Anti-Semitism - anti-Zionism: beware of labels
Today I am providing my English translation of an article by Massimo Mazzucco, originally in Italian and published on his website LuogoComune.net on Tuesday 16th December 2025.
(All emphasis and footnotes mine).
Words are extremely important, we all know that. The use of one term rather than another can change the meaning of an entire speech. But words become even more important when labels are used instead.
Labels are deadly. They are words that, in one fell swoop, have the power to describe and judge a person.
In modern times, it was the CIA that first discovered the devastating power of labels. When, in 1964, the first doubts about the [John Fitzgerald] Kennedy assassination began to circulate, someone coined the term “conspiracy theorists” for all those who did not believe the official version of the American government.
This label had a double devastating effect: first, it insinuated a negative connotation of the term (thus discouraging “decent people” from doubting the official version, so as not to “look bad” in public), and second – much more importantly – it allowed those who used it to avoid having to confront the specific facts. In other words, by using that term, on the one hand, the conspiracy theorist was discredited, and on the other, one was exempt from discussing the matter with them.
You would say, “But, in my opinion, that bullet couldn’t have followed that trajectory”, and the other person would reply, “Here we go again, the usual conspiracy theorist. It’s not even worth talking to you”. End of discussion.
The importance of the dual significance of this label (discrediting the other person and avoiding confrontation) cannot be overestimated.
In fact, the term has become commonplace. Today, the conspiracy theorist is, by definition, a person not worthy of attention, regardless of what they have to say.
In some cases, the label “conspiracy theorist” has even been used preventively: we cannot forget George Bush (probably prompted by Dick Cheney) who, immediately after 9/11, warned the world by saying, “We will not tolerate conspiracy theories about 9/11”. (Evidently, someone already knew that conspiracy theories would circulate in abundance).
But it is not just “conspiracy theories”. Once the importance of labelling is understood, this system proves useful in all circumstances.
During Covid, the label “anti-vaxxer” was created, to be applied indiscriminately to anyone who opposed compulsory vaccinations. The implication (the negative connotation of the term) was that these people were automatically “anti-science”, and therefore a) dangerous to society, and b) worthy of contempt and social marginalisation.
Then, during the war in Ukraine, the term “Putinist” was coined. Again, anyone who challenged the official narrative of “invader and invaded” was automatically labelled a “friend of Putin”. The implication (the negative connotation of the term) was that these people were implicitly against freedom and democracy, of which the West was the only worthy representative.
And now it is the turn of the Israel issue. As we know, the political use of the label “anti-Semitic” has now become universal. Anyone who dares to challenge Israel is branded an anti-Semite. This trick has worked for over a hundred years, but now that the Palestinian question is back in the spotlight, those who criticise Israel are keen to point out that they are “not opposed to Jews as such, but only criticise the Zionist policies of their government”. According to those who make these criticisms, they are therefore anti-Zionist, but not necessarily anti-Semitic.
This distinction has suddenly dampened the Zionists’ enthusiasm in public debate, because they can no longer generically label their critics as anti-Semitic, at the risk of hearing them reply, “I am not anti-Semitic, I am only anti-Zionist”.
Imagine the despair of those who were accustomed to constantly using the term “anti-Semite” to silence anyone who criticised them, and who can no longer do so because the distinction with anti-Zionist has been clarified.
This gives rise to – and this is the point of the whole article – the need for Zionists to muddy the waters, blurring the boundaries between the two terms, so that they can assimilate the former into the latter and return to using labelling as a universal weapon against all criticism.
The first to do so [in Italy] was, not surprisingly, Paolo Mieli1, who a year ago, in a broadcast by [Lilli] Gruber2, tried to confuse the two terms: with his classic nonchalance, pretending to throw out a random thought, he said: “after all, anyone who is anti-Zionist is also anti-Semitic”.
Our dear Mieli had seen it coming: today, this need to muddy the waters, to “blur” the boundaries between the two terms, became clear when PD3 deputy4 [Graziano] Del Rio (manipulated by who knows whom?) presented a bill that essentially sought to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. If this proposal had become law, any criticism of Israel’s policies would automatically fall under the definition of anti-Semitism, and therefore “racial hatred”, and thus punishable by law.
Fortunately, his proposal came to nothing, in the sense that the very left wing he intended to co-opt realised the blatant censorship it would entail.
But the battle has only just begun. In the future – you can be sure of it – the issue will be raised again, until it becomes a refrain on all networks. There will be other servants of Zion, after Del Rio, who will lend themselves to this proposal to equate the two terms, with the clear intention of reducing any criticism of Israel to zero.
It will be up to us – each and every one of us – to fight to prevent the vocabulary from being violated yet again by the masters of discourse, who always seek to make words the sharpest and most effective weapon that has ever existed on the face of the earth.
An Italian presstitute, member of the Italian Aspen Institute and most likely a Freemason - Wikipedia
Partito Democratico, i.e. Democratic Party
sic - he is actually a Senator
You can call me a conspiracy theorist if I can call you a coincidence theorist.
And when the anti-semitism argument doesn't play, they will pull out the holocaust card - but you can no longer play that card when you've done one yourself. And THAT is the primary point in the whole semite/zionist debate - they deny that a genocide is taking place. But it is also more than that - an entire culture is being swept aside as trash.