The ‘An Anti-Semite is Someone who is Hated by Jews’ Argument

Over the last few years I have observed that an increasing number of self-described critics of jews have begun to use the rhetorical phrase to the effect that an anti-Semite is someone who is hated by jews as an explanation of and non-rhetorical argument for anti-Semitism. To simplify this slightly: rather than using this rhetorical phrase which aptly characterises jewish accusations of anti-Semitism some anti-Semites have begun to use this phrase to explain anti-Semitism as a point of ideology. This is both dangerous and absurd. We must now consider the logic behind this new idea within anti-Semitism and briefly discuss just how problematic it is.

The idea that an ‘anti-Semite is somebody who jews don’t like’ (or a variant to that effect) is a good rhetorical position as it intellectually counter-weaponizes the cat-calls and character assassination that jews and their lackeys tend to use, but at the same time it is a fundamental denial of what we are. I mean; it is lovely rhetoric and all that, but it isn’t doing anything about the problem of the fact that we are anti-Semites and that anti-Semitism is seen as a ‘bad thing’ by most of our people.

That said this isn’t set in stone as so many seem to assume: just look at the word ‘fag’ as a derogatory term for homosexual. Homosexuals have now appropriated and turned it into something good and less harmful to their interests. It is possible and it is very do-able with anti-Semitism as well as in the homosexual movement, but it is going to take anti-Semites to deal with reality and use their collective and individual abilities to push forward a new highly rational form of anti-Semitism based on the principles of Jacques Ellul’s theory of propaganda, intellectual rigour and the use of strong emotive and cause celebre themes to achieve its ends.

Using the rhetorical phrase an ‘anti-Semite is somebody who jews don’t like’ (or a variant to that effect) is essentially an anti-Semite or merely someone who is critical of jews trying to run away from his or her responsibility as an anti-Semite or critic of the jews.

If you want to carry on the failures that anti-Semitism has suffered over the last three to four decades then you can just can keep on going as you are, but if you want to change and to create a new rational anti-Semitism - an anti-Semitism 2.0 if I was to be a touch cliché - then you have to take responsibility to use your knowledge and abilities in anti-Semitism’s best interests not whatever you feel like doing or not doing. For that latter kind of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place and it certainly won’t get us out of the huge hole that three generations of anti-Semites have managed to dig for themselves. We need change in anti-Semitism and we need it badly.

Now to come back to my original point again: if we were to argue ‘anti-Semitism is merely a charge jews make against people they don’t like’ (or a variant of that position) as the anti-Semitic answer to the standard jewish argument that anti-Semitism and anti-jewish sentiment is everywhere and is ipso facto irrational. Then we simply concede that anti-Semitism is just as the jews say - i.e., irrational - and that the only rational position is philo-Semitic sentiment. This is obviously rather dangerous as it leaves anti-Semites utterly exposed intellectually to attack and confirms to our potential friends all across the board that what we have to say about the jew is irrational and completely unfounded.

Obviously we have to challenge these assumptions and seek to recruit out potential friends into actively helping our cause and/or passively supporting it by not condemning or taking any demanded action against active anti-Semites otherwise we may as well pack our bags and go home.

Can any proponent of this view give any cogent argument of its intellectual or strategic veracity?

I doubt it, but many will no doubt whine that it has value; to which we must reply that it does indeed have some value rhetorically but as with any rhetoric that rhetorical value must not deceive us of a rhetorical argument’s factual and intellectual veracity. Otherwise we can only ever end up arguing absurdities within absurdities, which is about as useful to the anti-Semitic cause as a chocolate teapot.

In summary then if you use the ‘anti-Semitism is merely a charge jews make against people they don’t like’ argument as anything more than a useful rhetorical tool - which is limited not universal in its useful application - then you merely argue by implication that anti-Semitism and criticism of the jews is simply irrational and that therefore your own criticisms of jews - however strong or mild - are also irrational and intellectually and evidentially unfounded.

So please, please stop using this argument as anything other than a rhetorical point and not an argument in and of itself, because against most opponents capable of rational cognition you will become a cropper when they point out the logical implications of your own arguments to you in a reduction to absurdity.