A New Explanation of Antisemitism (A Response to The Passion's Critics)

FreeRepublic ^ | March 10, 2004 | gobucks

[gobucks]

Click A New Explanation of Antisemitism.

[gobucks]

"I guess you are making the point that it is the Left that is distorting the word "anti Semitism" into the above definition. "

That was exactly my point - and the distilled driving motivation behind ALL of these attacks is to maintain control over the cultural battleground already taken called 'truth is relative'. Many many people now accept this concept as, no pun intended, gospel.

The Passion's core message is 'no, the truth is absolute'.

And please pardon the words that you felt were hurtful - for it wasn't the intent as I stated in the essay - except to leftists, they can boil as far as I'm concerned.

"Antisemitism is to be guilty of loving the truth."

I suppose I could have written:

"Antisemitism is to be guilty of rejecting the love of rules."

But, that doesn't have nearly the same ring of how leftists actually see the 'truth'. The whole purpose of these metaphors is to illuminate how the owners of this word abuse others with it - both by ridiculing 'lovers of truth' and 'rejectors of rules' at the same time. They are very good at this.

Anyway, I took the risk regarding being offensive from the perspective that I believe most folks do NOT believe the Left OWNS the definition of the word antisemitism. I promise you, they do INDEED, and to reorient especially non-leftists to this reality.

Another poster made it seem as if the definition is neutral, and that leftists use it fairly. That's just not true, thus my foray into redefinition land.

[gobucks]

"Reideentifying anti-semitism with liberty is meaningless and will only cause a confusion that is deadly to the concept of liberty".

I did not use the word liberty in my entire essay - so that's a bit of 'confusion' right there. But I get your point. And I disagree. Assuming it 'will only cause a confusion' is a very bold position. It certainly suggests FR readers as a group are a vulnerable and sheep-like bunch. Ha!

My intent was to reveal the CURRENT deliberate confusion surrounding the use of this word and eliminate it. Currently, this word is used against far too many people who haven't a clue about Jews or Jewish culture. How many common folks can actually state where Israel is on a map??? Recall, this whole essay dealt with 'common' usage.

I'm not mimicking the left .... I'm exposing how they really think. I'm exposing how they adhere, via their actions, to what I defined as antisemitism, but they turn around and flip its meaning on a listener ... in effect, turning it into a 'rule' word to rule them.

Leftists use many many words to neutralize opposition, and they do it w/ deliberate premeditation. Many articles have been posted here which describe in detail how its done.

Now, that all said, you clearly see the thesis of my argument in this article (I think). What alternative would you propose which defangs the improper use of this word by leftists from the start? I've yet to see them held to account for this.

I'm all for promoting liberty. How do you promote the liberty of someone who is labeled an antisemite, but doesn't have a clue how to respond b/c they don't 'get' the motives of the person who is using it?

I'm open to suggestions... even links to what you see as the 'proper' way to go about this task of defending our republic and animating the concept of liberty, while at the same time defanging the rhetorical weapons of the left.

[gobucks]

I agree ...

[dangus]

I wasn't denying the definition, but noting its odd etymology.

Anti-: Opposed to. (literally, in the place of)
Semite: A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

Thus, it's problemmatic because it is difficult to tell an Arabic jew-hater he's anti-semitic.

[dangus]

"Liberty" is a word I used to express your concept of living in Truth and not under the Law. If I say "anti-semitism" and by "anti-semitism" I mean liberty, then the people who HEAR me will think that I consider those who defend liberty to be anti-semitic. (note, it's not the FReeper who uses the word I'm concerned about, but the non-FReeper who hears him!)

When the LEFT appropriated words, they made evil things (homosexuality, misandry) sound good by giving them positive names (gay, feminist). What you are doing is a giving good thing (shall we say "liberty," for now?) an evil name (anti-semitism).

I'm not sure we have the power to "de-fang" words so long as the Opposition controls the air waves. But the Left has been sloppy and foolish lately. They have allowed far too many antisemites into their midsts, and I think FReepers and other conservatives have taken the opportunity they have provided: THere are so many antisemites among the Left, and we have pointed them out, that the American Left has become discredited in its use of the word.

>>How do you promote the liberty of someone who is labeled an antisemite, but doesn't have a clue how to respond b/c they don't 'get' the motives of the person who is using it? <<

The Enemy will always slander. Even if we could change the meanings of words, there will always be new slanders. Better to teach people to not fall for such slander.

[Mamzelle]

Funny, usually I get a romance about the Sephardics about this point...I've had many tell me that this was a kind of golden age, which gave me pause when I first heard it. But--there's always a new opportunity to whine, non?

I repeat, if you like--In the long, bloody history of wicked human beings, the Spanish Inquisition wasn't the atrocity that it was billed to be.

Compared to the Twentieth Century, it would scarcely register as a blip.

[SJackson]

I wasn't denying the definition, but noting its odd etymology...Thus, it's problemmatic because it is difficult to tell an Arabic jew-hater he's anti-semitic.

That's another canard used by those who attempt to deny the terms meaning. The term was coined in late 19th century as the name of Wilhelm Marr's political party, the Antisemitischers or Anti-Semitic League. It's always meant hatred of Jews, never has had any relationship to "semities".

[dangus]

By the way, about "conversos."

It's interesting to note that they came under scrutiny BECAUSE they converted. So many people believed that the Inquisition was about forcing false conversions. Isn't it amazing, then, that it were those who professed Christianity but were suspected of being Moslems or Jews who were targeted and NOT those who openly acknowledged being Moslem or Jewish? I think if people see this plain motivation of the Inquisition -- the prevention of Islamic infiltrators -- it becomes more reasonable.

Of course, this isn't to minimize the harm of unofficial actions of idiot peasants who were whipped up into fear by the Inquisition. I do believe tha King Ferdinand was genuinely motivated by fear FOR the Jews* -- not fear OF the Jews -- when he exiled them, but it is a shame that such an action was needed.

(*He exiled them to prevent them from being targeted in unofficial acts of terrorism by Jew-haters in Spain.)

[SJackson]

Funny, usually I get a romance about the Sephardics about this point...I've had many tell me that this was a kind of golden age, which gave me pause when I first heard it. But--there's always a new opportunity to whine, non?

Yes, I'm sure some people view the Inquisition as a "golden age".

[dangus]

And when I mean shame, I mean that word literally.
As in, it is a source of shame, not "aw, ain't that a shame!"

[Mamzelle]

My thoughts, too--but the individuals involved, Jewish, in that discussion would not let go of the romance of Christian, Jew and Muslim all living in a prosperous and artistic southern Spain. One of the reasons I started reading about the Spanish Inquisition.

[dangus]

>>That's another canard used by those who attempt to deny the terms meaning. The term was coined in late 19th century as the name of Wilhelm Marr's political party, the Antisemitischers or Anti-Semitic League. It's always meant hatred of Jews, never has had any relationship to "semities".<<

Except that word itself refers to "Semites" and not Jews. Listen Jackson, I'm on your side on this word usage thing.

But both of you provide good reason why we should abandon the use of the word, anti-semite, and say what we really mean: Jew-hater.

When we call the French synagogue burners, the neo-nazis, the Palestinian mobs, the U.N. terrorist appeasers and the Wahabbis what they are -- Jew-haters -- the academics on the left will sound silly saying "anti-semites." Nor will they be able to accuse decent Christians of "Jew-hating." And our words will be so much more direct when we call these hate-mongers what they are, Jew-haters, then by the word they invented for themselves.

[Mamzelle]

re: Nor will they be able to accuse decent Christians of "Jew-hating." And our words will be so much more direct when we call these hate-mongers what they are, Jew-haters, then by the word they invented for themselves.)))

You know, that makes some good sense. Make Foxman's patent worthless.

[SJackson]

But both of you provide good reason why we should abandon the use of the word, anti-semite, and say what we really mean: Jew-hater.

I think abandoning the word is an outrage. There are antisemites in the world, tens of millions of them. Improper usage should be condemned, but the existance of Jew haters is a fact.

Except that word itself refers to "Semites" and not Jews. Listen Jackson, I'm on your side on this word usage thing.

It's the background of the term. It's always meant a hatred of Jews, and never had anything to do with "semites". Marr is said to have picked the term randomly. To term it a misnomer in it's translated form is accurate, but that doesn't change the meaning.

[dangus]

"I think abandoning the word is an outrage. There are antisemites in the world, tens of millions of them. Improper usage should be condemned, but the existance of Jew haters is a fact."

You seem to think of abadonning the usage of "anti-semite" as if it would deny the existence of Jew-hating. I'm coming to believe that the US is almost an oasis in a world where Jew-hating is dominant! I'm intending to strengthen the concept by being more direct.

>>To term it a misnomer in it's translated form is accurate,<<

That's all I was saying. I never disagreed with its definition.

[dangus]

... by the way, wouldn't the world have been better off if we had simply called people like Marr, "Jew-hater"? I think Americans would have realized much faster what was going on over there if we had been more blunt in describing it.

[SJackson]

You seem to think of abadonning the usage of "anti-semite" as if it would deny the existence of Jew-hating…by the way, wouldn't the world have been better off if we had simply called people like Marr, "Jew-hater"? I think Americans would have realized much faster what was going on over there if we had been more blunt in describing it.

I’d agree, I generally use Jewhater, which is a better term, and I’d be glad to see it become more popular. It’s harder to misuse as well. If it became popular, that’s fine with me. IMO the solution to misuse, which risks debasement of the meaning, is to criticize it. BTW, there are a couple of formal efforts to get dictionary publishers to either drop the term, or to redefine it as anti-Zionist. Is the intent of those efforts to deny Jewhatred exists, you bet.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

When we call the French synagogue burners, the neo-nazis, the Palestinian mobs, the U.N. terrorist appeasers and the Wahabbis what they are -- Jew-haters -- the academics on the left will sound silly saying "anti-semites." Nor will they be able to accuse decent Christians of "Jew-hating." And our words will be so much more direct when we call these hate-mongers what they are, Jew-haters, then by the word they invented for themselves.

Bump! I heartily concur. Dittos. Stop pussyfooting around with the word. That's exactly what they are and what they should be called.

[gobucks]

THere are so many antisemites among the Left, and we have pointed them out, that the American Left has become discredited in its use of the word.

I wish, but this is completely untrue. Among the news junkies, maybe. Common knowledge? Not a chance.

If I say "anti-semitism" and by "anti-semitism" I mean liberty, then the people who HEAR me will think that I consider those who defend liberty to be anti-semitic.

That is what leftists believe in actuality - and that's why they are howling about this movie so fiercely. They invoke the number one bug-a-boo in modern life. Everyone is terrified of being called a Jew hater. If you play to win as The Prince teaches, all weapons, rhetorical or otherwise are fair game.

Me uttering what they believe, how they think .... that's not Princely in my tactics. That's called exposing ... pointing out the truth. The leftist cockroaches want ordinary people to react like cockroaches when they utter this word .... and people do indeed react just like this.

Though they'll say The Passion is anti-Jewish, by calling it antisemitic, what they believe is that those seeing the Passion are defenders of liberty, or worse, will become defenders of liberty, via the review and re-examination of what that strange guy up on the cross was up to ... in truth.

Leftists thus have the perfect win/win. I see you don't dispute that they zealously guard the definition of antisemitism. Leftists uniformly own and/or control all the publishing houses for all English language dictionaries.

This is 'common' knowledge, and its dangerous to the concept of liberty that everyone knows this, but nonetheless doesn't see the trap of following the leftists "rules of translation" for words that hide the essence of what liberty is all about.

So, they attack liberty at its source - the origin of the concept of absolute truth. It was unambigously a message that was delivered, in Person, to us ... God on earth taking the form of a Jew! The leftist antisemites just rage against this reality. This plan of attack is just too perfect. Relative truth was hard-fought terrority to gain - they will resort to subterfuge and whatever else to keep it.

Thus, they make people feel guilty through wholesale language deception. And they will deny categorically out loud that they don't really believe this ... and that what they really are doing is, and no one challenges this grotesque lie, standing as the proper defenders of the Jewish ethno/cultural/religious group. Leftists are the ultimate posers and most fantastic liars ... but how many folks are really exposing the how of how they go about it?

What you are doing is a giving good thing (shall we say "liberty," for now?) an evil name (anti-semitism).

I can see your point, but only if you stop reading the essay half way through. I actually reverse it all in the final paragraphs.

And that can be summarized as this: the world's philosemitism is a mocking imitation, making a good word evil, of the actual philosemitism Christ intended.

But, this all said, its clear to me that symbols, words, are being used aggressively to defeat the idea of liberty ... and that idea has as its First Principle the idea of absolute truth.

Outside of Christ, the leftists know that via hard logic, they can win the 'truth is relative' arguement every single time. I know ... I was once rubbed elbows with them. And they know ahead of time it's their faith system against another. They just argue very deceptively that theirs is not a faith system at all.

Better to teach people to not fall for such slander.

Ok. You disagree with the approach of my essay, and I can see your point. But, how would you teach them NOT to fall for such slander? What essays are written that expose this nefarious activity in comprehensible prose? Where are the teachers and their lesson plans?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

To term it a misnomer in it's translated form is accurate, but that doesn't change the meaning.

True, but that's exactly what Jewhaters like Louis Farrakhan do. You beat Farrakhan and those of his ilk at their own game of dissembling over the word antisemite by choosing not to play and call it what it is.