# Origins of Anti-Semitism



## eleutheromaniac (Jun 19, 2004)

Setup:  This is the opening of an essay I've been working on.  I am currently doing research for it, and this is only the first draft.  I would like to know what your feelings are about it, and I would especially like to have insight from Jewish posters, as I am not Jewish myself.  I know this theory was expressed to a certain degree in Nietzsche's work, but here I would like to more clearly cultivate it (Nietzsche was, of course, misinterpretated by the Nazis dur to his sometimes esoteric manner of writing) as well as express my own veiwpoints.




As we enter into the 21st century, a supposedly more enlightened generation is still ensconced with the narrow-mindedness so prevalent in our forebears.   In times of peace, educated souls can look upon these “idiosyncrasies of the degenerate” with a kind of amusement.   However, in times of crises, such as the ones which seem almost assured to lie ahead for a generation which will be the first since the Great Depression to have a lower standard of living than the generation that proceeded it, even the intelligentsia can become enamoured with such troglodytic half-thoughts.  And one that always seems to lead the pack in such times are those relating to anti-Semitism.   Before the coming onslaught, before rationality is a fondly forgotten attribute of a lost generation, it is important that we do what we can in the short time we have now to eradicate such ancestral leanings from our society, lest the mistakes of the past revisit themselves tenfold.   It was with this thought in mind that the following essay was written . . .


	From the time Judeo-Christian theology came to the western world, ie Rome, anti-Semitism has seemed to follow proportionately.  Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them?  The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt.   This is especially true when one compares the Jewish culture to the hedonist cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome and to a lesser extent Egypt. 

	When the Roman Empire conquered the lands of Israel, the Jewish culture over several generations began to introduce itself to Europe in the form of Christianity.   Originally, because Judeo-Christian beliefs were so in contrast with the pagan/hedonistic lifestyles of the Romans, this movement faced violent opposition and Christians and Jews both were violently persecuted.   The question then becomes why it was that Christianity eventually gained acceptance, but anti-Semitism remains strong even to this day?  And why is it that the Christians, whom understood persecution and could empathise with the Jewish plight, continued the Anti-Semitic tradition?

	To answer these questions one must look at what happened to Rome as Christian theology began to overtake pagan ritual, this of course being the decline of the Roman Empire, and the eventual emergence of two separate empires: the Byzantine Empire in the west, and the Holy Roman Empire in the East.   Both empires adopted Christianity, though the Holy Roman Empire eventually became the central province in Catholicism, and the home of the Papacy.

	As Rome declined, Christianity grew in proportion.   There are no coincidences in the course of history, and one must simply contrast the goal of Rome, that is to spread civilisation and to make progress in all of life’s endeavours, and the mission of Christianity, which is to concentrate energies towards the afterlife, sacrificing the pleasures of this world.   (GIVE EXAMPLE HERE)   As the Christian epidemic continued (and based on the results, what else could one refer to it as?), roads and other modes of transportation deteriorated.   The architecture, art, philosophy, scientific learning and culture of old Rome was sacrificed to build lavish churches and other shrines to the Christian sky-god.   This is how, over time, the Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire.  Rome and its territories, even the barbarian hordes, had almost fully accepted Christians and their teachings.  Yet anti-Semitism only grew.   It seems confounding, and yet, it is completely in line with human nature, because along with Christianity, the Jews also brought with them the concept of guilt, that is the concept of feeling bad about something that makes one feel good.  A concept previously foreign to Rome and its territories.  In fact, it is concept almost uniquely and strangely Semitic.   This isn’t to say other cultures were completely unfamiliar with guilt, but only for doing something that in some way harmed someone or something else, a completely linear and rational response.   But to feel guilty about doing something pleasurable, that in no way harmed anyone else, and in fact may give pleasure to others as well as to oneself: this was unheard of, particularly in Rome.

	Most people would theorise that Anti-Semitism is routed in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, wherein the Jews are said to be solely responsible for the death of Christ.   However, this is not the origin, but is rather systemic of anti-Semitism. 

	When the fathers of Roman Catholicism were taking religious texts to place in the bible, they elected which articles would be excluded, among these were at least three known Gospels of Christ.  The reasoning behind the exclusions of these Gospels, which, in most bibles, are still excluded to this day, vary from things such as “dark imagery” that the assemblage didn’t want associated with the New Testament, to the date when the text had been written, being that it was too far removed from the actual event to be taken at face value.   Keeping in mind that the Gospel according to Matthew was written over ninety years after the death of Christ, whereas the other Gospels were written no more than seventy years AD, some as early as 40 or 50 AD.   This alone would have been reason enough to exclude Matthew’s Gospel, especially when one considers the discrepancies, rather near contradictions, between Matthew’s and the other Gospels.   Most notably among these discrepancies is the fact that Matthew’s Gospel explicitly places upon the Jews the responsibility for Jesus’s death; whereas the other Gospels make it clear that all man, Romans, Jews and even Jesus’s own disciples, were in some way responsible for Jesus’s death, and were subsequently forgiven by Jesus for this and all sins prior.   Thereby, in addition to being more out-of-date, fundamentally anti-Semitic and used to insight hatred, something which is most antithetical to the Christian doctrine “Love thy neighbour”, Matthew’s Gospel also contradicts one of the major edicts of the Roman Catholic Church; “Jesus died for our sins.”, for how could Jesus forgive those who were not responsible for the ultimate sin of killing the Son of God?   Other texts, it should be noted, were excluded from the Bible for far lesser reasons.  In fact, the only reason to include Matthew in the New Testament is precisely that it offers an interpretation different from the other Gospels, an interpretation that could be used to insight hatred toward the Jews.   “The Jews killed Christ” has long been the rallying call of anti-Semites for generations, and one must assume that those who had been charged with the great responsibility of crafting the New Testament must surely have been able to foresee such an outcome.    In other words, anti-Semitism had to have been already prevalent in at least some levels of the new Christian empire for Matthew’s Gospel not to have been considered for exclusion.  And if this be the case, than the New Testament could not, therefore, be the origin. 

  	When one thinks of Ancient Rome and Greece, perhaps first is the culture, civilisation, philosophy, art and technology that they developed and spread throughout the world.  But closely second was their hedonistic appetites.  Roman and Greek life was centred around enjoying everything this world had to offer: their gods were the gods of wine, love, virility, and strength;   the Jewish god is the god of Guilt.   Considering then this contrast, one can now begin to understand why Romans, even after converting to Christianity, rather especially after converting to Christianity, had such contempt for the Jews.   A culture that was once carefree had now been gilded in the cage of Judeo-Christian doctrine.   A culture whose people formerly enjoyed orgies, homosexuality, incest, great gluttonous feasts, warring and fighting, now could not so much as think of such things without feeling pangs of guilt and embarrassment.   The “pleasures” of life were taken from them, and who was to blame?   After all, their new and omnipotent, all-knowing God could not be at fault, nor their lord and saviour Jesus Christ and his followers.   But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them.   The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed.  It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.

	As Roman society continued to deteriorate, Rome and its territories gradually fell into what has become known as the Dark Ages.  It is during this bleak period that Christianity is at its peak in Europe, and not coincidentally so too was anti-Semitism.


----------



## Airborneguy (Jun 20, 2004)

I will try to help you later, no time to read this now.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jun 29, 2004)

What's going on?  I've never had to wait this long to get a reply.   I guess I'll take my own advice and ask some specific questions.

Is it interesting?
Was it convincing?
Any weak points in the arguement?


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jun 30, 2004)

Definitely interesting as controversial subject
matter always grabs attention.  Definitely
well written and with an impressive 
vocabulary.

I'm not sure if you want to actually debate
this subject or if you simply want a review
of your work.  And your theory on why the
Romans' hedonistic lifestyle conflicted with
the Jews' god-yielding mission was surely
interesting.

But I would venture more into the biblical
line of thinking.  I don't believe anti-semitism
started with just the book of Matthew, as
opposed to the entire New Testament as
well as the old Testament in harmony
together. 

I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected 
Christ.  If you want to debate it later, just
say so.  If not, I'll presume you were just
looking for fair criticism.

I believe that's where it started though your
theories were certainly sound.  And also
the peer pressure, mob mentality of 
humankind in general--which is pounce on 
a victim in numbers.  And the Jews have had 
so much persecution already, the fact that
it continues to this day is almost a scientific
thesis on peer pressure and how man can
jump on the bandwagon of any violent
crusade.

But Eleuth, as you might or might not already
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of
the better ones I've encountered as of late.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 1, 2004)

"I'm not sure if you want to actually debate 
this subject or if you simply want a review 
of your work."

Since when am I not up for a good debate?
(RE: 'Prologue of new book' in critique forum)

"I believe the bible as a whole makes it clear 
that the Jewish religion/nation rejected 
Christ."

This essay is still incomplete, and I mean to prove that anti-Semitism proceeded biblical texts.  

I may or may not extend this into a far-reaching book entitled; "Jew, Blacks, Gypsies and Homosexuals: Easy Targets".  Or more controversially;  "Kikes, Niggers, Pikeys and Fags:  Easy to Hate".  (I imagine that will raise some eyebrows)  I want to show why Hitler and other hatemongers/warmongers, including religious organisations, single these people out.  (They're large enough to be a good target, and they live virtually all over the world; yet they are small and isolated enough in the places where they live to be unable to defend themselves against a mass onslaught.  Making them the perfect foil to unite the majority).

But before that, this essay (and three others, one for each group) will first establish why the majority so easily turns against these people.  As I don't believe that people are lemmings who will simply follow the instructions of their leaders, I have to first establish that the majority WANTS to hate these people; leaders then simply cultivate and take advantage of this desire.  My goal with this book will be to reveal the very roots of hatred, opening the way for others to attack these roots.  That's why I need this argument to be a strong as possible, because it will be attacked by the people who rely most on hatred.  I also need it to be as interesting as possible, because if people don't read it, then what's the point?

"But Eleuth, as you might or might not already 
know, you're a very gifted writer and one of 
the better ones I've encountered as of late."

Thanks, but I think I'm going to have to get a lot better to sucessfully get my point across with this book.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 1, 2004)

lol  if you have the balls and the audacious
publisher needed to actually name your 
book Kikes, "Niggers, Pikeys and Fags: 
Easy to Hate", Ill probably buy a copy.

I'll post more on the subject later.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 1, 2004)

"lol if you have the balls and the audacious 
publisher needed"

Yes and yes.  But I also intend to preface this with a Lenny Bruce bit that will be on the back cover.  Do you know the one I'm talking about?


----------



## Airborneguy (Jul 1, 2004)

I have to agree with mitchell (since I am not wasting time on other parts of the forum, I finally had time to read this!).  It is a GREAT piece of writing, I can tell you that, but I don't believe that this is the proper forum to debate it's merits.  I believe anti-semitism originates a little further up in the timeline and is based on a totally different reason.  Great writing, good topic, and I give you even more credit if you are not Jewish for speaking on something like this, Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 1, 2004)

Yes, I vaguely recall one of the back covers 
of Lenny Bruce's books about Christ
and Hoffa both hiring convicts, or something
to that effect?   A sarcastic sentiment would
be a good idea.

I agree that it's really not the right place
to debate this--at least not my side of the
argument. 

You may be right, that anti-semitism
developed well after ancient Jewish
and Christian times, and I'll await the
thesis, whenever it comes out.  (Though
I do believe personally, it started way 
back when as I was once involved in
a similar thread regarding The Passion
Of The Christ) 

However, I would disagree that it was
just the book of Matthew that could 
hypothetically create anti-semitism.  
The entire bible, both old & new testament
clearly paints the Jewish nation in a 
negative light.  (not individual people, 
since even the apostles were Jewish, but
the established Jewish system) 

I also must contest the idea of people not
being lemmings.  )  A lot of very 
unprovoked, sadistic, animalistic attacks on 
people by people have happened, and for 
no other reason than just mob mentality.  
People who take part in murder, gang-rape
or beatings on helpless individuals have no
political reasoning behind their actions.
They're resorting back to animalistic
instinct--and sometimesy manipulated by 
others who have an evil agenda.

I would venture to say, that people who 
really are violently anti-semitic (though
they might lazily use the old cliche, that 
the Jews rejected Jesus) really don't know 
why they hate Jews so much except that
it makes them feel all warm and evil
inside.  By the same logic, why do KKK
members hate blacks?  For political 
idealogies or psychological differences?
No, I would have to believe its just 
because they can, they want to, a 
villainous feeling of superiority that
hurting another person can bring them.

But I'm listening.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 2, 2004)

"I have to agree with mitchell" :shock: 

Why not debate this here?  I think the best way to strengthen the argument I am making is through debate.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 2, 2004)

"Are There Any Niggers Here Tonight?"

"Oh, my god, did you hear what he said? Are there any niggers here tonight? Is that rank! Is that cruel! Is that a cheap way to get laughs? Well, I think I see a nigger at the bar talking to two guinea owners and next to them....Now why have I done this? Is it only for shock value? Well, if all the niggers started calling each other nigger, not only among themselves, which they do anyway, but among others.  If President Kennedy got on television and said:'I'm considering appointing two or three of the top niggers in the country to my cabinet'-if it was nothing but nigger, nigger, nigger- in six months nigger wouldn't mean any more than good night, god bless you...-when that beautiful day comes, you'll never see another nigger kid come home from school crying because some motherfucker called him a nigger."
                           ---Lenny Bruce 

This is what I'm thinking of putting on the back cover (of course I'm going to have to get permission first)


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 2, 2004)

"Jews tend to believe this is only their realm and should not be touched by anyone else."

In this case, I think you're confusing the average member of the Jewish faith with Zionist leaders.  (Or is this what you meant?)  That's something that will also be covered in my book.  

I think that most Jews don't mind other people speaking out against anti-Semitism; in fact I think they encourage it.  If a jew complains about anti-semitism, or a minority about racism, or a homosexual about gay-bashing, etc. then it just looks like another person trying to make excuses for their life.  But when someone outside of those groups speaks up, then it give the cause more credibility.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 2, 2004)

hahah, yeah use that.


i saw a documentary on lenny bruce a while
back.  it's really interesting and sad how
innovative he was and how he was pounced
on by society at the time because of it.

His progressive artistry and its persecution
actually destroyed his career and life.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 2, 2004)

That's why I think a quote from him would be so appropriate for my book.  Plus it explains why I used those words in the title.

Would PA let me put that on the back cover and let me keep the title?  I'm not sure if Author House would.  They don't mind swearing and potentially offensive material in the book, but I doubt they would allow it on the cover.  (Which is ironic, since I'm trying to destroy the hateful nature of these words.  Can you imagine an entire book shelf with that title?  Lenny would be proud.)

If I show this piece to a major publishing house, they will probably mess with it and completely ruin it; meaning once again I'll be forced to self-finance.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 2, 2004)

I really don't know.  I am impressed with
some books that PA has released under
their name...and yet, I don't think any 
traditional publisher would allow that
for a title.  PA is trying to be taken 
seriously as a traditional publisher...so I 
have my doubts.  

btw, my argument was basically that
the bible as a whole painted the Jewish
nation in a negative light.  Were you going
to touch on that later on?  A lot of people
think it was just the gospels, but a lot of
it could have stemmed from the earlier
books like Hosea and Chronicles, when
it reveals the chronic infidelity of the Jews
when it comes to following their God.
And then later on, past the gospels, where
it is stated that God has rejected the
Jewish nation, because they rejected his
son.

I don't blame you for not going into the
religious aspect, especially if you feel
that in later times the anti-semitism
started.  But to suggest that it was just
the gospels that could have lead to 
anti-semitism, I don't think would be
accurate, and yet is a belief held by
many.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 3, 2004)

"but a lot of 
it could have stemmed from the earlier 
books like Hosea and Chronicles, when 
it reveals the chronic infidelity of the Jews 
when it comes to following their God."

Could you give me some specific passages so I can do research?  (Actually, I'm considering reading the whole bible cover-to-cover as a primer for this book).  Based on what you say, that doesn't seem to be specifically anti-Semitic, because Christians lack of faith is also shown in the bible.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 3, 2004)

Well let's see...

First of all the term Jew, meaning 
descendants of Judah, (and more
importantly the two tribe, southern 
kingdom) isn't even used in the bible until 
the book of Kings, and right about when the 
10 tribe kingdom fell.  So going before 
that time period might be confusing, 
between Jew, son of Abraham, Israelite, 2 
tribe or 10 tribe and etc.  

The Israelites had a bad record of 
infidelity (esp. after Solomon) in which 
their worshiping other Gods was likened 
to adultery.  Ranging from the book of 
Judges all the way to the end of the 
Hebrew scriptures.  There are numerous 
references in Jeremiah and Daniel and 
Ezekiel in which the sins of Israel are 
detailed.  The most interesting though, I 
think are in Hosea when in the first chapter, 
it compares Jerusalem to a wife of 
fornication that God is divorcing...and 
God actually instructed his prophet to 
marry a woman of fornication to illustrate 
this point.

Jerusalem was even destroyed at one
point (I believe the common belief is 
586 bc?) by Babylon.  And then yet 
again restored to God's favor after
repentance was shown by them.  
(A pattern that goes on and on for many 
books)  Yet it never regained its 
independence as an individual nation.

Anyways, the belief is that Jesus came
to save the Jews and repair the 
damage that had been done.  By now
they were ruled by Rome--and this was 
pretty much the last straw in God's 
attempt to save the nation's special 
status as the "chosen people".  But when 
it became apparent that the Jews (as a 
religion and as a nation) were not 
accepting him as the Messiah as a united 
whole, Jesus speaking for God announced
that their covenant relationship was 
over.  

Though supposedly Matthew is the least
trustworthy gospel, two revealing 
statements were made by Jesus, that
the Christian religion still holds to.  
Matt. 21:42, 43: 
Matt. 23:37, 38

And as even Mel Gibson knows, the
Jewish religious leaders spurred on the
crowds, and they demanded Jesus
be put to death for blasphemy.  Sure, 
Rome and "we" all killed him...but at
the request of the Pharisees and the 
crowds of blinded Jewish commoners.

Then later on, apostles reiterated that
Jews were no longer a favored people
simply because of their RACE.  While
individual Jews such as the apostles
were being accepted into God's kingdom
it was based on works and on faith in 
Jesus as the new corner stone of faith.  
Gal. 3:27-29
Romans 11:25, 26

And then in Acts 10:9 and a few verses
onward, the point was hammered down, 
that God was now even accepting 
gentiles into his kingdom--which is the 
final slap to the Jewish nation that 
always looked down on gentiles as 
undeserving and unclean.


Christians do lack faith today, and are
an embarrassment.  Arguably though, that
lack of faith was not shown as much in
the bible as the failing of the Jewish
nation.  The 1st century congregation was 
just getting started and it was much later
after the death of all the apostles that
the Catholic church became so corrupted.


----------



## americanwriter (Jul 3, 2004)

Interesting debate. And an interesting piece of work, but I think you're trying to argue too many points for this to fit as an essay. 

From a Christian's perspective, I'll throw two cents here on the anti-semitism. I don't know of many Christians, being true believers, who actively seek out to persecute those of the Jewish faith. We would be setting ourselves against God's chosen people and thus making ourselves enemies of God. That would be rather a stupid thing to do. But neither are we to align ourselves with their teachings in that we have been called to Christ under a new doctrine of faith, not in the law, which no one of the Jewish faith has been able to keep since its inception. 

But as Christians we know that ALL those who reject Christ, whatever their professed religious belief, make themselves enemies of Christ. We have our marching orders and we are to follow Christ no matter what. Jesus said it truly, that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, truth that accepted by some and rejected by others would divide even parents and children and siblings. And surely it has. Christians, such as we are, are those whom God said would be "a peculiar people unto himself," children by adoption. I for one do not blame the Jews for Jesus death. They were instruments of God's will and instruments of purpose for Jesus in that he was forordained from the foundation of the world to die on the cross. The Jewish leaders of the time who feared Jesus' teachings, because those teachings seemed to be in conflict with scriptural laws, and because Jesus' teachings convicted them on many things in their misunderstanding and misapplication of the holy scriptures, had no more choice in whether Christ went to the cross than Pilate had in finally ordering the crucifixion. It was God's plan that Jesus would die for the people, and it was going to occur. Judas was an instrument, selected to fulfil a portion of the scriptures that God's plan would move forward. Peter denied Christ three times, and the folowers of Christ were scattered. Just as the prophets foretold. Christ's followers, with God's approval, could just have easily risen against the Jewish leaders, but God did not permit this. It was His holy purpose that Christ, the chosen Lamb without blemish, should die for the people, and that it would be the Jewish leaders of the time that would deliver Him to Pilate. But remember too, that Christ went willingly. It was for that purpose He came into the world. His life was not taken from Him, He laid it down for the sins of the people. 

Among the majority of Christians today, it isn't a matter of fixing blame upon the Jewish people that Christ died (though many would like this to be the case), for the scriptures and prophets foretold that He would be delivered up to die and that "His own would not receive him." The Jewish nation, though God's chosen people in the old testament, have been in conflict with God for centuries, and even the scriptures tell that that conflict will continue even through these last days. 

God's chosen people, the Jewish people, have always faced persecution for their faith and will until Christ's return. God has already said this. So too, will those who are called Christians. We know this. Those who seem to struggle hardest against what is happening in the world are those who do not understand that they cannot save this world. Anti-semitism in so far as religion is concerned will remain because those who are not with Christ are against Him. God drew that line in the sand a long time ago. As for racial prejudice, that too will remain so long as mankind yields to the inherent sinfulness of selfishness, and ego, and pride, and self-agrandizement, self-glorification. As for those who practice homosexuality, there too, Christians know that those who do such things are an abomination to the Lord. God's word is clear on that. "Those outside of Christ God will judge," according to God's word. Those who live by the law, will be judged by the whole of the law. Those in Christ will have his advocacy and the covering of His blood. They will not be seen in their sinfulness, but clothed an cleansed in the Christ's purity.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 4, 2004)

Well we agree in some respects and
disagree in others, americanwriter.

But I'll stick the to literary argument
rather than focusing on the religious.

While I admit to being confused
regarding prophecy equalling 
predestination, I can't understand the
thought that The Jews (or worse yet
"certain" Jews) were a tool that God 
lovingly used to perform his own will.

True, Jesus would not have wanted his
followers to start a violent revolt.  Yes,
he offered his life willingly for man's sins.  
BUT clearly there is a difference between
the way Jesus viewed the Romans, 
the common Jewish people, and the
pharisees.

Luke 23:34.  He asked forgiveness
for the Romans because they did not
know what they were doing. 

Luke 13:34.  He called the children of
Jerusalem "children" or "chicks" that
he wanted to gather together and
save from destruction.  

John 8:42.  He compares Pharisees
to sons of Vipers, hypocrites, from
Satan, and deserving of everlasting 
doom.  


So whether or not predestination
enters into it (which i can't see personally,
since with evil things God cannot be tried)
Jesus certainly felt some were more
bloodguilty than others.  (His murder
and murders of other prophets)


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 4, 2004)

"but I think you're trying to argue too many points for this to fit as an essay."

How so?  Can you be more specific?

"I don't know of many Christians, being true believers, who actively seek out to persecute those of the Jewish faith."

Individual Christians probably don't (which goes to my point about people not being lemmings), but that's only because most Churchs no longer actively preach anti-Semitism or anti-heresy (at least not to the extent they once did eg Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, etc.).  This essay (as noted in the intro) is more about the possible future then about the present.  During rough periods, people are angry and look for someone, anyone, to blame.  Leaders know that if they don't take advantage of their people's anger, they will become victims of it.  These four groups are the most common foil for these leaders to do so, for reasons mentioned earlier and will be further examined later.  

"God's word is clear on that."

I don't know that it is, as homosexuality is only mentioned once in the entirety of the bible, the infamous "Man shall not lay down with man as he does with woman".  Some say that it is also subtly mentioned during the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, but you really have to be reading into it to see it as specifically being against homosexuals.  The point is that NOTHING is mentioned in the Bible only once.  How many times is stealing mentioned?  Adultery?  Murder?.....  Coupled with the fact that most biblical scholars agree that some parts of the Bible have been creatively edited to suit the ends of powerful leaders, and one has to assume that this passage was added in later, as a means to insight hatred against homosexuals.  (I'll go into further detail in the essay dealing with homosexuals).  The reason I include homosexuals is because they fit the same mold that Jews, blacks and gypsies do (see above) and they were all equally persecuted by the Nazis.

PS: as you probably presumed, this essay presupposes that the Bible is a mythical relic, and nothing more.  It also presupposes that everything within the Bible is not literal history, but mythologised history (this will be covered in part of the book as well).  I don't assume that Jews are hated because God is punishing them, I assume they are hated for cultural reasons and to suit the ends of people in power.  This part of the book establishes the cultural reasons.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 4, 2004)

"Jewish religious leaders spurred on the 
crowds, and they demanded Jesus 
be put to death for blasphemy."

The key word in this sentence is "leaders".  Zionist leaders are not at all innocent in the hatred and prosecution that their people face (also discussed later in the book).  Well I have no doubt that Zionist leaders pushed for Christ's death, this isn't a reflection on Jews as a whole anymore than 9/11 is a reflection on muslims as a whole.  Did some muslims celebrate 9/11?  Yes.  Did the majority?  No.  At least not in their hearts.  If they did celebrate it was out of mob mentality and fear.  Just as many Jews did 2000 years ago, and many Germans did 70 years ago (and countless other examples).

Essentially this book as a whole will be about discrediting all leaders and their methods of controling the masses.  Hatred and diversiveness are their main tools.  Divide and conquer.


----------



## americanwriter (Jul 4, 2004)

By too many issues, I mean that the paragraph in which you begin with a discussion of the deterioration of the Roman culture losing its roads, art, culture, etc... and then end with what the argument that it is because the Jewish people are the focus of anti-semitism because they brought guilt to the Roman culture. The paragraph just doesn't seem to fit. It is actually sort of distracting from your earlier argument. 

I think you need to narrow your main argument some more. But then, maybe reading this in the context of the whole work would make it seem more focused. 

Are you trying to narrow down or pinpoint a specific reason that anti-semitism exists with regard to the Jewish people? Or are you arguing that Christianity and it's conflict with traditional Jewish teaching is the reason anti-semitism continues? Or that Christianity, because of its impact on the consciences of individual men and women in a given culture, like Rome, has had the effect of altering those cultures, and thus those in their altered state of belief are suddenly thrust in a love/hate relationship with their new found beliefs and want a target for their anger?

I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that Judeo-Christian theology was the catalyst for anti-semitism. Anti-semitism, at least by what we know from recorded history, has always existed in its broadest definition.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 4, 2004)

"Or that Christianity, because of its impact on the consciences of individual men and women in a given culture, like Rome, has had the effect of altering those cultures, and thus those in their altered state of belief are suddenly thrust in a love/hate relationship with their new found beliefs and want a target for their anger?"

That's the one.  The erosion of Roman culture ties in with that.  (This also ties in with the degradation of culture being a tipping point for anger, frustration and hatred).  To use a pop-culture metaphor, it's like when the Simpsons went to Austrailia, and the Austrailian ecosystem couldn't cope with the bullfrogs they brought with them.   The European culture is a warrior culture (even Socrates was a soldier first, a philosopher second), whereas the Jewish culture has been traditionally more of a thinking culture.  European Christians are the synthesis of those two cultures, and it has often times yielded terrible results, too many to list here.  With this book I'm taking the pyschoanalytical route:  if people can find the root of the problem, the problem disappears. (that's a little simplified, but you get the idea).

The second question, about whether Christian vs Jewish teachings could be the possible reason for anti-Semitism, I think the answer is no.  At least on the level of the common people, which is what I'm dealing with here.  I think the Political Thread has proven that differing viewpoints don't matters as much as differing personalities.


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 4, 2004)

Well firstly, (and I'll probably get in trouble
for this) I don't "get" the argument of 
homosexuality.

I don't equate them with Jews, blacks or
women, when it comes to being a 
minority.  Why, when you're obviously 
liberal-minded (in rejecting traditional 
biblical doctrines) and in a country that 
promotes freedom, freethinking, tolerance 
and equality, would you claim that you 
were "born that way?"  That you don't have 
a choice?  America is all about freedom
of choice.  And yet you insist that 
everyone acknowledge that you're
forced by God, society or evolution
to be this way.  You're proud of who
you are...yet, I can't dare say that you
chose your lifestyle.  "I was 'born'/I was
forced to be this way."

I think it's just liberal Hollywood's way 
of trying to brainwash people much in
the same way the conservative White 
House does. 

Blacks, Jews and other minorities have
no choice as to their skin color and
nationality.  (Insert Michael Jackson
joke or argument here)  Someone who 
is gay or lesbian has control over their
actions.  (Whether or not you're talking
about biblical morality--everything we do 
in life is a choice)  ANYONE who is a 
noncastrated human being has a choice 
to be heterosexual, homosexual or 
celibate.  It is freedom of choice.  

There have been many people who were 
homosexual, then realized they were
heterosexual after all.  Or vice versa.  
(I've known some real life cases, and 
Anne Heche)  Then the argument 
becomes, Well, THEY don't count.  
Because they were just confused.
Everyone is confused.  Everyone
goes through life and makes self-affecting
decisions.  And this is a free country that
allows you.  Everything is a choice.


Secondly, while I believe the bible was the
primary reason why anti-semitism has
started (over religious reasoning between
Christians & Jews...the Jews rejected 
Jesus as a savior, THEN the kingdom was
opened to gentiles) I believe that the 
reason it has spread so much must be 
related to desensitization.  I believe when 
the Jews were so notoriously persecuted 
by Nazi's, and the news media that 
covered the atrocities, and not to mention 
the myriads of holocaust dramas that have 
been released since, these things have
desensitized many as to what is 
acceptable human behavior and what is 
animalistic, jungle-like dominance of 
one powerful creature over another.
(A radical viewpoint might even be that
if there were never cinematic depictions 
of the Jews' cruel torture, there would
not be so much hate.  Maybe Schindler's
List opened one person's eyes...but
someone else, not so much)

Don't underestimate HOllywood's influence
either.  Preconceptions that the Jews run
Hollywood, and continue releasing and
awarding Holocaust dramas still are 
common.  Items such as this have become 
running jokes in fact in comedies and in 
much the same way as some careless 
young blacks use "Nigger" as a friendly 
greeting to each other.  It's all the result 
of society's gradual desensitizing to 
something that is at first, mysterious and 
so evil that is should be unfathomable, 
like racism...and yet, is very inherent in 
imperfect mankind.  You could even
argue that to be racist, that is, to 
dominate a person of another race as
if you are greater than he is, is an 
instinctive attitude in an evolved mammal
such as man. Despite all the noetic 
disputations we make to be fair and civil,
and because it's the moral thing to do, 
if not careful, we can all revert back to
animalistic instinct, that unexplainable 
mob mentality.


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 4, 2004)

"I don't equate them with Jews, blacks or 
women, when it comes to being a 
minority"

Firstly, who said anything about women.  This isn't going to be a book about everyone and anyone who has been persecuted.  This is about the four specific groups of people (I don't think I am, but I might be leaving a group out) that represent the perfect target for people in power to unite the majority.  

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is not really the issue.   Basically any group that meets these crieteria are included in the book:

1)  Can be found anywhere in the world
2)  Live in closely knit communities, more or less isolated from the rest of society (in first-world nation or military 'power' nations only)
3)  Large enough in population that they can be an inexhaustable source for prosecution
4)  Already a cultural pretext, however flimsy, for being disliked by the majority

Homosexuals, Blacks, Gypsies and Jews all meet this criteria.  This is why Hitler singled out these groups for persecution (although the Jews seem to be the only one that get any attention for it, probably because they were the majority in Germany at that time).

Why have I excluded, for example, muslims.  They, for the most part, don't meet criterion #2.  Muslims can be found in virtually every neighbourhood, in every school.  They do not tend to isolate themselves like Jewish communities.  You might say that blacks can also be found in every community, but there are definate boundries as far as where blacks are a majority and where they are a minority, not only in America, but in all first-world nations.  The same can be said for homosexuals.  They exist in virtually every community, yet there are definate areas where they are a majority (San Fransico for example) and where they are a minority.  No such boundries exist for muslims.  So, if a world leader wanted to single out muslims, he would have to first gather them and isolate them to make them into a visible, communal target.  The four group come pre-packaged and have already chosen to isolate themselves.  Also, there are first-world nations that have a muslim majority.  This is not true of any of the four groups.  So if a country chose to persecute muslims, they may face the wrath of muslim nations that have the military power to cause some damage.  If you can name one country that has a black majority that can be considered a first-world nation or a world power, I will exclude them from the list.  But there are none that I am aware of.   And, obviously, there is no nation of homosexuals.  Jews no longer have a nation, as you've already said.  And gypsies are a godless, nationless group of nomads (for the most part. I should stress that these are generalisations.  Individual exceptions are to be expected.  But that's not what this book is about, this is about leaders taking advantage of groups of people, not unique individuals.  I think we can all agree that gov't and people in power have no use for them).

PS: could you quit using 'you'.  I know you're using a euphamism, but I don't want people getting the wrong idea here.   Most guys would've flipped out if you did that to them.  Fortunately, I don't care that much what people think of me, but just to set the record straight (pun intended).


----------



## thelatemitchellwarren (Jul 4, 2004)

sorry for the formatting but I wanted
to quote some references...


http://www.auschwitz.dk/bullseye/new_page_3.htm

"Why did Hitler hate the Jews?

Holocaust happened because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated"


Again, stressing the Lemmings/Evolution 
philosophy.  Racism stems from a need
for domineering people to feel superior 
to others.  And like animals, they attack
those whom are "weaker".

Not weaker in the sense of strength or
intellect but perhaps as you suggested,
due to territorial or social status.

Why do so many people attack blacks
and Jews?  Because there's a precedent
set, throughout history, they've been
easy targets.  And people always attack
easy targets.  Originally when blacks
came to America, they weren't
immediately thought of as slaves--at
least not in the demeaning way they
were treated in later years.  But
because they were the minority at the
time, eventually, the white man began
to dominate them and invented racism
as a form of control or attack.  Jews, 
a much easier target, because they
were being persecuted from ancient
bible times, and then later for rejecting 
Jesus, and then in Nazi Germany when 
Hitler decided they were an inferior 
brand of people.  Hitler obviously found 
it easy to select black people to 
discriminate against (because of their 
skin) and all sorts of people who stood 
out from the norm (including the mentally 
handicapped).  But why the Jews, since 
their skin color wasn't always noticeably 
different?  While I've heard rumors that 
it could have been a bad upbringing in 
which he had bad dealings with Jews 
(something about being rejected from 
art school) or was indoctrinated to believe 
Jews were evil by his parents...

I think it's likely that (1) religious
precedent set in the bible that the
Jews lost God's favor.  Not to mention
the silence of the Catholic Church
throughout the holocaust.  (2) as stated at http://www.maven.co.il/ask/answer.asp?Q_ID=6691&N=&S=

"He learned to hate Jews in Vienna. He says that "just looking at a Jew" was enough to convince him that they were inferior and dangerous. Actually, long centuries of anti-Jewish hatred in Europe forced the Jews to live in separate towns called shtetls and in separate sections of towns known as ghettos. Being SEPARATE, Jews were considered strange and suspicious by their non-Jewish neighbors. Hitler and other politicians took advantage of this longstanding anti-Jewish hatred, even though the Jews in Western Europe had long since entered the mainstream of civilization. Hitler claimed that the Jews were inferior and that the Germans needed to get rid of them to make more "living space" (lebensraum) for the "Master Race" (the Germans). But, looking back, it seems that his main purpose was to use the hatred of the Jews as a way of controlling the hearts and minds of the Germans and other European peoples. 
Hatred can be a very strong force"

Whatever is separate, and goes contrary to
the norm will always be hated by the
majority.  That is where anti-semitism 
developed. HOWEVER, beyond these 
years, into our day I have to believe the 
majority of anti-semitism or any racism is 
because of the Lemmings philosophy.  
People have forgotten why they hate--they 
are just addicted to it.  

Sometimes attacks don't take the form
of beatings.  They can be mocking, 
jokes, dark humor, and etc.  So racism
is a form of attack made by a creature
wishing to convey his dominance to a 
"smaller" creature--or at least what he
perceives as a smaller creature.

And the smaller creature would be the
easy targets, with precedent set.
Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals 
AND AND AND!  Native Americans.
That could be one minority you've
forgotten.  


P.S. yes it was a euphemism.  sorry
for all the you's.  But I know you are 
obviously far too busy scoring with 
droves of sexy and insatiable female 
women of the most feminine form, with 
heads of long platinum blonde hair and 
ample bosoms, and doing so in purely 
heterosexual ways in true masculine
glory to give it anymore worry.  
(hope i set the record straight)


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 5, 2004)

"But I know you are 
obviously far too busy scoring with 
droves of sexy and insatiable female 
women of the most feminine form, with 
heads of long platinum blonde hair and 
ample bosoms, and doing so in purely 
heterosexual ways in true masculine 
glory to give it anymore worry. 
(hope i set the record straight)"

No..... I prefer redheads.  

"Why did Hitler hate the Jews? 

"Holocaust happened because Hitler and the Nazis were racist. They believed the German people were a 'master race', who were superior to others. They even created a league table of 'races' with the Aryans at the top and with Jews, Gypsies and black people at the bottom. These 'inferior' people were seen as a threat to the purity and strength of the German nation. When the Nazis came to power they persecuted these people, took away their human rights and eventually decided that they should be exterminated" 

I haven't read the link yet, but this is terribly simplified.  Anti-Semitism was in full force in Germany before Hitler was even born.  The idea of the Germans being superior was thought out in such concepts as Lebensraum, before the Nazi party.  Hitler, as leaders do, took the existing situation and simply took advantage of it.

"But 
because they were the minority at the 
time, eventually, the white man began 
to dominate them and invented racism 
as a form of control or attack."

Again, I feel this is too simple, as black African leaders also participated in trading their own people for profit (the common theme, as you can tell, power corrupts.....)

"But why the Jews, since 
their skin color wasn't always noticeably 
different?"

Can you tell the difference between a Korean and a Japanese person?  I can't.  But they can.  It's amazing how easily differences can be seen when you know how to look for them, and the Nazis trained the Germans well.

"AND AND AND! Native Americans. 
That could be one minority you've 
forgotten."

The natives are a unique case in that they once had several powerful nations that, despite what people may think, could have challenged any in the world in legitimate war.  (unfortunately, what the anglos and dutch did to them was not even close to legitimate war).  But aside from that, they don't meet the first criterion, and could only by the wildest of imaginations meet the fourth.

I have no doubt that Hitler's hatred for the Jews was genuine.  But there's an old saying with politicians and leaders: tell enough lies, and, eventually, you'll stumble onto the truth.  (Actually I just made that up right now.  Pretty catchy, huh?)

As far as I know, there are only 4 groups that meet the above mentioned criteria.  Why is it important that they meet the criteria?  Well, take the Natives: because they only exist in the Americas (and even there, their population is too limited to make for a good target), their usefullness as a foil with global implications is limited.  With the Jews, Hitler could've attacked almost any country in the world in the name of 'purification', and his people would follow.  Also, there is little if any pretext to hate the natives in the modern world.  It would be far too difficult to convince the masses that; "The natives, and their evil casinos, are destroying the world.  They must be stopped. Zeig Heil!"

The handicapped are an interesting group to consider.  Though I think this falls under #4: a pretext for disliking them.  Only in Hitler's demented mind was there a pretext for hating the handicapped.  I doubt the masses could be easily convinced of this.  Why were the Germans?  Because I think by that point Hitler was seen as a god, and whatever he said went.  But, he didn't use this as his platform for gaining and holding sway over the people; he used the Jews.  Once he had the people on his side, he could persecute almost anyone he saw fit, even fellow 'Aryans'.  Remember, I'm only interested in how leaders use hatred to unite the majority on their side.  Once they are united, said leader can do as they wish.  Once they have established a culture of fear and hatred, they can then use that against the masses as means of control, as Hitler did.


----------



## greggb (Jul 23, 2004)

Hi.  Great grammar and sentence structure, and very interesting and insightful theory as to how anti-Semitism originated.  But I think there are some problems with mechanics throughout this entire essay.



> From the time Judeo-Christian theology came to the western world, ie Rome, anti-Semitism has seemed to follow proportionately. Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them? The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt. This is especially true when one compares the Jewish culture to the hedonist cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome and to a lesser extent Egypt.



In this paragraph you ask the question, "Why does the Jewish culture seem to inspire such hatred amongst the people whose religion is owed to them?"  And then immediately after you say "The one attribute that is perhaps most endemic in the Jewish culture is that of guilt".  This is confusing because you ask a question and then start on a new topic not even related to the question you asked.

Throughout your essay I noticed that you shift back and forth between the topics of guilt in the Jewish culture and anti-Semitism, without clear transitions.  I understand that what you're getting at in your essay is that anti-Semitism might have resulted from the fact that the Jews introduced a religion that brought with it feelings of guilt.  But I had to read your essay 3 times to get that, mostly because of the way your essay is organized.  

I'd recommend that instead of shifting back and forth between the concepts of guilt and anti-Semitism that you talk about anti-Semitism for a while, then have one clear transition into the topic of guilt in the Christian religion, and how this guilt might be a cause for anti-Semitism.  By organizing your topics into two major sections (1. anti-Semitism and 2. how guilt resulting from Christian beliefs might be the cause for anti-Semitism), you'll make your essay a lot easier to follow, and your points will be stronger.  The fewer times you can make me (the reader) have to shift gears, the better.

Gregg


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 23, 2004)

Thanks for the advice Gregg.

I was planning on getting rid of the question during the second run through, just because I believe asking questions to the reader is a weak method of getting your point across.

I decided to go with the single linear format, to show why even after paganism, anti-Semitism still grew and even expanded in the Christian era.   Also, this shows how hatred develops over time.  But if it's confusing I might have to change it.  

Keep in mind I will be expanding on the ideas after I do more research, which should help make the connection between guilt and resentment clearer.   I don't really see it has switching back-and-forth since guilt and resentment (ie anti-Semitism) go hand-in-hand.   Maybe an excerpt from Oedipus Rex will make it clearer (son [Christianity] kills father [paganism] and feels guilt over marrying mother [Judaism] and blinds himself.)

Did anyone else find it confusing?


----------



## greggb (Jul 24, 2004)

Here's what I mean by "switching back and forth".



> It seems confounding, and yet, it is completely in line with human nature, because along with Christianity, the Jews also brought with them the concept of guilt, that is the concept of feeling bad about something that makes one feel good. A concept previously foreign to Rome and its territories. In fact, it is concept almost uniquely and strangely Semitic. This isn’t to say other cultures were completely unfamiliar with guilt, but only for doing something that in some way harmed someone or something else, a completely linear and rational response. But to feel guilty about doing something pleasurable, that in no way harmed anyone else, and in fact may give pleasure to others as well as to oneself: this was unheard of, particularly in Rome.
> 
> Most people would theorise that Anti-Semitism is routed in the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Matthew, wherein the Jews are said to be solely responsible for the death of Christ. However, this is not the origin, but is rather systemic of anti-Semitism.
> 
> When the fathers of Roman Catholicism were taking religious texts to place in the bible, they elected which articles would be excluded, among these were at least three known Gospels of Christ. The reasoning behind the



Notice how you mention 3 or 4 sentences about guilt, then begin a new paragraph about something different.  Then a little while later...



> When one thinks of Ancient Rome and Greece, perhaps first is the culture, civilisation, philosophy, art and technology that they developed and spread throughout the world. But closely second was their hedonistic appetites. Roman and Greek life was centred around enjoying everything this world had to offer: their gods were the gods of wine, love, virility, and strength; the Jewish god is the god of Guilt. Considering then this contrast, one can now begin to understand why Romans, even after converting to Christianity, rather especially after converting to Christianity, had such contempt for the Jews. A culture that was once carefree had now been gilded in the cage of Judeo-Christian doctrine. A culture whose people formerly enjoyed orgies, homosexuality, incest, great gluttonous feasts, warring and fighting, now could not so much as think of such things without feeling pangs of guilt and embarrassment. The “pleasures” of life were taken from them, and who was to blame? After all, their new and omnipotent, all-knowing God could not be at fault, nor their lord and saviour Jesus Christ and his followers. But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.
> 
> As Roman society continued to deteriorate, Rome and its territories gradually fell into what has become known as the Dark Ages. It is during this bleak period that Christianity is at its peak in Europe, and not coincidentally so too was anti-Semitism.



Once again here's a mention of guilt and why it might by the cause for anti-Semitism, and immediately following is a paragraph that doesn't go along with it-- at least I (a reader fairly uneducated on the topics of Roman history and human pyschology) don't see see a clear connection.  



> I don't really see it has switching back-and-forth since guilt and resentment (ie anti-Semitism) go hand-in-hand.



To you it seems pretty obvious that guilt and resentment go hand-in-hand, but I don't think the average reader will make this connection.  I think guilt causes resentment on a more subconscious level, that's not extremely apparent to a lot of people.  For that reason I think you should take a little more time to explain how/why guilt causes resentment.

Again as far as structure goes, I'd recommend that you build into the topic of guilt (and how it causes resentment), and once you're on the topic, stick with it long enough for your readers to digest it.

Something else that distracts me from the point you're trying to make (I'm assuming that the theme of your essay is 'guilt might be the cause for anti-Semitism') is when you make reference to the Jews being the people who crucified Christ.



> But the Jews, the people who according to the Gospels betrayed Christ and allowed him to die on the cross, they could shoulder the blame for the Roman peoples’ newfound frustration and fear of a previously unknown afterlife, in which every action, and even every thought, of this life will be used to judge them. The Jews are the ones who let people know about this afterlife, it is their sky-god who threatens to send them to hell if not properly obeyed. It is then their fault, as far as the Romans were concerned, that they now lived with constant fear and guilt.



I (the reader) wonder if the Romans resent the Jews because they crucified Christ, or because they introduced guilt (along with the Christian Religion) to the rest of the world.  They more than likely resent the Jews for both reasons, but in order to keep your readers focused, I think you need to refrain from mentioning a bunch of other reasons--at least in this particular parapgraph.

I want to say again that I think the theme of your essay is very profound.  At a sentence-by-sentence level, it's written very well.  Great grammar and vocabulary usage.  I just think you need to work a little on the structure/organization, and this will turn out to be a great essay.

Gregg


----------



## eleutheromaniac (Jul 24, 2004)

I see what you're saying now, and it is a problem in all of my writing.  I simply don't know what is common knowledge and what isn't.  I want to bring the reader along to my train of thought, but I don't want to state the obvious thereby insulting my reader's intelligence and also taking some of the steam out of the work.  My philosophy with writing is always to assume the reader knows as much as I do, and start from there.

"I (the reader) wonder if the Romans resent the Jews because they crucified Christ, or because they introduced guilt (along with the Christian Religion) to the rest of the world."

The 'Jews killed Christ' is my antithetical argument.  It is the common theory for the origin of anti-Semitism, therefore it must be shot down before I can bring my theory to a synthesis.  If this needs to be made more clear (and I think you're right, it might be) than I will work to do so.  Thank you for your advice.

With the 'Jews killed Christ' theory, the emphasis is on the Jews and their guilt.  I mean to shift the emphasis to the anti-Semites and their guilt.   I feel that once people realise that the reason for their hatred, fear, guilt, etc. is internal and not external, they can cure themselves of it.  A classic phychiatric method, only applied on a social scale.


----------

