While I did refer to Crowley's commission of blood libel as "anti-Semitism," I did not apply the label "anti-Semite" to Crowley. So I'm not sure of the intent of your question.
Still, not to be coy, dictionary.com gives definitions of "anti-Semite" that would seem to apply to Crowley's blood libel and his advocacy of Pogrom, including:
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
I didn't mean to accuse you of accusing Crowley of being an anti-semite. Of course, now that you actually have accused him of being an anti-semite, I no longer need to accuse you of that
( ... )
It seems the question you are addressing is not whether he was an anti-Semite, but whether he was nothing but an anti-Semite. I'm making no attempt to reduce him to a label, only to note one of the many labels that applies to him.
Comments 6
Do you think these remarks justify labeling Crowley as an anti-semite?
Reply
Still, not to be coy, dictionary.com gives definitions of "anti-Semite" that would seem to apply to Crowley's blood libel and his advocacy of Pogrom, including:
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.
and
someone who hates and would persecute Jews
The OED2 gives the equally applicable
one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews
So, yes, the label would seem appropriate.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment