary. The second entry in descending order of votes:
        zionazi 256 up, 172 down
        a racist: word describing the state of Israel and its supporters. occupied by east european fascists, likely to offend the editors of urban dictionary anxious to appease their American net-sponsors
        zionazi = we mustn’t upset our hosts so we’ll edit this out 🙂

  17. Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:04 am #

    Admittedly I am shot through to core with cynicsm and as sarcastic as they come, but ZioNazis is what we have to day.

    Pretty much the entire world is sinking under the ZioNazi Empire… am I wrong? The Zionuts are a lot more effective than the nazis but the link between is strong, socialism, racism, apartheid & quasi-military rule.

    • who_me July 28, 2012 at 9:13 am #

      “but the link between is strong, socialism, racism, apartheid & quasi-military rule.”

      capitalism, socialism is so 20th century. today we need entrepreneurs and slaves.

      seriously, name one zionazi state that hasn’t worked to remove any and all socialist policies within that state. no matter how compromised and minor those policies may have initially been?

      look at labour and new labor for a start.

      • Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:25 am #

        I agree who me, they only want their brand on approved socialism or right wing politics.

  18. Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    I would describe Tony Blair & George w Bush as a ZioNazis.

  19. Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:22 am #

    I am not convinced ZioNazi is a derrogitory term at all, I wonder if it is a very accurate scientific term for a new breed of ruler. Part of the Banking, Media, Military – the power elite of the ZioNazi empire.

  20. Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:27 am #
    is available through Go Daddy Auctions
    Current Price: £7.80

  21. Jonathon Blakeley July 28, 2012 at 9:31 am #

    Aways I must go code for money. .. later.

  22. etominusipi July 28, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    request for information: did the German National Socialists refer to themselves as nazis, or was the acronym only used by opponents? and when was its earliest recorded use?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 28, 2012 at 11:30 am #

      I believe they used it themselves

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 28, 2012 at 11:32 am #

      While we had (American) troops stationed there the Germans called them “Ami”–it was only used as a pejorative

      • who_me July 28, 2012 at 11:41 am #

        “the Germans called them “Ami”–it was only used as a pejorative”

        yes and no. could be used as neutral or in a negative sense.

        but don’t tell the ami, they think it means “friend”. 😉

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos July 28, 2012 at 11:45 am #

          Most Americans don’t know any other language–they would have no idea what “ami” sounds like, even fans of movies like Three Amigos.

    • Roy Bard July 28, 2012 at 11:45 am #

      Does this help at all?

      • etominusipi July 28, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

        yes, thanks, Roy, that suggests it was used pejoratively by opponents but not much by the Nazis themselves.

        what about Hollywood? did contemporary actors playing Nazi roles have lines referring to themselves or the party by the abbreviation? sorry, maybe a tricky question – i can only think of Tbe Great Dictator which was not an entirely serious drama. and i saw that many decades ago so don’t remember the script at all.