You are here
The language of zionism
The inspiration for this post comes from a series of astute comments made by Rhiannon, Cherifa, Made Brani, QRS, and others over time...
Zionists and warmongers apply euphemisms that have become part of our national discourse, and which saturate everyday conversation. Euphemisms mask evil, and allow Zionists and warmongers to define all terms and control all debates.
Here's a partial guide.
Maybe WUFYS readers can list more in the comments section below…
|Incorrect termcolor = red>||Correct term color = red>|
|Unprovoked attack by USA or Israel||Pre-emptive strike|
|Aggressive war||Conflict or dispute|
|Permanent aggressive war||Protracted conflict|
|Global aggressive war||Spreading democracy|
|Individual resistance to aggressive war||Terrorism|
|Group resistance to aggressive war||Insurgency|
|National resistance to aggressive war||Terrorist state / rogue state|
|Multi-national resistance to aggressive war||Axis of evil|
|Political leader of resistance to aggressive war||Dictator / Tyrant|
|Military leader of resistance to aggressive war||Warlord|
|Any Muslim person who questions aggressive war||al-Qaeda|
|Any other person who questions aggressive war||Militant|
|Department that promotes aggressive war||Department of defense|
|Invasion to promote aggressive war||Incursion|
|Israeli agents of aggressive war||Israeli defense force|
|Victim of aggressive war||Illegal combatant|
|Multiple victims of aggressive war (e.g., the people of Gaza)||Enemy entity|
|Weapons of aggressive war||Policy instruments|
|Massive funding for aggressive war||Enhanced force protection|
|Popular support for aggressive war||Democracy|
|Massive funding for rich weapons makers||Supporting the troops|
|Genocide||Degrading the enemy|
|Dead U.S. soldiers||Non-operative personnel|
|Murder (as a verb)||Neutralize|
|Facts / evidence / objective reality||Enemy propaganda|
|Theft of natural resources||Liberation|
|Violent measures that allow rich thieves to go on stealing||National security|
|Military censorship||Embedded reporters|
|Destroying civilian infrastructure||Asymmetric warfare|
|Destroying civilians themselves||Collateral damage|
|When bombs miss their targets and wipe out an orphanage||Incontinent ordnance|
|Psychopathic mercenaries / U.S.-employed death squads||Security forces|
|Illegal spying on Americans||Terrorist surveillance|
|Questioning murder||Cut and run|
|Questioning the government||Lack of patriotism|
|Mass questioning of the government||Home-grown terrorism|
|Mass ignorance||Consumer confidence|
|U.S. Constitution / Geneva Conventions||Quaint and obsolete documents|
|We will nuke anyone anytime we like||All options are on the table|
|Human bodies||Soft targets|
|Who cares if rag-heads get wasted?||There is no moral equivalence between terrorists and security forces|
|Israelis that violently evict Palestinians from Palestine||Settlers|
|Distraction while we prepare to strike again||Peace process (which never ends, since it’s an ongoing “process”)|
|A child who got blinded / maimed / blown to bits when she accidentally got in the way of our aggression||Human shield|
|Apartheid wall||Security fence|
|Muslim||Islamist or Islamofascist|
|Questioning zionist atrocities||Anti-semitism|
|Questioning Jewish supremacism||Anti-semitism|
|Questioning U.S. funding for israel||Anti-semitism|
|Questioning AIPAC espionage against the USA||Anti-semitism|
|Reverence for love, innocence, compassion, and all things holy||Anti-semitism|
|Questioning the “holocaust”||Anti-semitism|
|Neglect to capitalize “holocaust”||Anti-semitism|
|Sheer existence of non-Jews||Anti-semitism|
In order to promote “peace,” we must use the correct terms in the right-hand column above. :)
Notice how euphemisms have grown worse over time, making the nightmare of war seem more and more tame. In the wake of World War I, traumatized veterans suffered from "shell shock." After World War II it was “combat fatigue.” After the Vietnam “conflict,” it was "post-traumatic stress disorder.” Today it might be called “hypo-patriotic cognitive dissonance.”
Euphemisms vary between situations. For example, U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't refer to “insurgents"; they say “resistance.” The U.S. media forbids the word “resistance,” since it connotes resistance to U.S. aggression. Was the anti-Nazi movement in France (World War II) an “insurgency”? U.S. soldiers in Iraq make fun of euphemisms. They refer to their bases as “Camp Texaco,” “Camp Exxon,” “Camp Shell,” and so on, because they know they are only abroad to help steal oil.
Also, notice how euphemisms become increasingly absurd as an empire dies. Consider how the Bush regime labels its wars of aggression…
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Operation Noble Cause.
Operation Just Cause
Operation Noble Eagle
Israelis called their 1982 invasion of Lebanon “Operation Peace In Galilee.” The 2006 invasion was “Operation Summer Rain.” What did the Israelis call their 6 Sep 07 air raid into Syria? “Operation Blossoms from Heaven for our Arab Brethren”?
Euphemisms are like fog, or white noise. They drown out the emotion and details of war. They prevent us from discussing American or Israeli aggression, since everyone around us has a head full of empty buzz words. Euphemisms spread confusion and discord even when everyone knows they’re euphemisms. They let us roll over and go back to sleep. They justify the natural human impulse to say, “It’s not my problem.”
Euphemisms are seductive. In-your-face homosexuality becomes “gay rights.” An aborted child becomes a “fetus.” Our financial system regards debt as “money.”
In his novel 1984, and in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell discusses how words are used to defend the indefensible. Sloppy language causes sloppy thoughts. The power to subjugate comes from the power to define. Sometimes it comes from the power NOT to define, just as Israel refuses to formally declare its borders. The lack of borders and definitions allows any type of aggression. For example, Jane Harman’s “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” is full of terms that are so vague they can be twisted in any direction. Indeed the entire U.S. legal system no longer places much emphasis on defining terms such as “murder.” This allows people like Bill Clinton to quibble over the definition of the word “is.” (Fortunately this same factor can open windows for defense attorneys.)
By contrast, look closely at U.N. conventions against racism, genocide, and so on. You will see that great care was taken to be very specific with regard to definitions of terms. This is one reason why the Geneva Conventions have been discarded as “quaint” and “obsolete.” What is “quaint” is the desire to be clear and specific.
Most of our disagreements with other people stem from a difference in our respective definitions of terms. How can we debate a Zionist who defines the slaughter of Palestinians as a “defensive maneuver”? If we can’t agree on terms, we can’t agree on anything. If I define the moon as an object made of cheese, and you define it as a rock, then we cannot discuss the moon.
Now look again. Notice that our disagreement with Zionists goes deeper. It stems not from difference in definitions, but from the Zionist’s refusal to even discuss the fundamental process of definition itself. The Zionist knows that if he agrees on the definition of “murder,” for example, he will have no chance. He won’t even discuss “definitions” in the abstract, separately from the “conflict” in Palestine. Thus, communication with Zionists is impossible. There can only be war.
This also applies to American warmongers. When you say, “Let’s first agree on what ‘murder’ is,” the warmonger’s face will contort in disgust. He will accuse you of sophistry, and will call you a “liberal,” when in fact you are merely trying to reach a common basis for any discussion in the first place.
Regarding that word “liberal,” notice how right-wing radio talk show hosts in the USA characterize everything as a war between “liberals” and “conservatives.” Everyone assumes he knows what these terms mean, but no one agrees on the definitions, which makes "liberals-vs-conservative" rhetoric an effective distraction. We think we're communicating, when in fact we are jabbering at each other, while the world crumbles around us.
Of course, none of us can ever fully agree on the definition of any terms, even here at WUFYS, since we all have different personal experiences. (What is “love” for example?) In the early 1900s a group of Anglo-American philosophers (e.g., A.N. Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, etc.) felt that all philosophical debates come down to disagreements in the definition of terms. They formed a field of philosophy known an “analytic philosophy,” which sought to reduce philosophical ideas to mathematical formulae. They failed. Nonetheless, what matters in debate is our attitude or spirit or intention. No one can define these terms either, but we all instinctively know what “murder” means. The Zionist does too, but his spirit is evil. There can be no discussion with him.
Sometimes instead of euphemisms we use acronyms in order to make unpleasant or embarrassing things appear “technical,” and therefore tolerable. Permanent U.S. military emplacements become “FOBs” (forward operating bases”). Nuclear weapons are ABMs, ICBMs, MIRVs, SLBMs, and other letters of the alphabet. Under the Reagan Administration, the MX-Missile was renamed "The Peacekeeper." There are no deaths; only "ECs" (enemy casualties). And so on.
Finally, even though debate with warmongers and Zionists is impossible, you can still have fun if you’re clever. Here’s a game…first you appear to agree completely with a warmonger, while you innocently ask for his or her definitions of terms. Do not disagree with those definitions. Instead, pay careful attention, and remember what was said. At the end of your exchange you can nail him with “such-and-such is wrong by your own admission.” At that point the Zionist / warmonger will have nothing left except mindless name-calling, or threats of physical violence against you.
All great debaters in history used this trick (e.g. Socrates, Cicero, Cato, etc.) They started by asking innocent questions, noting how other people defined terms, and carefully remembering what was said. Then they demolished their opponents by using their opponents’ definitions and terms. They did not use those terms “against” their opponents. They let their opponents hang themselves.