my argument, in brief, is that the clumsy phrase
non-self-hating Jews, cryptosemites and philosemitic goyim can be replaced by the single word kazzers saving a great deal of space on the page.

i say can and not must or should – as the Talmud says: no compulsion in matters of truth. we are all human – the humble Jew sitting in his marble synagogue worshipping a magnificent diamond-encrusted golden image of himself should not be thought of as any worse than the arrogant goy malevolently gloating over his pitiful pile of animal faeces and burnt pig carcases in the rubble of a recently bulldozed mosque. surely they are equal in the eyes of the Alm_ghty. is it to be presumed that the Ete_nal O_e, with H_s vast experience of human nature over the centuries, cannot see that the modest and respectful Jew is a kazzer whilst the filthy and despicable goy is clearly unworthy of this title.

and is it not more seemly to describe Pastor Haggis and his ilk as kazzers, rather than using the pejorative-sounding equivalent: fat, corrupt and hypocritical self-loathing goyim?

Perhaps there should be an “anti-defamation league” having the goal of exposing Jews who attempt to “defame” Gentiles with the anti-Semite label.

many a true word spoken in jest, perhaps!

antisemitism is a vague term, and its use should be discouraged in the interests of linguistic precision. as Blake has pointed out (vide supra) it is wildly inaccurate for two equally potent, but sharply contrasting reasons.

because of the nature of this ambiguity of meaning we observe that those Jews who make a profession of accusing others of antisemitism are inevitably being disingenuous, and are frequently also insidiously self-serving and must often earn wel-deserved condemnation for their downright malevolence.

allow me to suggest that we drain this verbal morass by defining the new word kazzerite, together with two derived forms, the first describing the associated philosophy of kazzerism and the second a collective noun: kazzers.

these terms will, i hope, bring a welcome clarity to areas of discussion which have hitherto been, even in the best case scenario, both murky and treacherous.

a kazzerite, or someone acting like a kazzerite, may be defined in purely behavioural terms with no reference to race, religion or ethnicity.

for example it was always obvious that the distingushed American stateswoman Ms. Mad. Albright was kazzeristic par excellence long before she accidentally discovered that she was, in fact, a Jewess. (note: the tragi-comedy of this startling and undoubtedly painful act of late self-realization has been treated with great compassion by Ms Theokopoulos elsewhere in the pages of this journal, which frees me from the obligation to discuss this undoubtedly fascinating case of mistaken identity).

the renowned theologian Pastor John Haggis is also a kazzer – yet he is a deeply Christian gentleman, and has made no public disclosure of any taint of semitic ancestry.

two eminent kazzerists who can proudly boast of their Jewish roots are the justly famous and universally loved peace activist Lord Kissinger of Milwaukee and his chum the jurisprudentist Sir Alain de Dershowitz, whose decades of tireless work securing legal protection for the poor has made his name such a household word in recent years.

on the other hand it should be evident that not all Jews are kazzers – for example the saxophonist Gilad Atzmon has become a prominent figure in the global anti-kazzerist alliance.

even this handful of specific examples suffice to indicate that the availability of the clearly-defined and value-free term kazzer and its derivatives should gradually reduce the need for recourse to the ugly and dangerously vague word antisemitism.