The Misleading Term 'ZOG'
‘ZOG' or 'Zionist Occupied Government' was coined in 1976 by Eric Thomson and has been a widely used among those whoa dhere to a racialist, anti-jewish or pseudo-racialist ideology. Thomson writing in a 1999 repeat of his original 1976 terming of 'ZOG' - 'Welcome to ZOG-World' - tells us that:
‘Some claimed that The Enemy was the CFR, the Bilderbergers, the Trilateralists, the dreaded, but conveniently anonymous "Insiders". As a simple Nazi, I realized that what was lacking was a Feindbild or picture of the enemy. If one did not know whothe enemy was, then one could never hope to combat him. Later, I learned that 'our side' had no definition of who or what it was, either. Without a Feindbild, the situation is serious, but not hopeless. Without a Selbstbild, a concept of who we are, thenthe situation is hopeless, but not serious. The blightwingers seem set in their ways, choosing to blunder and stumble along, on their treadmill to oblivion, because they choose not to identify themselves any more than they choose to identify their enemies.' (1)
I agree with Thomson here that there was - and is - a lack of knowledge of who 'the enemy' - if you want to put it that way - was and is, but the picture of the enemy that Thomson evokes - as he describes it in his article - is ludicrous and quite simply anti-government. It is not in any rational way anti-jewish. If anything it is arguably pro-jewish, and presents us with the dichotomy of Thomson's profession of being a 'simple Nazi'.
Since in order to be a National Socialist Thomson would have to be an uncompromising supporter of order and not disorder as well as the looser term: justice. Therefore to be a National Socialist Thomson would have to support the government on principle, but be opposed to the current powerful lobbying interests of the jews in the government, which is not the stance he ostensibly takes in his written work.
Thomson does not seem to support either, order and justice, and in most of his published work (2) spends most of his time attacking the 'jew-dominated government' rather than the jews, (2) when he should - if he was a good National Socialist - pinpoint his specific criticism and lampoons onto the actual jews in power, rather than the broader term suggesting that government in general is wholly rotten. (4) Not only is this a simplistic understanding of politics in general - and more specially lobby politics - it is also contrary to the organic worldview, which is the hallmark of the National Socialist weltanschauung.
Since if Thomson was abiding by this organic view he would, and indeed should, note that there are substantial anti-jewish forces in play in governments and that what we see are the results of the war between these two general forces who can be broken down into smaller camps but who have one of those two general allegiances. This explains - for example - the contrasting and varied political situation surrounding the jews and why for example they fail to implement things they wish, even when they are generally united. It also reconciles with the National Socialist view of the eternal eugenic struggle upwards to constantly evolve to build a better future for the folk.
Thomson's lack of clear thought and his insistence at playing the revolutionary are demonstrated admirably in his definition of 'ZOG'.
Thomson defines this as follows:
'ZIONIST: a jew-supremacist or Israel-firster. Most Zionists are not jews, but jew-stooges who are bribed and/or bamboozled into serving their jewish masters. The previously-used term for such a critter was "useful idiot" or race-traitor.
OCCUPATION: the status of foreign troops or agents who rule a subject people against its own interests, on behalf of the alien occupiers.
GOVERNMENT: a minority of individuals who have the authority to shoot the majority and/or to levy taxes upon them.' (5)
Firstly: this definition of the jewish problem targets 'Zionists' very particularly and does not note that the problem that is central to National Socialist ideology is the jew in all his or her manifestations. It is not as simple as saying 'Zionists' are the problem, because they are a ruling camp within the jewish community at present and were more so at the time of Thomson's first writing in 1976. There were - and are - considerable amounts of jews, of varying political stripes from the haredi, or ultra-orthodox, community and the 'jewish radical' traditions, who are - and have been - quite publicly opposed to Zionism.
Not only this, but Thomson does not recognise that jews have nearly always split into opposing camps publicly over various issues and even if one issue seems to predominate it can often fade into obscurity just as quickly as it arose. An excellent example of this in history is the Messianic movement of Shabbatai Tzevi (6) (more popularly known as Sabbatai Zvi) when his proclamations that he was the long awaited jewish Messiah drew tens if not hundreds of thousands of jews from all over Europe, the Near East and North Africa to his standard directly.
Even when Shabbatai Tzevi was assiduously led into a trap by the Ottoman Sultan - advised by a jewish convert to Islam no less who was according to some scholars working at the behest of the rabbinical authorities - and promptly converted to Islam to avoid being decapitated and having to rise from the dead to prove his divine origin.
This promptly caused the general collapse of the Messianic movement around Shabbatai Tzevi. Although it as one might anticipate did not collapse completely with some Ashkenazi jews and their tzadiks as well as the remnants of his followers in Turkey, the Donmeh, kept alive his memory and constructed a new theology surrounding Shabbatai Tzevi. Never-the-less the movement - in spite of the ancestors of the Donmeh - around Shabbatai Tzevi collapsed and he was consigned to history as a 'false messiah'.
However: not all jews followed Shabbatai even at the height of his influence and if we are to believe Thomson's thinking we should have called the jewish problem of the 16th century the 'Shabbataian Occupied Government'. The problem was of different aspect yes, but the issues at hand were very much the same with the proliferation of the hofjude - or court jews - as well as the mercantile, [small and large scale] money-lending, tax farming and the international activities of the jews in this period.
So rather than sending their capital to and working on behalf of the Israeli government they at that time would have been working on behalf of Shabbatai Tzevi. But in the present - like Shabbatai Tzevi's time - there are a substantial number of jews who have held back from the all too alluring chalice that is the ideology of Zionism. This can be compared to the many rabbis who condemned Shabbatai Tzevi as a false Messiah - among other things - and successfully removed him as a significant threat to their power and goals. Will these jewish 'anti-Zionists' destroy Zionism or Israel as a country? It is too early to tell, but we have to when dealing with jews think ahead and describe the problem as it actually is and not as it is at the moment.
Shabbatai Tzevi's fall from grace in the world of jewry provides us with an example whereby if we were to judge and label 'the enemy' - as Thomson refers to it - as 'Zionists', but the problem is not in fact 'Zionists' - or Shabbatians to use my example of a previous fashionable jewish intellectual movement - rather jews then we cause a problem for ourselves by not underlining one of the root causes to the problems that face Europe, North America and Oceania today.
The jew does not champion a single cause such as Zionism - as I noted above - but rather he has many causes which he advocates. Sometimes the fashion is communism, sometimes the fashion is Zionism, sometimes the fashion is Hellenism and other times the fashion is to turn frum. (7) One cannot just ascribe to him the appellation, 'Zionist' and expect that to stick, because there are 'anti-Zionist' jews running around in significant numbers, which someone who sees 'Zionists' as his enemy will logically presume to get quite alright because they are not 'Zionists'. Even these 'anti-Zionist' jews vary in their ideas from a joint Israeli-Palestinian state (8) to the idea that Israel should not exist, because the Messiah has not come yet and therefore the jews by taking up residence in the land are violating Hashem's covenant with the jewish people. (9)
'Zionist' does not mean 'jew' and the problem is not simply Israel but rather it is jews writ large. By using 'Zionist' Thomson is completely confusing the problem at hand, and allowing jews to escape the scorching spotlight of anti-Semitic critique (much as I suspect to his chagrin this can be compared to the baptismal font in that it allows the jew opposed to Zionism to escape much as conversion ostensibly formerly did in Europe), and not realising that by using it he is adversely affecting the cause he ostensibly advocates.
Secondly: Thomson as many have done, ignores a quintessential fact of jewish discourse that the senior powerbase of what one can term international jewry is not in fact located in Israel, but rather in North America with New York City being the unstated capital of this worldwide fraternity. Since the international jewish community is made up essentially of two geographic elements: those in Israel and those not in Israel. Most - and moreover the more politically and financially powerful - jews are outside of Israel and although most of these powerful jews support Israel that support is not unconditional.
The Israeli government has to placate the jewish Diaspora on a regular basis, because to paraphrase one recent article in an Israeli newspaper: 'the American jewish Diaspora does things for Israel and expects Israel to be very grateful to it'. This is why you find that nearly every Israeli Prime Minister and President at some point in their term in office has talked of 'changing Israel's relationship with its Diaspora', because Israel is the junior not the senior partner in the relationship and is dependent on the Diaspora to rescue it from itself.
As I noted about the jewish Diaspora is not essentially Zionist either. Although the jewish Diaspora has historically been supportive since Zionism came into jewish intellectual fashion in and around the turn of the twentieth century. A lot of Israeli government money is in fact expended in convincing the jews of the Diaspora - especially those of New York City - that Israel is a cause worth supporting and putting their money towards. It is worth noting that jews have a very considerable tradition for philanthropy among their own kind and Israeli jews do have to compete for these considerable monies alongside other jewish philanthropic/educational organisations, which work on a more national basis.
Of course Israeli organisations within the Diaspora have been very successful in fundraising and garnering support.
Primarily by hysteric predictions of 'another Holocaust' and of atrocity propaganda relating to the rockets launched by the Hezbollah from southern Lebanon and by Hamas near the Gaza border (against Sderot for one prominent example).
However the important issue here is who is the target for this propaganda for since Israel spends so much time and money on garnering support using this type of propaganda it is of importance to understand the target audience, which is in fact jews and not as is commonly presumed gentiles.
The average jew in the ghettos of Brooklyn, for example, is highly susceptible to jewish atrocity propaganda. Since he or she does not know better than to question what Israel says and if their Rabbi and community endorses it all the better.
Since then the community pressure, that is a negative sanction in most groups, is brought to bear on jews to make them observant to Israel. This is addition to the fact that other openly jewish sources of information are often very pro-Zionist and your average jew in the ghettos of Brooklyn doesn't trust nor want to listen to the non-jewish news for it has no real relevance for him or her. In all essentials then this Israeli propaganda in the mainstream jewish organisations and media gives your average jew the impression that Israel is in the right and that any criticism from non-jewish (and occasionally jewish) sources of media that are anti-Israel are anti-Semitic or in the case of jewish criticism: 'self-hating'. (10)
Convincing the Diaspora jews of the necessity of supporting Israel financially, morally, physically and intellectually no matter what the cost has been part of Israeli strategy since Israel's foundation, which was made possible by the Diaspora's actions within government circles, fighting with the emergent IDF, smuggling arms and people to Israel and the financing of the war as well as the purchase of land. This reliance on the Diaspora is still as strong as it was in 1948. Although Israel can stand on her own: Israel is never-the-less is a state, which heavily relies upon its jewish origins to garner the necessary support in all spheres - both jewish and Judeo-Christian - to make its very controversial actions possible.
This is the ideology behind the Zionist rhetoric about requiring a self-sustaining jewish state, because the Zionists around the world - and especially within Israel itself - realise that Israel is not currently a self-sustaining state and in order to survive it needs help from the outside. This has been the function of Israeli propaganda within the jewish community and is often mistaken by opponents of jews and/or Israel - as Thomson has likely mistaken it - to be simply aimed at gentiles around the world.
When in fact this propaganda's primary function is to garner jewish support for Israel and the secondary function there-of is to create 'righteous gentiles' - to use the Noahide conception - who support the jewish people and specifically the efforts of Zionism to establish then support, sustain and advance the jewish state.
Thirdly: Thomson is probably correct to state that most Zionists are not jews since the majority of 'Zionists' would appear to be the so-called 'Christian-Zionists'. Whom follow a theology where-by it becomes necessary for the jews to return to Palestine so that Jesus Christ can come again and the tribulation can begin. However much of 'Christian-Zionist' movement is supported and aided by (usually secular) jewish Zionists who blend 'Christian-Zionist' political, economic and social weight to their own on questions relating to Israel, United States policy towards the Middle East and jews in general.
Are the people who have been lead into believing such millennial ideas 'race traitors' (to the pseudo-racialist/racialist cause) and 'useful idiots' (to the jewish cause)? I certainly don't think so.
The idea that such people are 'race traitors', because they serve the Zionist cause is only applicable to those who knowingly promote jews despite knowledge that the cause of Zionism is not in the best interests of their folk, let alone their religion, or can be proved to have taken money to preach the cause of Zionism. 'Race traitor' is a term, which should be specifically applied to particular political criminals. Rather than one that can be applied to entire segments of the folk who have simply been mislead by the people whom they have trusted to be honest with them and look to their best interests.
The same implies to 'useful idiots' in that the folk are not idiots and nor are they inherently idiotic as this characterisation of them implies. Rather they are people who are simple in their beliefs (11) and do not have time to deeply research into things pertaining to politics or their situation. The folk often have more important things to do such as earning the bread for the family table and keeping the family home clean and tidy as well spending time with their families. These are far more important things than concerning themselves with the machinations behind the scenes in politics, diplomacy, academe and business. The folk trust the representatives of power to tell them the truth and when they do not do so it is up to the National Socialist to inform of this fact gently and without malice. This stems from the fact that the National Socialist loves the folk unconditionally and with all their heart and does not belittle or look down on them with scorn, because they may not follow the National Socialist weltanschauung at the current time.
If you treat the folk as Thomson treats them in his work, as ignorant cattle, then you are simply treating them as a communist would do in the Marxian [and general jewish] presumption that there are 'opiates of the masses' so to speak.
Nobody but a masochistic pervert responds well to condescension and one must treat the folk as part of your extended family: care for, help and love them as if they were your father or mother, brother or sister, son or daughter, grandson or to assume that the folk are such creatures - as Thomson does - degrades them and puts the writer on an unearned pedestal as the paradigm of virtue, because he or she 'knows the truth', which is an excuse for feeling intellectually superior when there is absolutely no grounds for doing so.
How does Thomson, putting himself on the unearned pedestal, know that he knows 'the truth' of the matter? When he is ostensibly dealing with a sub-rosa ethnocentric network of individuals, informal groups and formal organisations: who do not share the same overt goals, such as Zionism or Communism, but share the same underlying one: what is good for jews.
Perceptions of what is in fact good for jews differ, which is why you get jews who argue for secular integration, others who argue for religious Zionism, others who argue for secular Zionism, others who argue for a return to the Diaspora without Israel etc. The same fundamental theme, even in the case of 'anti-Semitic' jews, is one of what is good for the jewish people. Jews cannot be viewed as a monolithic entity taking 'orders from the top', but must be view rather as a series of interconnecting ethnocentric individuals, informal groups and formal organisations who have a shifting pattern of alliances and output based on their own interpretation of what is best for jewry and what is best for their particular theory as to what is best for jewry at that given time.
Unless the writer acknowledges that what he or she is writing is a theory based on the presented facts of the matter. Then he or she is simply setting themselves up as easy prey to jewish intellectuals who can point out contrary examples and show with some ease that not all jewry is united. Therefore they can seem to prove to the folk that what 'anti-Semites' say is paranoid hogwash and that 'anti-Semites' really are the irrational beings they portray them as.
What Thomson fails to recognise is that there are few absolutes when it comes to jews and one must understand that the idea of Zionism being the root cause of the problem jewry poses in the present age is fallacious and more generally distorts the problem at hand and substitutes caring for the folk for looking down on them as intellectual inferiors.
'The enemy' is not the 'Zionists': it is the jews.
References
(1) Eric Thomson, 'Welcome to ZOG-World', http://www.faem.com/eric/2000/et047.htm
(2) Available at the following address: http://www.faem.com/eric/
(3) This is typified by Thomson's consistent casting of himself as a 'revolutionary' and also in such foul and discourteous terms as: 'ZOGWENCH: a female employee of the government', 'ZOGLING or ZOGDOG: any employee of the government','ZOGNERD: a government clerk' and 'ZOG-TURD: a taxpayer, i.e., that which is consumed and excreted by the ZOG' (Thomson, 'Welcome to ZOG-World', Op. Cit.), that he is responsible for.
(4) Thomson does the same with Christianity as he does with government and treats it with a very broad brush claiming it is based on Judaism and therefore it is de facto bad and contrary to the interests of the Aryan race. This is just as inaccurate as his criticism against government in that Thomson fails to comprehend that working against the grain of human nature and the Aryan racial characteristic as the upholder of order and justice.
(5) Thomson, 'Welcome to ZOG-World', Op. Cit.
(6) For a brief description of Shabbatai Tzevi see Geoffrey Wigoder, 1991, 'Dictionary of Jewish Biography', 1st Edition, Simon & Schuster: New York, pp. 472-473
(7) Translated: pious. This is usually used to describe haredi, or ultra-orthodox jews, and they in turn describe non-haredi with some exceptions as frei (or free from the yoke of the mitzvot).
(8) One prominent group that holds to this is the Israeli 'human rights advocates' organisation: B'tselem.
(9) One prominent group that holds to this is the haredi: Neturei Karta.
(10) This doesn't mean the jew is stupid, but rather that because of their compact minority community. They feel in danger from the gentile world around them, for jews are perennially mentally insecure and feel inadequate (which is where Freudianism comes from), and thus can relate to atrocity propaganda coming from Israel about what the horrid, evil, ungrateful gentiles are cooking up to do to them (the 'poor, innocent and misunderstood' jew) again. It is also worth stating that jews feel their experiences generally justify whatever is done to the local Arabs, because they feel they deserve a homeland of their own and have historically refused to have anything other than Palestine.
(11) This isn't to belittle them, but rather is a statement of the natural order of the universe. In that there are people who are very bright and are highly critical, there are those who are very bright but not critical and there are those are not very bright and are highly critical (etc). Simplicity is a virtue not a vice in that only in simplicity can the true racial essence of the folk be seen.