When I hear the word “anti-Semitism,” I reach for my revolver

Posted by T on July 21, 2007
Judaica, When I hear the word...

but for a reason opposite to that of the Semite-worshippers that are also seen to be grabbing their pistols.

My thesis is very simple: the term anti-semitism exploits an equivocation between race and religion that sets up the discourse for fallacious inferences. Moreover, the privileged status that this term has over others in its genre is itself an indication of the racism of those that recklessly purvey it.

The equivocation works like this. Charlie says something negative about Judaism. Himey retorts, “Charlie is an anti-semite.” This premise established, it now follows by rigorous deduction, “Charlie discriminates against people because of their accident of birth” i.e. “Charlie is a racist.”

It can work in the opposite direction as well. Charlie makes an ethnic generalization about Jews that is negative. Someone shrieks, “anti-semite!” Presto, it turns out that Charlie is a religious bigot — though Charlie’s comment had nothing to do with religion.

Bad as this built-in ambiguity is, what is worse is the implicit threat of its being deployed to Bulverize and marginalize anyone that would criticize Jews. Real-life examples are pervasive, and it would belabor the point to cite them endlessly. Here is just one recent example, where Sean Hannity says to radio talk-show host Melanie Morgan,

“[Cindy Sheehan] said, my first son born was killed for lies and for a neo-con agenda to benefit Israel, repeatedly saying ‘America out of Iraq, Israel out of Palestine,’ you’ll stop terrorism that way. Do you think those statements are anti-Semitic?”

Melanie answered, “Well I don’t know if Cindy Sheehan herself is anti-Semitic, I suspect she may have some Jewish friends. But I can tell you for sure that those comments are anti-Semitic and they’re deeply hurtful and divisive.”

Think about this. Sheehan’s statement says, “America in Iraq is terrorism, and Israel in Palestine is terrorism.” Sean does not identify this as “anti-Americanism.” That would be too absurd, as if questioning our policy makes one “anti-” anything. But for some reason, it is not seen as absurd to ask if it is “anti-semitic.”

And Melanie chimes right in that believing Israel in Palestine is terrorism, if consistent, would imply that one does not have Jewish friends; Cindy herself is probably inconsistent, but the sentiment is certainly “anti-Semitic.”

This is a way to model human interaction and thought that would be scoffed at as arrogant and preposterous if any other ethnos tried to do it. Construct, for example, an almost perfect mirror to Cindy’s statement, but concerning Mexico. Suppose someone said, “The transnational highway is sacrificing American small businessmen for lies and for a neo-con agenda to benefit Mexico.” Can you imagine Sean asking, “do you think those statements are anti-mexicite?”

Consider that (as Wex admitted) gentile and Christian are virtual synonyms in Jewish vocabulary. So, by parity of usage, when Hollywood makes one of its routine attacks against Christianity, the NY Times should huff about the ominous “anti-gentilism” that pervades Hollywood, like a disease. “Those dirty anti-gentites,” people should be heard to growl in college film classes.

The situation is actually even more absurd than that. The claim should be (to continue the example) that Hollywood is “anti-Japhethite,” by analogy to the son of Noah we are descended from.

The absurdity reveals itself just by making the analogy; nothing new needs to be said.

It is too much of a digression to pursue right now, but of course the modern purveyors of the expression (excepting their Christian sycophants) no longer believe in the sons of Noah anyway. Later. For now: just think what a linguistic coup it was to identify “anything Jewish” with “descendant of Shem.”

I pass by also the opportunity to note yet another ambiguity nested in the term. Arabs are Semites; yet by the media’s definition, they are (often) anti-Semitic!

Absurd is the idea that our rejection of the Talmudic nest of teaching known as Judaism is a manifestation of racial rivalry. After all, we would be doubly outraged if a fellow Japhethite fell into such error. If anything, we tend to cut the Jew some extra slack on account of his race.

(And that is surely incipient racism!)

Now if the Jew protests, “we can’t help believing this stuff; it’s in our race,” I say: “repent of your race then.”

But only by way of calling his bluff.

In fact, we are hopeful that Jews will repent of that dark, arrogant, and self-worshipping pseudo-religion, without needing to reverse history and be born to a different line of ancestors than they in fact have been.

To think otherwise would itself be to commit the judaic mistake.


14 Comments to When I hear the word “anti-Semitism,” I reach for my revolver

  • … If the jews (or judaics) of today are not of biblical (and thus covanental) lineage, then that raises an interesting question. I’ve viewed them as an extremely cursed people due to their being a explicity covenant-breaking and apostate group by definition. Every circumcision, Sabbath gathering to read the Torah, and calendar observance is actually a re-inforcement of covenant-breaking sanctions by God. But should I really see this as a sucession of covenant-breaking if they are a not of the lineage that drew God’s wrath in AD 70? If not, then how can there be a “restoration” of the jews without spiritualizing away some of Paul’s statements.I enjoyed the post! Thanks much.

  • Some more of them apples – a portion of another article found here http://100777.com/node/1388


    However, in its “Report on Global Anti-Semitism” and “Global Anti- Semitism Report,” the U.S. State Department ignores the above perspectives. Here is a list of beliefs or activities the U.S. government now considers anti-Semitic:

    1. Any assertion “that the Jewish community controls government, the media, international business and the financial world” is anti- Semitic.

    2. “Strong anti-Israel sentiment” is anti-Semitic.

    3. “Virulent criticism” of Israel’s leaders, past or present, is anti- Semitic. According to the State Department, anti-Semitism occurs when a swastika is portrayed in a cartoon decrying the behavior of a past or present Zionist leader. Thus, a cartoon that includes a swastika to criticize Ariel Sharon’s brutal 2002 invasion of the West Bank, raining “hell-fire” missiles on hapless Palestinian men, women and children, is anti-Semitic. Similarly, when the word “Zionazi” is used to describe Sharon’s saturation bombing in Lebanon in 1982 (killing 17,500 innocent refugees), it is also “anti-Semitic.”

    4. Criticism of the Jewish religion or its religious leaders or literature (especially the Talmud and Kabbalah) is anti-Semitic.

    5. Criticism of the U.S. government and Congress for being under undue influence by the Jewish-Zionist community (including AIPAC) is anti-Semitic.

    6. Criticism of the Jewish-Zionist community for promoting globalism (the “New World Order”) is anti-Semitic.

    7. Blaming Jewish leaders and their followers for inciting the Roman crucifixion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

    8. Diminishing the “six million” figure of Holocaust victims is anti- Semitic.

    9. Calling Israel a “racist” state is anti-Semitic.

    10. Asserting that there exists a “Zionist Conspiracy” is anti- Semitic.

    11. Claiming that Jews and their leaders created the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia is anti-Semitic.

    12. Making “derogatory statements about Jewish persons” is anti- Semitic.

    13. Denying spiritually disobedient Jews the biblical right to re- occupy Palestine is anti-Semitic.

    14. Alleging that Mossad was behind the 9/11 attack is anti-Semitic.

  • They had to coin the Argumentum ad Nazium becuase of an overuse of the Hitler analogy. I say we coin one for the anti-semite analogy.

  • Jonathan:
    Argumentum ad Nazium–very funny, and useful. Hadn’t heard that one, but all warmongers must invoke the Hitler analogy to get people hyped for war.

  • Speaking of Jews repenting, apparently the Benedict’s loosening of restrictions about the Tridentine mass has been met with charges of anti-semitism by you-know-whom, because the old Latin rite includes prayers for the conversion of Jews! Reformed churches routinely pray for the conversion of the Jews. But I guess we’re too small a group to matter. Or maybe the anti-defamation league just hasn’t caught up with us yet. Christian Witness for Israel, I group I have supported, seems to be now expecting those who want to see the Jews come to Christ, to similarly and simultaneously, support political Israel. I don’t know if it’s the new head of CWI or if I just began noticing it.

    A question: technically, are not the Arabs and other Middle Easterners also Semites? If so, Israel against Palestine is intrasemitic warfare. No charges of anti-semitism should ensue for those who support Palestine, correct?

  • At the risk of drifting off-thread, and seeming to claim undue credit (my “work” here is purely independent, if too easy): Argumentum ad McCarthium.

  • Joshua (#1) — I assume you are raising the question of the Khazars. If they were gentilic converts to Judaism, can they be regarded as heirs of the covenant made with Abraham?

    Ordinarily, of course, people can be grafted in to a covenant. In this case, however, it is gentilic Christians that were grafted in; and that part of the main stalk that was unbelieving was cut off.

    Which is worse, then, to be an heir of the commonwealth of Israel at the time of Christ and reject the Son of God? or, as a gentile 700 years later, in full cognizance of the situation, convert to the covenant-breakers? For me, it is very difficult to say. Either situation counts as extreme wickedness.

    Both types of “jew” would count as covenant breakers; I would say one can easily become a covenant-breaker by conversion. The Khazar would not be an “heir to the promises”; but it is questionable to me if the jew by natural descent could count as that either. They were cut off. They must now be grafted in, by conversion.

    It is with that background that your last question gains relevance. Would it make any sense to regard Paul’s statements especially in Rom 11 as pertaining to a later “convert” to judaism? And what would this imply about prayers for the conversion of the jews?

    As if Rom 11 were not already difficult enough!

    At this point, I am only able to suggest some possibilities that I could imagine would be worth considering:

    1. The prediction of the conversion of the jews has already been fulfilled.

    2. The prediction only applies to one part of modern judaica, e.g. the Sephardics.

    3. The prediction applies to all claimants to judaism as exemplars of human wickedness in its most extreme form; then a fortiori, we would pray for all other tribes of humanity as well.

    4. I think the amillennialists argue that the passage doesn’t apply to jews to begin with. I’ll have to go review some of their work.

  • I think it is possible that the conversion of the Jews already has been accomplished.

  • Tim & Eliza –

    Yes, I too find the typical preterist reading of Romans 11 deficient. Hopefully Tim will report back on this soon.

  • Speaking of anti-Semitism . . . Richard Nixon said the following on one of his secret recordings.

    “The only two non-Jews in the communist conspiracy,” [Nixon] said, “were [Whittaker] Chambers and [Alger] Hiss. Many felt that Hiss was. He could have been a half, but he was not by religion. The only two non-Jews. Every other one was a Jew. And it raised hell with us.”

    Nixon, of course, was a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities who investigated the (real) Communist threat. He was in a position to know.

    That Jews were the main players within the American Communist Party should come as no surprise since Jews were the dominant ethnic group of the Bolshevik revolution.

    In 1920 Robert Wilton, the Russian correspondent of The Times published a book in French, Les Derniers Jours des Romanofs, which gave the racial background of all the members of the Soviet government. Here is his list.

    Central Committee:

    Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
    Lourie (Larine) Jew
    Ouritski Jew
    Volodarski Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
    Krylenko Russian
    Lounatcharski Russian

    The Council of the People’s Commissars:

    President Lenin Russian
    Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
    Nationalities Stalin Georgian
    Agriculture Protian Armenian
    Ec. Council Lourie Jew
    Food Schlichter Jew
    Army & Navy Trotsky Jew
    State Control Lander Jew
    State Lands Kauffman Jew
    Works V. Schmidt Jew
    Social Relief Knigissen Jewess
    Public Instr. Lounatcharsky Russian
    Religions Spitzberg Jew
    Interior Zinovief Jew
    Hygiene Anvelt Jew
    Finance Goukovski Jew
    Press Volodarski Jew
    Elections Ouritski Jew
    Justice I. Steinberg Jew
    Refugees Fenigstein Jew
    Refugees, asst. Savitch Jew
    Refugees, asst. Zaslovski Jew

    Central Executive Committee:

    Sverdlov (president) Jew
    Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
    Bruno Lett
    Babtchinski Jew
    Bukharin Russian
    Weinberg Jew
    Gailiss Jew
    Ganzburg Jew
    Danichevski Jew
    Starck German
    Sachs Jew
    Scheinmann Jew
    Erdling Jew
    Landauer Jew
    Linder Jew
    Wolach Czech
    Dimanstein Jew
    Encukidze Georgian
    Ermann Jew
    Joffe Jew
    Karkline Jew
    Knigissen Jew
    Kamenef Jew
    Zinovief Jew
    Krylenko Russian
    KrassikofSachs Jew
    Kaprik Jew
    Kaoul Lett
    Lenin Russian
    Latsis Jew
    Lander Jew
    Lounatcharski Russian
    Peterson Lett
    Peters Lett
    Roudzoutas Jew
    Rosine Jew
    Smidovitch Jew
    Stoutchka Lett
    Steklof Jew
    Sosnovski Jew
    Skrytnik Jew
    Trotsky Jew
    Teodorovitch Jew
    Terian Armenian
    Ouritski Jew
    Telechkine Russian
    Feldmann Jew
    Froumkine Jew
    Souriupa Ukranian
    Tchavtchevadze Georgian
    Scheikmann Jew
    Rosental Jew
    Achkinazi Imeretian
    Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
    Rose Jew
    Radek Jew
    Sclichter Jew
    Schikolini Jew
    Chklianski Jew
    Pravdine Jew

    Both the Central Committee and the Council of the People’s Commissars were 3/4 Jews. And 2/3 of the Central Executive were Jewish.

    Scholars have also shown that Lenin’s maternal grandfather was a Jew. According to Zev Ben-Shlomo, “Lenin did indeed praise Jews in somewhat excessive terms, just as he was excessive in his denigration of Russians. Referring probably to himself, he told the writer, Maxim Gorky, that “the clever Russian is almost always a Jew or has Jewish blood in him.” He also contrasted Jews’ steadfastness as revolutionaries to that of the Russians.”

    Is the Jewish make-up of the American and Russian Communists just a coincidence? Or is pointing this out an indication that I am “anti-Semitic”?

  • A German politician made similar observations in a speech, and now it is creating a firestorm. Let’s hope Hohmann sticks to his guns, and doesn’t break down into a sea of apologies.

    Imagine being sued, and possibly kicked out of Parliament, for pointing out that most Bolsheviks were jews!

    But the good news is that little voices like this are starting to appear everywhere, even in Germany.

  • About the Jews Conversion (comments 1,7,8,10):

    Apparently DeMar thinks the best option is that all Israel has been saved.

    It’s actually a decent, brief treatment of the different options and their problems.

  • Here is a contemporary example of how the “by deception we shall prevail” continues. Note the typical jewish trick of substituting “Christian” for “Gentile.” This is exactly the use of the ambiguity between religion and tribe that the term “anti-Semitism” exploits. Consider just this one paragraph:

    “For centuries, Christians killed each other. Hindus kill Christians and Muslims. Muslims kill everyone, including other Muslims. Everyone knows this.”

    First, note the odd way of putting things. Why not say instead, and more accurately, “For centuries, Aryan nations have gone to war with other Aryan nations, and the same can be said of Indians and Arabs.” This would be succinct and capture the real issue, which is not religious.

    (He forgets to mention the times in which jewish financiers have made possible some of those wars, and even helped both sides in some. But I digress.)

    Read the whole article and substitute the ethnic term for the religious one, and the fraud will instantly become clear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *