Is Antisemitism ＂A Hate That Mutates＂？ Candace Owens vs. Rabbi Barclay ｜ A Critical Compass Clip
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
152.17946
Summary
Rabbi Bar-Baruch Bar-Clay's article in which he accuses Candace Candace of being anti-Semitic is a hate that mutates and he can't pinpoint a definition of anti-Semitism.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
so and that's where we have rabbi bar barclay writing an article uh being very critical of
00:00:11.760
candace and accusing her for some things so she this was before she got fired she decided to sit
00:00:17.000
down and she's like well let's have an honest discussion let's fully just go over here's what
00:00:22.640
you claim let's watch the clip that that's based off of and go through and the and it all starts
00:00:27.720
out with her asking what anti-semitism is and the first part of that is a it is a discussion about
00:00:37.340
he spends the first five minutes talking about more the history of like blood libels and the
00:00:44.000
kind of the myths behind jewish people that were perpetrated in kind of the more medieval times
00:00:51.720
and how some of those things fueled hatred towards jewish people as a group but he also specifically
00:01:00.340
says that anti-semitism is a hate that mutates and he's kind of can't really pinpoint a definition
00:01:10.180
so let's just uh i want to show this little part here pause it you said it's a hate that mutates
00:01:17.400
correct so your belief then is that the definition of anti-semitism can necessarily change is that
00:01:26.440
correct it's not just my belief it is the commonly accepted understanding in both the jewish and
00:01:31.320
academic worlds okay this isn't okay as i said that's why i quoted this is a quote it's a great
00:01:36.540
thing from lord sacks uh you know jonathan sacks it's a great thing from naya leckitt this this is
00:01:41.580
just accepted as the understanding of you know i would just say off the bat i do not accept that
00:01:50.160
definitions can just mutate that is something that i could debate that on like the definition of a
00:01:55.340
woman i mean and i'm saying not just about jewish people i think that we have to have a concrete
00:01:59.040
definition to work with because then you can just update and say actually i've changed that and now
00:02:03.320
this is what constitutes anti-semitism but candace that is the horror of anti-semitism so what you are
00:02:11.700
saying to me is that anti-semitism is this and does not change what i am saying to you is that the entire
00:02:20.160
world and scholars about anti-semitism recognize that it is a unique hate that if you define it as
00:02:30.320
the latv the the that that jews should not be able to exist collectively okay as a collective
00:02:37.880
they shouldn't have that right that changes from the middle ages with religion the 18th through 20th
00:02:43.880
centuries about race and then after israel is created it's a hatred based on the nation
00:02:50.520
and until that until that is understood that that that it is this isn't something that's really
00:02:59.000
questioned about among academics theologians jewish scholars i'm not presenting it this is why i
00:03:05.800
thought i'm so optimistic about a dialogue but i think part of it is you view that the hate can't
00:03:12.320
mutate and what i'm trying to tell you is that we have two thousands of years of history that
00:03:16.780
demonstrate the exact opposite so and i'm i'm gonna just push back very just gently here
00:03:22.600
for me personally if i thought that racism could just be an ever-shifting uh definition based on the
00:03:31.520
experience of black people it would be a remarkable power and i would be able to create something like
00:03:36.720
blm which could say that everything was racist so i am not going to be able to agree that definition
00:03:43.420
should be able to transform according to what's happening during the day but here's what i will say
00:03:49.380
if you could just because i think it's really important um for us to get to going through
00:03:55.500
this article because then you might be able to so what i would just say for because i hadn't seen that
00:04:03.820
clip my initial reaction to that like regardless of the of the truth value of the argument that he's
00:04:11.620
making the way that he's arguing it is not it's it's suboptimal the way that he's arguing it because
00:04:18.400
sort of rather than defining what he means by why the shifting definition is relevant in this
00:04:26.640
particular type of hate um all he really said there was well other jewish scholars agree that this is
00:04:33.460
the case so that that whole kind of segment was really just one big appeal to authority it felt like
00:04:40.100
without really much like meat on those bones you know what i mean what do you think there yeah he uh
00:04:47.540
he does refer to the jewish scholars defining it and then the only problem with that is is that a
00:04:53.920
collective worldwide definition or yeah yeah that that's the first issue that you get um the next
00:05:00.920
issue is he very much says that he cannot define what racism is like to candace who is a black woman
00:05:10.880
since he is not part of that group i hate i hate that that's in the same way that candace cannot
00:05:20.360
cannot define anti-semitism for herself or cannot because she's not can reject that because she's
00:05:26.820
not so silly that's yeah is here's the thing is that not like he this rabbi is a conservative but is
00:05:34.080
that not the woke playbook in action this is why this is why like this was blowing my mind of like
00:05:42.300
this felt like a struggle session based on these very far left kind of tactics this this is the this
00:05:51.080
is the the the pedagogy of the oppressed right this is the you can't uh you can't uh uh the the
00:05:57.680
oppressed can never can never uh you know ascend to the level of the oppressor and like that's all it is
00:06:03.600
it's it's it's just a reframing of that type of um woke power struggle dynamics that i'm sure as a
00:06:10.740
conservative he would be against in another context but he doesn't apply it to his own circumstance