The guys at @PodSaveAmerica laugh at JD Vance for not knowing what the academic definition of a blood libel is—and then immediately demonstrate that they know even less about it than he does...
— H.A. Hazony (@HAHazony) September 3, 2026
Instant Karma. pic.twitter.com/LFN6HY6rAx
And the OED entry for "blood libel" recognizes the original and the extended use: "The (unfounded) accusation that Jewish people use the blood of Christians in religious rituals, esp. in the preparation of Passover bread; an instance of this (cf. blood accusation n.); (also in extended use) an unfounded defamation."
That's enough to warrant circumspection with respect to what Vance said. Those Pod Save America guys veered right into ridicule. A big mistake... especially since the topic could not be more serious.
ADDED: Here's "The Ridiculous Hyper-Parsing of JD Vance" by Rich Lowry at National Review.
It’s true that Vance garbled a discussion of blood libel and blood guilt, and it’s true that [Tucker] Carlson talks a lot about blood guilt (a coincidence that makes some people queasy), but it’s obvious that what Vance meant is the opposite of Tucker Carlson’s point. When Carlson brings this up, he basically says that Christians don’t believe in blood guilt and Jews do; Vance was saying that both Christians and Jews reject blood guilt, and you are a bad Christian if you don’t.
The passage is worth quoting in full:
JD Vance: My solution to this, and, you know, I’m hardly an expert on the Jewish faith, but I believe that Jews and Christians, one of the critical things that we agree on is this concept of Imago Dei, that we are all made in the image of God. It says it right there in the Hebrew Bible in the book of Genesis. And what I . . . say to the people, like the root of antisemitism, the core of antisemitism to me, is the idea of blood libel. The idea that because of your genetics, because of your blood, because of your ancestry, you are guilty of a crime that you never committed. And I think that blood libel, which is at the root of antisemitism, is the exact opposite of the Christian gospel. And because of that, I believe the gospel is actually the solution to this.
And when I see, you know, you’re right that . . . Fishback won college-educated, or . . . not college-educated, but he won some of the college precincts.
Norm Coleman: University precincts.
JD Vance: I guess my response to that is I say that you cannot be a Christian, and I would say, you know, you know better than I would, but I don’t think that you can be a Jew either if you engage in this idea of blood guilt against people. And I think the antidote to antisemitism is the rejection of this idea of blood guilt. And I would tell any young man who claims to be a Christian that . . . this is super corrosive for the soul. And this brings me to my . . . final point.
So, we’re about to commemorate the 25-year anniversary of September 11, but of course that day will now always have a transformed meaning for me, because I was supposed to go to the 9/11 memorial service last year, but I ended up going to Arizona to take Erika and Charlie Kirk — Charlie Kirk had just been killed — from Utah to Arizona, where Charlie of course was buried. And Charlie, who by the way, like had disagreements with our foreign policy in the Trump administration, had criticisms of the Israeli foreign policy, he was not a person who was always perfectly politically aligned, he was a free-thinking guy, he loved Israel, but he also said something that I just keep on returning to, which is that Jew hatred is corrosive to the soul.
AND: By the way, the OED defines "blood guilt" as: "Guilt for the shedding of blood; responsibility for wrongful killing." No extended use mentioned. So Vance is misusing that term. Having said that, I feel sure I will misused a term today.
AHEM: "... I will misused a term..."
పోస్ట్లు
10 కామెంట్లు:
I think the more common term for which he appeared to be reaching is “collective guilt,” which certainly is a concept most people reject. For marxists of course collectivism is essential and their ideology relies on having an out-group on whom all blame for wrongs that plague us can be blamed.
Bernie assigns this guilt role to “billionaires,” though that is a recent change from his old hobby horse “millionaires and billionaires.” That phrase was no longer useful to the Revolution once Bernie admitted he was a filthy capitalist millionaire.
Other democrat allies use the classic “other” most often smeared with the “blood libel” along with other insane conspiracy theories.
Conversely, did the recent conviction of Duane “Keffe D” Davis actually prove the 30-year “Crip Libel” that they murdered Tupac Shakur?
'Having said that, I feel sure I will misused a term today'
...not sure if you succeeded but you got the typo out of the way quickly...
"killing Jesus is just Easter"
wow
That would be Good Friday, not Easter. That's a major league misunderstanding.
The US Constitution prohibits "Corruption of Blood," i.e., punishments that go beyond the offender to his progeny.
As a Yale lawyer, former Evangelical, and current Roman Catholic, Vance may have all these bloody terms circulating in his subconscious. CC, JSM
Blaming the Jews for killing Jesus is a secular, worldly, anti-Christian take on events.
John 10:17-18
The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Isn’t this just:
1. The blood libel of Jews. The story that Jews use the blood of baby’s in rituals.
2. Blood guilt of ‘Christ Killers” claiming that Jews encouraged the Romans to kill Jesus.
3. Collective guilt, saying that an individual is guilty of a crime by being a member of a criminal society, like all Germans are guilty of killing Jews.
4. Guilt by relationship. The sons and daughters of a family are guilty of what the parents did, like guilt for slavery.
Each of the above are assigned different labels by different people, I don’t know all the right labels but if I misuse your particular label that’s not my fault, I don’t have to study your biases for you.
"Blood libel" does tend to be used in metaphorical ways, some similar to the way Vance uses it, others that can be quite a stretch. In the second part of the quote, Vance does use "blood guilt" correctly, rather than "blood libel." It took him a minute to find his footing in answering questions that politicians aren't usually asked, but he did, and rather quickly.
It's not libel if it's true.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith. Also: No italics, even briefly. Use asterisks for emphasis. And don't play with the format by changing fonts or using boldface or all caps. Never include more than one extra line break between paragraphs.