As many of you know, on at least two occasions, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey has made statements that more than a few people have suggested are redolent with the stink of anti-semitism.

Generally, when I interpret such statements, I appeal to the writer’s intent: was the statement signified in such a way that the anti-semitism belongs to its author, or am I merely imagining anti-semitism in the author’s marks, and then signifying those marks myself — in essence, creating a text in which anti-semitism exists, then attributing that text to the original author?

But those are all very “academic” questions, and as we now know, “most blog readers” are too fucking stupid to understand them. So rather than work through questions and concerns on issues that require words be used with some precision, I think you’ll all agree that the best maneuver going forward is to do away with specialized questions, and only use terms in a way that the common man might, were he, say, attending a rib cook-off or a Tea Party, or merely whispering sweet nothings into the ear of one of his cousins during a fireworks display commemorating James Earl Ray’s birthday.

“Intent” is one of those words that needs it some retiring, given that it is, as a concept, incredibly difficult to define. And as intent is no longer a requirement — what we are looking for is some deep-seated anti-Jew hatred that the author didn’t even know he had, some vile internal grubbiness that exists at the very core of the author’s soul, but for which he cannot possibly held accountable given that, in polite company (and aware of the stigma of uttering anti-semitic remarks while not holding a progressive political worldview) he would never intend such buried hatreds to escape — we can conclude that Frey would never intentionally let those inveterate bigotries be aired publicly.

And so we are left only to deal with the statements themselves, which exist outside the purview of the author’s intent (though we will stipulate that they are animated by something very much like intent that nevertheless gives the agency whose deep-seated anti-semitism gave birth to such ugly statements a psychic mulligan).

To begin: I wish to state up front that I am not calling Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey an anti-semite. I don’t know whether he is or whether he isn’t. But I do know that his statements might reasonably be reviewed by a casual reader, whom we’ll assume is a “reasonable man,” as potentially anti-semitic, and frankly, I’m not sure I can imagine a context in which those statements — not the person who made them, mind you, who should bear no real responsibility for them, given how deeply-seated they were in his black little soul, and given how very very very much he wished they’d never escaped his mind to go goose stepping across the blogosphere — could be anything but anti-semitic; and so it is my duty to examine the potential anti-semitism of LA County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey as if he were, say, a Louis Farrakhan, or some British Leftist.

If we are going to scrutinize the hatreds of others and hold them up to the disinfecting light of public opprobrium, how can we in good conscience excuse analogous behaviors just because they are coming from someone on “our side”?

To reiterate, before we begin our 15-part series exploring the anti-semitic suggestiveness of Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey’s multiple statements, on the way to determining if Frey himself is anti-semitic: on the one hand, I am most pointedly NOT calling Patrick Frey anti-semitic. However, it’s quite possible he’s made anti-semitic statements, animated by anti-semitic thoughts that are deeply seated in his “subconscious.” Where they don’t count as his thoughts (but nevertheless, he’s the dude who thunk ‘em, so, like, what can we do?)

On the other hand, I do find myself concerned that he reintroduced the idea of “money-grubbing” for a second time, without any provocation, seven months after his first stab at tethering the adjective to a Jew with whom he was having a heated disagreement. (Not that any perceived provocation should matter, anyway: if a black dude blocks my jumper, I wouldn’t be any more entitled to call him a thieving coon than I might had he just given me the Heimlich and cost me a nice chunk of already softened steak.)

I say that this was unprovoked because from where I’m sitting, when I hear “language can only be language when it is tied to intent,” I don’t immediately jump to describing the person offering that argument as a “money grubber.” But then, I might not have the same deeply seated thoughts animating me as Patrick Frey does, so I will resist passing judgment on him.

Does that make him anti-semitic? Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey an anti-semite? Or is he guilty of making (potentially) anti-semitic statements, for which he should be forgiven, insofar as the benighted thoughts that animated such statements are, like, really really really deep in his subconscious, where they aren’t really his, or rather, they are, but it’s not like he wants you to see them.

Naturally, I’d give him a chance to deny his anti-semitism, if indeed that’s what it is, and I’m POINTEDLY saying that I don’t know if it is or not. But I’m beginning to think that the only way to protect conservatism down the line is to publicly vet its mouthpieces.

One of my readers, who like me is torn about having to launch such an investigation, but who, again like me, is duty bound as a spokesman for the conservative cause to do so, has suggested that we begin examining the question of to what do we attribute the anti-semitism of the statement, if not to the anti-semitism of its utterer, with a series of hypotheticals:

If a boy names his dog “Moneygrubber” and a Jewish person is walking by when the boy calls to his dog, is it anti-semitic if

1) he lowers his voice so the Jewish person doesn’t hear something that might offend?
2) he thoughtlessly (although perhaps not sub-thoughtlessly) just yells for the dog?
3) he doesn’t give a shit if he accidently offends anyone, it’s a fucking accident, and only a stupid Jew would seize on such a thing and make a big deal out of it?
4) he was anti-semitic when he named his dog, but that was just one time years ago, and now he’s just calling his dog’s name?

Reader input is greatly appreciated. And so we’re clear: we will NOT use the findings of our reader poll to prove Frey’s anti-semitism. That would be unscientific and unethical.

Instead, we’ll use the findings merely as a springboard for other posts on just how anti-semitic Frey may or may not be.

Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey has to realize he is not bigger than the cause. The cause must be served. It must be protected. And with the ability people have to run around finding unintended anti-semitic thoughts emanating from people who don’t themselves consciously realize how anti-semitic they actually may or may not be, we really must be careful these days.

I’m really worried about the left, and how they might use what may or may be Frey’s anti-semitism against the cause somewhere down the line. Patrick Frey’s anti-semitism, if it exists, matters only inasmuch as it can be used against the cause by unscrupulous people on the Left.

We murder to dissect.

Comments archived from the original appearance of this post can be found at The Wayback Machine here.