Meme-away my friend.
Quote from an article (actually from a speech) by the late Mr. Sobran:
The very word anti-Semite is reminiscent of the term anti-Soviet. It serves a similar function of facilitating imputations of ill-defined guilt.
The strength of Western law has always been its insistence on definition. When we want to minimize an offense, say murder or burglary, we define it as clearly as possible. We want judge and jury to know exactly what the charge means, not only to convict the guilty but, also, just as important, to protect the innocent.
Clear definitions put a burden of proof on the accuser, and properly so. If you falsely accuse a man of murder or burglary, not only is he apt to be acquitted â you may pay a heavy penalty yourself. As a result, few of us are afraid of being charged with murders and burglaries we didnât commit.
By contrast, the (((Soviet legal system))) left prosecutors with a wide discretion in identifying âanti-Sovietâ activities. Almost anything irritating to the Soviet state could qualify. An impossible burden of proof lay on the accused; guilt was presumed; acquittals were virtually nonexistent. To be indicted was already to be convicted. Since the charge was undefined, it was unfalsifiable; there was no such thing as a false accusation. As a result, the Russian population lived in fear.
(Example, you're labeled "racist", "White supremacist", "neo-Nazi" or "hater", you're guilty and 'worthy' of punishment as seen this past weekend in Charlottesville.--JSteele)
The word anti-Semitic functions like the word anti-Soviet. Being undefined, itâs unfalsifiable. Loose charges of âanti-Semitismâ are common, but nobody suffers any penalty for making them, since what is unfalsifiable can never be shown to be false. I once read an article in a Jewish magazine that called the first Star Wars movie âanti- Semitic.â I was amazed, but I couldnât prove the contrary. Who could? And of course people in public life â and often in private life â fear incurring the label, however guiltless they may be.
If you want to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, you define crimes precisely. If, however, you merely want to maximize the number of convictions, increase the power of the accusers, and create an atmosphere of dread, you define crimes as loosely as possible. We now have an incentive system that might have been designed to promote loose charges of âanti-Semitism.â
Silly as all this is from a rational point of view, the label of anti-Semitism is deeply feared. It does signify one thing: Jewish hatred. When I became a conservative as a college freshman, in 1965, nearly all Jews were liberals and Jewish intellectuals associated conservatism with âanti-Semitism.â Bill Buckley was often depicted as a fascist or crypto-Nazi; given the smears he endured, itâs understandable that he should go to great lengths to appear pro-Jewish, even if he somewhat overdid it by abetting smears of his fellow conservatives.
The situation changed somewhat when many Jewish intellectuals, upset by liberal criticism of Israel, became what were called âneoconservatives.â This term implied no deep adherence to conservative principles, but only the adoption of a few ad hoc principles useful to Zionism, with no basic departure from New Deal liberalism insofar as it was useful to Zionism. âNeoconservatismâ was really a sort of âkosherâ conservatism.
More here:
For Fear of the Jews
http://www.sobran.com/fearofjews.shtml
