Nobody worries about being called “anti-Italian” or “anti-French” or “anti-Christian”; these aren’t words that launch avalanches of vituperation and make people afraid to do business with you.

It’s pointless to ask what “anti-Semitic” means. It means trouble. It’s an attack signal. The practical function of the word is not to define or distinguish things, but to conflate them indiscriminately — to equate the soberest criticism of Israel or Jєωιѕн power with the murderous hatred of Jєωs. And it works. Oh, how it works.

When Joe McCarthy accused people of being Communists, the charge was relatively precise. You knew what he meant. The accusation could be falsified. In fact the burden of proof was on the accuser: when McCarthy couldn’t make his loose charges stick, he was ruined. (Of course, McCarthy was hated less for his “loose” charges than for his accurate ones. His real offense was stigmatizing the Left.)

The opposite applies to charges of “anti-Semitism.” The word has no precise definition. An “αnтι-ѕємιтє” may or may not hate Jєωs. But he is certainly hated by Jєωs. There is no penalty for making the charge loosely; the accused has no way of falsifying the charge, since it isn’t defined.

A famous example. When Abe Rosenthal accused Pat Buchanan of “anti-Semitism,” everyone on both sides understood the ground rules. There was a chance that Buchanan would be ruined, even if the charge was baseless. And there was no chance that Rosenthal would be ruined — even if the charge was baseless.

Such are the rules. I violate them, in a way, even by spelling them out.

“Anti- Semitism” is therefore less a charge than a curse, an imprecation that must be uttered formulaically. Being a “bogus predicate,” to use Gilbert Ryle’s phrase, it has no real content, no functional equivalent in plain nouns and verbs. Its power comes from the knowledge of its potential targets, the gentiles, that powerful people are willing to back it up with material penalties.

In other words, journalists are as afraid of Jєωιѕн power as politicians are. This means that public discussion is cramped and warped by unspoken fear — a fear journalists won’t acknowledge, because it embarrasses their pretense of being fearless critics of power. When there are incentives to accuse but no penalties for slander, the result is predictable.

What is true of “anti-Semitism” is also true to a lesser degree of other bogus predicates like “racism,” “sexism,” and “homophobia.” Other minorities have seen and adopted the successful model of the Jєωιѕн establishment. And so our public tongue has become not only Jєωιѕн-oriented but more generally minority-oriented in its inhibitions.

The illusion that we enjoy free speech has been fostered by the breaking of Christian taboos, which has become not only safe but profitable. To violate minority taboos is “offensive” and “insensitive”; to violate Christian taboos — many of them shared by religious Jєωs — is to be “daring” and “irreverent.” (“Irreverence,” of course, has become good.)

Jєωry, like Gaul, may be divided into three parts, each defined by its borders vis-à-vis the gentile world. There are the Orthodox, who not only insist on borders but wear them. They often dress in attire that sets them apart; they are even willing to look outlandish to gentiles in order to affirm their identity and their distinctive way of life. At the other extreme are Jєωs who have no borders, who may (or may not) assimilate and intermarry, whose politics may range from left to right, but who in any case accept the same set of rules for everyone. I respect both types.

But the third type presents problems. These are the Jєωs who maintain their borders furtively and deal disingenuously with gentiles. Raymond Chandler once observed of them that they want to be Jєωs among themselves but resent being seen as Jєωs by gentiles. They want to pursue their own distinct interests while pretending that they have no such interests, using the charge of “anti-Semitism” as sword and shield. As Chandler put it, they are like a man who refuses to give his real name and address but insists on being invited to all the best parties. Unfortunately, it’s this third type that wields most of the power and skews the rules for gentiles. The columnist Richard Cohen cites an old maxim: “Dress British, think Yiddish.”

Americans ought to be free to discuss Jєωιѕн power and Jєωιѕн interests frankly, without being accused of denying the rights of Jєωs. That should go without saying. The truth is both otherwise and unmentionable.

Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml