The Euphemism Of Anti-Semitism
by Alec Mouhibian
If you attended Gareth Armstrong’s performance in Campbell Hall last week or have been assigned 'The Merchant of Venice' recently, you were exposed to the subject of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism, you learned, is hatred of Jews, which is bad, because it is based on stereotyping, which is bad. An astounding and eternally resonating lesson, to be sure, from which one ultimate conclusion can be drawn: "No shit, Shylock."
While that may have been a sufficient lesson back when most of us were introduced to it in the sixth grade, the fact that we’ve been merely stroking a dildo in all the years since is more than pointless and simpleton: it’s dangerous. For the very same reason, too.
Anytime words replace thought in the processes of the mind, they shell their own supposed meaning, and we lose sight of the truth. This is how, in recent history, some of the worst violence in the world occurred under the banner of "peace" — and how millions were enslaved under movements that sought an end to "exploitation." By becoming an oversimplified slogan, anti-Semitism is being doomed to a similar fate.
Anti-Semitism, at its root, is irrational hatred; this is the prick for which "Jew" is the foreskin. The evil principle that has to be uprooted remains the same, whether the foreskin is Semites or businessmen. Incidentally, in the case of anti-Semitism, it is both.
At a time when most people think Pontius Pilate is a product at Sharper Image, the real source of anti-Semitism is the equating of Jewry with jewelry, the branding of Jews as a money-oriented and business-minded people. But the question here shouldn’t be the obvious-answered, is stereotyping bad? It should rather be: why is business-mindedness a worse stereotype than, say, Panasonic?
Take Shylock, the Jewish money lender in 'The Merchant of Venice.' He was hated for collecting interest on loans that allowed people to own things and take innovative risks that wouldn’t have been otherwise possible. Without him, Bassanio would’ve had no chance to ride his Portia. And without collecting interest, Shylock would’ve not only been deprived of any incentive to lend his money, but there would be considerably less to lend. Indeed, the immensity of Shylock’s wealth is a testament to how much he contributed to society. (Think of it as the mere interest of what his services allowed to be created.)
Yet he was hated for this. He was hated, not for no reason, but for the very reason for which he was good. Sounds worse than irrational to me, and a much more interesting avenue for inquiry.
Especially if you consider that most professors here would decry the treatment of Shylock, while admiring (in one way or another) the twit who burned down the Bank of America in this very town back in the Sixties — a bank whose mortgage loans enable these professors to own homes decades before they otherwise could, and whose taxes pay for the salaries of these professors to spout their failed Marxist theories, which remain the opium for such asses, keeping them comfortably oblivious to the real world in an extended high of false righteousness.
Thus you can see how anti-Semitism, though having lost the PR battle, is making its strongest re-emergence in sixty years. The contradictory irrationalities lying at the core of anti-Semitism, which a superficial treatment ignores, have been undefeated and even permeate many Jews themselves — as displayed by the large number of successful Jewish businessmen with socialistic political tendencies.
Thus you can also see why our teachers are so reluctant to roll down the foreskin of Semitism and look at what baldly lies beneath. They might view a shiny reflection of themselves. And realize they are guilty of the very same thing.
Discuss this Article (17 messages)
|
