Talk:Zionist Occupied Government

Should we make Zionist Occupation Government into a redirect page for this article? Saul Taylor

I think Zionist Occupied Government is the more common form, so yes. Also my article is much better :) Adam 05:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the term ZOG predates the mid-90's estimate of the article. A search on Google Groups brought up this posting from 1987:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8702041425.AA28837%40nrl-css.ARPA&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

The first reference I've been able to find to Zionist Occupation Government is a South Florida Sun-Sentinel story of Feb 16, 1985 about the activities of a US neo-Nazi group. Zionist Occupied Government is mentioned in a Chicago Tribune story of Dec 31, 1985 concerning the same group. I'm certain that both terms date back much earlier, but my database doesn't go back much before 1985. -- ChrisO 18:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've pushed it back to 1984 now. The term does seem to originate with the Aryan Nations. -- ChrisO 15:39, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"ZOG" is not a generically white supremicist idea, in fact I don't think it has much to do with "white" as a category at all. It is a specifically anti-Semitic idea. I am opposed to any wording which euphemises or disguises this. Adam 09:38, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your basic sentiment, but you don't call references to Christian influence in the government anti-White, do you? Therefore "ZOG," or the belief that Zionists have more power than they should, doesn't make you anti-semitic. If it is anti-(ethnicity) (racist in other words) to point out an injustice or inequality at the hands of another ethnicity, where are we? I also have the feeling that only Jews are given this preferential bias treatment. Why? - User (I don't know how to insert time and such yet)

I find this discussion the very form of ridiculous. The term ZOG does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a context of centuries of anti-Semitism which has taken this exact form. Furthermore, although it is concievable that one could criticize the Jewish influence in America in a non-anti-Semitic manner, many things are possible. Fewer things actually happen. The people who use this term are anti-Semites. That in and of itself is enough to say that it is so in the article. Snowspinner 17:01, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

And why do you think that the people using this term are anti-semites? BECAUSE YOU ARE TOLD BY OTHERS THAT IT IS. Use case-by-case reasoning instead of flat, all-accompassing stereotypes. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, so let the opening sentence explain what the term means instead of throwing dirt at all people who use it. The rest of the article discusses it's history any way. Remember: ENCYCLOPEDIA. - User

I am uncertain, having googled the term, on top of having done a good amount of research into anti-Semitic groups, how to interpret the writing that uses this term as anything other than anti-Semitic. If you want to provide a usage of the term that is not anti-Semitic, be my guest. Until then, I cannot help but note that you are rapidly approaching being abusive. Yes, this is an encyclopedia. Which means it should document the term and its usage. Plenty of other terms report in their first sentence or paragraph what groups and contexts the term is used in. If you want this paragraph to read differently, you need to provide documented evidence of a non-anti-Semitic use. Snowspinner 17:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Very good. Then what do you think about having the opening sentence of, say, "Old boys" read; Old boys is a term used by groups of anti-Whites to express their belief that United States government is controlled by "Old conservative men," that is to say, by "Whites." Can you see the problem better in this context? What is your problem with true and objective information in an encyclopedia, Snowspinner? Why must it contain slant and biased stereotypes (be they politically correct or not), according to you? - User

My objection would be that this description of "Old boys" would be inaccurate, whereas the current definition of Zionist Occupied Government is not. Snowspinner 17:59, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Exactly my point... You are biased beyond belief, and you let this encyclopedia suffer because of it. Let us wait for more participants for this neutrality discussion, we two alone obviously can't get anywhere, not with you being convinced that bias for some ethnicities while not for others is correct. - User

That's flatly untrue. The term is used by anti-Semites. This is clear. I have asked for (And not recieved) any indication of a non-anti Semitic usage of the term. If you really want a non anti-white usage of the term "Old boys", I can waste my time finding you one, but otherwise, you're making a blanket statement not supported by any verifiable truth. This ahs nothing to do with ethnicities, and everything to do with how the term is actually used in the world. Snowspinner 20:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC) (Post was actually earlier than that, but I just noticed I didn't sign it)

I'm unaware of anyone who isn't an anti-Semite using the term ZOG. The term originated with anti-Semites and is propogated by anti-Semites hence it is an anti-Semitic term despite attempts at a whitewash.AndyL 20:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone understand what Snowspinner is talking about? I certainly don't. Adam 00:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that the term is only ever used by anti-Semites. And Wikipedia should reflect that. How is this difficult? Snowspinner 00:32, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That's what the article says already. Adam 00:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not what the article would say after the troll I was arguing with up above edited it. There was a revert war, accompanied by posts on the talk page. Check the page history, it'll get you up to speed. Snowspinner 00:57, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see. So long as you are agreeing with me, I don't care whether I know what you are talking about or not :) Adam 01:00, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Troll? You are the one with ulterior motives here, racist ulterior motives at that, and it is plain as day. You do not know that everybody who use or will use the term ZOG are anti-semite, you only assume so because they use the term ZOG in the first place. Therefore the opening sentence should be objective and explain what the term is instead of making blanket statements about the character of people who use it. Apparently basic objectivity, integrity and justice are too grand concepts for you. - User

It seems to me to be a fact that the term ZOG is anti-Semitic as it is an application of Jewish conspiracy theories. Could you please explain how it isn't anti-Semitic. Assertion is not a fact so please give me an argument rather than simply say it isn't because it isn't. AndyL 01:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Then by the same measure, the belief that Odinists (predominantly White, just as Zionism is predominantly Jewish) have more than their share of power would automatically be anti-(ethnicity) too. As to your assertion that I only have an assertion without arguments; I have given several different arguments for my position, as is documented on this page, while you, collectively, have offered none other than manifestations of stereotypes, racism-inspired bias, and prejudice. - User

What arguments have you given? I've asked very explicityl several times for a non-anti-Semitic usage. You have yet to offer one. You've given a vague general case where it could concievably not be anti-Semitic, but you've offered no evidence that this actually happens. You have also crossed the line into personal attacks, having accused me of being a racist. I advise you to back down and find some evidence to support your claims. Snowspinner 01:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I have given several arguments, and one of them is staring at you from the text right above yours. Your denial of the patently obvious truth is a common theme of trolling, and I think that you are hoping to discourage me from participating in this debate any further. You see, analogies can also be arguments, you know. I will repeat it;

Then by the same measure, the belief that Odinists (predominantly White, just as Zionism is predominantly Jewish) have more than their share of power would automatically be anti-(ethnicity) too.

You also state that I have crossed the line into personal attacks, because I accuse your actions of being racist. I call that hypocrisy, because if memory serves me right, and the Wikipedia logs are correct, you told another user that I am a troll. Quote: "the troll I was arguing with up above"

- User

Random hypotheticals using made up words are not examples or evidence. As for you being a troll... you've hardly given me reason to think otherwise. You're demanding a change based on no evidence beyond wild hypotheticals. What do you want me to think? That you have reasoned arguments based on actual usage of the word? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a place for speculation about how a word might be used. Although it might be theoretically possible for ZOG to be used outside of an anti-Semitic context, it is not used in this way. If it is, please show evidence of this. Otherwise, you are raising a hypothetical - not a real point. Snowspinner 03:22, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous user, a vague inaccurate allegory is not an argument. Please provide a concrete argument for why the term ZOG is not anti-Semitic. AndyL 03:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

An artificial example: "I love semites but the US's darn Zionist Occupied Government really steams me." I have seen the classes of anti-Zionist and anti-Semite be attributed distinctly from one another. I know of people who are not fond of Zionism and yet have nothing against Semitic people in themselves. Is the term really only used by anti-Semites, or is it also used by anti-Zionists?
One compromise would have the opening sentence read ". . . is an expression predominantly used by groups. . ." noting the inserted 'predominantly'. The phrase has potential to be used by non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionists, and I suspect it also probable, especially since the term is now parodied and applied to other bodies like the Amish. That illustrates its existence is not known only to anti-Semites, and makes it improbable that an anti-Zionist could not have applied it without anti-Semitic feelings.
Less probable and unhistorically, it has the potential to be used by non-anti-Zionists as simply denoting the idea that Zionists have occupied the government -- but the Wikipedia does not traffic in such unrealised potential :) --AquaRichy 04:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but AquaRichy is just wrong about this. The term ZOG is used only by anti-Semite groups, not by anti-Zionists. These groups use "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew" and make no secret of this. There are of course anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semites, but they do not indulge in paranoid fantasies that the Zionists / Jews rule the US or the world. I will oppose any change to the wording. Adam 05:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most people would agree on this: It is generously well-documented that every group that uses the phrase "Zionist Occupied Government" is both racist and anti-Semitic. The only people who would ever claim otherwise are themselves anti-semites; they are clearly trying to legitimize their views through wordplay. The people who are disagreeing with Adam have an agenda to to rewrite an encyclopedia to promote their worldview. JeMa 17:41, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I now concur with Adam, and would not have the wording changed. For clarity, I am not an anti-Semite nor suspect Jews of occupying the US government, but modern Zionism does bother me. --AquaRichy 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aryan Nations

The aryan nations deserve mention here. if you would like to discuss the usage of the term by others, feel free. But please don't censor the attributed opinions of other important sources of usage of this term. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 13:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text that I removed, and my reasons for doing so:

1. Aryan Nations describes Jews as "the natural enemy of our Aryan (White) Race. This is attested by scripture and all secular history. The Jew is like a destroying virus that attacks our racial body to destroy our Aryan culture and the purity of our Race."

• I fail to see how lessons on the theories of the Aryan Nations group are relevant to the concept of Zionist Occupied Government. The opinion of one group on what 'Jews' are is not related to the theory of ZOG by any stretch of the imagination. Mention the Aryan Nations group as the origin of the term, fine. But this term now extends far beyond one very distinct group and to imply that it does not is misleading.

2. Supporters of the ZOG premise often contrast the "tyrannical" actions of the Zionist Occupied Government with the supposed freedom-loving Christian purity of white Americans, as in the example of Pastor Carl Franklin of the Aryan Nations. He was quoted in an April 21, 1993 article in the British newspaper The Guardian as saying that "[y]ou have the tyranny of a Zionist occupation government coming foursquare against a Christian, American white family."

• This is a generalisation of what 'supporters of the ZOG premise' believe. Religion is not relative to this political theory.

3. Citing the Book of Revelation, Aryan Nations envisions a "battle" being fought "between the children of darkness (today known as Jews) and the children of light...the Aryan Race, the true Israel of the Bible." There will "soon" be a "day of reckoning," in which "the usurper will be thrown out by the terrible might of Yahweh's people, as they return to their roots and their special destiny." In this struggle between the Jews and "the children of light," Aryan Nations says that the Jews have a surrogate: the Zionist Occupied Government of the United States.

• Again, this is entirely irrelevant. It's an encyclopedia, not the Bible. If you must keep this opinionated trash on this page, which is about a political theory, and not on a separate page dedicated to the Aryan Nations group, there should be a Debated Neutrality notice posted at the top. We might want to add some info about... Oh, I don't know... alleged Zionists in the government? Hm?

--Rapunzel 14:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you might, I'm only interested in the term, its usage, and the history thereof. If you have more info to add, please do, but be mindful of original research. If you must dispute the page, feel free, but I think you will find that there is concensus that these particular passages are of merit here. I do agree that more content might well be added, but thus far, I don't see you doing that, although I encourage such. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 14:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Attempts to separate the "political theory" of ZOG from its religious roots are disingenuous. The people who promote this belief do so on biblical grounds, among others, and they typically don't differentiate between "Jews" and "Zionists". Jayjg | (Talk) 19:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think she is refering to those who have different religious views from Aryan Nations, such as Odalism. Being an inclusionist, I say we add additional content, rather than make large deletions. Cheers, Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 22:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)