Why you shouldn't use Zionist word, ever

[neonix]

In the minds of normal citizens, every single person who use word Zionist it will be perceive as anitisemite. Why is that?

Because there are many people who are professional antisemites and those people create and image for whole alternative movement. It means that if you use word Zionist, normal citizens will perceive it as a word I HATE JEWS.

You can't reverse this trend. It's unrepairable. Is like fight with windmills. You can't be fool and try to fix unfixable thing.

Explaining people that the word Zionist is not the same like I HATE JEWS, is a waste of time. Because people don't have time to listen someone they don't have trust.

If you want to conciliate people, you have to use "marketing language" even if you think its unethical.

If you want to conciliate people you have to know about social engineering. You have to know about psychology, sociology and ABOUT Media Studies!

You can't be fool and say "The Zionist want to take over whole world". Never ever said that. You will be on lost position.

If you want to conciliate people, you have to be smart, you have to use language that convince people not discourage them.

You have to use all those technique that are used by your opponents. If you want to outsmart the system, you have to be smarter than your opponents. You can't be fool and repeat the same mistakes, thinking that "If I explicitly say truth, everybody will believe me".

Instead of saying Zionist say globalist. Instead of saying psychopaths, Neocons say spoiled global elites, special services, evil people. You have to speak understandable language!

As Laura said:
"And so, the conclusion is, at this point, that the Media must be retaken before anyone can do anything at all. It is through the media that America has been subjugated and it is through the Media that Normal People can reclaim their minds."

You have to use media language to reach peoples minds!

 

[Tomek]

I agree with you on some points.

From your posts, I'm guessing you're also french. So, you're most certainly well aware of the whole business with Dieudonné & Soral, who presents themselves as "anti-zionists". They even participated to european elections under the flag of a political party called "Parti Anti Sioniste" (Anti-Zionist Party). And they all fell into the same trap : "it's the Jews". Every time something happen somewhere in the world, it's always the Jews. Alain Soral always denied to be antisemitic, but once he said that he is "judeophobia", because it's not forbidden by law ! And they felt obliged to chase down "the zionists propaganda" at any costs, including by associating themselves with very shady characters, like Vincent Reynouard, a historian, catholic fundie, self-proclaimed nazi, who's working very hard to prove that gas chambers are a myth. And as a french citizen, I can't comment his work.

So, the catch is : "if the Jews are so evil, then the nazis weren't that bad !". And the more you follow this anti-zionist thread, the more you stumble upon people who are really just here to rehabilitate 30's german nazism. This is obviously very wrong. So yes, talking about zionism is a very quick way to become associated with people I'm really not confortable with. Even if zionism does exists. Zionism is not a conspiracy theory. But even if the word "zionism" wasn't immediately associated with conspirational nazis, I don't think it's very wise to say that "The Zionist want to take over whole world", because I don't remember the part where Theodor Herzl was talking about world domination.

I disagree with you regarding the use of the word "psychopath". It's far from being mainstream yet, and not (yet ?) associated with anything muddy like "zionism". On the contrary, we saw this year more and more references to psychopathy regarding the financial and political powers in the MSM, and it's a good thing. Talking about "the elites", "the pedo-satanic elites" is misleading, and that's the biggest mistake of Alain Soral, who considers the "elites" as evil, because... they're evil, and that's it. And you can't explain this evilness without mentionning psychopathy.

 

[Mal7]

Well I think Zionism is a distinct ideology, set of beliefs, or political program. It is not the same thing as Globalism, and anti-Zionism is definitely not the same as anti-Semitism, so not using the word "Zionism" doesn't seem like a good solution to me.

It may be difficult to use the word Zionism when anti-Zionism is associated with anti-Semitism to some people, but I think the best thing to do would be to explain the difference, provided that they are willing to listen.

 

[Shinzenbi]

As Laura said:
"And so, the conclusion is, at this point, that the Media must be retaken before anyone can do anything at all. It is through the media that America has been subjugated and it is through the Media that Normal People can reclaim their minds."

And this is not to change in France. Israeli businessman Patrick Drahi has recently bought Next Radio TC (RMC-BFM). He owns approximately 15 french reviews/information media : Libération, L'Express, Stratégies, IsraelTV News, Studio Ciné Live, L'Expansion, Mesures, Électroniques, Point Banque, La Revue des Collectivités Locales, IT for Business, Lire, Mieux Vivre Votre Argent, Classica, Pianiste. Have we ever heard of a French, Italian, Portugese, whatever person owning 15 radio, reviews or TV channels in Israel ?

Through his personal holding Next Limited Partnership, he also controls SFR-Numericable, Virgin Mobile, Portugal Telecom, Orange Dominicana, Suddenlink, and the Israeli telecommunication operator Hot. His personal estate value is almost 30 billion $.

Articles in French :

_http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/l-obs-du-soir/20150128.OBS1095/i24-news-la-petite-chaine-israelienne-qui-ne-monte-pas.html
_http://www.lepoint.fr/medias/patrick-drahi-s-allie-a-alain-weill-pour-racheter-nextradiotv-27-07-2015-1952656_260.php

Talking about "the elites", "the pedo-satanic elites" is misleading, and that's the biggest mistake of Alain Soral, who considers the "elites" as evil, because... they're evil, and that's it. And you can't explain this evilness without mentionning psychopathy.

Of course, I agree with you but what can Soral do ? I do not know if he’s aware of psychopathy. If he is and points it out, won’t he lose a huge part of his audience ? To the ordinary French person, a psychopath is merely an evil, wicked person quickly labeled as such ; it can’t be a PTB member. The official definition of psychopathy, taught to students in psychology university, is soooo very reductive. It seems that awareness of psychopathy is reserved to a tiny minority, which is very unfortunate.

 

[Tomek]

Talking about "the elites", "the pedo-satanic elites" is misleading, and that's the biggest mistake of Alain Soral, who considers the "elites" as evil, because... they're evil, and that's it. And you can't explain this evilness without mentionning psychopathy.

Of course, I agree with you but what can Soral do ? I do not know if he’s aware of psychopathy. If he is and points it out, won’t he lose a huge part of his audience ? To the ordinary French person, a psychopath is merely an evil, wicked person quickly labeled as such ; it can’t be a PTB member. The official definition of psychopathy, taught to students in psychology university, is soooo very reductive. It seems that awareness of psychopathy is reserved to a tiny minority, which is very unfortunate.

He won't do anything regarding psychopathy, as he's not aware of it and not likely to be, because E&R is an ego-trip and he's a very sick individual himself. And that's a shame, really, because he's the one who managed to bring awareness to a lot of people regarding the PTB, the "Empire", the never-ending lies and manipulations, but he's dead wrong about the responsables and their motivations. I'm even tempted to think that he's done more harm than good, because now, when you try to talk about what's happening in Ukraine, Syria, Lybia... etc, with other people, it's likely that what you said will make them think that Soral said the same things regarding these topics, so you're branded "soralist", and of course by association, anti-zionist, antisemitic, conspirationist wacko and so on.

 

[neonix]

People who first time listen word psychopaths from your mount, will be think that you libel someone.

You can't skipped (jump) this. You can't overcome this. Psychologists, sociologist, therapists, doctors, scientist can use this word.

Journalist can't. Conspiracy theories believers shouldn't use this word, because people think it's used as invective. You can use it when you write scientific article, but not in journalistic (publicist) article.

You can use replacements: greed politics, detached from reality, deprived of empathy, genetically corrupted.

 

[Mrs.Tigersoap]

He won't do anything regarding psychopathy, as he's not aware of it and not likely to be, because E&R is an ego-trip and he's a very sick individual himself.

I think that Soral knows about psychopathy: his sworn enemy Salim Laibi of LLP released his -bad- conference on ponerology a few months back and I would be very surprised if Soral, who does not like to be upstaged in the knowledge department, has not at least read a little on the subject, if only not to look like a fool.

But I would propose that Soral cannot consider psychopathy: he now considers himself a Catholic (or a Christian, he's never really clear about it) who thinks that the fact that the Bible has successfully gone through the ages is the proof that a greater power (God) is at work behind it. For Catholics, God forgives and through his Grace, man is washed from his sins. Everyone is redeemable. Every problem stems from Satan. How can you reconcile this with psychopathy?

And that's a shame, really, because he's the one who managed to bring awareness to a lot of people regarding the PTB, the "Empire", the never-ending lies and manipulations, but he's dead wrong about the responsables and their motivations.

The problem is that he does bring awareness to the 'Empire' with one hand and mislead with the other when he quotes Alex Jones and defends the actors' theory for the Boston bombing, for example. Then there is the problem of some of his ideas about women ('No women has ever marked History'), his ad hominem attacks on his 'enemies', his childish references to how he can beat that guy up because he is physically stronger, his endless talks about the superiority of the French and the Gauls, his rants about homosexuals (usually referred to as 'sodomites'), his admittance to having been with about 700 women, his bragging of having bedded one of his enemy's wife...

This does nothing to foster his credibility, thereby discrediting his more plausible and interesting theories. Just my opinion, though.

 

[Renaissance]

People who first time listen word psychopaths from your mount, will be think that you libel someone.

You can't skipped (jump) this. You can't overcome this. Psychologists, sociologist, therapists, doctors, scientist can use this word.

Journalist can't. Conspiracy theories believers shouldn't use this word, because people think it's used as invective. You can use it when you write scientific article, but not in journalistic (publicist) article.

You can use replacements: greed politics, detached from reality, deprived of empathy, genetically corrupted.

I think part of the the trouble we experience is that there is very little genuine communication in general. We're usually not taught how to communicate even about simple things, so when it comes to serious issues it follows that there is often a complete deadlock. So rather than focusing on specific words, I think it can be beneficial to look at basic communication first. If we can become good communicators about minor things, then we might develop the skills to tackle bigger things effectively in appropriate situations (and sometimes this means not digging into such topics with certain people in the first place). Crucial Conversations is a good book on the subject.

And there is always the free will of others to consider. If someone is fully immersed in the lies being told and doesn't want to hear anything else, then it's really not anyone's place to try and change their minds. Forcing issues onto others make people resistant to what you are saying no matter what words you use. And this is pretty understandable since nobody likes this. But even if we could make a person think a certain way, would it be useful to that person? I think for information to be useful, a person needs to go through the process of discovery. Otherwise, look at the effects of people who have accepted some brainwashed nonsense. There is no understanding or rationality, or real thinking. That's a problem.

 

[Adaryn]

He won't do anything regarding psychopathy, as he's not aware of it and not likely to be, because E&R is an ego-trip and he's a very sick individual himself.

I think that Soral knows about psychopathy: his sworn enemy Salim Laibi of LLP released his -bad- conference on ponerology a few months back and I would be very surprised if Soral, who does not like to be upstaged in the knowledge department, has not at least read a little on the subject, if only not to look like a fool.

I'm pretty sure Soral knows about psychopathy and ponerology, because he's generally very well-informed and knows about most alternative websites (several of them mention ponerology), besides I've seen ponerology mentioned by readers in the comments of several articles published on his website - he can't have missed it.

But I would propose that Soral cannot consider psychopathy: he now considers himself a Catholic (or a Christian, he's never really clear about it)

I think it's just a marketing technique, in order to recruit new followers with a religious background. I don't think mentioning psychopathy and raising awareness about it is part of his agenda (or rather, that of his 'handlers').

The problem is that he does bring awareness to the 'Empire' with one hand and mislead with the other when he quotes Alex Jones and defends the actors' theory for the Boston bombing, for example. Then there is the problem of some of his ideas about women ('No women has ever marked History'), his ad hominem attacks on his 'enemies', his childish references to how he can beat that guy up because he is physically stronger,

Again, that's just for show IMO, he needs to project that image of a tough, macho man because most of his audience are men, particularly men of Muslim background. In fact, the character is rather pathetic: a drug addict, a parasite who never went to school and never had a proper job and who spent his youth 'bedding" women and being looked after by older, richer men. And I'm not even talking about his friendship with a self-proclaimed pedophile (Gabriel Matzneff)).
Olivier Mukuna's account of his encounter with Soral is rather telling (Soral had insulted Mukuna on the Internet, but when Mukuna confronted him face to face, Soral 'collapsed' and 'burst into tears' (or pretended to - he's a good actor, apparently).

This does nothing to foster his credibility, thereby discrediting his more plausible and interesting theories. Just my opinion, though.

I don't think it's just your opinion. I'd say that the evidence points to Soral being a fraud planted on the alternative scene to divert people's anger and prevent a real 'dissidence' from developing (more info on this here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,38686.msg583691.html#msg583691). What has he done, concretely speaking, in all these years? He's been ranting and ranting, has developed a cult around his persona, has made people focus mainly on Jews (I suspect he's actually antisemitic, not just 'antizionist'), and has made money from gullible youths who think their beloved guru will save France and show them the way.
He's just a good parrot (when you think about it, none of his theories are his, he's just mainly drawing from other people's work), and uses his charisma to further his personal interests. In short, a con artist, and a very sick individual indeed.

 

[Buddy]

You have to use media language to reach peoples minds!

And to put them to sleep, too? Samuel Johnson is said to have remarked, "Language is the dress of thought." So, I suppose it might be desirable in some cases to wear that dull gray pastel colored dress rather than that flashy, tie-die dress if the most important goal is not to offend people, but if that's the case, and the context is communication, why even communicate the message?

I'm not suggesting that offense is the point and I'm not disagreeing with you because you make some good points, but each communicator will want to make his/her own considered choices of whether or not a particular message should be in-your-face as well as their own choices for words and wording. If the communicator is psychopathic, well I guess I'd rather know that sooner than later.

Now, in our everyday lives where it's important to be externally considerate, your advice might serve to keep people in good relations with others. If that's the context you're referring to, then the sense of absoluteness in your message makes sense.

Personal note: I'm somewhat surprised that in this age of advanced information theory, no one has yet settled the "sacrament or iconic representation?" controversy in the context of religion and church. At least, as far as I know. I mention that because I think that words like Zionism and Jews tend to trigger religious contexts in the mind where iconic communication carries a disproportionate amount of emotional weight, IMO. Like "fighting words." The old map vs territory question?

 

[neonix]

I decided to come back to this topic to present more, what I think about it.

I would also encourage not to use words neocons (we know that theres no difference which party is ruling) and cabal (we know that many people are blackmailed).

I also want to notice that sott is becoming a tabloid. And this is not good direction. Does the minds of the editors was infected? And how do you want to convince people on your side with infected minds?

If sott was established only to inform special services, then I can understand that those type of people, use that language and its not big problem for them. But if sott was for normal people, then something wrong is going here.

Then what words can you use instead?

You have to be like gentlemen when you describe you opponents. You need to have nerves of steel. You are pretending to be journalist, but you are only amateur. You have a possibility to speak much more than mainstream media, but this doesn't mean you can use the language that is assigned to a wacko people.

There is many people in conspiratorial theories circles who discredit some words and this way they discredit whole groups who use this words. But you instead to overcome this by use other language, you simply jump in, in the same pond.

The society is pacified by economic crisis, ebola, terrorist, cancer, weather, GMO, stupid media and you also bombarding they minds by (sorry to say) wacko language.

I believe that I have a gift of recognizing what is wrong "in the system". I don't always sure how fix it up or were exactly problem is, but I know that something is wrong here.

If you want to speak to the people, you can't be disconnected with the world that this people live in. In other words, you have to start think like the people you want to reach.

You have to go in to the higher level and instead staying in "conspirator theory media" go to "the media that describe reality in very gentlemanly way" level. How can I explain it to you in more easy way?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

You have to go in to the higher level and instead staying in "conspirator theory media" go to "the media that describe reality in very gentlemanly way" level. How can I explain it to you in more easy way?

I think I get what you're saying. Not sure I agree, though. Sometimes, often, the truth needs to be stated bluntly. That may look 'sensationalistic' to some, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Saying things like a 'gentleman historian' would tend to reach only those types, and cover over realities with polite euphemisms.

You gave two examples of bad words: neocons and cabal. I agree, there's no difference which party is ruling. But sometimes those leaders are neocons, so it just makes sense to use that word. And 'cabal' is a better word than government. Just because someone is blackmailed, doesn't mean they aren't part of a cabal, if they participate in its actions.

 

[neonix]

The era of conspiracy theories is end, and now we enter into the era of lies and truths. And your duty is to reveal lies that people can make good decisions based on true condition.

 

[Alfisti]

I personally prefer to use the words Israeli, (international) criminals, genocidal maniacs, perpetual victims and deluded psychopathic land-grabbers. It all amounts to the same thing IMO.

 

[Richs]

I have no compunction in calling someone or a group Zionist because that is what they are and I am not about to 'candy coat' what I say or write because this would be insincere and not 'exatly' the truth.

Several high level US personages have already pronounced in public that you don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist! So, when I say "Zionist" it does not really refer to 'Jewishness' but to a political philosophy which is pretty much the same thing as the Nazi philosophy. Note too that one did not have to be German to be a Nazi.

I think it is important to 'tell it like it really is'!