'Zionacity': The Audacity of Pretend Intellectualism
Image: IOL / Ron AI
A reply to Gillian Schutte, by Tim Flack
In the now all-too-familiar theatre of progressive thought, where victimhood is currency and language is weaponised to invert truth, we find ourselves confronted with a fresh absurdity. Gillian Schutte, self-styled decolonial thinker and social critic, has coined a term 'Zionacity'.
A Frankensteinian mash-up of "Zionism" and "audacity," it is the sort of pseudo-intellectual graffiti one might find scribbled in the margins of a 1st years Marxist seminar notes, rather than in anything resembling serious journalism or moral philosophy.
Yet here it is, published with no sense of shame or rigour, paraded as if it were a concept of gravitas, rather than a crude ideological club designed to bludgeon the world's only Jewish state. In just a few short paragraphs, Schutte manages to unravel any credibility she may have had by engaging in an extraordinary exercise in double standards, historical revisionism, and - dare we say it - a rather fashionable brand of antisemitism, cloaked, as always, in the language of virtue.
Let us begin with her core assertion: that Zionism is not a political movement rooted in the self-determination of a historically persecuted people, but rather a "psychosis," a "global apparatus of control," a "death cult" feeding on the corpses of others. This is not criticism. This is incitement with adjectives. And it's precisely the sort of grotesque rhetorical overreach that reveals the intellectual poverty of her position.
Zionism, for the uninitiated or the wilfully ignorant, is the belief that Jews - a people indigenous to the land of Israel, with a continuous presence there for over three millennia - have a right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It is not imperialism. It is not colonialism. It is not conquest. It is return. That this simple truth must still be defended in 2025, and defended against supposed "anti-racists," is a mark of just how distorted our discourse has become.
Schutte accuses Zionists of "elevating one group's trauma" above others. This, she says, is the moral disease of "Zionacity." But this is a malicious and cynical sleight of hand. Jewish trauma - pogroms, inquisitions, expulsions, ghettos, blood libels, forced conversions, and of course, the Holocaust - is not elevated. It is remembered. And it is remembered not to cancel out other people's suffering, but because forgetting it has proven time and again to be a luxury Jews cannot afford. To remember Auschwitz is not to diminish Gaza. But to accuse Jews of weaponizing memory is, in effect, to accuse them of having survived too visibly.
She then asserts that Zionism, again, Jewish national self-determination has become a template for "settler-colonialism" globally. Here we enter the realm of hallucinatory projection. Are we seriously to believe that Afrikaner farmers in the Karoo are inspired by Herzl and Ben-Gurion? That global injustice, from Yemen to Donbas, is downstream from Tel Aviv? This is the sort of ideological derangement that used to be confined to fringe pamphlets and badly moderated message boards, not respectable publications. But such is the reach of post-colonial chic that anything, however ludicrous, can be published, so long as Jews are the villains.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Her most odious claim and let's not be coy here, is that Jewish grief is uniquely manipulative. That it is not just remembered, but "weaponised." That it is not just sacred, but enforced through guilt. In this framing, Jews do not mourn, they plot. They do not suffer, they scheme. This is the old libel, reheated for the Instagram era. Replace the word "Zionist" with "Jew" in her piece and one quickly realises the ideological lineage of her accusations. They are not new. They are not clever. They are simply more dangerous in an age that has forgotten its history.
She laments that radical anti-Zionist Jews are "silenced." Nonsense. Anti-Zionist Jews are given front row seats at every anti-Israel protest, paraded as token 'as a Jews' for ideological antisemitism. The fact that they represent a minuscule sliver of global Jewry is irrelevant to Schutte. What matters is their usefulness as fig leaves for her project of demonisation. They are not prophets they are props.
The linguistic trickery continues. Israel doesn't defend itself, it "bombs Gaza." It doesn't resist annihilation, it imposes siege. The flattening of language is complete. Hamas is nowhere to be found. The thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli cities are absent. The tunnels, the hostage-taking, the massacre of October 7 are all unmentionable. Because they disrupt the victim-oppressor binary Schutte so desperately needs to maintain.
And then, as if to remind us of her seriousness, she expands her lens to the entire world. Venezuela, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Donbas. All tragic. All relevant. But none of them have anything to do with Zionism. Yet she drops them in like seasoning, hoping the reader won't notice the false equivalencies, or worse, will see Zionism as the root of all geopolitical evil. The move is transparent and it is also contemptible.
And here lies the irony. The ideology Schutte claims to oppose, one that allegedly monopolises grief and dehumanises others, is, in fact, the one she practises. She demands selective empathy. She criminalises Jewish memory. She pathologizes Jewish self-defence. And she frames Palestinian suffering not as tragedy but as a cudgel to delegitimise an entire people's existence.
It is not Zionists who dehumanise others. It is Gillian Schutte who denies the humanity of Israelis, and by extension, the Jewish people. It is she who insists that Jewish survival is inherently supremacist, that Jewish agency is inherently colonial, that Jewish statehood is inherently illegitimate.
Let us be very clear, her vision ends with the dismantling of Israel. That is not justice, that is annihilation by another name.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
The National Dialogue: Solidarity not just a Moral Idea, it's an Economic Necessity for South Africa
South Africa faces a critical juncture as economic sluggishness, youth unemployment, and stark inequality threaten the nation's future. In the midst of a National Dialogue, the call for solidarity emerges as a vital strategy to foster inclusivity and growth. Image: IOL / Ron AI In South Africa today, the cracks are showing. Our economy remains stubbornly sluggish. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, is at crisis levels. Inequality is among the worst in the world. Many feel excluded, unheard and left behind. Amid this, the country is engaged in a National Dialogue to chart a new way forward. One word should sit at the centre of that conversation: solidarity. Solidarity is often spoken of as a moral or emotional value, a call to unity, empathy and compassion. While it is all of those things, it is also something else: a hard-nosed economic necessity. If we are serious about building a thriving and inclusive South African economy, then we must place solidarity at the heart of our growth strategy. Why solidarity matters for the economy A society that is deeply divided cannot grow sustainably. Investors are wary of instability. Businesses cannot thrive in an atmosphere of protest, insecurity and fractured trust. Workers cannot be productive if they are demoralised or excluded. And young people cannot innovate if they are shut out of education and employment. Social cohesion, the outcome of solidarity in action, is not a 'nice-to-have.' It is an essential input into economic stability and performance. Countries that grow in a healthy, sustained way are those that invest in their people, share the gains of growth and keep inequality in check. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The price of division South Africa knows too well the cost of a divided society. We see it in service delivery protests, violent crime, polarised politics and a declining sense of national unity. An economy that continues to serve only the elite while the majority are left behind is not only unjust, it is unsustainable. If inequality and unemployment continues to rise and social fractures deepen, it is not a question of if we will face unrest, but when. We cannot build an economy for the future if we are constantly putting out the fires of the present. Solidarity in action So what does solidarity look like in practice? It starts with shared responsibility. Those who have the means, high-net-worth individuals, successful businesses and multinationals, must be willing to contribute more to the common good. That means paying fair taxes. It means investing in South African communities, not just in stock portfolios. It means supporting local supply chains, job creation and inclusive development. Solidarity also means participation. All South Africans, whether rich or poor, urban or rural, must see themselves as co-creators of the country's future. A culture of community service, volunteering and giving back is not just good citizenship, it's a national investment strategy. Government, too, must uphold its part. Public institutions must be responsive, ethical and effective. Corruption and inefficiency erode trust and undermine solidarity. If people are to pull together, they need to believe that their efforts will not be wasted or abused. A call for temporary sacrifices At this moment in our history, some sacrifices may be required, not forever, but for long enough to reset the trajectory. Temporary financial contributions from those who can afford it and tax justice that ensures the super-rich and powerful corporations contribute their fair share. Structural reforms that level the playing field. These are not punitive measures., they are acts of collective self-preservation. If we fail to act now, the cost down the line, socially and economically, will be far higher. Building together Solidarity should not be viewed as sentimentality. It is strategy. It is the glue that binds inclusive economies together. It is what enables a country to move from survival to shared success. The National Dialogue offers a rare opportunity for South Africans to come together and rewrite our future. Let us not waste it. Let us understand that if we are to build an economy that works for everyone, we must start by committing to each other. Because solidarity is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. * Daryl Swanepoel is the Chief Executive of the Inclusive Society Institute. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
TimesLIVE
20 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Columbia University to pay more than $200m to resolve Trump probes
Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200m (R3.5bn) to the US government in a settlement with President Donald Trump's administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. He welcomed the agreement between his administration and Columbia in a post on social media late on Wednesday. In March, the Trump administration said it was penalising Columbia over how it handled last year's protests by cancelling $400m in federal funding. It contended that Columbia's response to alleged anti-Semitism and harassment of Jewish and Israeli members of the university community was insufficient. 'Under today's agreement, a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March — will be reinstated and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored,' the university said in a statement. Columbia said it also agreed to settle investigations brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for $21m and that its deal with the Trump administration preserved its 'autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making'. After the government cancelled funding, the school acquiesced later in March to a series of demands that included scrutiny of departments offering courses on the Middle East and other concessions that were widely condemned by US academics. Last week, Columbia adopted a controversial definition of anti-Semitism that equates it with opposition to Zionism. The school said it would no longer engage with pro-Palestinian group Columbia University Apartheid Divest. 'Imagine selling your students out just so you can pay Trump $221m and keep funding genocide,' the pro-Palestinian group said on Wednesday, calling the settlement a bribe. Israel denies genocide accusations in Gaza and casts its military action as 'self-defence' after a deadly October 2023 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
The Rotten Core of a Manufactured Scandal
Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL / Ron AI Did President Barack Obama play a role in the fabrication of the Russia collusion narrative? According to former Representative Tulsi Gabbard—once a rising star within the Democratic Party and now a gadfly for political truth—the answer is unequivocally yes. More than that, Gabbard suggests the Obama administration orchestrated a 'treasonous conspiracy' in 2016, one that weaponised the intelligence community and buried exculpatory findings that contradicted their desired political outcome. Let us not pretend this charge is light. A 'treasonous conspiracy' suggests not merely malfeasance but a betrayal of the public trust at the highest levels of government. If these allegations are true—and the declassified documents and testimonies increasingly suggest they are—then we are dealing with one of the most corrosive abuses of power in American history. And yet, predictably, the usual suspects in the Democratic Party and their allies in corporate media have denounced these revelations not with evidence, but with noise. Men like Adam Schiff, the architect and chief propagandist of the Russia hoax, have long enjoyed the luxury of consequence-free deception. Schiff assured the nation, repeatedly and confidently, that he had 'direct evidence' of collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's government. No such evidence ever materialised. None. Instead, what we received was a years-long investigation—one that disrupted a presidency, undermined international credibility, and cost the American taxpayers tens of millions—only to conclude there was no collusion. The Mueller Report confirmed it. The Durham investigation exposed the rot. And yet, the architects of the lie remain untouched, their reputations defended by a press that long ago abandoned its role as watchdog in favour of partisan priesthood. What Gabbard alleges, however, takes this abuse of power a step further. According to her review of intelligence findings—now echoed by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—the original assessments from our intelligence community clearly stated that Russia's efforts had no material effect on the outcome of the 2016 election. In other words, while Russia may have engaged in cyber-meddling and online influence operations (as every major power does), it had no decisive impact on voting outcomes. That should have been the headline. Instead, it was buried. Why? Because truth was inconvenient to power. Because the narrative of Russian interference served a political end: to delegitimise Trump's presidency before it even began. What followed was not a sober investigation into foreign threats, but a coordinated disinformation campaign by our own intelligence apparatus at the urging of political elites. It was, as Former US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia might argue, an affront not merely to the legal process but to the very idea of republican government. In Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia famously dissented alone, warning against the creation of a fourth branch of government—unaccountable bureaucracies with the power to influence political outcomes. 'A government of laws, and not of men,' he wrote, 'means that our rulers are bound by the law, just as the governed are.' Yet here we are, in 2024, looking back at a moment when our rulers were the law—when intelligence agencies were pressured into revising their own conclusions to align with political imperatives. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the documented history of the modern American state. It is what happens when ideology becomes the lens through which evidence is interpreted, and when political expediency outweighs constitutional restraint. And now, with Trump poised for a potential return to the White House, the fear among Democrats is palpable. Not because of what Trump might do in the future, but because of what he might uncover from the past. This is the nightmare scenario for the left—not a second Trump term, but a reckoning with the truth. The emails, the memos, the redacted reports—they may not remain buried for much longer. Gabbard is right to call it treasonous. Whether that charge meets the legal standard or not is almost beside the point. What matters is that Americans were lied to by their own government—systematically, persistently, and with great sophistication. As Thomas Sowell has often warned: 'It is hard to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.' The question now is whether anyone will be held accountable. Or whether, once again, we will look the other way while the powerful write a different version of history—one where the truth is not merely inconvenient, but disposable. Did President Obama play a role in fabricating the Russia collusion narrative? Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard claims he did, suggesting a treasonous conspiracy that weaponised the intelligence community. Image: IOL * Armstrong Williams ( @arightside) is a political analyst, syndicated columnist and owner of the broadcasting company, Howard Stirk Holdings. He is also part owner of The Baltimore Sun. ** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL.
