About Misuse of the term, "Anti Semite"
|February 4th, 2010||#1|
| || |
Misuse of the term, "Anti Semite" info
It is being said that the term has changed meaning from, "one who hates Semites", to "anyone who criticises Israel or Zionist policies".
"I am totally responsible for what I write,... however I cannot be held responsible for your complete inability to understand"
Last edited by senojekips; February 4th, 2010 at 19:56.. Reason: Added quote by Paul Hershfield
|February 7th, 2010||#2|
| || |
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.
|February 7th, 2010||#3|
| || |
Last edited by senojekips; February 7th, 2010 at 19:27.. Reason: firstlly=firstly
|February 15th, 2010||#4|
| || |
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 :-
English by the grace of God.
|February 15th, 2010||#5|
| || |
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*)
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.
Last edited by senojekips; February 15th, 2010 at 02:03..
|February 15th, 2010||#6|
| || |
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.
|February 15th, 2010||#8|
| || |
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."
Last edited by Del Boy; February 15th, 2010 at 15:07..
|February 15th, 2010||#9|
| || |
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):
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: Iím 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.
15M(ay): Noooobody! ...expects the Spanish Revolution!:
Update SEP 2011: Now reached US, called "Occupy Wall Street" and they claim they invented it. Thanks for learning from Spain!
|February 15th, 2010||#10|
| || |
Certainly a man who knows his subject and speaks it with clarity.
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.
Last edited by Del Boy; February 15th, 2010 at 17:50..
|"Tommy's Dictionary Of The Trenches" WWI|
|Former Boeing worker gets 5-month jail term|
|Bush Commutes Libby Jail Term|
|Bush Expected To Renew Term Of Chairman Of Joint Chiefs|