How Jewish is the war against Russia?

[Invisible Man]

Nobody even mentioned the word "anti-semite".

I know, I know. I was bringing up previous conversations I've had. But that's why my radar is up when people throw around the words semite and semitic, especially when they try to use them as ethnic categories based on DNA. Notice that the article you linked didn't use either word.

and even in your definition it makes direct reference to the words "Jews" and "Jewish", which according to MANY Jews is something which they define by their bloodline and DNA.

Exactly, including the Ashkhenazi Jews discussed in the article you linked. They are Jewish. They define this at least partly by their bloodline and DNA, including, according to that article, DNA that comes from some portion of their maternal ancestors who lived in Italy. Thus, the attempt to distinguish those Italian Semitic (i.e. Jewish) ancestors from Semitic (i.e. Jewish) ancestors didn't really work.

[pcosmar]

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/medieval/khazars.html

[Anti-Neocon]

I know, I know. I was bringing up previous conversations I've had. But that's why my radar is up when people throw around the words semite and semitic, especially when they try to use them as ethnic categories based on DNA. Notice that the article you linked didn't use either word.

They claim that land belongs to them because of this Middle Eastern semitic ancestry. This is the root of the ethnonationalist Zionist movement. They are mostly not descended from the people they use to lay claim upon this land.

Exactly, including the Ashkhenazi Jews discussed in the article you linked. They are Jewish. They define this at least partly by their bloodline and DNA, including, according to that article, DNA that comes from some portion of their maternal ancestors who lived in Italy. Thus, the attempt to distinguish those Italian Semitic (i.e. Jewish) ancestors from Semitic (i.e. Jewish) ancestors didn't really work.

It definitely works. They manipulate Christians using claims of being the descendants of the tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible. They base a lot of racist/supremacist/chosenite beliefs in the Torah, further elaborated upon in the Talmud.

Exposing the fake news is essential, whether you say it's that they are "mainly not Semitic" or "mainly not Middle Eastern" or "mainly not the sons of Shem" or "mainly not descendants of the Jews in the Bible".

You can play word games all you like by honing in on the word "Semitic" but as I mentioned in my previous post, you cannot escape:

.
The real rhetorical trick continues to be:
When Jews say racist, supremacist stuff, it's religion.
When people oppose their racist, supremacist stuff, it's race or Nazi-adjacent.
When Jews hatefully attack Christians or Muslims, it's religion.

This enables Jews to be hypocritically racist and supremacist while crying foul at gentiles with similar ideologies.

Not sure why you're doing their work for them but whatever...

[Invisible Man]

It definitely works. They manipulate Christians using claims of being the descendants of the tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible. They base a lot of racist/supremacist/chosenite beliefs in the Torah, further elaborated upon in the Talmud.

Both the Bible and the Talmud allow for people of other ancestries to become part of the nation of Israel, that is to become part of that ethnicity, and then to have descendants who will be born as part of that nation/ethnicity with whatever DNA they happen to have being de facto Israelite DNA.

And the article you linked did not claim that anyone at all was "mainly not Semitic" or "mainly not Middle Eastern" or "mainly not the sons of Shem" or "mainly not descendants of the Jews in the Bible". In fact, the article said:

One way to reconcile his team's findings with those of other researchers, he says, is to assume that the founders of the male Ashkenazi lineages were indeed originally from the Middle East, but that the maternal line arose in Europe much earlier. The European women then converted to Judaism after male Jews moved into the continent, establishing the Ashkenazi lineages that we see today. That suggestion fits with the contention of some historians that many women converted to Judaism across Mediterranean Europe during the so-called Hellenistic period between about 300 B.C.E. and 30 B.C.E.

[Anti-Neocon]

Both the Bible and the Talmud allow for people of other ancestries to become part of the nation of Israel, that is to become part of that ethnicity, and then to have descendants who will be born as part of that nation/ethnicity with whatever DNA they happen to have being de facto Israelite DNA.

And the article you linked did not claim that anyone at all was "mainly not Semitic" or "mainly not Middle Eastern" or "mainly not the sons of Shem" or "mainly not descendants of the Jews in the Bible". In fact, the article said:

Lol "one way to reconcile" aka "the best mental gymnastics we can provide".

The article would never make those claims because they are just sharing their findings and obviously if they said anything like what I said they would be labelled as anti-Semitic due to the control over the narrative that Jews currently have.

That they accept/continue to accept proselytes has no bearing on the manipulation tactics I detailed.

[Invisible Man]

Lol "one way to reconcile" aka "the best mental gymnastics we can provide".

The article would never make those claims because they are just sharing their findings and obviously if they said anything like what I said they would be labelled as anti-Semitic due to the control over the narrative that Jews currently have.

Then, given that the article doesn't support the claims you made, why did you cite it as support for those claims?

That they accept/continue to accept proselytes has no bearing on the manipulation tactics I detailed.

It has bearing on the claims you made, because it means that when you refer to "the Jews in the Bible," you are referring to a diverse group of people with DNA from various ancestries, going back to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

[Ender]

That article refers to their genetic heritage. So how would that have anything at all to do with being Semitic or not? A search of that article for the word "Semitic" brings up zero hits. The word Semitic can refer to one of two things: a family of languages, and Jewishness. To be Jewish is to be Semitic, regardless of DNA.

Technically most Arabs are also Semitic.

[pcosmar]

Then, given that the article doesn't support the claims you made, why did you cite it as support for those claims?



It has bearing on the claims you made, because it means that when you refer to "the Jews in the Bible," you are referring to a diverse group of people with DNA from various ancestries, going back to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

OK,, for Clarity..
I make a distinction between "Descendants of Abraham" and those who have joined them.or the religions of men that have grown around them.
I make a Hardcore distinction between Zionism and Judaism,,as they are incompatible and opposite.

There are True Jews and False Jews according to the book I follow..

And My King is the King of the Jews.

[Invisible Man]

Technically most Arabs are also Semitic.

You mean because Arabic is a Semitic language?

If you mean it in a sense of some kind of genetically defined race of people tracing their ancestry back to Noah's son Shem, then it's not a real thing. No more than there is such a thing as a Japhethite race or Hamite race.

[Invisible Man]

OK,, for Clarity..
I make a distinction between "Descendants of Abraham" and those who have joined them.or the religions of men that have grown around them.

Do you have some means available to you to figure out who in the world is a descendant of Abraham? Because the number of people in the world who can trace their genealogies back that far is zero.

And do you draw similar distinctions with all the other ethnicities of the world, that over centuries have all gone through constant change through interaction with one another with some people being born into them and other people joining and leaving them?

[Brian4Liberty]

Kind of pointless to argue the historical accuracy and biblical significance of terms that were relatively recently invented by some scientists trying to categorize things. Of course politics today is far too often a battle of words, definitions and redefinitions, so feel free to continue...next up, can a man get pregnant, and what is a woman?

Semite, name given in the 19th century to a member of any people who speak one of the Semitic languages, a family of languages spoken primarily in parts of western Asia and Africa. The term therefore came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians (including the Amhara and the Tigrayans), and Aramaean tribes. Although Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking populations, there remains no archaeological or scientific evidence of a common Semitic people.

First used in the 1770s by members of the Göttingen School of History, this biblical terminology for race was derived from Shem (Hebrew: שֵׁם), one of the three sons of Noah in the Book of Genesis,[9] together with the parallel terms Hamites and Japhetites.

[Anti-Neocon]

Then, given that the article doesn't support the claims you made, why did you cite it as support for those claims?



It has bearing on the claims you made, because it means that when you refer to "the Jews in the Bible," you are referring to a diverse group of people with DNA from various ancestries, going back to Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

They weren't a very "diverse group of people" just because they had a backdoor for a few proselytes to get in, lol.

The article does support the claim I made by acting as a premise for modern Ashkenazi Jews being mostly of non-Middle Eastern descent. There, I took the word "Semitic" out. You happy now? Honestly if you're just going to focus on nitpicking a particular word, you could spend similar energy digging apart the indoctrination propaganda used by Zionists.

What is your opinion on Zionism and Israel?

[Invisible Man]

They weren't a very "diverse group of people" just because they had a backdoor for a few proselytes to get in, lol.

That's not the only reason they were a diverse group of people. It's just one of many. Their various migrations, conquests, dispersions, and such were also big contributing factors.

The article does support the claim I made by acting as a premise for modern Ashkenazi Jews being mostly of non-Middle Eastern descent. There, I took the word "Semitic" out. You happy now?

The problem is, rather than actually saying that, the article explicitly undermines that claim in a quote I already showed you And when I pointed out that it does, you discounted that part of the article.

What is your opinion on Zionism and Israel?

To the extent that zionism is statist, I oppose it, as I oppose statism more generally. But Jews have as much right to live in modern Israel as anyone else does. And if millions of them believe that they should move there and dominate that territory, kind of like what libertarians are doing in New Hampshire, more power to them. I don't believe that the modern nation state of Israel should be equated with biblical Israel or is some special country with special rights and privileges.

[Invisible Man]

Kind of pointless to argue the historical accuracy and biblical significance of terms that were relatively recently invented by some scientists trying to categorize things. Of course politics today is far too often a battle of words, definitions and redefinitions, so feel free to continue...next up, can a man get pregnant, and what is a woman?

Look at the next sentence that you cut off right at the end of your first quote:

Because Semitic-speaking peoples do not share any traits aside from language, use of the term “Semite” to refer to the broad range of Semitic-speaking peoples has fallen out of favour.

And then notice this line right at the beginning of the article you got your second quote from:

The terminology is now largely obsolete outside the grouping "Semitic languages" in linguistics.

What you've demonstrated with your quotes is that those here talking about some genetically defined Semitic race are trying to revive a theory from centuries ago that nobody except people with agendas related to Jewishness believes anymore.

[Snowball]

They overthrew a duly-elected native government and replaced the leadership with all Jews, so, I think that's pretty damn obvious.

[Brian4Liberty]

Look at the next sentence that you cut off right at the end of your first quote:


And then notice this line right at the beginning of the article you got your second quote from:


What you've demonstrated with your quotes is that those here talking about some genetically defined Semitic race are trying to revive a theory from centuries ago that nobody except people with agendas related to Jewishness believes anymore.

Eh, everyone has their agenda. Some want to take the word literally from it's origin, which is a categorization based on the name Shem, which may have no valid basis other than being a language categorization, and read other things into it, and some want to redefine and reduce it to the point that it is a simply part of a smear phrase (anti-Semitism) to be used against people rather liberally.

[pcosmar]

Do you have some means available to you to figure out who in the world is a descendant of Abraham? Because the number of people in the world who can trace their genealogies back that far is zero.

And do you draw similar distinctions with all the other ethnicities of the world, that over centuries have all gone through constant change through interaction with one another with some people being born into them and other people joining and leaving them?

No,, I ignore such distractions,,until they become relevant on some level..

In this Case.. War in the Khazar territories,,by people with old bloodline hatreds (promoted by instigators)

And the thread was questioning Connections.. I only showed some connections.

[jmdrake]

The word we were discussing when I said what you quoted was the word semitic, not semite. Someone else quoted that definition above. But here's the source I had checked before posting what I did.



https://www.dictionary.com/browse/semitic


This is an old rhetorical trick that antisemites love to use. They chain together a string of definitions to say they're not antisemites, because, according to them, an anti-semite is someone who hates semites, and Arabs are semites, and they love Arabs, and besides most Jews aren't semites anyway because they're supposedly descended from Khazars or something so hating them wouldn't make someone an antisemite anyway, and voila.

Never mind that the actual definition of the word antisemite strictly means hatred of Jews, and has nothing to do with ancestry, and that even using the other words in their chain, they have to cherry pick definitions in order to make it work, hoping nobody actually looks up the words they use.

That's a typical trick of Zionists, you know, the Jews that supported Hitler? Change the definition of the word so that only use can use it. Gay no longer means "happy." Woman no longer means adult female human with XX chromosomes. Semite no longer means semite. From Webster's definition of semetic.

Definition of Semitic (Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic
2: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Semites
3: JEWISH

So from definition 2, "semetic" includes everyone that falls under "semite" which includes Jews and Arabs and others. From your warped definition of semite, the 10 tribes of Israel that broke off after Solomon's apostasy and later became the Samaritans wouldn't count as "semites" because they aren't Jews and we all know "The Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." Pure lunacy.

[jmdrake]

Kind of pointless to argue the historical accuracy and biblical significance of terms that were relatively recently invented by some scientists trying to categorize things. Of course politics today is far too often a battle of words, definitions and redefinitions, so feel free to continue...next up, can a man get pregnant, and what is a woman?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again

[jmdrake]

Do you have some means available to you to figure out who in the world is a descendant of Abraham? Because the number of people in the world who can trace their genealogies back that far is zero.

In that case there is no such thing as a Jew by birth. Because their whole claim is being descendants of Abraham. But guess what? Jews also view Arabs as descendants of Abraham. And genetic studies have show a subset of Ethiopians to be Jews. I am not even sure what you are trying to argue because you're not making any sense whatsoever.

[Ender]

You mean because Arabic is a Semitic language?

If you mean it in a sense of some kind of genetically defined race of people tracing their ancestry back to Noah's son Shem, then it's not a real thing. No more than there is such a thing as a Japhethite race or Hamite race.

The definition of Semite means people from the ME.

[pcosmar]

You mean because Arabic is a Semitic language?

If you mean it in a sense of some kind of genetically defined race of people tracing their ancestry back to Noah's son Shem, then it's not a real thing. No more than there is such a thing as a Japhethite race or Hamite race.

No.. the Arab people are direct decedents of Abraham.. Ishmael is Abraham's other son.

and with a blessing from God as well..

you should read the story.

[Brian4Liberty]

The definition of Semite means people from the ME.

An anti-Semite would say!

[unknown]

Khazar War,, not Jewish.

Zionist war, not Khazar.

[unknown]

Did you read the OP article?

I did not.

I usually base my opinions on thread titles and article headlines.

[unknown]

The definition of Semite means people from the ME.

Doesnt it refer to people who write from right to left?

I'm not trying to be funny.

[Anti-Neocon]

That's not the only reason they were a diverse group of people. It's just one of many. Their various migrations, conquests, dispersions, and such were also big contributing factors.

Are we talking about diverse from within the Middle East, or diverse including European ancestry? The context is important, and I don't believe your premise follows through to your inference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people

The problem is, rather than actually saying that, the article explicitly undermines that claim in a quote I already showed you And when I pointed out that it does, you discounted that part of the article.

To you, "explicitly undermining" is the quotation of one person using mental gymnastics to try to protect his mythology.

To the extent that zionism is statist, I oppose it, as I oppose statism more generally. But Jews have as much right to live in modern Israel as anyone else does. And if millions of them believe that they should move there and dominate that territory, kind of like what libertarians are doing in New Hampshire, more power to them. I don't believe that the modern nation state of Israel should be equated with biblical Israel or is some special country with special rights and privileges.

How about to the degree that modern Zionism is expansionist?

In general I find it hard to demand that people give back land which their long-dead ancestors generally took, but some of it was quite a bit more recent and the nutjobs don't want to stop.

[Anti-Neocon]

Doesnt it refer to people who write from right to left?

I'm not trying to be funny.

Wouldn't those be Setimes?

[Invisible Man]

Are we talking about diverse from within the Middle East, or diverse including European ancestry? The context is important, and I don't believe your premise follows through to your inference.

Both, especially by the time of the New Testament.

[Invisible Man]

To you, "explicitly undermining" is the quotation of one person using mental gymnastics to try to protect his mythology.

That one person (Martin Richards) was the leader of the study that the whole article was about, and the main source for the article. If his view was mythology, then you have nothing left in the article on which to base your claims.