Anti-Semanticism

 What is interesting about the term “antisemitism” which has escaped analysis is that the use of this phrase is itself an instrument of hatred, since it is a means of equating a person with being “insane,” a “criminal” and a “sadistic hater.” Persons thus labeled are often subject to loss of employment, housing and curtailment of their civil and human rights. What is the definition of an antisemitic act? In so serious a crime, the felonious conduct should be clearly indicated. In spite of much palaver to the contrary, however, the definition is much akin to the logic of the Red Queen of Alice’s Wonderland who said that a word was “Anything I want it to be.” Someone is an “antisemite” simply by exposing rabbis, Judaism or the Israeli state. In other words, for any speech that Talmudists deem offensive. When journalist Patrick J. Buchanan criticized the Zionist role in the formation of U.S. Middle East foreign policy, Abe Rosenthal, contributing editor of the New York Times, compared Buchanan to Nazi soldiers who forced Jews into the Warsaw ghetto! 343 In Rosenthal’s view, antisemitism applies equally to the act of murdering Judaics and to the act of criticizing Zionism.

Professor Hugh Kenner in a letter to William F. Buckley Jr: “The points on which I agree with Joe Sobran are 1a) that the state of Israel is mighty arrogant in its presumption of entitlement to U.S. handouts and general compliance; 1b) that a large & influential U.S. Jewish population shares this presumption...2) that ‘anti-semitism’ is a rather facile label for habitual objections to 1a and 1b...I note from a recent New York Times that Abe Rosenthal...was not satisfied with your treatment of Pat Buchanan. It is surely evident that such as he will never be satisfied by anything short of a casting of whoever annoys them into outer darkness, and I think it is a mistake to let them control the terms of the discourse. ‘Anti-semitism’ — here I agree with Joe — has no stable meaning; it can run all the way from gas ovens to a mere wish that Abe R. would moderate his frenzies. And a term that has no stable meaning is simply not a profitable head for rational discussions.” 344It is questionable whether Kenner’s statement will even be allowed once Orwellian “hate speech” criminal codes are fully legislated and enforced. Any kind of deep, critical thinking which analyzes such matters as who sets the terms of public discourse and what the phrase antisemitism actually denotes and for what objectives it is wielded, are slated to be criminalized. The defense against Prof. Kenner’s thoughts must be in terms of the denunciation of a heretic who has the gall to deny the True Faith of Absolute Belief in the Infallible Goodness of Zionists. 

A superstructure of piety is erected over the framework of debate in order to stifle and extinguish debate. The state religion of the otherwise agnostic, terminal West emerges, viz. Holocaustianity, cloaked in the motheaten, dusty, ermine robes not used since the coronations of popes, czars and emperors. Zionist High Priest Eric Breindel of the NY Post announces that “after Auschwitz, express hostility to the essential Zionist endeavor on the part of a Western intellectual requires an explanation.” 345 The Los Angeles Times has decreed the fantastic dogma that public criticisms of Judaics are precursors of a Holocaust. 346 The New York Times has alleged that “It reeks of anti-semitism to suggest that survivors of the Holocaust are to be condemned for establishing a haven in the only state in which Jews form the majority.”347 Prof. Irving Abella, whose wife, Rosalie Silberman, is a Canadian Supreme Court justice, stated, “The Holocaust metaphor being used against Israel is a group libel...” 348 Here is the sacred state-church dogma of the “Holocaust” in action as it is invoked to block condemnation of the “holy” Israeli state. The association of a stench with condemnation of Israeli murder and dispossession of Palestinians effectively halts any further clearheaded analysis of the terms the New York Times has established for dealing with Palestine. That we are dealing with a religious impulse rather than merely a debate between competing ideas can be seen in the fact that the believers in Holocaustianity are unable even to imagine an alternative view. Joseph Sobran in his published debate with William F. Buckley Jr. eloquently stated: 

“ An anti-semite’ in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who simply can’t bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term ‘antisemitism’ doesn't stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual ostracisms.” 349

Sobran’s epigram about antisemitism being both unintelligible and a function of Judaic hatred for others, is corroborated by the knowledge that when Judaics heatedly disagree with one another they sometimes call each other “antisemites.” When Michael Bar-Zohar of the Israeli Labor Party voted for religious Judaics to be subject to the Israeli army draft like all other ablebodied young Israelis, he was called an “antisemite” and a “Nazi” by members of the Shas and Degel HaTorah parties in the Knesset. 350When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin chose to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization in Gaza, his Israeli political rivals produced posters showing Rabin dressed in a Nazi uniform. 

It is fitting that in this modern age, when man has become puffed up on his own supposed scientific grasp of the universe he presumes to have mastered, that we should witness the crowning self-mockery of the creed of scientific progress, the bondage of the West to the superstitious religion of Judaism and its murderous, racist branch, Israeli Zionism. The European Union — whose symbol is the Tower of Babel— upholds the right of Zionist criticism of Muhammad and Islam, while criminalizing criticism of Judaism and Holocaustianity. According to the New York Times, to say that Zionism is racism “remains code language for bigotry.” 351 By the Times’ logic it is an act of bigotry to point out that Zionism constitutes bigotry against Arabs. The idea that speaking out about the racism of Judaism and Zionism, is itself some form of racism, is the Talmudic mentality par excellence.

Judaism Discovered 

 [Entdecktes Judenthum: Aus Ihren Eigenem Werken Gezogen]

 From Its Own Texts

A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit

By MICHAEL HOFFMAN