Talk:Zionist Occupation Government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


Zionist Occupation Government is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Template:Troll warning

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Neutrality

This artcle has a neutrality tag. Why?


[edit] Turner Diaries

Not that I would read a book like the Turner Diaries, but I do know it shows up in there and that the order is founded largely on ideas espoused in that book. Is this not the origin of the ZOG term? Brazzbatch 21:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I read the book and IIRC did not remember the term 'ZOG'. They portrayed the Jews as evil geniuses, with "An alien mind" I think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.219.150 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If it walks like a duck....

How come it can be said that there are "too many" Whites in government, etc... and that we need "diversity" - yet the plain and demonstrable truth is actually there are too many Jews in our government and media. This is especially puzzling when most of the Jews masquerade as "Whites." Yet they are not White because Israel is not a White homeland, but a Jew homeland. It doesn't add up. But it DOES explain why we give more money to Israel, a miniscule extremely WEALTHY country, than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in aid. The exception, currently, is Iraq but that invasion was FOR Israel as it was to no benefit of the US and only benefits Israel, so that cost can be billed to Israel, too. Now Israel wants the US to invade another one of ITS enemies, Iran. Sounds like ZOG to me. Quixo 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Take your "thoughts" else where please. ps. the cabal will be contacting you shortly :) --Tom 18:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, If wikipedia is not a soapbox, then why is this article so slanted and so very far from neutral? It reads like it was written as a retort against the theory. when reading through this article it becomes blatantly obvious that this is an opinion piece, and that actual facts regarding the ratio of jews in our government to jews in our society are omitted. Americans are starting to comprehend that this ratio is morbidly disproportionate especially in the wake of accusations that there are too many whites in our government. This article is about as transparent as ghost paper. QUACK QUACK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.150.130 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

the accusations of too many whites in the government are not being aired at wikipedia so why whine about it here?Zebulin (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism is not ubiquitously espoused amongst ZOG believers. Quite the contrary.

Some people might want to note that many ZOG believers aren't anti-semitic. In fact there are many Orthodox Jewish organizations that also believe in the destructive force of Zionism (especially in regards to their religion and Jew-Palestinian relations).

In fact, one could say, that by siding alongside the united Jews Against Zionism (UJAZ) movement, many ZOG believers are discouraging antisemitism by confining it to only one group of self-proclaimed 'Jews' - the Zionist (whom fundamental Jews taint as not being Jewish).

Sources: http://www.nkusa.org/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ Judaism versus Zionism video: http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=541

You seem to be equating a belief that certain governments are controlled by Zionists, with anti-Zionism. Obviously they are not the same thing. I am sure there is a sizable minority of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. who believe Israel should not exist, because that is how they interpret Jewish law. However, I doubt that any significant number of those people believe that the U.S. government is controlled by Zionists who bend U.S. policy to their will. The "Zionist" in "ZOG" is really just a euphemism for "Jewish." 6SJ7 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"The "Zionist" in "ZOG" is really just a euphemism for "Jewish." ... Uhm... Nope. "ZOG" is a euphemism for "Zionist." Also, the anti-zionist movement among orthodox jews is massive. - Huerequeque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.171.150.130 (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illogical

This article has nothing to do with anti-semitism, it's just guilt by association.

In fact, the introduction assumes that the root of the issue is from the forged Protocols, (as opposed to the AIPAC scandal or something similar) and links it to Jews by suggesting that the State of Israel is an intrinsically "Jewish" state which makes no more sense than having a Jewish table or a Jewish chair or a Jewish car. It would be like saying Nazi Germany is a "white state" so criticizing Nazism is anti-white. This article is loaded with bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 06:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

1) As the sources point out, the ZOG myth shares its concept with the Protocols and appeared before the AIPAC scandal; 2) See article nation state, 3) See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Sharing concepts is still guilt by association; one can argue that both Nazism and communism involve taking over the world (or a one-world government) but that doesn't mean they are the same thing or espouse the same ideas about Jews. It may have appeared before the AIPAC scandal but that only suggests that the word may come from an anti-Semite; its use is not inherently anti-Semitic. If it were used regarding AIPAC or the influence of Paul Wolfowitz on the country's foreign policy or something else related to Zionism, it would be quite different from using it to refer to an old anti-Semitic plot.
2) Zionism is still a concept, even though its nation shares a cultural identity. Criticizing it isn't inherently anti-Semitic, just like criticizing circumcision which is used in Jewish culture wouldn't be anti-Semitic or criticizing Native Americans' use of peyote wouldn't be intrinsically anti-Native American or criticizing the hejab wouldn't be intrinsically anti-Islamic. There is ultimately a difference between a nation/idea, and the people/race/cultural group that it claims to represent.
3) It's a logical error, what research do you need? Here: guilt by association
I say leave the article up and drop the anti-Semite tag. Maybe suggest that it is sometimes espoused by anti-Semites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
Was it espoused by someone but antisemites? Please cite some reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I for one don't hate Jews, but I don't deny that Zionism and Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle and AIPAC have had a huge influence on America. Regardless, you don't need examples -- if the word isn't inherently anti-Semitic, then it doesn't matter if 100% of the people who believe in it hate Jews. It's still guilt by association. If 100% of all people who drink orange juice hated black people it wouldn't mean that orange juice was a racist concept. Anyways, no, I don't have any specific examples other than myself and maybe some bloggers but I don't think that's really what you're asking. No expert would use the term because of its falsely anti-Semitic connotation; the fact that we're pretending it is inherently anti-Semitic is just perpetuating that problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
"Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle"? I think you mean "Jews like Wolfowitz and Perle", don't you? Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. They are both Zionists. I don't really care what ethnic group or religion they believe in. They're both high level policy makers. You're using the same moronic excuse -- Zionism is the same as Jews, therefore Zionists are Jews, therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Your weak link is that Zionism isn't the same as the Jews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
SLCThunk, please see What Wikipedia is not and stop the disruption. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue needs to be addressed. According to the article you gave me, one of the things Wikipedia is not:
"Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."
Throwing in anti-Semitism for no reason is a clear violation of this rule. In fact, the user above me just assumed out of thin air that I dislike Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle because they're Jews (which I'm not even sure is true for Perle. I have to look that up). It is clearly a show of bias. Nobody calls "anti-Islamism" when it is suggested that Islamic extremism is a growing international threat. The fact that this issue is treated differently violates neutrality.
Unless you have sources, please take your original research elsewhere: WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG. Your participation here amounts to disruption. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to prove to you that this has nothing to do with research, but fine, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC_espionage_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
^^^If you need sources outside of wikipedia, just look at the citations. Those pages argue that AIPAC holds a significant amount of power over American policy, and AIPAC is a Zionist organization. Add to that my point that Zionism doesn't necessarily reflect on any racial group but rather it's a political ideology that is often associated (by its proponents) with a certain ethnic/racial group --
guilt by association
If you need anything else, just ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SLCThunk (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Please reread the title of this article. The links you provided have no relation to it, other than in your head. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
They have everything to do with it. Zionists are occupying the government, according to Walt and Mearsheimer; in fact in that article they both distance themselves from anti-Semites like David Duke. That's even more evidence that the ZOG has nothing to do with anti-Semitism except in the heads of Zionists and anti-Semites. SLCThunk 08:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show a serious source saying "Zionists are occupying the government" and using the expression "ZOG", go do your trolling someplace else. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section?

If this page ever gets a trivia/cultural references section, it should be noted that John Zorn's Group Slan has a song called Z.O.G. as seen on the album "Live at the Knitting Factory Volume 3"

Also, in the film American History X, the fat character Set sings a song which includes the line "We're taking down the ZOG machine, Jew by Jew by Jew"

[edit] Like having the anti-Nazi league write the Nazism article

That anti-zionism = anti-semitism is the zionist perspective - and disputed by pretty much everyone who opposes Zionism. Having someone with that perspective write this article is like having the anti-Nazi League write the Nazism article (or vice-versa) and is NOT a neutral point of view.

Personally, I find the idea of "ZOG" an overstatement (with unfortunate comic-sounding overtones) of what is an immensely powerful lobby. But nothing gives the idea of an all-powerful Zionist lobby more mileage than that lobby's insistence, and enormous success, in ensuring wikipedia Israel-related articles are all written from their perspective, and any, usually quite reasonable, dissent is crushed.

Yeah, I thought that would happen - 'belief' is a neutral term but it has to be 'conspiracy theory'... I knew there was no point in making any other changes beyond the minor ones I made... takes far less time for someone to come along and press undo... all proves the point I was making though.

KBuck

Do you have any reliable sources which back up your claims? Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That reply is like the undo button - Perhaps I should follow you around posting this same worthless 'have you any reliable sources' record - (no I don't have time)

What claim specifically? Would YOU describe yourself as a Zionist Jayjg? And do you have any reliable sources to the effect that everyone who believes in "ZOG" is anti-semitic?

KBuck

Ah!!... now I understand Jayjg popping up here... from your talk page you've been warned by Mtiedemann to "to keep an eye on this user who has re-appeared recently. They seem to be trying the same guilt by association or innuendo technique.". (me, the user) Well THATS a REAL conspiracy theory because I'm not part of any 'they' at all...

This isn't an objective article - its written from a totally biased agenda - as with probably all Wikipedia Israel related pages. And the real loser in that is Wikipedia - that undermines the project as a whole.

KBuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.240.144 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything from Mtiedemann on my Talk: page, though I could be wrong. In any event, Wikipedia relies on information from reliable sources, and Talk: pages are for the purpose of discussing specific changes to article content. Which specific parts of this article do you think should be changed, exactly what should be changed in them, and what are the reliable sources that back up your suggestions? Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZOG?

I always thought that ZOG stands for "Zionist Occupied Government", not "Zionist Occupation Government".... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)