First dictionary editor thought term ‘anti-Semite’ would have no use
A short-lived term unlikely to have use in the future: that was how the first editor of the Oxford English Dictionary viewed “anti-Semite”, recently uncovered archival documents show.
“Anti-Semite and its family were then probably very new in English use, and not thought likely to be more than passing nonce-words,” Murray wrote, indicating he had initially thought the term had been coined to articulate a fleeting phenomenon.
Well, we saw how that turned out.
“Hence they did not receive treatment in a separate article,” he added, arguing in the letter’s post-script that “the man in the street would have said Anti-Jewish.”
Murray shows that Britain’s Jewish community was concerned about anti-Semitism “even though for the Jews in England — compared to many other countries — they were in a very good position.”
Murray’s letter also shows how the descriptor “Semitic”, which technically refers to speakers of Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic, was already at an early stage being applied only to Jews.
Which is what I have been saying the whole time. This is a Zionist herding trick. If “anti-Jewish” were used, people could simply ask: “What’s so wrong about being anti-Jewish? Judaism is racist! Do not all anti-racists automatically have a moral duty to be anti-Jewish?” This is why Jews insisted on using the term “anti-Semitic”: to ensure that the mainstream reaction to an accusation of anti-Semitism is denial of being anti-Semitic (since indeed there is no good reason to be opposed to speakers of Semitic languages for speaking Semitic languages) which creates an artificial consensus that anti-Semitism (which Jews then surreptitiously switch to meaning anti-Jewishness) is so indefensible that even anti-Semites themselves always deny being anti-Semitic. This then dissuades observers from feeling any need to study what is behind hostility towards Jews, instead dismissing it as nonsensical.
But do not worry, for we are winning:
On the other hand, as the 2020s begin:
The members on the board of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District voted five to two recently in favor of axing
• I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
• The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
• Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison
• Catch-22, by Joseph Heller, and
• The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien
The last three were faulted for containing mentions of rape, incest, racial slurs, profanity, and misogyny. Angelou’s autobiography was the one thought to contain sexually over-the-line passages and anti-white messaging; Fitzgerald’s novel was deemed problematic for “language and sexual references.”
Someone is learning from the Jews. Fortunately they have learned only the aggression trick without also learning the herding trick. The best way to deal with this is to apply the logic stated above: “What’s so wrong about being anti-”white”? “Whiteness” is racist! Do not all anti-racists automatically have a moral duty to be anti-”white”?”
Never deny being enemies of racists. To do so is to give the impression to observers that there is something shameful about being anti-racist. That is what our enemies want from us. Do not give it to them. They are the ones in the wrong simply by existing. And the solution is not to try to teach them to not be racist, which will always fail in the long-term because racism is in their blood. The solution is to terminate their bloodlines.