Friday, October 25, 2013


Why is antisemitism a charge so readily thrown at skeptics?

  The slightest skeptical comment is accused of being “antisemitic.” This catchword has been so overworked it has become meaningless. This neologism was concocted by Wilhelm Marr, a hater of Judaics on the basis of their race, not their religion. His term is the product of the scientism of the 19th century. Moshe Zimmerman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem comments on one of Marr’s principal works, Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism,” 1879), “ is an attempt at a socio-cultural history of the development of Jewish hegemony in the world in general and in Germany in particular, without blaming this development on the Jewish religion. Marr’s school...was a new paganism, was anti-Christian....”  Marr viewed Judaics “scientifically,” as a biological entity, an eternal tribe, a racial species. Their religion was not the issue for him. This was precisely the opposite of the gospel of New Testament Christianity and all those who remain faithful to it: Judaics were only admonished in so far as they were advocates of the religion of the Pharisees. Their race was not the issue. As Charles D. Provan has written, “For the Christian, one’s so-called ‘race’ has no bearing on his standing with God. So our attack on the Talmud is not based on race. We Christians are followers of Jesus Christ our Lord, who was a Jew according to the flesh. We reject the claim of ‘racial Jews’ to be ‘the chosen people,’ but this by no means makes us view their race as evil. It is not evil; it is irrelevant.”329 It is an act of extraordinarily brazen intellectual dishonesty to term Christians who expose the Talmud, “antisemitic.”

 Marr invented the term “anti-semitism” in October, 1879 when he founded the Anti-Semitic League. “...Marr, in his 1879 writings, consciously used the terms ‘Judaism’ and ‘Germanism’ as main terms, and ‘Semitism’ and ‘Aryanism’ as secondary terms. Marr absorbed these secondary terms from the scientific jargon which had developed during the 1870s...If Marr was troubled by any term, it was not by ‘Germanism’ but by ‘Judaism,’ which bore such a clear religious connotation. Since Marr’s avowed stance in 1879, consistent with his theories, was ‘antireligious,’ he needed a term which would clearly indicate that the Jews were a racial unit. Marr apparently felt in his 1879 anti-Jewish writings that the content of the essays and the use of the term ‘Semitism’...would impart a new, nonreligious, connotation to the term ‘anti-Jewish’...the term ‘anti-semitism’ considered by historians as an innovation in the transition from the religious basis of hatred of Jews to the racial basis...” 330 Marr’s goal in devising the term anti-semitism was to “separate” from Christian opponents of Judaics by distinguishing between them and opponents of the Judaic “race,” by denominating the latter as “antisemitism.” 331
 The mania to appear scientific by adopting technical jargon, was shared by Marr’s supposed enemies, who eventually adopted his term as a means for lumping all those who take exception to either Judaism, the Talmud, the rabbinate and the Sanhedrin, or Zionism and Israeli colonialism and occupation, as “antisemitism.” This is a flagrantly erroneous mishmash, but its use lends an air of objective social research and taxonomy to the campaign to demonize Christians faithful to Jesus Christ’s gospel witness, as a species of rock-crawling insect, the “antisemite.” Because this term has subliminal negative associations with goose-stepping Nazis, ranting demagogues, cemetery vandals, Aryan supremacists etc., the media can take a Christian who steadfastly exposes Phariseeism in its modern incarnation of Orthodox Judaism and by tarring him (or her) with the “antisemitic” slur, turn him into a neo-Nazi, gravestone-tipping, swastika-painting synagogue vandal, just because he gives the same warning about Orthodox rabbis that Jesus Christ gave concerning first century Pharisees. The employment of the term “antisemitism” against Christian scholars and evangelists who reject racism is another one of the brilliant deceits by which Judaism maintains its hold over humanity. Not everyone has bought into this deception, however. By way of illustration, the British magazine The Economist in its Aug. 24, 1935 issue, correctly described Adolf Hitler’s movement as follows: “The Nazi party stalwarts...have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, antiProtestant...crusade.” The Economist makes the proper distinction between race-based opposition to Judaics on the part of the Nazis who were also, at the highest levels, anti-Christian. This is not to say that no heretical Christians ever became Nazis or ever identified themselves with “antisemitism.” But Christianity as preached by Christ and His apostles and faithfully adhered to by His followers cannot be race-based and cannot object to Judaic persons on the basis of their race. But it has been very important to the rabbis and the Zionists to conceal this distinction in order to emphasize their own alleged blamelessness by promoting the notion that they are being exposed not mainly because of their anti-Christ ideology but by an accident of birth, their having been born of Judaic ethnicity. Seen in this perspective, Christian watchfulness toward Judaism becomes an irrational objection to a biological condition which Judaic persons cannot change and did not choose.
(Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit (Independent History and Research) Hoffman, Michael (2008-08-10))
  At the epicenter of it, some rabbis and Jewish factions feed off of it because it legitimizes their ideology.  That's where it originally came from, although there are secular versions.  There's a whole special relationship between Zionism and American exceptionalism that has evolved from it in forms of "Judeo" Christianity or apocalyptic visions of some sort of a "Jewish race." 

Apparently it doesn't actually have to make any sense as far as identifying with a tribe goes.  (As if they even get along with their own tribe or don't know that there are a lot of exceptionally idiotic people in whichever tribe/team they're identifying with as an individual.) For most people, tribalism or racism don't have to make sense in the real world.

For most real antisemites and not just whoever the ADL or rabbis or other Judaics disagree with at the moment, all they really want to do is take the ideology of the rabbis and make it their own by claiming that they're the chosen tribe or race in some way.  Racism breeds racism.  There's no "They started it." excuse for anyone.  But with respect to Judaics condemning antisemitic reactionaries like the Golden Dawn in Greece after Goldman Sachs was through there and wondering, just wondering where that racism and tribalism comes from... it's often a case of logs and specks.  I.e., you could always try not claiming to be the chosen race or having secular versions of it where your IQs are supposedly higher while Lloyd Blankfein is going around claiming to be doing "God's work." and so forth.

Or another version of it, where the Arabs by nature turn gardens into desert but you, by your collective Jewish nature as the chosen and not by force of arms where you're taking the water supplies with foreign aide from the latest Empire, turn deserts into gardens... etc.  There are many versions of Jewish supremacy, whether secular/racial or Talmudic/religious... just as there are many nationalist and supremacist reactions to it.   (And even when a Talmudic mentality or secular versions of supremacy aren't even there to get the ball rolling, people are often racists by nature anyway.) 

No comments: