I sympathize: I hated semioticians before semiotics was fashionable. However, I plead innocence on this use of a word I also generally despise: the idea being conveyed here is that Mr. Acts did not betray himself by the use of a specific word or phrase, but rather of making a statement that only makes sense against the backdrop of certain assumptions and ideas.
So for the first time, your rule has mislead you--but the ecxeption is rare enough that you can keep using it; I use a similar rule myself.
For liberals, there is no absolute truth. There are only competing "memes," which--through the alchemy of language--insinuate themselves into human brains in the form of religion, ideology, and various forms of false consciousness masquerading as common sense.
Conservatives, on the other hand, acknowledge and seek absolute, transcendent Truth. Therefore, the very idea of "memes," which I gather are akin to linguistic viruses, are either anathema or...beside the point. There is only Truth and unTruth. Ideas must be evaulated in terms of how True they are.
Anyway, that's just a longwinded way of saying that your attempt to dismiss an opponent's argument by calling it an "anti-Semitic meme" is obfuscatory.
And your use of liberal verbal strategies makes me, at least, suspicious of your motives.