Palin on the blood libel

I thought I’d never blog again, but Z’s just sent along his thoughts on Sarah Palin and the blood libel, and finally I have something worth saying.  Or he does, really, but I’m going to say it for him.

It is of course possible that Palin’s speech writers pulled the image our their bag of paranoid rhetoric without much thought.  But it’s unlikely, since analysis reveals that the image actually works brilliantly.  The first layer of unpacking shows that she’s using all the implications of the original with the Christians and Jews reversed, such that in the blood libel

(a) Christians falsely accuse (b) Jews of (c) a conspiracy to kill a Christian

and in Palin’s version

(a) Democrats — who, as we all know are mostly Jews, headed up by a Black (=Muslim) falsely accuse (b) Palin, who = Christians of (c) a conspiracy to kill Giffords, who is a Jew

which basically comes down to

(a) Jews falsely accuse (b) Christians of (c) a conspiracy to kill a Jew.

So far so good.  Palin is the honest Jew, falsely accused of murder and conspiracy.  But let’s go on to layer number two.  This involves the simple fact that the blood libel is false —  in fact, it’s more than false:  it represents malicious and enduring Christian hatred of Jews.  If there’s anything like an actual conspiracy at work in the blood libel, it’s a conspiracy on the part of the Christian leadership to malign Jews.

Now, translate that into the Palin version.  Not only is there no Republican-Christian conspiracy to kill Democrats-Muslims-Jews;  on the contrary, there is a conspiracy on the part of the Demoratic-Jewish-Muslim leadership to malign Republican-Christians.

St. Paul already said the Christians were the true Jews, the legitimate children of Abraham, while actual physical Jews were false Jews, the illegitimate children.  Palin’s role reversal therefore has roots in the origin of her tradition, even deeper than the blood libel itself.  Rhetorically, it’s a beautiful thing.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Palin on the blood libel

  1. Perhaps it goes even further than this?

    (a) Christians falsely accuse (b) Jews of (c) a conspiracy to kill a Christian (d) child (e) for use in Jewish ritual performance.

    a) Democrats — who, as we all know are mostly Jews, headed up by a Black (=Muslim) falsely accuse (b) Palin, who = Christians of (c) a conspiracy to kill Giffords, who is a Jew (d) and a Democrat (therefore immature and childish), (e) for the sake of advancing Democratic (= Jewish) ideology.

    That being said, I think that someone should do a history of the “secularization” of the term “blood libel.” There have been various pundits doing this recently, e.g. http://bit.ly/hOQVFe.

    Still, I wonder whether the scene of Ariel Sharon’s threatening to sue _Time_ in the 1980s might also be key (see http://bit.ly/hUdzlV ) — there the analogy might not fray so much, but it becomes detheologized.

    This move allows for “blood libel” to be retheologized (Fr. David Yager, representing the Vatican, calling charges against Pope Pius XII a blood libel in 1999 — http://bit.ly/hIZ5jj), and…

    to be further secularized (John Seigenthaler charging Oliver Stone with a blood libel against Lyndon Johnson in 1995 — http://to.pbs.org/dT44m6).

  2. Ah, you are truly a child of your father, Oona! Reading your piece took me back may years hearing your father unravel the mysteries of Kant layer by layer. Is is possible that Z is in fact your father?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s