Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 20

I do not consider it a defence against anything else in the article. The article is about Anti-Semitism and the section is about Anti-Semitism in Poland. This information concerns Anti-Semitism in Poland and therefore it belongs to the section. It's not a comment about other parts of the article but a paragraph of its own. What could be the reason to remove it ? Maybe we could put it at the top of the section so that it does not seem as "defence" against the preceeding paragraphs ? (and I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but it would be more polite to first discuss and then remove, not the other way :-). Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

The paragraph is not about anti-Semitism in Poland, but about some historians views of various accounts of what happened in Poland. This is peripheral at best, and since these accounts are not referenced in this article, entirely irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

It is not my intention at all to whitewash Poles here, but the information we're dicussing here explains to an unaware reader why Polish anti-Semitism is much more thoroughly and in detail researched and exposed than anti-Semitism in other countries. It also explains who and why might want to apply divide et impera methods to Polish-Jewish relationships. Prejudices like anti-Semitism do not appear out of nowhere and are usually purposefully built and provoked. Therefore I consider the paragraph both relevant and important for understanding anti-Semitism in Poland and would suggest to expose it more prominently within the section. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Your views on this are interesting, but they are certainly not obvious from the text that was there, which was about various accounts some historians find dubious. Moreover, this is now taking us into the realm of speculation about the motivations for anti-Semitism, and not merely descriptions of the phenomenon. The whole section on Poland is already quite large given the size of the article; this is information that simply does not belong here, but rather in some more detailed article about Polish-Jewish historical sources, or perhaps Polish-Jewish relations. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

P.S. can you please revert it to the status as before your edit until this dispute is settled ? --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

If there's consensus for it in Talk: I certainly will. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Actually, the unsourced passage in question seems to exist purely to suggest lack of credibility for references in this article. I had added that sentence which pointed out that no primary source references in this article come from partitioners, but, come to think of it, this whole passage really doesn't belong. (P.S. There was little need for divide et impera tactics during that time). HKT 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

Good. While in my opinion this paragraph is key to understanding the perception fo anti-Semitism in Poland in 19th and 20th century, I admit that I'm not competent enough to document it. I'm leaving it to the original author of the paragraph to maybe document it better than "some historians". Still I feel it is more important and eye-opening than enumerating how many Jews were murdered in Poznan in 1399...

Jayig: Motivations of anti-Semitism belong here not less than the mere description of the phenomenon, don't you think ? While I agree that this particular paragraph, the way it is phrased, would probably fit better to some Polish-Jewish relations article than here, I'm concerned that the section on Poland in this article is much longer and more detailed than any other, implying that Poles are somehow intrinsically anti-Semitic. I think it deserves some explanation unless this is intentional. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

The Polish Jewish community was the largest and most important Jewish community in the world for several centuries; I would think that it would naturally get a larger sub-section than other countries. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)

As you said - this article is about anti-Semitism, and it is not about the size of Jewish community. The large section on Polish anti-Semitism and null on anti-Semitism in Germany and other countries suggests that anti-Semitism was specifically popular among Poles. I hate to say this but to an unaware reader this may seem close to ideas like "Polish concentration camps" and Holocaust denial. --Lysy (talk) 6 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Given the pre-eminence of the Polish Jewish community, both in size, and in age, anti-Semitism was also proportionately more prominent there. Anti-Semitism in Germany is covered in its own huge article, called The Holocaust. "Polish concentration camp" means "concentration camp in Poland". Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Yes, and "Japanese nuclear weapons" would be those thrown on Japan then ? But this discussion does not belong here any more. --Lysy (talk) 7 July 2005 07:01 (UTC)

Hmm.... The vast majority of Polish Christians were not victims of the camps (and there were many more Nazi collaborators than Christian victims), and the camps were not created to target Poles, but to target Jews (etc.) living in Poland. The bombing of Japanese cities was targeted at Japanese civilians (and also military personnel) because they were Japanese. Furthermore, the "nuclear weapons" in your analogy are not specified. Are they nukes that reside in Japanese territory? In other words, "Japanese nuclear weapons" would not be "those thrown on Japan," but those kept in Japan. This is most likely what readers would assume.

I think a much more apt analogy would be "American U.N. building" or "American drug-smuggling rings." As far as the latter, most Americans aren't even involved in those activities, and those activities are prohibited by the government. As far as the former, America doesn't have jurisdiction over the place. In both cases, "American" would be used to indicate location. Indeed, as you suggested, this discussion doesn't belong here anymore. HKT 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

• Exactly how many millions of Polish Christians were Nazi collaborators? Can you cite any sources? And what do you mean by saying that camps were created "to target Jews (etc.) living in Poland"? Do you mean all the minorities living in Poland or all the citizens of Poland? And finally, please, it's really of little importance what do you understand by the term "Polish camps" since Poles find the term highly offensive and unjust. It was already widely discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:German_camps_in_occupied_Poland_during_World_War_II. Please, be so kind and respect feelings of others. --SylwiaS 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Who said anything about millions? I was simply mentioning tangentially that, of non-Jewish, non-Gypsy (I don't know how many Gypsies were in Poland at the time), etc., Christian Poles (which amounted to the vast majority of Poles), you will find more Nazi collaborators than victims of Nazi death camps. Polish POWs were mostly freed shortly into the war (though the Jewish soldiers were usually recaptured and murdered), after some incarceration in detention camps. And, your emotions notwithstanding, you don't need to assume that, when people use the term "Polish camps," they are really accusing Poles of bearing primary responsibility. Please assume good faith. For my part, now that you mentioned how sensitive you and some others are about usage of the term "Polish Camps," I'll try to be sensitive to your those feelings. Thanks, HKT 7 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

There were few Gypsies in Poland. Rromas were not from Poland, if you meant them. Approximately 3 millions of Polish non-Jews were victims of Nazis. I don't know exactly how many of them were victims of Nazi camps, but I guess you do as you know that the collaborators made a bigger group. So please, cite your sources. Thanks for understanding my feelings. I do assume your good faith. But I also not always understand all objections of Jews or Blacks, yet I understand that my good faith may be not enough if they find their concerns earnest. --SylwiaS 7 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Also, I understand that HKT can provide us with a source citing who exactly of the Polish citizens murdered by the Germans was a Jew, who was a Polish Jew and who was a Pole of Jewish extraction.. It always puzzled me why so many people accept Nazi terms and start to divide people by who their great-grandmothers were and not by who they declared themselves to be.

• I'm not providing any sources or getting too involved in this discussion, but I've read there were 3.3M Jews in Poland prior to the war, and some 300k left (or returned) after the war, most of whom subsequently left for points abroad, esp. Israel and the US. I've also read that approximately 6M Polish citizens were killed during the war, doing the math, I come up with 3M non-Jewish Poles killed. Who was defining "Jew" in this case, is beyond my ken. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Also, I'm also waiting for some source on Polish collaborators and their number exceeding 3 millions. Finally, you guys might want to know that camps such as Stutthof, Gusen or Auschwitz were first built for Poles mostly, with Jews arriving much later..

As to the "Polish death camps" topic, it is kind of hot here. Especially that when I use the term "German death camps", I'm usually corrected and instructed that I should've said "Nazi death camps". Double standards anyone?

Just to clarify, I don't really see much of a problem with either term (as I don't think people would assume that the German and Polish people ran the camps), but I also try to be sensitive and not use either term where others may be offended. I hope no one thinks that I object to one term and not to the other. I didn't even introduce the term in this discussion, nor did I use it other than when analyzing the term itself. In fact, I didn't even condone the term's usage. All I did was respond to the position that usage of the term equals condemnation of the Polish people. I hope you understand. HKT 8 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

• Agreed, however I don't think a single English speaker would ever make the mistake of thinking that the Poles set up the death camps in Poland. They were Nazi death camps in Poland, which is why is trying to be conveyed. I suggest that verbiage, if that's what needs to be conveyed... Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Finally, this article indeed tries to prove some point. Jayjg mentioned that Anti-Semitism in Germany is covered in its own huge article, called The Holocaust. If so, then why that article does not mention German anti-Semitism in the middle ages? After all this was the reason why so many Jews moved to Poland... But it is Poland that is singled out here. And the biggest Jewish community, both before and after the Shoah, is in the US of A. Yet the Land of Liberty does not have a separate section. Any reason? Halibutt July 7, 2005 20:35 (UTC)

• Would you recommend a new Polish anti-Semitism article? Also, are you sure the USSR didn't have the largest Jewish population prior to the Shoah? Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 21:03 (UTC)

The article should mention all sorts of things; however, that has nothing to do with the fact that the Jewish community in Poland was the world's largest and most important for at least 4 centuries, and therefore that community's experience of anti-Semitism was more significant. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

(1.) All I meant my original remark was that a distinction should be drawn between the nuking of Japan, which targeted Japanese, and the slaughter of Poles, which targeted Jews and other minorities viewed by many Poles themselves as outsiders. My point was that Poles weren't targeted (for slaughter) as Poles. It's true that many camps were originally built for Polish soldiers, but the Polish soldiers weren't the ones specifically targeted for systematic slaughter. I wasn't arguing for the usage of the term "Polish camps," so much as I was responding to a comparison that I felt was inappropriate. I do have statistics (estimates, of course), but I don't think that this is the time or the place to continue this discussion. I am sorry if I offended anyone. (2.) Please see this archived discussion for why Polish anti-Semitism is so focused upon in this article. Briefly, I found the Anti-Semitism in Poland section already there, appalingly whitewashed, and reacted by changing and expanding the section. In my opinion, either this expansion should be done for all countries, or around half of the sections in this article (including the one on Poland) should be removed and made into their own articles. If I recall correctly, Piotr agreed with me. HKT 7 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

I’m glad we understand each other with the “camps” issue. I’m sure that no one meant to offend anyone. However, there are still things, which I cannot agree with and I really would like to discuss them. It’s not true that Poles of Polish origins were not targeted for slaughter as Poles. Also the Poles, who were victims of camps were intellectuals, sportsmen etc. in the beginning of the war and ordinary people (townspeople and peasants) later. Most of them were not soldiers but civil. Jews were persecuted first of all not because of their religion but because of nationality, and Poles because of theirs. Then, if we want to divide Poles-victims and Poles-collaborators into separate groups, we should refer to their nationality not religion. Citing Norman Davies "According to the language criteria from 1931, Poles formed only 68.89% of total population; Ukrainians 13,9%, Jews (using Yiddish) 8,7% (graph on next page gives 8,5% = 2,7mln), Belarusian 3,1%, Germans 2,3%, forming 1/3 of total population". I consider saying that there were more Poles collaborators than victims as a very serious slander. Also I wouldn’t consider only victims of camps as victims of Holocaust. Do we know exactly how many Polish Jews died in camps and how many in other places? Also, how to qualify executing residents of randomly chosen buildings by Nazis? So please, if you have any sources, which would show how many people of those separate groups were victims and how many of them were collaborators, as well as how many collaborators were later victims of camps or other means of extermination, I really would like to see them. --SylwiaS 8 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

I believe I have been severely misunderstood! Let me clarify: Polish civilians were not typically targeted for slaughter by the Nazis. Many Poles were killed, but it wasn't because they were Polish. It was because they were combatant soldiers, or Jews, or some other minority, or causing the Nazis particular trouble. Not because they were Poles. I hope you understand what I'm saying. Now, aside from the targeted minorities and soldiers, many more Poles collaborated with and supported the Nazis than were sent to death camps for opposing them. This is not a condemnation of the Poles. It is more than understandable why most people wouldn't risk themselves to oppose the Nazis. My tangential point (which seems to have sparked major misunderstandings) was that even if people would assume that "Polish camps" meant that Poles were involved in the death camps, it is in no way comparable to the nuking of Japan: As far as the death camps, far more Poles were involved than were victims (this, of course, excludes people who were targeted for their race, or other inherent qualities). By contrast, the nuking of Japan had all Japanese victims and no (or very few) willing Japanese collaborators. I think everyone agrees on the facts here; even if you disagree with my original minor point, I don't think that it's necessary to drag on this discussion. HKT 8 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

As much as I would like not to drag the discussion any longer, I would be even happier not to have a reason for it in the first place. I’m afraid I did understand your meaning correctly. You wrote that Poles died because they were combatant soldiers, or Jews, or some other minority, or causing the Nazis particular trouble. Not because they were Poles. Total number of killed Polish soldiers is 123,000 and they are not included in the 3 millions of civil Poles. 3 millions of Jews either religious or atheists also are not included in the number of Poles. Which other minority would count there, the German one or the Ukrainian? Anyhow, the estimated number of Polish citizens of non-Jewish and non-Polish origin is 200,000 and they are not included in the number of Poles as well. What particular problems the rest was causing? In Majdanek there were 40% of Jews (I don’t know how many of them were Polish Jews) and 35% of Poles, among them not only the members of resistance but also many peasants. In the place where I grew up is a collective grave for my neighbours, who were just sleeping in their homes, when Gestapo came, were dragged into street and executed. Then new people moved in and several months later the situation repeated. There were in total several execution like that killing many hundreds of my neighbours. Almost everywhere in Warsaw there are similar places. They weren’t even offered being sent to a camp. Similarly, if someone was helping a Jew, he was either killed right away or first forced to stand for hours in a public place with a notice: for helping a Jew and killed later. The punishment for helping a Jew was not a camp but execution, often not only of the person, who was helping but of all the family. Helping a Jew meant not only hiding him but even giving him a glass of water. The particular problem caused by Poles was according to Hitler taking the space for living from Germans and his goal was to exterminate all the Poles with time, Jews were his priority of course and Poles had to wait for their turn. I hope this clears the issue and please, cite any sources for the number of collaborators. --SylwiaS 9 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

The Poles who died didn't usually die in death camps. I understand the facts that you're bringing, but that's not relevant to this discussion. I don't know how I can be clearer than this: More Poles collaborated in having Jews sent to death camps than were themselves sent to death camps. I suppose that the point of misunderstanding may have been that, all along, I assumed that we were discussing specifically death camps, and you apparently were referring to all Nazi camps. I assume that you'll agree that the number of Poles who were sent to death camps for being Poles pales when compared with the number helping to send Jews there (unless you think that the number of such collaborators was minute). HKT 07:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Source on "...More Poles collaborated in having Jews sent to death camps than were themselves sent to death camps..." please. Otherwise it's your pretty nasty POV. See World War II atrocities in Poland --Ttyre 08:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(Oh, this is so wearying). Ttyre: I'm fully aware of Nazi atrocities against Poles. I'm also aware that the death camps didn't primarily function to wipe out Poles. There are some historians, like Lukas, who deny rampant Polish collaboration with Nazis. "How could they work with their bitter enemies?" these historians ask. They don't base their conclusions in this regard so much on rigorous research as on apparent social dynamics. Others, like Gross, disagree completely. He bases his conclusions more heavily on empirical evidence, and he has been criticized by some for basing his conclusions too much on anecdotal evidence (though he certainly doesn't ignore social dynamics). There is some controversy on the topic of Polish collaboration with Nazis against Jews. But, if you really demand more specific sources for such collaboration, sources that we all know exists, then I'll post some. HKT 05:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --Ttyre 14:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ditto" to me or to yourself? HKT 17:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to me... sources please "...More Poles collaborated in having Jews sent to death camps than were themselves sent to death camps..." and your new "...rampant Polish collaboration with Nazis". BTW, Gross' "empirical evidence" has not been supported when it comes to the Jedwabne's victims by truly rigorous investigation conducted by the IPN see: [1] --Ttyre 17:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

On this point, see Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#1918-1939 (your discussion with User:Goodoldpolonius2), instead of reenacting an old discussion. HKT 18:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't do, don't redirect our exchange to my discussion with User:Goodoldpolonius2 on Jedwabne. I have asked you for sources on your statements "...More Poles collaborated in having Jews sent to death camps than were themselves sent to death camps..." and "...rampant Polish collaboration with Nazis". I consider them to be slanderous and bigoted unless you can back them up with the objective sources. Until this happens I am not going to continue this discussion with you. --Ttyre 18:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why you don't want me responding to your "BTW", but your threat to end the discussion sure is tempting me to refrain from bringing sources. I'd love to stop the discussion, and if I bring you sources your probably going to try to continue this discussion by saying that only your historians are valid, "objective" sources. Eh, whatever, here's a source: Wein's Triumph, pp. 357, 359, 369. I'll bring the quotes soon, but I really don't plan on responding to your inevitable responses. HKT 18:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone seriously saying that Poles were not targeted, as Poles, by the Nazis? Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 22:12 (UTC)

If HKT was only kidding it will just prove my lack of humour. Also I want to add that I agree with HKT and Piotr as to what to do with this section. I only don’t understand why it is not done. As it seems that no one is willing to write articles referring to other countries, maybe it should be added to the History of the Jews in Poland, especially that that article will be divided by periods and each of them expanded in near future. Also I don’t want anyone to think that their writing about anti-Semitism in Poland will be considered as bad by Poles. If the article was one-sided, it was only good of you to add to it. --SylwiaS 8 July 2005 22:41 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. By the way, the section on Poland only goes up to the Partitions. I didn't think it would be right to add even more to the Poland section when so many other countries were missing sections. Thanks again, HKT 8 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Around one milion Poles were sent to concentration camps, in addition to 2.5 milion being sent to forced labour camps etc.Molobo

1930 World Jewry: 15,000,000. Main countries USA(4,000,000), Poland (3,500,000 11% of total), Soviet Union (2,700,000 2% of total), Romania (1,000,000 6% of total). Palestine 175,000 or 17% of total 1,036,000. In the 1931-1939 period 500,000 Jews left the Continent. Half of them went to Palestine, 75,000 to the UK and another 75,000 to the USA. Hope it helps. --SylwiaS 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Thanks Sylwia. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Tomer, HKT, Jayjg, and other interested editors, please read this World Jewish Congress statement and article Linguistic imprecision? and let's get over the issue of using "Polish concentration camp(s)" rather than the correct "German concentration camp(s)". Thank you. --Ttyre 8 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. It's always nice to read the opinions and sensitivities of others, though I disagree with their sentiments. By the way, both terms are about equally problematic, as Halibutt suggested above. HKT 8 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

I'm not sure what issue you would like me to "get over", could you clarify? Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have an "issue" here at all. They should be called "Nazi death camps in Poland" or even "Nazi death camps in occupied Poland" or whatever. That said, I do, however, have an issue over at Wojsko Polskie, where some POV-pushers seem to think that it's appropriate to have an article on the Polish military have a Polish name in the English Wikipedia, and to which someone keeps redirecting Polish Army, as though the word "army" had an imprecise meaning. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Note to HKT: I usually agree with most of what you said in this and other discussions; and indeed I was identitfied as a persona non grata among Polish users, having argued against "patriotic" Polish soapboxing on several occasions. That said, I cannot leave uncommented what you said about Polish collaboration: "rampant Polish collaboration with Nazis" and "there were many more Nazi collaborators than Christian victims". I suppose it really all depends on how you define "rampant" and "collaboration"; and there are quite a few patriotic flat-earthers in Poland who vehemently deny even the possibility of any collaboration simply because it doesn't fit their cosmology. However, at least if you stick to the conventional definition, it is a fact that collaboration in Poland was smaller than in most other major Nazi-controlled territories, such as France, Norway, the Baltic states, Ukraine etc. If non-Jewish Poles could have done more to save Jewish lives is a question which will never be really answered. To what extent their inaction was "only" due to fear and to what extent anti-Semitic schadenfreude was involved is open to debate. Whether there would have been more collaboration among Poles if the Nazis had encouraged it more remains a matter of speculation. Personally I think yes, but nothing entitles me to withold from them the benefit of the doubt. In particular, I question your statement that there "were many more Nazi collaborators than Christian victims". If I'm not mistaken, roughly 6 million Jews and 6 million Poles were killed in wartime Poland, including an intersection of about 3 million Polish Jews. That leaves us with roughly 3 million dead Christian Poles. No matter how much you stretch the definition of "collaboration", I think it is quite impossible to arrive at a total of "many more" than 3 million Polish collaborators. Personally I would not categorise phenomena such as the Jedwabne pogrom, the notorious szmalcowniks, or Polish citizens registering as ethnic Germans in order to escape deportation as formal collaboration - but even if you do, the number of 3 million will still be out of reach. If you can cite any sources to the contrary I would certainly be curious to learn about them. --Thorsten1 20:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC).

Wasn't Poland like the only occupied country to not have a puppet Nazi government? Gzuckier 02:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This must be the eighth time I'm saying this, but I'm not contesting the fact that 3 million Poles died under Nazi rule. The discussion centered around what was more prevalent: Either (1.) Poles being targeted as Poles to be sent to Nazi death camps, or (2.) Poles collaborating to help the Nazis kill Jews. I suppose I'll bring some quotes:

"Their Polish neighbors turned against the Jews with a fury barely exceeded by the Germans themselves." -Wein, Triumph, p. 356

"Anyone caught harboring or protecting a Jew in any way was killed. Yet there were heroic individuals among the Germans, Poles, Russians, and others who saved Jews at the risk of their own lives. The heroism and morality of the few served only to highlight the guilt and brutality of the many." -ibid., p. 359

"The Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Austrians, Slovakians, Rumanians, Hungarians, and many French willingly cooperated with the methods and aims of the Germans. They too wished to solve the 'Jewish Problem' permanently.... There were exceptions, however. The Danes, and to a lesser extent, the Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, Bulgarians, and surprisingly, the Italians, attempted to save and aid their Jewish populations." -ibid., p. 369

"Only through the continuous and untiring work of all forces we succeeded in catching a total of 56,065 Jews [in Warsaw] whose extermination can be proved.... The Polish population for the most part approved the measures taken against the Jews." -Letter from Juergen Stroop, German SS general.

I suppose these are enough quotes for now. HKT ^talk 00:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Quoting Jurgen Stroop as an authority is a bit distasteful. Surely you would not consider his opinions about Jews acceptable, so why do you think he is credible when talking about Poles?

Anyway, the moral assessment of the Polish reaction to the Holocaust is a very complex matter. Nevertheless, the idea that the vast majority of Poles acted as inhuman, brutal and anti-semitic monsters during the German occupation is a grotesque distortion of what actually happened. Quite frankly, the fact that you find quotes expressing such views credible tells me a lot about your own prejudices.

For a recent, more balanced study of this issue, see the book Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945 by Gunnar S. Paulsson. Balcer 22:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a scene from The Simpsons where Marge Simpson enters an Australian pub:

(Bartender): What'll you have.

(Marge): I'll have a coffee.

(Bartender): One beer coming up.

(Marge): No, I said I'll have a coffee.

(Bartender):Yeah, a beer.

(Marge):Cof-fee.

(Bartender): Be-er.

(Marge): C-O-...

(Bartender): B-E-...

You assert that my position is that "the vast majority of Poles acted as inhuman, brutal and anti-semitic monsters during the German occupation." For the zillionth time, that's not my position. To reproduce an earlier comment of mine: "The discussion centered around what was more prevalent: Either (1.) Poles being targeted as Poles to be sent to Nazi death camps, or (2.) Poles collaborating to help the Nazis kill Jews." I didn't write anything about "vast majority." You further assert that I was "quoting Jurgen Stroop as an authority." Do you think I'm crazy? I was quoting him as a primary source. Given that presenting Poles negatively would have most likely been well recieved by Stroop's superiors, there is no reason to think that he specifically fudged his status report in order to mitigate apparent Polish compliance with the Nazi campaign against the Jews. In fact, in that same status report, Stroop mentions a number of Polish and Ukrainian mercenaries interfering with the Warsaw Ghetto liquidation. Finally, it's beyond me why historians must conform to your pre-conceived conclusions in order to "credible" and "balanced." HKT ^talk 07:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand from this that you vehemently disagree with the views expressed in the quotes you included. Why include them in the first place, then?

If your position is NOT that the vast majority of Poles acted as brutal antisemites, then you presumably also do not agree with the statement that The heroism and morality of the few served only to highlight the guilt and brutality of the many. Or are you going to escape into semantics and claim that the many and vast majority are two different concepts?

An argument from semantics means that an argument is based on differences in words without differences in substance. Indeed, I do "claim that the many and vast majority are two different concepts." For example, 1,000,000 red apples is many, but it isn't the vast majority of 5,000,000 total apples. Perhaps you are reading too much into Wein's comments. HKT ^talk 03:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthremore, your comments about Stroop only puzzle me further. The man was a deranged Nazi murderer. Why do you consider him credible as a primary source on what the Polish population thought at the time? Did he conduct public opinion polls or attend focus groups? To me, his views in this matter are simply an example of the deranged worldview of a typical Nazi SS officer of the time. And in that twisted worldview, the Nazis included the idea that the whole world is supporting their actions against the Jews. Therefore, mention of the supposed support of the Polish population for the German actions in the ghetto would have been exactly what Stroop's superiors wanted to hear. Balcer 15:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You call Stroop "deranged." I think a more accurate term would be "evil." I've already mentioned that Stroop highlighted non-Jewish resistance, as well, and a general "on the ground" would probably have had a reasonable idea about present social dynamics. There's wide documentation of strong Polish anti-Semitism prior to WWII, so Stroop's assesment didn't come from a vacuum. HKT ^talk 03:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

HKT, the fact that you are grabbing the suspect sources to support your position shows me only the depth of your (probably) bigoted opinions on the matter of Polish WWII collaboration with the German Nazis. Your quotes from Rabbi-turn Jewish historian and propagandists author Berel Wein, and Stroop are not supported by the main stream historians. BTW, Wein's book is not even carried by the University of California network of libraries so I couldn't read it for myself. My strong recommendation for you is to study real collaborations with Nazis in other European countries as outlined in The_Holocaust#Collaborators to add some depth to your perspective. Also, look at a newly translated from Dutch book about Netherlands’ bounty hunters who captured up to 9,000 Jews destined for the death camps [2]: Ad van Liempt, Hitler's Bounty Hunters: The Betrayal of the Jews, ISBN 1845202031. Chill out man! --Ttyre 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You assert that Wein is a "propagandists author," and you link to his site without substantiating your assertion. Essentially, your argument seems to be circular. Something like: "Since I view his quotes as not credible, he must be a propogandist author. Since he's a propogandist, his work isn't credible." (Either that or you think that, as a rabbi, he must, of course, be a propogandist). The reason why you won't find his book in the UC network is probably because his book is meant as a popularization of Jewish history (which essentially means it brings a much less in-depth account of Jewish history; his Triumph, which covers around 300 yrs. of history, is just short of 500 pages). This has little bearing on fundamental accuracy. HKT ^talk 03:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

the single most disturbing tangible aspect of Judaism is their circumcision ritual

This is complete and utter baloney. Unless you can back this up with serious sources, it is staying out. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

• How long will we be dealing with this original research and non-npov edits? the single most disturbing tangible aspect of Judaism is their circumcision ritual — according to whom? Again, back it up with sources (Igor and otherwise, but scholarly). El_C 7 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
  • I think what he meant to write was "the single most tangible aspect of Judaism that disturbs Sirkumsize is their circumcision ritual". That is demonstrably true, but cannot be included because it fails the No Original Research and Notability requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 7 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
    • It even fails the Igor test. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 17:06 (UTC)
• Read the sources. It comes out of the study sillies. Sirkumsize 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It's your conclusion from the study sillies. As I've said, you're synthesizing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you tell us for the record that you have read the said study and that it doesn't draw that conclusion? Sirkumsize 20:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • So I don't have to look again, can you please provide us with exact citations (please provide excerpts) which support your position that circumcision is a primary cause of anti-Semitism, as opposed to being more ammo for existing anti-Semites? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Just look at the section called People that don't know how to use a library its the same study that I refer to there. Sirkumsize 18:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but the only reason I didn't respond to his "proposal" was that it's completely trollish. There's nothing whatsoever in his paragraph that is supportable from any of the sources he's offered, despite the fact that he continues to twist critiques of those sources into agreement with his warped interpretations. The reversion was wellfounded on any number of rationales, the least of which is that it wasn't written in comprehensible English. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia content works by concensus, and Sirkumsize is acting against consensus. If this carries on, we're heading for requests for comment. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Granted. You'll notice I just had to revert him again. Tomer ^TALK July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I agree that at this point an RFC seems like the only route. Sirkumsize does not seem to understand no original research and cite sources. El_C 8 July 2005 22:33 (UTC)

NO. You are totally incorrect. I do understand the policies. If Tomer feels that what I write is trollish than that's tomer's problem. It isn't mine. Read the sources. Learn. Do not vandelize good work. I thought we were working together here but I see that I am being discriminated against again. Wikipedia's consensus policy is not meant as a way to justify censoring my valid additions to the article. That is not what wikipedia policy is all about. Do you really think that I am writing this out of spite. Grow up. Sirkumsize 06:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If you can't get consensus for your stuff, or indeed even one other editor to agree with it, then no doubt the problem lies with the material you are proposing to include. You have made it clear from the start that your purpose here is anti-circumcision activism, and you have been desperately trying to create a dubious original research link between anti-semitism and circumsion in order to further that goal, using ridiculous sources that you mostly haven't read, rarely say what you claim they do when you have read them, and often aren't even on the topic. Please don't blame others for those failings, and in particular please don't attack them by telling them to "grow up". Wikipedia is not a venue for anti-circumcision activism, it is an encyclopedia. Please respect that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

the following phrase removed.

After the end of World War II they were skillfully used at certain moments by communist party or individual politicians in order to achieve their assumed political goals.

It has no factual content. If one can describe the corresponding facts, welcome to restore. mikka (t) 17:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Take March 1968 events. --Lysy (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course we assume that all these professors and scientists expulsed by the commies were indeed "internationalist zionists"... Halibutt 07:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am not amused by TShilo12's recent vandelism of the page which included removal of a well researched section, and worse, the removal of links from the link section which were relevant to antisemitism in every way and at the very minimum as scholarly as the most scholarly one there. He even erased a reference to a multimillion dollar study on antisemitism. This behaviour is intolerable. It totally devalues all of the work that I have put into this article and it is disgraceful behaviour. I demand that at the very minimum that the said links be reinserted and I be apologized to for being called a an anti-circ nut. If you want me to treat people with respect I will expect the same in return. Erasing my stuff because you believe I am an anti-circ nut is simply NOT appropriate. Sirkumsize 06:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've had a look through the page history, and there's nothing there that looks like vandalism. There was a lot of original research spuriously backed up with a heap of links which, according to the person who put the links in "May or may not be relevant", were "fanatical", were "not scholarly", etc. It is interesting that - according to the theory you are espousing - it is only the semitic peoples that suffer this extreme stigma through their use of circumcision, whereas other groups that use it do not. Or do we need pages on prejudice against Australian Aborigines or people of the African Coptic faith? More importantly, anti-Semitism, as it is normally understood, is anti Jewish behaviour or prejudice, but circumcision is a major tenet of both the Jewish and Islamic faiths. Why have there not been similar pogroms against Moslems? If circumcision was the major cause of anti-semitism, then there would be equal prejudices of a very similar sort against all these groups too. Basically, you seem to be complaining because untenable claims, propped up be fairly shonky links, have been removed from a page. They smell strongly of original research, and even more strongly of false conclusions. If anyone is vandalising the page, it's whoever keeps trying to put these claims back on it. 202.180.83.6 08:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous: I have said before that other groups suffer from the stigma of circumcision: In particulair Islam suffers from a large stigma because of female genital mutilation even though it is not per se connected to their religious faith. No where have I said that this was solely an Jewish issue, but I did say that it was a Jewish issue. If there is going to be a separate page for bias against the said groups then that's not my decision, but I can do my best to ensure that the truth is revealed in all. I think this is particulairly important on this article because the Jews have probably suffered the most sigma and that's because of all of the said groups, they have probably been practicing circumcision for the longest and most strongly associated with circumcision. The links provided were scholarly. Read them. I still feel I am owed an apology for the insinuation that my research is not worthy because I'm an "anti-circ nut". As for you, get a log-in. When your ready to stop hiding behind an anonymous IP number we will talk further. Sirkumsize 20:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've looked through the history too, and I see no examples of Tshilo12 doing any sort of vandalism or "removal of a well-researched section". A bunch of unrelated references that you have misread, misunderstood, and often not even read, in your attempts at original research, are just an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, or perhaps a storage site, not a "well-researched section". As it is you've made this Talk: page impossible to read. Perhaps you should create this stuff in your own userspace, and stop cluttering up the Talk: page here with it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that many people are erroneously claiming my latest addition to be OR is probably because they do not know how to use the library. That is to say, how can you judge of my addition is unsourced or not if you don't actually read the sources given. My point and case Sanua, Victor D. Ph.D. (1995). Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560002247.. I have looked it up and it does speak about the contested claim: The holier than holy claim that I supposedly make -- the claim that people from other cultures (not just me) react badly to circumcision etc. Well hold on, if you haven't read the source, then no wonder you don't know where it comes from. So now, should I go through the article and erase everything that comes out of a website that MY sys admin happens to block with his firewall? Why do you get to erase valid additions to the article because you don't know how to use a library??? Sirkumsize 07:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Because your willingness to rely on sources such as Igor detracts seriously from your credibility. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Your wrong. What detracts from my credibility as you say, is simply the fact that my view of antisemitism is not the same as your currently accepted status quo. It has nothing to do with WP policy or any of my sources. Sirkumsize 19:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm wrong? I assure you I know exactly why I consider your credibility poor. I can't speak for anyone else, of course -- and they have their own opinions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What detracts from your credibility is your consistent misrepresenting of sources, original research, and promotion of extreme minority opinions. All of those are violations of WP policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Jay neglected to mention the fact that your credibility is not aided as a result of your persistent habit of engaging in personal attacks every time someone disagrees with you, and characterizing any such disagreement as a "personal attack" against you. Tomer ^TALK 10:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks my ass. Can you think of a single instance in which I launched a personal attack, aside from a humorous subject heading which was all in good fun. Compare that to the number of times I have been a victim of personal attacks. Its one thing for someone to loose their credibility and other thing altogether to not be open to giving someone any credibility in the first place. I will note that none of the thing above are good reasons to think that I'm wrong. Also, which sources do I misrepresent? Sirkumsize 03:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My point and case Sanua, Victor D. Ph.D. (1995). Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560002247.. I have looked it up and it does speak about the contested claim: The holier than holy claim that I supposedly make -- the claim that people from other cultures (not just me) react badly to circumcision etc. — citation and page number/s, please? El_C 07:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. The source is a one page book review of a book by Mortimer Ostow of the same title. It can be viewed at The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease: The second part of the book is larger and deals with the contributions of mythology. It seems that antisemitic sentiments are given impulse, coordination, and direction by circulating myths. Myths are difficult to eliminate, which explains the tenacity of antisemitism. From a background of mythic themes in general developed for psychoanalytic thinking, Ostow discusses antisemitic myths, and he is able to detect the universals from which they obtain power and authority. The earliest antisemitic expressions are to be found in the Jewish Bible: Israelites have not assimilated into Egyptian society, they do not observe the King's laws (Ahasuerus), etc. Pre-Christian antisemitism is shown by most Roman writers who spoke negatively of Jews, particularly because of their separateness. Christian Scriptures and the church fathers expressed antisemitism. It would seem that because the Jews have never accepted the legitimacy of the Christian argument, Christian conviction could not be complete. More recently, the latest intentions by the Baptists to convert Jews in our times supports this contention. The Christian Scriptures are replete with insults to Jews. Although the death of Jesus is beneficial to Christians because of his sacrifice, the guilt and punishment should be the fate of the Jew. What was most troubling to non-Jews was the practice of circumcision, which was enforced in Judaism. In the Middle Ages Jews were portrayed as dangerous, disease ridden, depraved, inhuman, and could even have horns and tails like the devils. In modern days the Deists provided their share of antisemitism, depicting Judaism as being archaic and authoritarian. Voltaire was the best-known deist hostile to Jews. The myth of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was picked up by many groups in Europe and later in the Arab world. From antisemitism of the individual, Ostow turns to the really murderous antisemitism as exemplified by the pogroms leading to the final solution of the Jewish problem in Nazi Germany.

Please note the highlighted passage. I cannot tell for sure if this is general or in specific to the middle ages but it is clear that it asserts that it was the most troubling practice for non-Jews. I hope this clears things up although I'm sure you people will find something to whine about. Sirkumsize 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clearly referring to the preceding sentence, and the reference regards the relationship between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians in the 1st Century. It had nothing to do with antisemitism, it had to do with a protest against the idea that one had to be circumcised in order to benefit from salvation through Jesus. As far as "you people ... whin[ing]", please review WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Tomer ^TALK 07:37, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, I totally disagree. The sentence is entirely context free. If you'll read the paragraph you'll notice that it's all over the place, spanning ancient times to present. Every sentence in there that is linked to a specific period is qualified. Not this one. There is just no way to place the context to any historical point. It is a general statement. As for civility, maybe you should read it. Is it really civil for instance to revert someone's hard work because you unilaterally think they are an anti-circumcision nut? Why should I follow the rules when you so clearly do not. Sirkumsize 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your disagreement doesn't require registration, since you made the original misinterpretation. You're entitled to misinterpret all the texts you like in order to suit your own ideas. Don't expect the rest of us to agree with your misinterpretations, however. As for whether or not it's "civil" to revert your "hard work", it was not reverted because it was contributed by you, it was reverted because it's nothing more than your synthesis of your misinterpretation of various texts. To call that incivil is nothing more than a trollish ploy to illegitimize my having reverted your text. Wikipedia doesn't work by who can best support their own original research, it works by consensus. The consensus is CLEARLY against you. Good day sir. Tomer ^TALK 06:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take that as an admission that this forum is stacked against me. Sirkumsize 14:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course you will, because you want to try to gain pity for your position by making yourself out to be the victim of some cabal that's keeping your original research out of the article. This is not, however, a "forum", it is the talk page for an article—an article which, like all articles in WP, is the result of consensus. In this case, the consensus is that what you keep trying to cram into the article is nothing more than your own personal misconclusions. Nothing is stacked against you (except maybe "reality"), the only "stacking" here is against including your original research into the article. Tomer ^TALK 22:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's a little funny...we're arguing here about the interpretation of a sentence in a one-page book review; book reviews aren't, I don't think, encyclopedic sources anyway -- perhaps someone living in a university town might wander over to the psychology department library and peruse the actual text to figure out what point is being made. One important question that always has to be addressed: is this viewpoint generally held? The article could say, "One researcher says blah blah blah" (though we'd need to see if he actually said it, as opposed to the book review's interpretation.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I have the book on order. Sirkumsize 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Would anybody insist that James Zogby is an authority on the subject? As a leader of Arab American Institute, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Palestine Human Rights Campaign and Save Lebanon, Inc., his neutrality is highly questionable. In the following text, we uncritically describe his attempt to apply the term A-S to Arabs: However, James Zogby argues that both Arabs and Jews have been subject to the same prejudice and uniformly treated by Western society as alien and hostile, viewed as prone to conspiracy, and seen as usurpers of Western wealth and threats to Western civilization. Zogby draws parallels between political cartoons depicting Jews as the fat grotesque banker and Arabs as the obese oil sheik. He argues that efforts to counter anti-Semitism must be broadened to include the "other anti-Semitism" so that the same outrage displayed toward anti-Jewish bigotry will occur for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes. [3] In addition, his support of Hezbollah, The Protocols controversy [4], convince me that the above passage doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it, what is wrong with being a leader of an organization called "Palestine Human Rights Campaign"? Are you denying that the Palestinians' human rights are routinely being violated? Or are you saying that during the Nazi era some people should have stood up for the Jews in Europe, but nobody should even bring up the subject of human rights for the Palestinians today who are being subject to the same or very similar (if not worse) violations? And how is "American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee" exactly a "Negative Thing" as you seem to imply here and an organization like the Zionist "Anti-Defamation League" whose only purpose in life seems to be defamation and intimidation of gentiles is a "Positive Thing"? 69.110.230.145 10:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether "his neutrality is highly questionable" or not is utterly irrelevant; as you surely know, cited POVs are entirely acceptable. If they weren't, we would equally have to remove the utterly non-neutral Bernard Lewis, and Leon Pinsker as well. His supposed support for Hezbollah (which is not supported, or even alleged, by your cite) is even less relevant. If the highly POV quote from the rather less notable Neil Kressel which this is a necessary counterbalance to were removed, then it might make sense to remove the Zogby quote; however, to present a POV argument without any counterbalance is unacceptable. - Mustafaa 11:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems the term has been used exclusively for Jews for decades, but after Dachau comes Zogby and insists that it should be applied to Arabs too. It would be more convincing if you present examples of this usage before the Holocaust. Zogby uses it for his political campaigns and we cannot support that, at least without a disclaimer. He is interested in both dilluting the term and riding the wave of condemnations of antisemitism. The passage in question popularizes his fringe views to "counterbalance" traditional and generally accepted usage. I'm sure we can find quotes similar to Kressel's if he doesn't pass your academic threshold. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

although backing up through the recent edits i see what you mean; looks to me like an edit collision that the software let pass? anyway, i agree with your starve the fever remedy. Gzuckier 21:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's ok, I fixed it, but it slowed down the head of steam I was building.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 21:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

There's a bug in the new Wikipedia that lets that happen sometimes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a number of edit comments about today's claims that the designation "anti-Semitism" as exclusive to prejudicial behaviour against Jews. I've noted that several of us have argued that discussion belongs on the talk page rather than as comments to repeated edits. Could the anonymous users who are pushing this point please stop soapboxing in edit comments and justify their edits here, where discussion is normally done? Buffyg 13:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Britanica writes: Hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious group or "race." Where exactly is the argument here? El_C 13:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's semantic. The people who coined the term anti-Semitism only knew one type of Semites: the Jews. It is indeed a misnomer, but it is never used in the context of Semite hatred without a modifier. This change can only be made to make a point by disrupting Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

JFW is correct, and this issue has been discussed many times before. Sometimes words are not logical - they can't be broken down and interpreted literally. This is one of those cases. Anti-semitism means prejudice against Jews. Rhobite 17:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

"it is never used in the context of Semite hatred without a modifier". I have no idea what this means? But I agree, AntiSemitism is as relevant to prejudice against Arabs as inflammable is to things which are not flammable. Sometimes a word means what it means, and parsing it back to the roots is misleading. Gzuckier 18:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe JFW was referring to the common claim that Arabs cannot be anti-semites since they are Semitic themselves. This claim relies on a false definition of "anti-semite" of course. Rhobite 18:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

And also relies on the false assumption that a semite couldn't be an anti-Semite. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just semantics, and it is silly. "anti-semitism" means hatred of Jews. Obviously Arabs can be anti-semitic in this specific sense. I actually (seriously, though I doubt it matters) differ with Jayjg in saying that a semite can be anti-Semitic. In cases where the Jew is passing as a non-Jew, perhaps. But I think most people make a distinction between "Anti-semite" and "self-hating Jew," and it is a meaningful distinction as it generally involves different psychological processes. By the same token, I am sure that there are self-hating Arabs, which is just a much a shame as self-hating Jews. And of course, just because "anti-semitism" means only hatred of Jews does not mean that there isn't racism against Arabs, and that we shouldn't care about it. I know many Jews are racist against Arabs. As a Bible-believing man, of course, I consider Arabs to be my cousins and if only for our family connections, I wish people would lay off of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a very big issue with the definition of anti-semitism on this page. Now, it's one thing to point to an entry in the dictionary, but to be intellectually honest, we should also include the fact that anthropologically speaking, a semite includes both Arabs and Jews, further a Jew may or may not be a Semite.

Further, even if we define "anti-semitism" as something against Jews, what exactly is the test of this and who is the arbiter? I have seen Uber-Jew, Abraham Foxman from the ADL scream that Mel Gibson's movie the "Passion of Christ" was anti-semitic. Most Jews consider anything that paints a Jew in an unfavorable light, no matter how true it is, as "anti-semitic". The fact is, the truth can't be anti- anything.

Therefore, in the interest of fairness, we should add the fact that the anthropological definition of semite is different than than the often common (and in my mind, wrong) definition of anti-semitism. And add the fact that only Jews seem to think they are the arbiter of what is and isn't "anti-semitism" - that is, it is whatever they dislike.

--Titus70AD 22:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• See Anti-Semitism#Scope for the discussion of the usage of the term. Good job throwing in the example of anti-Semitism in your own comment about the the expression; unintentional irony is always fun to encounter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jpgordon,

It wasn't supposed to be "ironic" but to once again show Jew hypocrisy.

It sure was telling when Abraham Foxman, a Jew and leader of the ADL smeared Mel Gibson's movie 'Passion of Chirst" which was based on the Christian faith as "anti-semitic". Foxman smeared all Christians as "anti-semitic". What needs to be made clear is that not everything that a Jew disagrees with or finds offensive if "anti-semitic" - sometimes it is just true. In addition, it is quite a sight to see that all the causes for anti-semitism are blamed on every group but Jews themselves. Could Jews themselves be at least partly responsible for being seen in an unfavorable light? For instance, many Jews carry a large chip on their shoulder and are blatantly Christophobic.

So, yeah, I stick by my original statements - not all Jews are semites and not everything a Jew disagrees with is anti- anything.

--Titus70AD 23:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jpgordon,

Once last thing - what exactly did I say that was "anti-semitic"? Is it because I dare pointed out the Christophobic and hateful comments that Uber-Jew Abraham Foxman made? And, yes, he did make them, yes he is the head of the ADL, yes he is Jewish and an Uber-Jew at that -- all of those comments are true, thus, they can't be anti-semitic or anti-anything.

And isn't ironic, that you made my very point.

--Titus70AD 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed it or if that was really what got Foxman going, but you seem to have missed the fact that the blood libel, conceded as an example of long-abiding antisemitism by many Christian theologians of recent decades, remained in the movie in Aramaic but without subtitle. But you certainly continue to miss the irony in the fact that you get the good old-fashioned brand of anti-Jewish antisemitism in complaints like, "In addition, it is quite a sight to see that all the causes for anti-semitism are blamed on every group but Jews themselves. Could Jews themselves be at least partly responsible for being seen in an unfavorable light? For instance, many Jews carry a large chip on their shoulder and are blatantly Christophobic." I'd also take referring to Foxman as an "Uber-Jew" [sic] as provocation. For someone who claims to be interested in advancing some neglected distinctions, you also seem to be interested in inserting a great deal of invective based on a neglect of distinctions. Given the scope statement, it does seem an awful lot like you are trying to hijack the article to make a point. Perhaps you ought to tone it, lest someone mistake you for a troll. Buffyg 23:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Buffyg,

Oh, I see. If you disagree with me I'm suddenly a 'troll'. Hmm, I guess that's a back up you can use when I poke 10 holes in your 'anti-semite' paper bag.

Here is the problem I have. Jews and Jesus Christ were in a political battle. That's a historical fact and, of course, it's nothing new. However, I have yet to read anything in Judaism where the Jews have spokenly highly of Jesus. From the Christian bible, surely the Jews of the time, Saducees and Pharisees weren't considered "kind" or "loving" to Jesus.

We also know that the Jews didn't see Jesus as the Messiah since they didn't become Christians or Messianic Jews for the most part.

I have no problem with that nor do I hold a grudge.

However, from Jews pushing for the death of Christ which they did and for which they have NEVER apologized to Abraham Foxman today, Jews have been Christophobic and hateful to Christianity and its adherents.

The ADL's Foxman stated that this was "blood libel" as you said. He also said it would whip up "anti-semitism". What he refused to acknowledge was his own hateful, Christophobic stance. Further was Gibson had in his movie was historical fact or if you like the basis of the Christian Faith. Now if you want to call that Faith anti-semitic you can, but you'll just be exposing yourself as a hateful Christophobe as so many Jews have. Further, you shouldn't be surprised when a true backlash from Gentiles occurs.

It is also interesting to not that while Jewish Hollywood despised the "Passion" as anti-semitic, they had no problem making hateful, anti-Christian movies such as Scorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ."

For Jews, it is truly a one-way street and they not only want to own the street but direct traffic. And anyone who doesn't toe the line will be deemed an "anti-semite".

Oh and lastly, when I mentioned that chip on Jews' collective shoulder I meant it and can back it up with historical evidence from the contrast of Hollywood Jews trying to silence Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" movie versus financing the disgusting and hateful, anti-Christian movie "Last Temptation of Christ." Further, I can show you that Jews have taken Henry Ford and IBM corp to task for supposedly trading with the German Wermacht, but at the same time, Jews have worked diligently to suppress the fact that Otto Frank, Ann Frank's Father, profited up to and during his time in hiding from the Nazis by TRADING WITH THE NAZIS and turning a hefty profit.

--Titus70AD 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Jpgordon,

Once last thing - what exactly did I say that was "anti-semitic"? Is it because I dare pointed out the Christophobic and hateful comments that Uber-Jew Abraham Foxman made? And, yes, he did make them, yes he is the head of the ADL, yes he is Jewish and an Uber-Jew at that -- all of those comments are true, thus, they can't be anti-semitic or anti-anything.

And isn't ironic, that you made my very point.

--Titus70AD 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This section on the so-called forms that "anti-Semitism" takes is greatly flawed.

1)* Racist anti-Semitism, a kind of xenophobia. Some people perceive Jews as people of a racially distinct origin from other peoples, and claim that discrimination on the basis of such distinctness is valid.

What I found so amazing with this, is that Jews through their own teachings and religion are the ones that actually set themselves apart as a separate race, for example, The Chosen People. Further, look how many Jewish dating sites exist solely to match Jew for Jew. I personally think Jews are pseudo-race because of their Halakah which sets a lineage coming from the mother, but I limit that to pseudo-race as Jews do allow for Gentile conversion to be a Jew.

Anyway, if Jews aren't a race, nobody can be "racist" towards them. If Jews are a "race" than that's possible, but first we need to find out are Jews a race or a religion? Since most Jews don't attend a Synagogue or Temple from Jewish surveys I've read, and seem to be secular, than to be a Jew is race based not religion based.

2) * Religious anti-Judaism. Like other religions, Judaism has faced discrimination and violence from people of competing faiths and in countries that practice state atheism. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so does not affect those of Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion. Laws banning Jewish religious practices may be rooted in religious anti-Semitism.

I think we need to also be intellectually fair hear and discuss the supremacism over Gentiles that is innate Jewish religious documents and which often manifests itself in Christophobic outbursts by Jewish leaders.

3) Socio-economic anti-Semitism rooted in the alleged disproportionate success or influence, relative to their numbers within the general population, that individual Jews have achieved in a variety of occupations, including finance, politics, the media, academia, the law, medicine, and science.

What do you mean be "alleged"? It is factual. Jews comprise less than 2.5% of the US population but hold a far greater amount of wealth, political power, legal power and media power than one could ever imagine.

For instance, this 2.5% of the population comprises almost 11% of the US Senators which is unheard of. At the same time, super powerful Jews Alan Greenspan is Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Zionist Chertoff is head of the Homeland Security and Jews such as George Soros, Eisner, Sumner Redstone and others dominate the financial, entertainment and media distribution industries.

If one then looks to see that out 6 billion people on this planet there are only 15 million Jews and that they comprise .25% of the world's population but dominate the financial, legal, economic and entertainment industries we can't say "alleged".

This must be noted in the interest of fair discourse.

DNFTT, guys. Rhobite 00:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite,

Excuse me if I am unfairly criticizing you but I'm not familiar with DNFTT. Googling on it, makes it seem to mean "Do not fall for the troll" so I assume you are considering me a "troll". If that is what DNFTT means and if you are meaning I am a troll then I must say that these accusations are just par for the course against me. Since slurs like "racist" and "anti-semite" can't be stuck on me as I simply bat them away with logic, my thoughtful and reasoned comments can then only be met with accusations of being a "troll". When that fails, as it always does, I'm sure you'll seek to ban me or censor me. If you were able, I'm sure you'd ask that the ADL work to incarcerate me as well.

How about responding to me well founded points on your very narrow definition of "anti-semitism" the lack of an objective test as to what constitutes this so called "anti-semitism" (that is, truth doesn't matter and is not defense if a Jew considers it "offensive") and the fact that Jews are not a race (or are they? Make up your mind) and they do hold inordinate power in the US as I have previously demonstrated.

I think the term is: checkmate.

--Titus70AD 02:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Now, it's one thing to point to an entry in the dictionary, but to be intellectually honest, we should also include the fact that anthropologically speaking, a semite includes both Arabs and Jews, further a Jew may or may not be a Semite."

Anthropologically, you are correct. However, "semite"'s meaning has changed in the creation of the compound term "anti-Semitic". Essentially, it is an example of the inaccuracy which with language develops, and we just have to deal with current definitions. A white immigrant to the US from South Africa wouldn't be considered an "African-American." While we may credit this to the stupidity of the people who developed the term, that doesn't make our Boer immigrant an "African-American" according to contemporary usage. I don't expect that any more examples of etymological inconsistancies need to be provided here. HKT ^talk 03:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello HKT,

Thanks for the reasoned discussion. Okay, I understand your etymological reasoning on anti-semite. However, the term "anti-semite" as it is defined today is a colloquial term. An educated person who looked at the term "anti-semite" would logical see "anti" as coming from Greek for "opposite" and "semite" being an athropological group. Therefore, "anti-semite" would be against the semitic people. A person who understood who semites were, would understand not only that that would include Arabs but that it would also exclude some Jews, such as my Gentile neighbor who converted to Judaism is or Anglo-Saxon origins not Semitic.

I would be willing to accept the narrow definition of anti-semite as referring only to Jews but I'm still stuck on this point that it's a documented fact that not every Jew is a Semite. A compromise, however, would seem to be to use the colloquial meaning of anti-semite for the narrow definition as "anti-Jewish" and included the reasoning behind this narrow definition as well as the broader, anthropological meaning of "Semite", which would include Arabs as well. It should also note that note all Jews are semites - many Gentiles are not aware of that.

But even if we agree on this, the sticky wicket still remains - what exactly is "anti-semitism", what is the test and who is or are the arbiters of this? If I state that I the Holocaust as been presented to the public as historical fact and I want to examine those facts am I anti-semitic? If so, why? Why when I examine the historical records of the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition or Spanish Civil war I'm not anti-anything, I just examining and debating what have been presented as historical events. You see the problems that have been created here with what reeks of hypocrisy and secrecy?

--Titus70AD 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Oxford English Dictionary does not "reek of hypocrisy and secrecy": Anti-semitism: Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews; anti-Semitic a. Usage: 1881 Athenæum 3 Sept. 305/2 The author, apparently an anti-Semite. Ibid., Anti-Semitic literature is very prosperous in Germany. 1882 Athenæum 11 Feb. 184/1 In these days of anti-Semitism. 1935 Economist 24 Aug. 366/1 The Nazi Party stalwarts..have all been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant..crusade. 1941 J. S. HUXLEY Uniqueness of Man ii. 50 Germanic nationalism on the one hand and anti-Semitism on the other." The OED gives no other definitions, and there is no support for other usages. Are we done yet? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2,

Thank you for this information. Whoever, words and meanings change. For instance, "nigger" originally referred to any person, regardless or race that was considered to be of a low moral character. That didn't stop "nigger" to later be primarily be used as a pejorative term used to describe blacks. If "nigger" can evolve from a widely derived term to a narrow term, isn't it plausible and, in fact, very likely (and beneficial) that "anti-semite" would evolve from a narrow definition to a broader definition. After all, as has been said - words are created (ala neology) and evolve and morph over time.

--Titus70AD 06:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tomer,

Great information. Now we are getting somewhere. If in fact, this is true, that it is derived from "antisemitismus" (I'll do some research on this), it would go a long way in my mind in resolving the narrowness of the term (in my opinion the narrowness).

However, as I stated to Goodoldpolonius2 words are evolving all the time in terms of narrowness or wideness of scope. I referenced the term "nigger" above that was originally applied regardless of race to people who were perceived to be of low moral character. Later it became to mostly be used to pejoratively describe a black person.

Would it not be possible or even desirable for this to happen with antisemitism for the very reasons I've raised (ie. not all semites are Jews and not all Jews are semites)?

And I understand your concerns about antisemite being lumped together but if we used the more precise "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Judaism/Judaica" we would precisely capture what is being targeted and there would be no worry of dilution or "free riders" onto this term.

--Titus70AD 06:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the origin of the "antisemitism" term ? Who and when coined it ? --Lysy ^(talk) 06:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I found an excellent online resource for this...check out Anti-Semitism#Etymology_and_usage. :-p Tomer ^TALK 07:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC) and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism |

Thanks :-). I've had the feeling it must be somewhere ... ;-) --Lysy ^(talk) 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidence: I was just reading about the definition of antisemitism in Mortimer Ostow (1995). Myth and Madness: The Psychodynamics of Antisemitism. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560002247. PAGE 13-15: It is generally attributed to a Jew hater in late nineteenth-century Germany by the name of Wilhelm Marr who contended, as did many German intellectuals of that time, that Jews were members of a different race, the Semites, and were therefore not acceptable as full members of German society... Hope that helps. Sirkumsize 13:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is accurate, or largely accurate, and explains precisely why the word "anti-Semitism" refers to hatred of Jews, not Arabs. Above, some people suggested that Jews and Arabs are both "semites," "anthropologically speaking." That is not true. Anthropologists do not classify Jews and Arabs as belonging to a "semetic race." Hebrew and Arabic are however, "semetic languages." "Semetic," when used by scholars today (not when/as used by anti-Semites) refers to a family of languages, not a race. Obviously, many people who are genetically distinct can all speakk Arabic or Hebrew or any other "semetic language," what language you speak does not determine your "race" (I speak English, but not only am I not an English subject, I am not of any "English" race. Moreover, most scientists today believe races to be social constructs (those legitimate scientists who do not share this view have a much more precise definition of race than that used by almost anyone in the 19th century, and more than most people today). Anti-Semitism too is a social construct. Of course, social constructs can be very powerful things (nuclear bombs, for example, do not grow on trees, indeed they would have no existence were it not for socially coordinated actions by people — and they are pretty damn powerful; the social construct "race: is powerful too). So the fact that Jews may not constitute a "biological race" does not mean that racism doesn't exist. Like race, racism is an idea, a belief. And when talking about human beings "anthropologically speaking," their ideas and beliefs are very very very very very important indeed. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear bombs are social constructs? Sirkumsize 13:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha. Okay, why am I not surprised to see Slrubenstein arguing that, "no, no, no, Arabs are not semites!"

You state that anthropologists do not classify Arabs as semites but instead groups these people as speaking/sharing semitic languages.

What you fail to recognize is that originally, the very people who SPOKE SEMITIC languages were Ethnically SEMITES in the anthropological sense especially those that were descendants of Shem (as in Shemite).

See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite

Sem·ite Audio pronunciation of "semite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smt) n.

  1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
  2. A Jew.
  3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

Further, you want it both ways. On the one hand you want to say that the dictionary defines anti-semitism as only something that is anti-Jewish (of course, you've still never defined what criteria is used to decide this and who is the final arbiter but someone I can imagine it would be a Jew) so that it stands.

Then on the other hand, you want to reject the same source's definition of "Semite".

Yes, many people who are unrelated can speak any language but that doesn't change the fact that a genetic Arab (as opposed to a naturalized Arab or simply an Arab-speaker) is a semite.

I've also addressed you comments on race being a "social construct" below. Your statement has a LOT of holes in it.

Lastly, you state that even if Jews aren't a race they can still be subject to racism. The fact, is they cannot be subject to racism if they aren't a race. Instead they may face prejudice, discrimination or bigots but they can't face "racism". Period.

Well, actually, if a Jew scholar says they face racism and then Sumner Redstone picks up on the meme and Phil Bronstein publishes it, well, yeah, in that case they DO face "racism" as most of the Gentile Lemmings are concerned, so my bad.

--Titus70AD 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Couple of points on race and Jews and race. First race is not a belief. Sickle cell anemia affects ONLY Negroids. Caucasoids do not get this disease. Are you suggesting that "race" is a social construct so Negroids simply need to think they are Caucasoids and their sickle cell anemia will be cured? --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sickle-cell anemia only affects black Africans, not "negroids". It is not a "disease", it is a genetic flaw that is most likely a result of the fact that it provides relative longevity inasmuch as it affords immunity to malaria to those with the trait. It has nothing to do with "race", it has to do with ancestry. By the same token, there are a number of "Jewish diseases", mainly disorders of the nervous and lymphatic systems that afflict primarily only Ashkenazi Jews. This is, again, a result of a mutant gene way back who knows when, being passed on. In the case of these "Jewish diseases", there is no discernable "benefit" to any of them, although sickle-cell anemia clearly has a "benefit" (albeit a rose with some rather sharp thorns). At the same time, there are other genetically-linked diseases, such as muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and certain types of cancers that don't appear to have obviously discernable "racial" links. All of these maladies are genetic, it's just that some of them are "younger" than others, and so they appear to be "racial" rather than simply "human". Tomer ^TALK 21:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dude, don't feed the troll. By the way, Italians also suffer from Sickle Cell Anemia. It occurs often around the Mediterranean, where malaria is prevalent. It is also often an example of Baldwinian evolution, by which humans affect their own evolution by changing their natural environment. The rise of agriculture involved the creation of more spaces of still water, thus providing a greater breeding-ground for the Anopheles mosquito, leading to the sickle-cell adaptation. All things being equal, according to the Hardy-Weinberg law, in a population with the sickle-cell trait, 25% will be born without it and at high risk to die from malaria, 25% will be anemic and likely die from that, and 50% will be well-adapted to the environment. In any event, this whole stuff about "race" is absurd. And what kind of "race" is it that allows up to half your ancestors to be from another group? Anyway, as often happens, this site has just attracted another anti-Semite. I say we stop humoring him. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Come on! You can do better than try to rebut my comments with calls of "Troll!, Troll!"

By the way, you mention Italians also suffering from Sickle Cell Anemia. I would like to know how prevalent it is in Italians and around the Mediterranean verus the high incidence of it in black-Africans.

Further, as a student of history, you most surely know that parts of Italy had a high rate of mixing of Italians/Greek/black-Africans.

This is one reason why we see that Keloid scars, which primarily effect Africans and many hispanics also often effect Italian - especially those from the South such as Naples or Sicily where more negroid mixing took place.

Now you mention Baldwinian evolution. As you well know or should know, this is a THEORY not a proven fact. Specifically it proposes that organisms (plant, person, etc.) can pass on learned abilities to their offspring. Interesting to also not that the author, James Baldwin is a Psychologist and not a biologist nor does he have any medical, genetic or organic chemical training.

So, Slrubenstein you better come up with some better refutations than that or maybe it's just easier on your brain to call me a "troll" or "anti-semite".

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=139378 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/344/18/1392 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/18/1351 --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Supposèdly, Jews also have a higher incidence of lactose intolerance, but my guess is that eventually studies will demonstrate that lactose intolerance has more to do with diet composition than genetics. Tomer ^TALK 21:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi TShilo12,

This may well be true. I don't know. Nobody knows all the answers but it is very plausible that race is a physical reality. After all, it's amazing to me how many people think that humans evolved from monkeys but don't think it's further possible that humans may involve AGAIN after that into various groups such as negroids, mongoloids, caucasoids, etc.

I know it scares people but it may well be true. And I still refer on back to the often "distasteful" Bell Curve which discussed the issue race and intelligence.

Genetics is a physical reality. Linkage of genes is a physical reality. "Race" is a sloppy concept representing fuzzy clusters of hugely multivariable genetic parameters which show a high degree of geographic clustering, as would be expected, as well as a tendency to stay clustered over time, but is seriously flawed by a severe bias towards only those parameters which result in visible characteristics, such as skin color. Is Strom Thurmond's black daughter really genetically closer to Desmond Tutu than to him? Gzuckier 21:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that genes are a more granular method in looking at this than the broader "race". But, within any race, we expect to find more of the common genes. Genes to color negroids skin black, thick skin, prevalence of keloid scars, kinky hair, flared nostrils, flat nose, large/full lips. Those are genetic issues.

Statistically speaking, sure, within in the genes, a white negroid may be born or some other issue such as this. Any ONE event has a possiblity to vary greatly but in the long run, a negroid will be easily identifiable as a negroid regardless of a few being white or having blue eyes or light colored hair.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's ask this one again. Is Strom Thurmond's black daughter really genetically closer to Desmond Tutu than to him? Gzuckier 13:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Now onto Jews and race. It is now wonder that many consider the Jews to be a race since in many areas the majority of Jews are not even religious. For instance, I know a number of Jews that are atheists yet they are referred to as "Jewish Atheists". That oxymoronic! If to be a Jew is to follow the religion of Judaism, there can no more be a "Jewish Atheist" than a "Christian Atheist" --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This "confusion" is a result of the fact that the term "nation" has been muddled by association with the term "country" since the early 1900s. Jews are a "nation", in the sense of "a people". The false analogy to "Christian Atheist" is inappropriate, since "Christian" is applied strictly to adherents of a particular religion. The term "Jew" is more analogous to "American Atheist" or "Catalonian Atheist" than it is to "Christian Atheist". Tomer ^TALK 21:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

So what you are saying is that, in fact, a Jew can be a Jew regardless of whether they follow Judaism or even believe in Yahweh? If that is the case, we have to possibility. Jews as a nation (such as Americans as Americans) or Jews as a race. So if Jews were in diaspora for 1,935 years since the 70AD diaspora after the destruction of the Second Temple, how was it exactly that Jews were a Nation?

And, if, in fact, Jews were a nation or considered themselves a nation, as I know from history they have, can't you see therefore that by Jews creating a nation, inside a nation in their host country and refusing to assimilate that they would be despising their hosts and in turn whipping up animosity towards themselves? Why isn't this ever considered, that so-called anti-semitism is not an attack, but analogous to an immune response and an attempt at self-defense and preservation by the host country against this "nation within a nation"?

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Moreoever, in many areas of the US (and around the world I would imagine) according to Jewish groups own surveys sometimes 40%, 50% or more of the Jewish population are not religiously observant, do not go to the Temple yet are still "Jewish". --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No Jews go to the Temple, because it's been destroyed for the past 1300 years. I assume you're referring to synagogues tho. Regardless, see my comments above. As for your imaginings, the US Jewish community is only matched in inobservance by the Jewish community of the FSU. Tomer ^TALK 21:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

We can play semantics here - Temple or Synagogue. My Jewish friends often refer to going to temple, but I'm fine with Synagogue. But as I said, from Jewish surveys I've seen from within the US, Jewish observance is low, yet a Jew is still a Jew which means religious adherance in the definition of a Jew is not an issue at all to Jews.

From the mouths of Jews, not Gentiles not "anti-semites":

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=734&pid=1597

AJC Publication - 2002 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion by the Jewish: American Jewish Committee

35. Which one of the following qualities do you consider most important to your Jewish identity?

       Being part of the Jewish people 	41
       Religious observance 	13
       Support for Israel 	5
       A commitment to social justice 	21
       Something else 	18
       Not sure 	2

   36. Do you belong to a synagogue or temple?

       Yes 	51
       No 	49

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If a Jew is defined by adherance to a religious practice then they would not be Jews.

--Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant, since this is not a part of the definition of who is and who is not a Jew, and except in the minds of some Christians and Muslims, who think they're in a better position to tell Jews who is and who isn't a Jew than Jews are. Tomer ^TALK 21:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12,

I see. Again, only Jews can determine who a Jew is. Just like only a Jew can determine what is or isn't Anti-semitism.

From your own books and laws, I have drawn this information - the Halkah.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also add, that according to the Halakah, a Jew can only be a Jew if born of a Jewish mother - that not only implies but explicitly states it is BLOOD related and racial in nature. The Halakah does have an exception for Gentile conversion to Judaism but that is rarely, rarely used. --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Utterly wrong. Halakha says a person is a Jew if their mother is a Jew or if they convert according to halakha. Conversion isn't an exception, it is an explicit part of the definition. As for "rarely, rarely", I guess I don't understand your definition of "rarely, rarely"...there are an estimated 200k-230k converts to Judaism (or the more popular "Jews by Choice") in the United States alone... Tomer ^TALK 21:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

As I said, only two ways a person can be a Jew - born of a Jewish mother or conversion. We both agree on this I see and should as it says so right in the Halakah.

When I referred to "conversion" as an exception to the Halakah, I said so because I was pointing to the Jews as a RACE since you are BORN a Jew by being born of a Jewish Mother. It has nothing to do with religious adherance or believing in Yahweh. Therefore, it's a race. But I said, because Judaism allows for CONVERSIONS under the Halakah, it's more of a pseudo-race, since non-Jew genes such as Sammy Davis Jr. or my Gentile next door neigher the Anglo-Saxon can come in.

You can also tell me that 200k - 300k converts is a lot, but Jews still only account for 15 million people. Judaism is far old than Christianity yet has a fraction of the people. Why is that? Where as Christianity seeks to INCLUDE, Judaism seeks to EXCLUDE. I have no problem with that, the founders of any club can make up their own rules but I still feel obligated to point that out.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, a Christian is not born a Christian. A buddhist is not born a buddhist, etc. --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

See my earlier remarks. You can't illegitimize Jewish tradition just because it doesn't line up with Christian and Buddhist tradition. I notice too, that you neglected to mention that a muslim is a muslim by virtue of being born, not even to a muslim mother, but by being born into the household of a muslim man (regardless of whether or not he's even the father!). Tomer ^TALK 21:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12,

This is where we differ. You point to a Muslim being born a Muslim. This may be true, however, it's also true that a Muslim can swear off the religion at which point they are NO LONGER A MUSLIM.

But according to the Talmud, once born a Jew a Jew remains a Jew for ever, regardless of if they are an atheist or even a murderer. Not surprisingly, however, if that Jews accepts Christ as the Messiah and becomes a Messianic Jew, they are often no longer considered a Jew, such as in in Israel. I would refer you to the Brother Daniels case.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

But a Jew is born a Jew and remains a Jew until they die, even if they never attend the Temple once in their life, even if they are Atheists and deny the existence of Yahweh - therefore, any rational person can only see Jews as a race or psuedo-race because of the conversion exemption in the Halakah. --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Not actually true. See Baruch Spinoza, for example. Also, as I said earlier, conversion is not an "exemption", it is, instead, a core part of the definition of who is and who isn't a Jew, going back to the very first Jews. The halakha is quite clear: all Jews are either converts or descendants of converts (a very different view from the one you claim halakha states)... Tomer ^TALK 21:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

I clarified my position on converts by explaining my take - that primarily Jews are born of Jewish mothers. Converts are very few in proportional terms. Far lower than other major monotheistic religions on a proportional basis to be sure.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is also obvious that if Jews have not completely evolved (assuming you believe in evolutionary theory) to be a new race (prevalence of Tay Sach is pointing that it is working), the very fact that Jews are defining a Jew by blood and not religion means that Jews are practicing racism, eugenics and trying to create their own Master Race - which is the very same thing that they have accused various Gentile peoples and nations of. --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

?? You can become a Jew if you want to, you know. Lots of people have done it. Eugenics eushmenics. Gzuckier 21:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier,

Yes, I have friends - Caucasians, blacks and Asians that have done this. I understand it is possible from reading the Halakah. Contrary to Tshilo12's accusations/misreading of what I said, I have never denied that.

I have simply stated that Judaism primarly relies on defining a Jew by birth via a Jewish mother. This is because Jews are well aware that the hand the rocks the cradle rules the world. Traditions, customs, culture come from the mother to child. But so as not to become to inbred or staid, the Halkah allowed for conversion for fresh blood and perhaps so as not to become 100% insular.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not Jews who are defining Jewishness by blood and not religion, it is you. Tomer ^TALK 21:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

No, it is Jews. With a Conversion, you have a CONSCIOUS decision by a person who normally gets a sponsor, studies, follows rituals, and is circumcized. This means any race can become a Jew.

BUT because the primary method of becoming a Jew is being BORN from a Jewish mother, well, it has nothing to do with a conscious decision or act of faith. Once born of a Jewish mother you are a Jew and will ALWAYS be a Jew even if you renounce Yahweh. If that isn't being born of blood then NOTHING is so stop trying to obfuscate the obvious.

And in case you wonder, I have some close friends who are orthodox Jews who readily and unashamedly admit that. I respect them for that. There is not anythign inherently wrong with this, BUT you can't be dishonest and say, "hey, hey it's not true" when it's sitting right there in front of our eyes.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That again, reeks of hypocrisy and supremacism. --Titus70AD 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, only your misinterpretation (deliberate or otherwise) does. Your entire rambling diatribe is little more than an irritating combination of straw man arguments, red herrings, false analogies and other logical fallacies. Tomer ^TALK 21:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Tshilo12,

You crack me up! Have you read the Halakah? If so, how can you sit there and dare I say, lie, that there is no blood component to becoming a Jew.

Sure, we all know one can convert. But also know that there is a BLOOD component by being BORN of a Jewish mother! So stop the obfuscation it makes people wonder what you are hiding.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And more to the point: Titus70AD has the mistaken impression that this talk page is some sort of forum for airing political, social, historical, and religious opinions. It's not. This page is for discussing the article Anti-Semitism, not the opinions of the editors, not even the opinions of the editors about Jews. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Jpgordon,

I know what this page is for and if you read my original comments I wrote what need to be added to the antisemitism page:

1. explanation that arabs are semites and not just jews 2. explanation that not all jews are semites 3. explanation that antisemitism seems to be anything that jews dislike but that if it's true it can't be antisemitic. 4. a determination, criteria and test for what anti-semitism is and who decides

and I added several other things. Go and read it and stop putting words in my mouth.

--Titus70AD 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

1. So what? Anti-semitism isn't about Semites, it's about Jews -- by definition and more than a century of vitually exclusive usage.
2. See #1.
3. That's your point of view -- it's not a fact.
4. For most of this, see Anti-Semitism. "Who decides"? Beats me.

Enjoy your dinner. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Jpgordon,

  1. So what? Anti-semitism isn't about Semites, it's about Jews -- by definition and more than a century of vitually exclusive usage.

Titus' Comment: This is a flawed and as we all know words CHANGE. As I pointed out previously from the term "nigger" and now I'll add Ghetto in the traditional of a walled quarter in Jews were restricted to the modern definition of a section of a city or town (often crime-ridden and poor) that is occupied by a minority group.

Titus' Comment: These terms have changed 'anti-semitism' should change, too.

  2. See #1.

Titus' Comment: I stated all Jews are not semites and you are telling me to see #1? What are you talking about? All Jews ARE NOT semites and that should be noted as such.

  3. That's your point of view -- it's not a fact.

Titus' Comment: "explanation that antisemitism seems to be anything that jews dislike but that if it's true it can't be antisemitic."

Titus' Comment: You state this is my POV, yet I have NEVER see a Jew or other anti-semitic promoter publisher (1) an objective criteria of what constitutes anti-semitism and (2) who is the sole arbiter for APPLYING that criteria and adjudicating the outcome.

Titus' Comment: Without that, the whole concept of 'anti-semitism' is a God-darned joke and just a tool for Jews to silence or beat down Gentiles who dare to ask the wrong questions or stand up for themselves. This is why Abraham Foxman from the ADL can shout down and smear Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" as anti-semitic, when in fact Foxman and the ADL is Christophobic and anti-Teutonic.

  4. For most of this, see Anti-Semitism. "Who decides"? Beats me.

Titus' Comment: I don't see this section. And how can this stump anyone? This is the first question that should be raised and must be answered for without an objective criteria, an adjudication process and selection of the arbiters for the actual adjudication it's a joke. Right now the process based on empirical evidence is as follows:

Titus' Comment: A Jew sees something that they don't like, paints them in a bad light or irritates them. Truth is no defense. If they don't like it, it's automatically 'anti-semitic'. Period. That's it.

Titus' Comment: As I said, if it's true it isn't nor can it EVER be anti-semitic.

--Titus70AD 03:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• These terms have changed 'anti-semitism' should change, too. -- That may or may not be the case, and if you wish to work on changing the meaning, go right ahead. However, Wikipedia is not in the job of changing things; Wikipedia's role is describing things as they are.

All Jews are not semites -- so what? Since the article isn't about "semites", however you care to define them, the ancestry of Jews isn't in the least bit relevant.

The rest of what I said stands; you don't get to add your personal opinion to articles, no matter how strongly you hold that opinion. The article itself is replete with examples of anti-Jewish behaviour; though certainly some things get labelled anti-semitism inaccurately, there are sufficient examples in history to deal with anti-semitism as a thing unto itself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (signing off).

Jpgordon,

   * These terms have changed 'anti-semitism' should change, too. -- That may or may not be the case, and if you wish to work on changing the meaning, go right ahead. However, Wikipedia is not in the job of changing things; Wikipedia's role is describing things as they are.

Titus's Comment: And if you want to describe the way things are, and you want to be intellectually honest you would say, "althought semites include boths arabs and jews and it is also true that not all jews are semites, the term anti-semite has come to mean anti-jewish thought or comments, yada, yada, yada." That's what you'd say.

   All Jews are not semites -- so what? Since the article isn't about "semites", however you care to define them, the ancestry of Jews isn't in the least bit relevant.

Titus's Comment: To be anti- anything you first have to define what you are against. In this case, you are defining a "semite". If you go with the term that anti-semitism only is directed at Jews than say it but you need to explain why this doesn't jive with what I wrote above.

   The rest of what I said stands; you don't get to add your personal opinion to articles, no matter how strongly you hold that opinion. The article itself is replete with examples of anti-Jewish behaviour; though certainly some things get labelled anti-semitism inaccurately, there are sufficient examples in history to deal with anti-semitism as a thing unto itself. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (signing off). 

Titus's Comment: No it is not my opinion. It's called Logic. Anyone that has any ability to critically reason understands that nothing can be anti-anything if it's true. That's logic not my "opinion". You obviously aren't interested in logic. Moreover, as I said, (a) what is the objective criteria for a comment/thought/act to be anti-semitic, (b) what is the decision making framework/process and (c) who are the final arbiters in this adjudication process as to whether a thought/comment/act is "anti-semitic". That isn't my opinion that's common sense and if you can't see that you are either being complete intellectually dishonest or acting quite moronic.

--Titus70AD 05:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I far more important issue I have raised is the following:

(1) What is the objective criteria of what constitutes anti-semitism?

(2) What is the adjudicative process and framkework for applying and analyzing this criteria to determine anti-semitism?

(3) Who is the sole or final arbiter who adjudicates whether the comment or thought is anti-semitic in nature or whether a person is an anti-semite?

(4) That no matter what is said, if it is TRUE it can't be anti-semitism. That TRUTH is the ultimate defense just as in cases of slander or libel. The truth may be unpleasant, it may be distasteful, it may be unpalatable, but truth can never be "anti-semitic".

Right now we are left twisting in the wind. Even if we all agree that:

(1) Anti-semitism is bad, undesirable or evil

...and...

(2) Anti-semitism can only be directed towards Jews.

And currently, based on solid empirics I have seen numerous comments from prominent Jews and Jewish organization ranging from the ADL, JDL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, B'nai B'rith, et al, branding a particular person, organization, movie, book, article, protest, idea or thought as "anti-semitic". Yet, I've never seen any objective criteria applied nor any adjudicative framework employed. Moreover, TRUTH is never seen as negating any "anti-semitic" charges. Basically, as it currently stands, anti-semitism is subjective and is defined as anything that a Gentile does says, does, writes or thinks that either puts a Jew/Jews/Judaism in a negative light or that Jews dislike or offends them. That's the applied definition of anti-semitism. Lastly, anti-semitism is postured as a "reaction" to prejudicial and discriminatory idea/thoughts, etc from Gentiles towards Jews, but the anti-semitic charge is so powerful that it is, in fact, a weapon, a smear on the accused Gentile and as such is often used to perpetrate Christophobic behavior or anti-Teutonic behavior on the part of Jews. For instance, Abraham Foxman uses the charge of anti-semitism as an anti-Teutonic, Christophobic weapon to attack Mel Gibson, but Foxman walks away smelling like a rose, because by crying "anti-semitism" it appears Gibson is attacking Foxman/World Jewry and that Foxman/World Jewry are once against poor, hapless victims just trying to survive in an inhospitable Gentile world.

--Titus70AD 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In short; other people's opinions regarding antisemitism are just that, merely their opinion; your opinions regarding antisemitism are, however, deserving of serious consideration by the rest of us. Gzuckier 13:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gzuckier,

You almost got my point but lost it at the end. What I'm saying is that right now the definition of what is either anti-semitic or who is an anti-semite lays is completely arbitrary and Jews are almost exclusively the sole arbiters of that. And through two decades of reading current events, watching movies, plays and reading history, I have gathered empirical evidence to support this position.

So let me rephrase what you said, "How come only Jewish opinions regarding what is anti-semitic or anti-semitism counts and Gentiles' don't?"

--Titus70AD 19:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the article, not each editor's random ideas of anti-Semitism. Be specific, which unqualified examples of anti-Semitism from the article do you feel are not actually anti-Semitic? Do you have any reputable sources supporting your view? You keep returning to The Passion of the Christ, but this article makes no catagorical statements about it being anti-Semitic, it reports that some people found it so, which is true, and refers readers to the main article for discussion, which leaves the subject of your complaints unclear. Provide some examples and sources, otherwise, this is not worth continuing to discuss, and I would urge that everyone move on to more productive topics. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2,

I'm not talking about "random" ideas. The Passion of the Christ was attacked by Jews from day one. I will dig up various articles I have on this but they range from Jews reviewing a STOLEN script no less and charging anti-semitism, Jews hounded Mel Gibson and calling him an "anti-semite". In addition, news sources reported that academy awards selection committe had NO INTENTION of the Passion winning anything and we see that to be true. It was reported that most of the committee were Jews and they hadn't EVEN SEEN the movie, and refused to even contemplate viewing something so ANTI-SEMITIC (they reached all this without seeing it and some tolerance, huh?).

You can also look at the ADL website as well and look at the charges by them.

http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/gibson_qa.asp http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4665_12.htm http://www.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Interfaith/jpost_20041230.htm

And from the Jewish Forward: www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.11.14/news7.korn.html

Oscars to Snub Mel Gibson's 'Passion' http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/17/165926.shtml

More Hollywood Snubs of Gibson's 'Passion' http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/6/153719.shtml

Golden Globes Snub Gibson's 'Passion' http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/10/94202.shtml

Rabbi, Pastor Spar Over Gibson's 'Passion' http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2003/7/1/120931

Critics of The Passion of Christ assume the story embodies an anti-Semitic message. But does it?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/nov21.html

By Steven Gertz | posted 11/21/2003

Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ sure is getting a lot of heat these days. With more than two months left to go yet before its theatrical release, prominent Jewish leaders, foremost among them New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, have labeled Gibson's film as anti-Jewish. "This film can potentially lead to violence directed against the Jewish community," Hikind asserted. "It will result in anti-Semitism and bigotry. It really takes us back to the Dark Ages … the Inquisition, the Crusades, all for the so-called sin of the Crucifixion of Jesus."

Others: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/034133.php

(this was to discredit Gibson via "guilt by association" with his father http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/165923p-145217c.html

Also, if you have any ability to look at empirical evidence and use some critical reasoning you can see a pattern in Hollywood.

(1) Pro-Jewish movies, movies that show Jews as Victims and movies that Germans and Christian in a negative light are loved in Hollywood. This is seen in terms of the movies that are made, not made, nominated for awards and that win awards.

(2) Pro-Christian movies are despised by Hollywood.

Why? Because Jews dominate Hollywood - let me know if you want empirics on this with every Jewish studio, moguls name, directors, actors, etc.

To get you started here is an objective piece by respected Jewish author Ben Stein:

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Specials/Jews/

Now if you understand Jews run Hollywood and you want evidence on the pattern I exposed above simply consider the following films that were pretty horrible but either won Jewish Hollywood Kudos, Nominations and awards:

(1) Schindler's List. Not that bad of a movie, by please remember it wasn't great and also Oskar Schindler's wife sued Spielberg because she said there never was ANY list! Theme: Jew as Victim movie.

(2) Roberto Benigni’s LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. Theme: Jew as victim movie.

(3) The Pianist. Theme: Jew as victim movie. This was a really boring and horrible movie. Yet Adrien Brody won Best Actor, Roman Polanksy, accused child molester won Best Director and the film also won Best Adapted Screenplay!

(4) The Last Temptation of Christ. This is an anti-Christian movie that Jewish Hollywood loved. Martin Scorsese was, of course, nominated for Best Director.

Okay, now onto Pro-Christian movies:

(1) Passion of Christ. No Jew studio wanted to touch it. No Jew on the Academy selection committee want to see it. The only reason why it even ranked was because Jewish Hollywood was shocked that it raked in $600+ million in ticket sales. Yet, alas, it was decried as "anti-semtic" and won nothing.

So are you telling me there isn't a pattern here? By the way, I won a $100 bet on the Pianist and Adrien Brody winning Best Actor. Nobody could believe how I knew and I said, "Simple. You have a movie, showing Jews as a boo-hoo-hoo victim, Jewish Hollywood can't pass it up." My comments seemed distasteful to many of them but I was right.

So, it's not my comments that are distasteful but the Jewish bias towards Christians that is disturbing. And this is more than a few "random" ideas.

--Titus70AD 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus, I understand that you really don't like Jews as a group and that you have some ideas about why you don't like them, but that is not really relevant to anything. The anti-Semitism talk page is devoted to discussing the anti-Semitism article and you have yet to point out anything in this article that you have a factual objection to, let alone any reputable source backing up any of your views. That is what this page is for, and if you don't have something about the article to add, I would appreciate it if you would take this material to your Talk or User pages, since this back-and-forth is eating up space and time. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2,

My personal opinions or likes or dislikes have nothing to do with the empirics I've presented. These empirics were presented in response to my statements about anti-semitism being used often a tool to attack Gentiles and perpetrate Christophobia, etc. while making it look Jews were forced to defend themselves and I used a recent, real-world example of Gibson's The Passion .

Futher, this example was used to show and document that as I said previously, much of the so-called "anti-semitism" falls into two groups:

(1) Something that is TRUE but Jews don't like so they improperly categorize it as "anti-semitism". Refer to Passion of the Christ discussion above.

(2) Much of the REAL anti-semitism Jews face or attacks may be REAL but it is often blowback for their own obsession with attacking certain Gentiles groups - again, see "The Passion". I can tell you, the Jewish attacks on this must have shown 20 of my Gentiles friends EXACTLY what I was talking about - blacks, asians, etc. They were shocked that any Jew, especially Rabbis and leading Jewish groups like the ADL could slam that movie and Mel Gibson. And a little more blowback was forming.

As far as facts going, are you saying that you see NO connection between what I wrote? Does this mean I have to go publish a book on this or start my own newspaper (since no Jew editor or newspaper is going to connect the final dots). So now the Jews have us over a barrel. No Gentile can saying anythign for fear of being branded 'anti-semitic', losing their job, their advertisers and have no chance of getting published since the major media, newspapers, editors, etc. are all Jews.

Isn't that just great. So let's cut through the bullshit and define anti-semitism the way Jews see it and want.

(1) Anti-semitism is anythign that offends a Jew. (2) Jews are the sole arbiters of this. (3) The root of anti-semitism is from racist, hateful Gentiles who refuse to see the poor hapless Jew as an innocent compatriot of his lands. (4) Jews can't stop anti-semitism and are dumbfounded about why it exists but they'll do their best to sue, imprison or kill anyone that dares engage in that practice (want some evidence?)

--Titus70AD 23:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Colleagues, let's acknowledge that huge part of this discussion page and repeated edits to the article (many in good faith) revolve around one single theme: the confusion around the hyphen. I believe that if we switch to alternative unhyphenated form, advocated by some notable authorities and used in many serious books, it will significantly reduce the confusion. We could put this for vote. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That would help somewhat for people who are cognizant of the anti- vs anti

debate. That is, that anti-semitism is against semitic people's (that's what a person who anti + semitic would conclude) verus antisemitism which is a neology and would apply only to Jews, whether they are semites or not (such as non-semitic Gentiles who converted to Judaism) or even other semites. --Titus70AD 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving the rest of Titus' comments to the section #Titus' latest comments because they don't belong here. If you're planning on staying, please learn some basic formatting. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other, but my feeling is that antisemitism, despite its common usage literally is a racial term. Anti-Judaism or Judeophobia would be better terms for bias against the Jewish religion. Sirkumsize 13:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sirkumsize,

You raise an excellent point. I agree with you on the racial component and also think that either anti-judaism or perhaps anti-judaic would work. Anti-Judaism would only seem to cover anti- concerning the Jewish religion but as I have pointed out through the Jews own surveys and polls, almost half of Jews are not even religious. So you would probably want to broaden it to anti-judaic (or perhaps anti-judaica) which would seem to encompass Jews, Judaism and all of Judaica (mores, folkways, etc.)

Judeophobia is an interesting term as well. In any event, we should note that if what is spoken about Jews/Judaism/Judaica is TRUE then it can never be anti-anything or phobic.

We also need to be cognizant that there is and has been an onraging debate with the Jewish community as to what a Jew is -- I have personally seen this almost come to fist fights. Is it adherance to the Halakah? Is it the very, very, very, very liberal Israeli "Right of Return"? Is it any Jewish blood? Or is it just "feeling" Jewish as some liberal Jews have told me? The answer is that it really depends if Jews are defined by their adherance to Judaism or if it is really just a race/Pseudo-race (Pseudo because the Halakah doesn't base who is a Jew solely on blood but has a conversion option for outsiders).

--Titus70AD 19:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the subject, but while we're on it, is Jew a racial term, whereas Jewish is a relgion? Sirkumsize 13:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is the problem in a nutshell, Sirkumsize: words that we in the West use to identify bepople (race, ethnicity, religion, nation) are not terms indigenous to "Judaism." Scripture identifies the Jews as a "people" but did the authors of those texts, 2500 or more years ago, think "people" meant race, ethnic group, or nation? There is no way to answer this question, because those words either were not used back then, or used to have another meaning.

For example, in Roman times Jews were identified as a "race." But by "race" the Romans did not mean what Titus thinks "race" means (of course, what Titus70AD (p.s. do a little reesearch into that choice of a user name and you will see it is a deliberate insult to Jews) thinks "race" means is not even what evolutionary scientists today think it means). Romans considered people who converted to Judaism to be members of the Jewish race; therefore, "race" did not mean people joined by genetic (or "blood") ties. What most people today mean by such terms as race, nation, religion, and ethnic group prettu much developed during or after the Enlightenment.

That meant that after the Enlightenment Jews had to struggle to figure out how to identify themselves, because Europeans were suddenly telling Jews they had to identify themselves using words Jews never used to define themselves (including "religion"). Many Jews accepted the word "race" understood broadly (in the early 1800s most Germans did not use the word "race" the way they came to use it in the early 1900s) or "nation." Some Jews declared that they were not a nation but a religion. In fact, all of these Jews were caught in a catch-22: if they declared themselves a nation, then some people might think that they could not possibly be loyal Frenchman or Germans. In fact, during the time of Napoleon, Jews in France declared Judaism a religion— not a nation—for precisely this reason.

This is one reason that the Dreyfus affair was so shocking — despite giving up any national aspirations and declaring their loyalty to France more than 80 years earlier, man others simply could not believe that a Jew could be a loyal Frenchman. Of course, Dreyfus remained a loyal Frenchman to the end — but this is when Theodor Herzl decided that no matter what Jews swore, Jews were a nation, and would only be safe if they had a national homeland. Herzl made the opposite choice of the Jews in France under Napolean: he declared Judaism to be a nation, not a religion, and thus invented Zionism.

So this is why your question will always lead to confusing or confused answers. It is easy today for Jews to talk of a Jewish religion, a Jewish nation, a Jewish culture. But if you ask "what is Judaism" or "what is a Jew?" Jews have problems as there is no one word in English or any Western language that really accurately reflects the identity of a group of people who believe themselves to be 4,000 years old, who have lived under very different conditions, and who have expressed their identity in many different ways in different places at different times. I hope this helps, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: Here is the problem in a nutshell, Sirkumsize: words that we in the West use to identify bepople (race, ethnicity, religion, nation) are not terms indigenous to "Judaism." Scripture identifies the Jews as a "people" but did the authors of those texts, 2500 or more years ago, think "people" meant race, ethnic group, or nation? There is no way to answer this question, because those words either were not used back then, or used to have another meaning. For example, in Roman times Jews were identified as a "race." But by "race" the Romans did not mean what Titus thinks "race" means

Titus's Comment: We most certainly have an answer as to what Jews are from the Halakah whereby it states is Jew is defined one of two ways:

(1) To be born of a Jew mother. This means BLOOD is the definition.

This did not develop until pretty recently, the first century CE.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Recently? I guess 1,900 years of following religion that defines a Jew along blood lines is new? Seems old to me. I also like your little use of CE instead of AD. I know the history of CE and the groups that have worked just as hard to change that as they have to rip every Christian cross off every building in the US and destroy the Christian founding of the US. And it ain't Hindu, animist, Taoists, Buddhists or even Muslims.

And even if it happened yesterday it doesn't change the FACT that the BLOODLINE is a key part of Judaism. I know all about the history of the Talmud and Rabbis, etc. They are they know and that's a fact. Now take this fact of the BLOODLINE and then add it to the FACT it's 1,900 years old and wow, suddenly everything I said is proven accurate.

--Titus70AD 23:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

but...

One hell of a "but"Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not one hell of a but. It's a major but. Can you tell me what percentage of total world Jewry were converts compared to being born Jewish? I would wager that it is an extremely small percentage and would be BUT (yes, pun intended) a minor footnote.

Further, any rational person would ask, "Why the HECK does Judaism define a Jew by BLOOD! Conversion/acceptance makes sense, but BLOOD?"

Care to explain or defend why that shouldn't be seen as strangely racist?

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(2) It also provides for conversion so that outsiders can become Jews.

If the Halakah only providing for (1), whereby a Jew to be defined by BLOOD then Jews would be a race. But since the Halakah also provides for (2) conversion, it is not a true "race".

You imply that you have some notion of what a "true" race is, the very fact of which demonstrates that you are ignorant of scientific discussions concerning races.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have my own thoughts as to why this would be allowed as most Jewish laws are very, very brilliantly thought out. The reasons that make the most sense are to (1) bring in fresh blood to prevent to much inbreeding (look at the nobility of Europe and cases of hemophilia to see the danger of that) and (2) to prevent the accusations of being "Supremacists" by basing membership on blood only.

Even if membership were strictly by descent, I do not see how this would signal "supremacism." Priests are determined by descent alone, and are even given certain honors to this day — but I know of no Jew who has even suspected or wondered wehether this means priests are supremacists. Prior to the repeal of miscegenation laws, being "Black" was solely determined by blood; no converts. Yet this in no way meant that Blacks were supremacists. Even (much later) when the Black Power movement developed, their claim to pride was based on other things than blood.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! You are saying you can't see why a position held which is solely determined by one's parents is Supremacist. Okay, I'll chalk that up to your Semitic background. But here in the West, we find that do be unsavory. Nepotism and such are looked down upon not applauded. Let's just say this is a great example of a Semitic versus Gentile culture clash - unfortunately, it's happening in my country.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you can't see why

This is why I split the difference by terming Jews a "pseudo-race" rather than a "race".

It matters not one wit what you do or think. Do not violate NOR. Do you have citable sources by recognized authorities to back up what you say? If so, when will you finally share it with us? And if not, stop wasting our time with your BS; find some chat-room where people might care what you think. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

How about you just reading the Halakah. Are you telling me that you've never read it?

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/israel/israel51.html

I quote from Ben-Gurion's own words while Ben-Gurion was chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency, who was the predominant political leader of the Yishuv.:

"A halakic definition is available: a Jew is one who is born of a Jewish mother or who converts according to the halakah. The traditional criteria thus consist of biology (descent) and religion. In a sense, biology dominates religion, because, according to halakah, someone remains a Jew if born of a Jewish mother, even if he or she converts to another religion, although such a person is referred to as "one who has destroyed himself."

Titus' Comments: Get it? Biology and religion AND biology TRUMPS religion. What are you trying to hide? Why do you refute this documented fact within Judaism?

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: (of course, what Titus70AD (p.s. do a little reesearch into that choice of a user name and you will see it is a deliberate insult to Jews)

Titus Comments: You really need to learn to be tolerant of other people and their histories and ancestors! The world doesn't just revolve around Jews you know.

Never said any such thing. It is you who seem to be quite obsessed. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You did say so, both in bringing it up and in your comment about it "being a deliberate insult".

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So pray tell me, how exactly is my ID an insult to Jews?

Okay, bub, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I renounce my earlier comment; I do not know what really motivated you to use this as a username, nor what you mean byy it. So, in all fairness, I now ask you: What motivated you to use this particular username, and what significance does it have for you, and what do you mean by it?

As I said, my ancestors are Romans and I am as proud of them as Jews are of their people like Moses, Abraham or David. As I've studied history I've come to an intersection of Romans, Christians and Jews and, of course, the diaspora which distributed Jews to the four winds during 70AD. Yes, we know Jews were already pre-enimate traders, scholars, statements and such and were in many countries at the time but nothing like the diaspora had been seen.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is just further empirical evidence that anything a Jew doesn't like is "insulting", "demeaning", or "anti-semitic". Grow up! I'm just as sure if my ID were "Jesus Christ" you somehow would be upset as well.

Demonstrably false. There is, or was, a user who went by the ID Jesusischrist and I never took any offence, and never expressed any.

But if my ID were Flag_of_Judah, House_of_David or Abraham_Kicks_Ass you wouldn't even bat an eye.

Yet how often are you upset when you trample the feelings of Palestinians for example with your ID or signatures or comments?

Okay, I am almost smiling now. Please explain to me how "Slrubenstein" in any way tramples on the feelings of Palestinians? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt you have made comments on Israel or Jews. That's a given. And given your intolerance to my ancestors I'm sure you have shown, written or directed intolerance to Palestinains. I can uncover that by asking if you think that the Israeli "right of return" is just? Do you support Gaza settlements? Do you think Jews had right to upright Palestinians from the lands that both Jews and Palestinians collectively enjoyed and lived together peacefully on for almost 1,900 years? The answers to these questions will tell me what I need to know.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you haven't even thought about it nor do you even care one wit about their or anyone else feelings.

And for the record, one side of family had Romans as ancestors. We are damn proud of them, just as Jews are proud of their people. I don't begrudge you and your people for that so I'd appreciate you to give me the same courtesy. And for those that don't know, Titus is simply based on Titus Vespasian and later his son, Titus. These were the men who put down the very violent Jewish Rebellion during the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 AD. You are obviously on the Jewish side, which fine. My ancestors were on the other side and I'm proud of that and that's fine, too.

Okay, you actually proved my point. Disregard my earlier question: you specifically chose a name that is explicitly offensive to Jews. And if you think that this name and event is the only or even best way to honor the Romans in general or your Roman ancestors in particular, well, that would just prove how little you honor them. Have you ever heard of Cato the Younger, or Marcus Aurelius? Or Plautus? Or Virgil? or Aeneis? Or Terence, or Ovid, or Horace, or Lucretius? It is not fine to support violent oppressors of other people (and before you make swift accusations, I am and at least since I was a teen-ager have been opposed to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and look forward to formal Israeli recognition of Palistinian statehood). And it is a shame that of all the great and noble Romans you valorize s conqueror and slave-master. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass what's offensive to one group or another. If I did that I couldn't watch the Washington Red Skin's on tv for fear of offending them. I couldn't "go Dutch" with my friends when we go out for coffee for offending Dutch. I couldn't accuse a shopkeeper of "gyping" me less I offend a Roma and so on. My ID reflects my history and my ancestors and I'm proud of it. Just as I'm proud of my country defeating Japan. If I post in a Japanese group and my ID is Tarawa_Marine is that a slap in their face or simply my pride in my people?

But thanks again for showing your one way street on this matter. I know you aren't alone.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: That meant that after the Enlightenment Jews had to struggle to figure out how to identify themselves, because Europeans were suddenly telling Jews they had to identify themselves using words Jews never used to define themselves (including "religion"). Many Jews accepted the word "race" understood broadly (in the early 1800s most Germans did not use the word "race" the way they came to use it in the early 1900s) or "nation." Some Jews declared that they were not a nation but a religion.

Titus's Comment: I see. So once again this "identity" problem is laid at the feet of Gentiles.

No, history.

You know, 99% of all these problems would END is Jews did what every other race/ethinicity when they entered a new land - THEY ASSIMILATED! But Jews refuse to do that

Why should Jews "assimilate." I think Sandy Koufax and Hyman Rickover are enough to demonstrate that one need not assimilate (to the extent of giving up one's Jewish identity" in order to be a great American. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? Because they LIVE in another country. I've lived in four countries. Born in US and lived in Vietnam, Korea and Japan. In each place not only did I strive to learn the language but to assimilate as best I could.

It was there country, I was the guest. Now about the Jewish identity, the problem with the Jewish identity is that it is inherently supremacist with beliefs of Jews being "the Chosen People". That is not provable, as God is not provable so why should a person who doesn't believe in God believe that? Yet Jews believe that and Judaism is set up to support and perpetuate that.

Lastly, I have Italian and Frankish blood in my line. I don't go around having loyalty to Italy or France. I don't wish these guys harm but my undivided attention and loyalty is to America. I don't send money to France or Italy nor would I. I also don't hold dual-citizenship with those countries.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

and then blame the natural backlash against them

There is no "natural" backlash. Nature does not command a backlash, people do and must take responsibility. And why should there be any backlash against Jews who want to be Jewish? What you just wrote is simple proof of your anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein

Nature does provide a natural backlash. In terms of the human body, the immune response is to sweat, develop fever, cough, running nose, diarrhea. All to eject the foreign material and regain homoestatis.

If we understand that the human body is made up of numerous organs organized together and that those organs are made up of billions of cells organized together and that those cells are made up of trillions of atoms organized together that it is highly logical that we can consider our society as just a higher and more complex organism. As such, it too would face parasites, etc. and have it's own auto-immune system. That is the backlash.

Now as to why would their be a backlash against people being Jews? In theory, there shouldn't be. But in practice, Jews make it as such. They consider every Christian dangerous, they see Hitler behind every manhole, they worry about any country they live in being homogenous thus they push to remove religion from that country and open the borders. They retain the exclusivity of their community as being "special" while demanding the right to enter Gentile communities. In other words, it stinks of foul play and is hypocritical. I have seen countless examples of this. And when I've called Jews on it, they come back with the following:

(1) Hey we are minority. We have to protect ourselves!

(2) You are an anti-semite, racist, bigot, etc.

(3) We have to protect against another Holocaust

(4) Some combination of all of the above.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

| Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC) on Gentiles. It's quite infantile. And as far as the definition of a Jew goes, simply refer to the Halakah - it has nothing to do with RELIGION is you have the BLOOD of a Jewish Mother. That makes it RACE

You still do not understand race. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

not RELIGION.

I don't think you understand religion either. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've read the Halkah, I've read commentary on it by leading Jews. I subscribe to all the leading Jewish publications and I have discussed this with Jews themselves. And the honest Jews who understand Judaism will readily admit this and I respect them immensely for this. It is normally the Reform Jews and the secular Jews that deny the written word.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

However, their is the second option of conversion. Conversion, does not utilize BLOOD to become a JEW but actual adherance to the RELIGION. So it is a pseudo-race.

--Titus70AD 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: In fact, all of these Jews were caught in a catch-22: if they declared themselves a nation, then some people might think that they could not possibly be loyal Frenchman or Germans. In fact, during the time of Napolean Jews in France declared Judaism a religion, not a nation for precisely this reason.

Titus' Comment: The answer to all of this is simple! Assimilate culturally and socially! You can still define who is a Jew via the Halakah, but again the main component, the component that the vast majority of Jews use to be categorized a Jew is BLOOD based, be being born of a Jewish mother.

You cannot force us to do this, nor can you penalize us, and why you should even care is just beyond me. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Look this is my point. In the US, this country was formed on liberty and free will. I and anyone has the right to free association or disassociation. If I don't want to do business with you, etc. because of your beliefs that's my right (now that has been destroyed by illegal use of the Interstate Comm. Clause but that's a whole other thread).

You don't have to assimilate, you are right. But don't be surprised when the native population and those that have assimilated look at you with a jaundiced eye as they will should. In days past, such refusal to assimilate would be met individually. Each gentile would decide whether to hire the non-assimilator, let them into the school, do biz with them, etc. and that is just as under liberty I can't FORCE you legally to assimilate but at the same time you can't force me to accept you if you refuse to do so. It's a two-way road.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And even if Jews are not calling themselves a "Nation" they are darn well thinking that which is EXACTLY why their loyalties are questioned. One only has to look at Jewish American traitors like Jonathon Pollard (who most Jews want freed!), Rosebergs and scores of others.

The Rosenbergs were not motivated by any Jewish identity. Pollard is one person, and he went to jail for his crimes. By the way, you do know that most Americans convicted of treason or spying are gentiles, don't you? In any event, screw your anti-Semitic ranting. Enough Jews died for their country (the USA) in the Civil War, in World War I, in World War II, in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq that no one has any right to even suggest a lack of loyalty on the Jewish People Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As far the Rosenbergs go they were motivated by Jewish identity as they were COMMUNISTS. It is well documented that the Communist revolution in Russia was primarily led by Jews from Lenin on down. Now you can argue that Jews had to do something to stop the various pogroms or pale of settlement but you can't deny the overwhelming Jewish involvement in russian and world communism. The Rosenbergs were Jews and as would be expected communists. There are tons of material on this and the movement of Communism to the US that came in the with mass Russian-Jew emigration in the 1900's.

Now Pollard did go to jail but World Jewry is still rallying for his release!

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ If that isn't scary and seditious, I don't know what is.

Now, of course, mostly Gentiles would be convicted of spying since 97.5% of the population of the US is Gentiles. Jews are but 2.5%. But on a percentage basis, Jewish Spies, Communists (ie. Red Diaper Babies) and Seditious Individuals (e.g, Emma Goldberg) far outweight patriots.

Martin Sobell, Harry Magdoff, Nathan Silvermaster, Yakov Golos (a Jew and the chief organizer of espionage activities through the American communist party (a Jew group). Gregory Kheifetz, (one of main organizers of the American Communist Party)

Theodore Hall (Jewish: original last name Holtzberg), worked on the nuclear bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and was the only American scientist known to have given the Soviet Union details on the design of an atom bomb. Geez, some patriot.

Armand Hammer. Even Oppenheimer, a Jew, turned out to be a traitor.

The only known U.S. Congressman to have spied (beginning in 1937) for the Russians was also Jewish, Samuel Dickstein, for fifteen years a Democratic Congressman from New York.

Ten of the nineteen people subpoenaed by HUAC were Jewish, as were six of the ten who were indicted by the committee.

Marilyn Monroe's Jewish psychoanalyst, Ralph Greenson, was secretly an agent for the communist Comintern. (Monroe had a series of romantic affairs with the president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, and innocently shared information she gleaned from him with Greenson).

In later years, the only known Soviet spy to have penetrated the CIA (1973-77), described "in intelligence circles ... as one of the most important spies in United States history" was Karl Koecher. He was a Jew.

The director of the atomic bomb program was also Jewish, J. Robert Oppenheimer. "I had had a continuing, smoldering fury about the treatment of the Jews in Germany," he once said.The chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, for that matter, in that era was also Jewish, David Lilienthal. "The most vital information for developing the first atomic bomb," says former top KGB official Pavel Sudoplatov, "came from scientists designing the American atomic bomb at Los Alamos, New Mexico -- Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard." 

(Of the three, Fermi was not Jewish, but his wife was).

Please don't get me wrong. There are MANY good and Patriotic Jews. Ayn Rand is one of my favorites. Barry Goldwater - 100% Jewish and he would have had my vote if I were of age.

Anyway, if you refer to the survey I presented, administered by a respectable Jewish group you'll see. I guarantee if you did the same one with Italian-Americans, French-Americans, German-Americans, even Vietnamese-Americans as well that were a generation or two removed from their homeland/ancestoral land they would have ZERO loyalty. It is such a phenomena that Jews are the only group of immigrants so far removed from the homeland but still look to it with such interest and loyalty.

I take it you have never been in New York on St. Patrick's Day. Or been in a neighborhood like mine where every house has cable TV and a satellite dish. Why? So they can watch Italian TV. Gzuckier 20:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dual Loyalties cannot be tolerated. Even the New Testament understands that. "No one can serve two masters..." Matthew 6.24

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Surveys and polls of Jews by fellow Jews tells the same story:

AJC Publication - 2002 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion by the Jewish: American Jewish Committee

http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=734&pid=1597

These results are FRIGTHENING to the US and other nations that host Jews.

8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew."

   Agree 	73
   Disagree 	26
   Not sure 	1

10. Looking ahead 3 to 5 years, do you see Jews in Israel and Jews in the United States becoming closer, drifting apart, or neither?

   Becoming closer 	38
   Drifting apart 	8
   Neither 	53
   Not sure 	2

21. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Regardless of their individual views on the peace negotiations with the Arabs, American Jews should support the policies of the duly elected government of Israel."

   Agree 	61
   Disagree 	36
   Not sure 	4

Number 21 verges on sedition.

--Titus70AD 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: This is one reason that the Dreyfus affair was so shocking — despite giving up any national aspirations and declaring their loyalty to France more than 80 years earlier, man others simply could not believe that a Jew could be a loyal Frenchman. Of course, Dreyfus remained a loyal Frenchman to the end — but this is when Theodor Herzl decided that no matter what Jews swore, Jews were a nation, and

Titus' comment: Please see above related to Jewish spies and split Jewish loyalties that always point to Israel to see why not only every American but all host nations must question Jewish loyalties.

Now, surely you will see that as "anti-semitism" but I and any rational person sees it as a defense mechanism that was triggered by the often disloyal and always "hearts in Israel" mentality of Jews.

You sure like digging your grave even deeper, don't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not digging any grave but a grave for Jewish false accusations of "anti-semitism" to cover up their often mixed loyalties and Christophic attacks against Gentiles.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So what is it with Jews? On the one hand they bewailed the loss of Israel for 1,935 years and went into diaspora. Now they have a homeland and they still all want to live in New York and the rest of America with some remaining in Europe. Okay, so if you want to stay, how about finally assimilating!

What do you mean by assimilating? American Jews have fought and died for their country; they have served their government; they have added to our culture on the stage, screen, in music and art. What on earth have YOU ever done for my country? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I served in the US Marine corp. I own a successful high-tech biz and provide jobs and pay taxes. My ancestors both fought and/or gave their lives in Korea, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, Spanish-American war and the Civil War. We have not a traitor nor a Communist amongst us, which is much, much more than most Jews can say since so many grew up with hatred for the US/Christians and affinity for Communism. Not all Jews, of course but primarily Russian Jew emigres who came to the US after the failed Jewish 1905 Commie Revolution in Russia after their successful 1917 repeat.

I serve no other country. I have no other loyalty but to America. I hold no other citizenship.

My country trumps, my ancestors, my ancestoral homeland, the Pope, you name it. They are nothing compared to my country.

--Titus70AD 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus, there is no hope. The Jews are going to destroy your world as you know it. Face it. JFW | T@lk 00:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

JFW,

Well, I think you should have used the past tense. "Have". As in "have" destroyed. Lest anyone WONDER who the hell we have open borders, terrorists within our country (Muslims) seeking to kill us and yet we can't racially profile or defend ourselves by re-opening the Manzanar internment camp in Lone Pine or Tule Lake internment camps from WWII, one need only look at who was behind this.

Thanks guys, way to go! But what do you care. You'll just flit over to the next country like you always do as this one sinks - England, France, Spain, Russia. No loyalty so why should you care.

Now can we get back to discussing 'anti-semitism'?

--Titus70AD 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's about time for Titus to head on back to Stormfront. Titus, this isn't a discussion board. It's not like your opinion that Jews are subverting America is not welcome here... wait, that's exactly what it's like. Please keep your discussion on the topic of improving the article. Rhobite 01:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite,

My opinions were exactly on improving this article but between all your Gentile-baiting with "Stormfront" comments and Rubestein Christophobic remarks occasionally we get detoured.

--Titus70AD 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This entire discussion is an obscene waste of time. Nowhere in the entire thing did anyone provided an answer to Sirk's question. Therefore, I'll have to do so now: "Jew is a noun, Jewish is an adjective". Look. Wasn't that easy? Tomer ^TALK 02:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

TShilo12,

I think you are incorrect. "Jew" can function as a noun, an adjective or a verb.

(a) Verb: "That customer enjoys trying to JEW down the shopkeepers."

JEW down as in aggressively seek a discount. Actually this may be a compound, I'll have to think about that.

(b) Adjective: This JEW boy is one of the best players on our chess team.

(c) Noun: He is one wily JEW and a wonder to behold - but check your wallet!

So Jew can function as noun, verb and adjective. I would imagine Jewish would also be the adjectival form but also would be synonymous with Judaic.

--Titus70AD 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Or a pronoun:

Jew talkin' to me? Jes jew are.

Or a conjunction:

There is no class tonight, jew to the inclement weather.

Or a proper noun:

Jewdy, Jewdy, Jewdy!

Gzuckier 19:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw an earlier discussion on the inappropriateness of including information or discussions on Kevin MacDonald's books and articles.

The anti- argument was that (a) MacDonald was writing outside of his field and (b) his work had been discredited or not annointed by high ranking Jews in acadamia/the media.

In regard to (a) and MacDonald's field, just what exactly must one's field be to write about Jews and/or anti-semitism? Must one be a Rabbi? Must one be a Jew in both the racial and religious sense or what?

This very notion that you "must be in your field" less your work is crap shows complete bias and idiocy on those that posit such a doltish concept.

All that should matter is whether the work stands on its own. Take for instance, the Father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel. He was NOT trained in Genetics, he invented the field! In fact, he was a monk for Christ's sake not a scientist. And I can continue with other who worked outside of their field but that fact did not make their inventions or contributions any less than if they had Phd's in their fields.

Examples include Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, and Nikola Tesla. Tesla was even kicked out of University in Austria for his "stupid ideas" and then went on to invent and make possible what we know of as polyphase electricity. He invented everything from the first hydroelectric generator to a transformer, meters, remote controls and the radio.

Following this "logic" of Tesla or Mendel being outside of their field would not mean their inventions or contributions to science or mankind were any less.

Some people will make great contributions in spite of not having "studied in that particular field" and most others will make little contributions although "holding Phds and years of study in that field" because they will simply rehash old ideas and toe the party line, not look to think out of the box or tell the truth.

On this subject it's also amazing how Jew-Leftist and Linguist Nom Chomsky is not a Political Scientist but writes all manner of materials on this subject and is highly quoted and respected by a great many Jews including the eminent, Jewish owned New York Times.

Like here, where he writes in the Times, against Israel's border fence. [5] Those wily Jews, covering both sides of the argument, so they can't lose. I can't find anywhere else where he is being quoted and respected by the NYTimes. Gzuckier 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In regards to (b) that Mr. MacDonald is getting poor reviews on his works, well, should I dare say that, of course he would since the majority of his reviewers have been Jews or Jewesses who make it very clear with their disjointed and often emotional critiques are simply screaming anti-semitism!

Here are few of these laughable critiques - it's not laughable they got published though. That's actually an embarassment to the author and publication.

This is from a Jewess who just embarasses herself and makes MacDonald's very case: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34794

MacDonald's response to the Jewess: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-mercer.html

The Famous/Infamous Slate "Debates" by another Jewess: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/slate-tooby.html

In every field, a person who challenges the status quo or power structure is vilified. This has happened from Galileo to Copernicus versus the Ptolemaic view of the Universe to Martin Luther challenging the Catholic Church. In this case, Mr MacDonald is challenging a highly organized and wealthy elite called Jews. They hold most positions of power or influence with newspapers (NYT, LA Times, SF Chronicle, etc.), media, and book publishers. MacDonald is NOT going to get a GOOD review let alone a FAIR review no matter how good his works are.

As Voltaire said, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

In MacDonald's case, "It is dangerous to be right when World Jewry is wrong."

He is fighting Religious Dogma, just as one of my college professors did almost 20 years ago when he dared to question who many really died in the Holocaust. A very legitimate question for a European History Professor specializing in WWII. But somehow he wasn't "qualified" to ask that and it was only made worse that he was Gentile.

MacDonald is further discredited by Jews who say, "Hey, hey, all the Neo-Nazis read MacDonalds books therefore they must be bad". So if Ted Nugent, who doesn't take any drugs has an audience that primarily takes drugs, this means Mr. Nugent is a drug user or addict himself? This is jackassical and just so par for the course where Jews are concerned.

It's why I loved watching Seinfeld so much and still love Woody Allen today. You can see the neurotic, paranoid Jewish mind at work.

I have yet to read one critique of MacDonalds that is professional and logical. Have you? If so point me to them, because I'd love to read them.

So why are MacDonald's books and works not appropriate here? Must he hold a Avram G. Goldstein the VI endowment at Harvard to be "legitimate"? Must he be published by some Jew owned press? Must he get a "good" review from the Jew owned New York Times? Can MacDonald ever get a fair chance? Can any Gentile when Jews have found the chokepoint for all information flows?

--Titus70AD 03:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree that MacDonald is, so far as I know, a credible academic. However I should note that his theories are already on wikipedia, which is more than I can say about other credible theories about antisemitism. Sirkumsize 03:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sirkumsize,

I found the earlier debate on circumcision fascinating. For Jews, seems to be based on a convenant between God and Jews during Abraham's time (Genesis 17: 10-14).

But Christians shouldn't be doing this ritual since Jesus ushered in the New Covenant (assuming you believe in Jesus) which voided the Old Testament and its practices, at least for the new so-called Christians (many of which were, of course, Jews).

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." Galatians 5:1-6

So why do Christians get circumcized? Actually throughout the world most don't. Historically it seems that many thought in the 19th century or so that it would stop "onanism" - that is masturbation. Well, I'm circumcized and it sure the hell hasn't stopped me.

I've always wondered, however, if Jews didn't also want others to get circumsized, because if only Jews did this, it would simply be a matter of making one drop their drawers (for men only of course) to determine if they were Jew or Gentile. But if you could sucker Christians into doing it, you could as a Jew, not only keep your very important binding ritual of pain and blood but also HIDE among all the Gentiles that were doing it, too.

Anyway, I think Jews can keep cutting their foreskins but for Gentiles why? IMHO, it's barbaric and torture for new borns.

Try this source for circumcision info:

Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, (1985), by Rosemary Romberg. Published by Bergin & Garvey, S. Hadley, MA.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0897890744/qid=1122540217/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1403675-6268922?v=glance&s=books

--Titus70AD 08:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus, I wondered what your view was on that issue. As for statement that Jews can keep cutting while for gentiles its barbaric torture is the heart of the issue. Why should it be any different for Jews and Gentiles? Isn't it possible that its actually more acceptible to hate Jews than critize circumcision? Isn't it possible that circumcision could be an unconscious source of hatred of Jews? The book I'm reading seems to indicate that Freud himself wrote about this possibility, saying that antisemitism was a result of the unconscious equation between circumcision and castration. Personally I think that Freud may have suffered from cultural myopia, believing that the mutilation of the penis was not in and of itself enough to justify antisemitism, so came up with the idea of equating it with a worse form of mutilation as a way of explaining it. Anyways when I finish the book I will have more to say on the subject. Sorry that this debate is so unpopular here. Sirkumsize 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

While not wanting to feed any trolls, Titus might benefit from this explanation: that the accusation of Jewish American "disloyalty" or "sedition" is in reflective proportion to accusations of anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish tendencies —they go hand in hand, and they're equally ignorant. -St|eve 18:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Stervertigo,

Are you interested in opinion or facts wrought from empirics? It is a documented fact about Split Jewish loyalty between their home country and Israel. I didn't make these facts up, but pulled from the JEWS' own survery and polls.

If you look at any similar poll of say Italian-Americans or French-Americans or German-Americans, you'll find they have ZERO interest or loyalty to their ancestoral lands!

And this is for people who have been removed from this lands for decades. We aren't talking first generation immigrants. But Jews STILL have split loyalty to Israel. You can't argue this unless you are saying that Jews lied on the poll taken by the Jewish organizations!

In addition, how many Franco-Ams, German-Ame, etc. hold dual citizenship? And more importantly, I just can't go to France and say, "I have french blood, give me citizenship!" Yet ALL JEWS have this ability if they go to Israel. As long as they have Jew blood from a grandfather. And it doesn't even matter if they are a murderer and running from the law! If you doubt that then educate yourself on the grotestque and heinous Maryland Murder at the hands of Jew Samuel Sheinbein who killed a Gentile and fled to Israel where he was IMMEDIATELY given citizenship and where the JEWS refused to extradite him back to the US. Those are facts. And you know what, the US citizenry were OUTRAGED as they should be. Yet, you would consider that very outrage no matter how justified to be "anti-semitism".

A Jew can do no wrong. A Jew's bowel movements never stink. It's always a Gentile's fault.

Lastly, you must surely be aware that the US Dept of Defense is particularly nervous about Jews handling sensitive materials because of their split loyalties to Israel propensity to give National Secrets to either Israel or Russia.

These are all documented facts. They cannot be refuted. And since they are true they can't be anti-semitic. However, the acts by these Jews against Gentiles can be see as a combination of anti-American, perhaps anti-Anglo, etc.

--Titus70AD 20:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia is also not a battleground . I don't see any edits being proposed here on the basis of external accepted research. What exactly are we discussing that's relevant to editing the article under accepted practise? Buffyg 21:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I archived some past discussion (keeping ongoing ones, as far as I can tell). I also moved the ongoing Titus material to the subsection above, so that on-topic discussion about the article is clear. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• When can we get rid of the off-topic crap completely? I don't see how we need case studies in anti-semitism on the talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to wait until people don't want to engage in off-topic debate, since I wouldn't want to censor ongoing debate, no matter how useless. I find the whole thing a bit disheartening, however, as over the last couple days I have spent a lot of time overhauling the article, adding images, etc., and yet the only discussion we have had recently has been the above. Sigh. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Well, you've been doing a good job with the overhauling. And I'm not suggesting censorship, I don't think; but this page is for discussing the Anti-Semitism article; it's not a forum for discussing people's ideas about anti-semitism (or their peculiar ideas about Jews). 99% of the stuff that's been posted in the last week or so simply don't belong on an article talk page; they belong on a forum somewhere. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Crazy people always take over a conversation. It's unavoidable. Gzuckier 20:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)