Almost without exception the term "Anti Semite" would have to be the single largest deliberately misused word on this forum, where it is almost without exception used as no more than a attempt to (unsucessfully) silence legitimate criticism of Zionist policy and actions. This is not only a problem here but is starting to be seen as endemic around the world in any criticism of the criminal actions of Israel, with Zionists leading the push in it's incorrect use.

By Paul Hershfield, CEIA-SC member

I was raised in a middle-class Jewish home in the San Fernando Valley, and while born a Jew, I hope, as my partner Yael says, to die a human being. So, much to the chagrin and suffering of my parents, I do not define myself as Jewish. This sets me up to be branded by the Zionists as a "self-hating-Jew," whatever that is. I suppose it's like "auto-anti-Semitism." Of course this epithet is meant to demolish my credibility as a person who can legitimately criticize Israel, leading inevitably to the preposterous idea that the only people qualified to do so are pro-Zionist Jews. Everyone has the right to criticize Israel, and doing so is not, in-and-of-itself, anti-Semitism.

The problem is that the definition of anti-Semitism has become whatever Zionists want it to be at any given moment, to fit their political agenda, which usually comes down to simply shutting up the opposition. Narrowly speaking, anti-Semitism is simply a hatred of Jews because they are Jews. How "any criticism of Israel" gets conflated with this is beyond me. Zionists and the apologists for Israel simply pick a meaning to suit their agenda:

Thankfully it's blatant and improper overuse is creating a world wide backlash which is making more and more people aware of the Zionists ultimate agenda, to the point where many Jews are now protesting it's improper use.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=35e_1265260129

It is being said that the term has changed meaning from, "one who hates Semites", to "anyone who criticises Israel or Zionist policies".

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Critics of the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.

When people talk Semite, it loses me. Are we talking culture, race, religion, politics....?

My understanding is that Semites, politically speaking are not Jews as a whole, but Communist Jews. So being anti-semite is, by those standards, ok in my book. But to hate anyone based on their religion, race, or culture, to me is beyond "wrong". I mean, unless you're married to them, who cares? If you're married to them, live with it or get a divorce!

How does someones religion bother me? It doesn't. If they want to be Jewish, go for it! If they wanna worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hey! Be! My! Guest! I want mine with meatballs and lots of fresh parmesian, thank you!

Unless they come to my front (or back) door "tracting" and wake me up, I couldn't care less.

Originally Posted by Hmmm

When people talk Semite, it loses me. Are we talking culture, race, religion, politics....?

My understanding is that Semites, politically speaking are not Jews as a whole, but Communist Jews.---snip---

Firstly it is not a political term, but one of ethnicity. Your understanding is wrong, you can very easily Google the term to find out more.

Sem⋅ite

  /ˈsɛmaɪt or, especially Brit., ˈsimaɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sem-ahyt or, especially Brit., see-mahyt] Show IPA –noun
1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.

Answer to post is simple. In reality, an anti-semite is a jew-hater, and these days Israel is used to beat Jews over the head .


As for Israel, the facts are carefully detailed here in this plain and easy to follow lecture. Reality that's all - it ain't rocket science :-

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

The fact that the term Anti semite was first used incorrectly by Wilhelm Marr, and that it has been in common use, does not in fact make it correct, what he really meant was anti Jewish. Which in the context being discussed here is also usually incorrectly applied.

It was also previously quoted directly to you in another thread on this Forum, that this is the correct use of the word sourced from Encyclopaedia Britannica. They also stated unequivocally that the usage you attribute to the word was in fact incorrect. (although in common use by Zionists and their supporters*)

*My note.

Antisemitism ... revisited, by Robert Thompson, published March 15, 2005. Here we go again! The accusations of antisemitism seem to grow crescendo, coming always from those among the most ignorant of our fellow human beings who have never understood what a semite is. We have to face a blast from the Zionists who still try to persuade us that semite = Jew = Israeli = Zionist.The better educated around the world all know that the vast majority of semites speak Arabic, and that the very words "semite" and "semitic" have no racial connotation whatsoever, but relate to the structure of a group of languages, which also in our day include Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Maltese.

If the ignorant take the word "antisemitism" as having a racist meaning, and for this we can only blame writers in Central Europe, including Theodor Herzl, who used this term as a polite or tactful reference to enmity towards Jews. It is a "silly" word (to qualify it in language appropriate to courteous debate), since it is hard to understand how one can have bitter enmity towards a system of grammar and syntax.

Almost without exception this deliberate misuse is seen to be used by Zionists to silence legitimate criticism of their Nazi like tactics and war crimes.

Well, I stand by my detest for communists, no matter their religion.

I do not hate Jews, can't say I ever have; and now as it always has been, I choose to be picky about my hatred. If I were to hate anyone based on a group action, I'd be deleterious in my efforts if I were not to include hating all of humanity.

I fail to see the connection?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Answer to post is simple. In reality, an anti-semite is a jew-hater, and these days Israel is used to beat Jews over the head .


As for Israel, the facts are carefully detailed here in this plain and easy to follow lecture. Reality that's all - it ain't rocket science :-

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

Back to topic. The above quote says it all re. the truth.

Here is an important little more:-

" The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders." Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel."

Geert Wilders.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Back to topic. The above quote says it all re. the truth.

Here is an important little more: -snip-

Geert Wilders.

Ouch, and ouch!

Frankly, this far right (so far that the all other right wing politicians appear communists) politician has borrowed the Hitler layout and reversed it, but it is basically the same approach. Like Hitler trying to convince people that being Jewish was a Race (and not a religion) thingy in "Mein Kampf", Wilder expressively tries to make it clear that for him Islam is a totalitarian Ideology like fascism or communism and not a religion (some excerpts of his speeches, mainly from the one in Kopenhaguen):

In fact Islam is an ideology rather than a religion.

I have read the Koran several times now, and every time I come to the conclusion that the Koran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder and terrorism----snip-. Again and again I come to the conclusion that the Koran is not only a book of war, but that there is an inseparable connection between the Koran and Islam as such, and the atrocities committed by Muslims.

As a matter of fact, Islamic ideology shows striking similarities with communism and fascism. One could mention its anti-democratic character, the will to exercise total control over social life and the use of violence to subject dissenters. In fact, the Islamic ideology is totalitarian in character. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy.

...and so on, and so on... Secular states like Iraq (pre-war) are ignored by his view completely, and Turkey as one truly democratic state with Islam being the main religion also. Singapore? Well, that´s the guy.

It is a bit like having Himmler interpret the Thora, or Zawhiri the Bible. Google him, you will come up with stuff like this, even from normally considered conservative publications:

The Netherlands' Fearmonger: Geert Wilders' One-Man Crusade against Islam: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...660649,00.html

Wilders Causes Another Row. Pre-Captivity Stockholm Syndrome: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3946

Geert Wilders and the Fight for Europe: http://article.nationalreview.com/38...urope/bat-yeor

Geert Wilders: I’m in favour of Romania and Bulgaria leaving the EU: http://www.euronews.net/2009/07/06/g...eaving-the-eu/

Mr. Wilders Goes to Washington: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...to-washington/

I would not use him as a reliable source in a serious discussion over the words semite, anti-semite, palestina, palestinian, Islam, muslims or anything related, be it sociologically or politically focused.

Rattler

Certainly a man who knows his subject and speaks it with clarity.



Wiki:-
Geert Wilders (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈxeːrt ˈʋɪldərs] or [ˈʝeːʁt ˈʋɪldəʁs]; born 6 September 1963) is a Dutch politician and leader of the Party for Freedom, a political party in The Netherlands. Born in the city of Venlo, raised as a Roman Catholic and having left the Church at his coming of age, Wilders attributes his politics to his support for what he calls 'Judeo-Christian values'. He formed many of his political views on his travels to Israel, as well as the neighbouring Arab countries. His early job at the Dutch social insurance agency propelled him into politics, where he worked as a speechwriter for the liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. In 1996, he moved to the city of Utrecht, where he was elected to the city council and later to the House of Representatives of the Netherlands.

The references you quote are his particular fields and therefore his views are very relevant in today's world, and establish a well-founded warning. As an example, this speech on Europe's last stand and I am pleased to see that links have been posted by you here ; if he points out unpalatable truths, then so be it; makes uncomfortable reading, doesn't it. He wishes to speak for Freedom and democracy, unpopular subjects at present. Your personal translation of his stance does not appear relevant at all, when all the totalitarionism stems from those he accuses. But then, of course he commits the great sin of saying something positive about Israel!

His vews should not be dismissed for convenience. Rather than posting blog criticisms, you could easily have posted his speeches in full, at international levels, as they are all here on the net, openly available to all. They are deserving of careful attention from all.

I suggest that the only reason why you would not consider him a reliable source is that his views do not conveniently align with yours.