As for general accounts of the history of anti-semitism, there are quite a few: Walter Laqueur’s _The Changing Face of Antisemitism_ isn’t bad, and Anthony Julius’ _Trials of the Diaspora_ should be easy to find. Both will give you an excellent idea as to what anti-semitism is.

Quite frankly, histrionics, guilt by association and slurs against the intelligence of Mr. Sobran’s defenders do not amount to an argument on the part of the accusers. If the case is as obvious as Mr. Sobran’s judges claim, it should be a simple enough matter to define anti-semitism and lay out under what grounds the charge is falsifiable.

And yet these men are either unable or unwilling to do so. I won’t judge their intelligence, only their willingness to actually prove their case.

That is why it is actually hurting me to carry on this argument, and I’m bowing out.

You reference the 1999 essay and yet butcher the quote. Why? Sobran made two statements with the word “bolshevik” in it. The first:

“Christians knew that Communism — often called “Jewish Bolshevism” — would bring awful persecution with the ultimate goal of the annihilation of Christianity.”

And it certainly was called that often.

Next:

“Further, might the Talmudic imprecations against Christ and Christians have helped form the Bolshevik Jews’ anti-Christian animus? ”

Jews were certainly very disproportionately present among the Bolsheviks, too a radical degree. Did Bolsheviks who were Jews have an anti-Christian animus? Could inherited traditions which were anti-Christian have informed this animus?

And why did you find it necessary to either butcher or manufacture a quote?

PS Use your name like a man.

Dear Kamilla: I thought I did define anti-semitism, up above: at the very least we would agree that thinking and writing of the Jews as a whole as a harmful influence in the world is anti-semitic.

For example, I think of the Nazis as a whole as a harmful influence in world history. That’s because I’m anti-Nazi. Same with Communism. I’m anti-Communist.

So c’mon, folks, ante up. If you think of the Jews as a whole in world history as a bad influence, then say it loud and proud. But the rest of us will still call you anti-semitic. The label goes with the comments.

As for the quotes: Sobran’s not-so-subtle allusion to “the Jews” as Christ-killers, his use of the State of Israel as a stalking horse for his repition of standard anti-semitic slurs (“the Jewish state has behaved… deceitfully, parasitically, and cruelly.” ), and his calling Marxism and Freudianism “Jewish ideologies” would all constitute a prima facie case for considering him as an anti-semite.

There’s a lot more evidence that supports this from Sobran’s pen; c.f. his 1999 essay “The Church and Jewish Ideology,” in which he repeats as true standard anti-semitic nonsense like the falsehood that communism is “Jewish bolshevism” and the patently silly notion that we poor gentiles sit in “overwhelming” fear (FEAR, I tells ya!) of “Jewish power.” Once again, we see standard anti-semitic tropes: the jew as an external enemy within society, the jew as the personification of threats to society. What could be clearer?

C’mon, Kamilla; does someone have to draw you a map to show you where Sobran was coming from the last 20+ years? Do we have to bring up his connection with David Irving and with the Institute for Historical Review? Mr. Payne is correct, and anyone with the slightest familiarity with the history of anti-semitism would have no trouble identifying Sobran’s later actions and writings as anti-semitic.