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.