French mainstream in shock after poll puts French Far-Right in Lead

[Rogi]

What is with these racists? Can they really be so blind to it all?

[Philosopher]

Spin it however you want if that's what makes you feel all tingly inside, but at the end of the day, the progenitors of that faith, were, according to your own definitions, 'non-whites'. You are a hypocrite that preaches this faith on the one hand but rejects the descendants of its progenitors on the other.

The progenitors of that faith were non-European Semites whose complexion consisted of white Mediterranean features. But from a spiritual aspect, this matters nothing, since in Christ race or sex is not an issue.

I fail to see any logic in your comments. What we are discussing is what is best for nation states. What we are discussing is immigration. What we are discussing is race and religion in nation states. We are not discussing race in Christianity. The ancient peoples who lived in South West Asia: Palestine, Syria, Lebanon; Persians, Armenians, who are Indo European peoples, were not “Arabs,” and certainly were not “Muslim,” like much of the Near East today.

The ancient people of that region lived in a Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization; the Arabs and Islam that came hundreds of years after the birth of Christianity has nothing to do with the original preachers of Christianity; and the modern day denizens of that region have nothing to do with the ancients, either. Compare white Iranians, remnants of the ancient Persians, with the swarthy skinned Iranians; there is a huge difference.

I don’t have a problem with people of South West Asian origin, but I do have a problem with these people [in particular, non-Christian and non-white] immigrating to Europe because they change the complexity of the host nation state. The ones that are white Mediterranean and are Christian, though not European, are a matter altogether different, because they could more easily assimilate in society; non-whites cannot; they are different; their skin color cannot be changed. Islam is not compatible with European values; it is a religion that teaches a different god, a different book, different morality, different customs, and a different salvation. Race is more than skin deep.

Give me a break, I grew up with plenty of Lebanese fellows, never have I heard of them say they are 'Phoenicians'. Again, you are hinting at this 'christian = white' garbage. Are you now identifying Lebanese Christians as 'whites'? What about their Lebanese Muslim neighbours, some of who look more 'white' than some of the Christians? Do you even know what point you're trying to make? Give clear purpose to your words.

Prior to the Arab invasions of the 6th and 7th century, the Lebanese people were, more or less, white Mediterranean, and closer to their European counterparts, esp. Southern Europeans, then after the invasion of the Arabs. There are still people in Lebanon who refuse to identify as Arab or Muslim; they see themselves as descendants of the ancient noble race of the Phoenicians.
Take a look at this:

From: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/le.html

Arab 95%, Armenian 4%, other 1%
note: many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab but rather as descendents of the ancient Canaanites and prefer to be called Phoenicians

.

And no, Christianity does not equal white; and white does not equal Christian. I have gone over this already a few times. A Lebanese person who is dark but Christian still remains dark because he is the byproduct of Arab invasions; and a white Lebanese person who is Muslim is still a Caucasian Mediterranean.

Or perhaps that is your racist interpretation. Where in the Bible does it say that "nations ought to be separated from one another" in the manner that you are suggesting, and where does God distinguish between 'white' and 'black', like you do?

It is not a “racist interpretation.” Racism has no part in Christianity. Based on your comments, I will have to conclude you are intellectually incapable of grasping the meaning on this issue. Naturally, I never wrote that God “distinguish[es] between ‘white’ and ‘black.’”

The nations of the earth were separated by God is a fact and the following passages prove that fact:

Noah had three sons: Japeth, the father of the Europeans, Shem, the father of the Semites, and Ham, the father of the Africans. And every other race is an admixture of these. After they were born and had families, this is what happens:

These are families of the sons of Noah, by their births, in their nations, and by these have the nations been parted in the earth after the deluge. Genesis 8.32

.

In other words, they divided up the world in continents.

And then this:

And Jehovah saith, Lo the people is one, and one pronunciation is to them all…Give help, let Us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion. Genesis 9.5-7

.

And then this:

Remember days of old—
Understand the years of many generations—
Ask thy father, and he doth tell thee;
Thine elders and they say to thee;
In the Most High causing nations to inherit,
In his separating Sons of Adam—
He setteth up the borders of the people
Deuteronomy 32.7-8

There are many more; when I have more time, if necessary, I will be more than happy to furnish.

What is the difference with Middle Eastern persons spreading a continuation of Abrahamic theology in Europe today? I doubt the ancients equated religion with race, as you do. To be frank, it's not that I entirely disagree with some of the points you're making, but your whole reasoning for making them is flawed. I too want Europe to remain a Christian majority continent, but I don't subscribe to these 'white', 'more white', etc theories you're trying to push forth, when I know Turks and Arabs that are more 'white' by skin colour than some Europeans. With each post you sound more and more like some Nazi, and that is not what Macedonians are about.

Abrahamic theology is a nebulous comment—it could mean three or more religions. We are discussing what is best for nation states; I am suggesting that a homogenous nation is best for a nation state. South West Asians who are Christian and White can assimilate in Europe more easily than their darker or Muslim counterparts. The fact remains that the ancient peoples were very tribal and ethnic centered.

The Jews, the so called people of the Book, were the most ethno centric people on the planet. They still are. They were and are forbidden to marry non-Jews, eat with non-Jews, and they view non-Jews with such contempt, that Gentiles were considered beasts of burden to the Jews. And this position is not among the Jews only; the Philistines held this view, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Italians, the Syrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and many more. They all had a “homogenous ethnic mentality” that wanted to preserve their people, their nation, their language, their culture, and their religion from foreigners. There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep one’s country a single race and a single religion. Macedonia for the Macedonians! Not for the Turks, Arabs, Syrians, Berbers, etc. This is what the French are saying! And they are right!

I’m glad you have the seen light. And, yes, I agree that some Arabs and Turks are more white than Europeans. I already wrote that. I like Turkish people; and I like Arab people. Some are hospitable and friendly. I hope their people prosper and grow. But Muslims and non-whites don’t assimilate in their new societies. So let them stay and prosper in their part of the world…

Stop it, seriously, I don't have to make you look like a stormfront trooper, you seem to revel in the role. Your whole post is riddled with racist overtones, it truly is embarrassing and pathetic. You can't even define what 'white' is, yet you include some people from Asia as 'more white' so it can fit into your own 'Christian' idea of Europe.

I already defined white. I already wrote that some regard Europeans, North Africans, and South West Asian people as Caucasian. And I wrote that in my definition, I see different classes of white. Broadly, all native Europeans are “white Indo Europeans.”

However, this can be further defined as: Nordic White, of Northern Europe, the Mediterranean White, of Southern Europe and (before the Arab and Muslim invasions) parts of South West Asia and North Africa; but today, because of the Arabs, the complexity of the matter has propounded significantly.

That is not an answer, so I will ask you again. What should Europe do with its 'non-white' Roma population? What about the 'white' but non-Christian Albanians and Bosnians, what to do with them? What are you suggesting we encourage them to do, migrate?

In regard to the former, Roma’s are already being expelled by France, Italy, and others, because they are not wanted. I say ship them out or fly them out. As for the Albanians and Bosnians, this is tricky, since there are complex historical and biological questions as to the origins of these people. Some of these people may very well be white Europeans who converted to Islam; if this is the case, then there is not much one can do; they are natives, if native. Ideally, however, we have already seen in the Balkans what happens when you mix Muslims and Christians. It doesn’t work. Introducing more Muslims will only lead to more problems. And when Macedonia becomes a Muslim Albanian state, if this should happen, like Kosovo has become, you too will see the problems of Islam in Europe—alas, too late.

What is with these racists? Can they really be so blind to it all?

I sometimes wonder whether this is a knee jerk reaction caused by a liberal education…

[Onur]

The ancient peoples who lived in South West Asia: Palestine, Syria, Lebanon; Persians, Armenians, who are Indo European peoples, were not “Arabs,” and certainly were not “Muslim,” like much of the Near East today.

The ancient people of that region lived in a Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization; the Arabs and Islam that came hundreds of years after the birth of Christianity has nothing to do with the original preachers of Christianity; and the modern day denizens of that region have nothing to do with the ancients, either. Compare white Iranians, remnants of the ancient Persians, with the swarthy skinned Iranians; there is a huge difference.

Prior to the Arab invasions of the 6th and 7th century, the Lebanese people were, more or less, white Mediterranean, and closer to their European counterparts, esp. Southern Europeans, then after the invasion of the Arabs. There are still people in Lebanon who refuse to identify as Arab or Muslim; they see themselves as descendants of the ancient noble race of the Phoenicians.

Mate, you sound more and more weird as you post new messages.

First of all, yes the ancient people in the middle-east was not muslim but they weren't christian either. Secondly, middle-east has been populated by Semitic and Persian speaking people for 1000s of years. There was no migration of muslims in 7th century. All the muslims(Arabs) in the middle-east today, was christians b4. They have been willingly converted. It`s very well documented that millions of christian middle-easterners converted to islam by few 1000 muslims in 7th century without a single war or any conflict.

Current muslim Arabs are very same people, the descendants of ancient ancient middle-easterners. Already, Arabic language formed in 3-4th century AD and it`s some kind of amalgam of Hebrew and Aramaic, nothing else. Only Turks migrated in to middle-east but that started to happen after 9th century and no one else beside Turks gone there.

Today`s Iranians are mostly same people as ancient Persians. They did mix with semitic people(Arabs) but it wasn't that high cuz Iranians created shiite muslim sect, few decades after Mohammad died and Iranians kinda separated with sunni Arabs since then and they usually don't intermarry with them. So, ancient Persians had same swarthy skin as today`s Iranian people. Maybe ancient Persians had even darker skin cuz 25% of today`s Iran are consisted with Azeri Turks.

It also doesn't matter what Lebanese or Syrian christians calls themselves. This doesn't change the fact that they are kinsmen of muslim Arabs and genetically so close to them. For example, genetic closeness of a christian Lebanese with muslim one is same as between you and your christian Macedonian neighbor, not more distant at all.


Also, you confused again with whiteness issue. In your previous messages, you were speaking like "christians are white, muslims are not". Now you speak like "Indo-European language speakers are white, semite muslims are not". For example, did you ever see an Armenian from Armenia or Turkey? I mean the ones who are not assimilated unlike the ones in Europe, USA. 9 out of 10 Armenians looks considerably darker, more swarthy than Turks. Armenians looks quite like Iranians or Kurds with mostly having black hair, not even brownish. So similar that you cannot distinguish them.

[Philosopher]

Mate, you sound more and more weird as you post new messages.

“Mate,” That maybe so, but at least I’m literate. I can’t write the same for you.

First of all, yes the ancient people in the middle-east was not muslim but they weren't christian either.

Considering Christianity began in 33AD (roughly), I would venture to say that before this time, the ancients were not Christian.

Secondly, middle-east has been populated by Semitic and Persian speaking people for 1000s of years.

Who are the Semites of the Middle East? Jews, Arabs, Aramites (Syrians). All descend from Shem; the Canaanites and Philistines, did not. Which means the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Lebanese, and the Berbers of North Africa were neither Semite nor Persian; the Persians and Babylonians were not Semites. So this leaves Palestine (modern day Israel), Syria, and Arabia (variously defined) as Semite lands.

There was no migration of muslims in 7th century. All the muslims(Arabs) in the middle-east today, was christians b4. They have been willingly converted. It`s very well documented that millions of christian middle-easterners converted to islam by few 1000 muslims in 7th century without a single war or any conflict.

Not true on any statement. First, there was an Arab and Muslim migration from Arabia toward the West, and in particular, South West Asia and North Africa, in the 7th and 8th centuries. Do you believe these people from Arabia went on vacation to North Africa and to the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea? Muslims conquered those lands. I’m not stating that the Arabs of Arabia replaced the existing non-Arabs and Semites of the Middle East; rather, that Muslims conquered and migrated the region of South West Asia and North Africa.

Second, Muslim and Arab is not the same. More importantly, not all the Muslims in the Middle East today were formerly Christian. The ancient Persians were not Christian; there might have been some elements of Christianity there, but the nation was not Christian. Some other states are doubtful as well. As for the third statement, that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Islam, the religion of the sword, conquered the peoples of the Middle East through eloquence of speech and through veracity of religious claims, is laughable. Shallow history on your part.

Current muslim Arabs are very same people, the descendants of ancient ancient middle-easterners. Already, Arabic language formed in 3-4th century AD and it`s some kind of amalgam of Hebrew and Aramaic, nothing else. Only Turks migrated in to middle-east but that started to happen after 9th century and no one else beside Turks gone there.

Today’s Middle Easterners are Arabic in speech, not in roots. Intermixing occurred, but the intermixing varies from location to location, from person to person.

It also doesn't matter what Lebanese or Syrian christians calls themselves. This doesn't change the fact that they are kinsmen of muslim Arabs and genetically so close to them. For example, genetic closeness of a christian Lebanese with muslim one is same as between you and your christian Macedonian neighbor, not more distant at all.

I have known Egyptian Christians, Lebanese Christians, etc who don’t, in any way, relate to being Arab or Muslim or see themselves as kinsmen of Muslim Arabs.

Take a look at this:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/lebanon/T07KMP2GFBST1MV2O

Here is a Lebanese woman who hates Arabs and Muslims and wants to distance herself from them.

Also, you confused again with whiteness issue. In your previous messages, you were speaking like "christians are white, muslims are not".

This must be your semi-illiteracy problem again. I have never written, in fact quite the contrary, that “Christians are white, Muslims are not.” In fact, I have stated, and re-stated, that this is not true. You are either too dumb and can’t read and write; or you are just following the fancies of your own imagination.

Now you speak like "Indo-European language speakers are white, semite muslims are not".

There are white Europeans who convert to Islam; they still remain white, regardless of their religion. There are blacks, dark skinned Arabs, Indians, etc who are Christian; they don’t become “white” because they are Christian!!!

I have written, and will write again, that some consider Europeans, South West Asians, and North Africans, as Caucasians. I then said I regard Europeans as true whites; but that there are varying degrees of “white.” Nordic Europeans, Mediterranean Europeans, and Mediterranean South West Asians and North Africans, etc are all classes of white, but in varying degrees. I know and am friends with an Egyptian woman who is lighter than me—hair, face, eyes, and she is a Coptic Christian. She is white. Her husband is extremely dark in every way, and he is a Christian, and is not white. I also know some Egyptians who are very dark, brown skinned, who are Muslim, and these are not white, not because they are Muslim, but because they are brown skinned!

There are "white" skinned Turks and Armenians, and there are dark skinned Turks and Armenians. There are varying shades of color here and there; but the Turks area people of Central Asia descent, not Europe.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The progenitors of that faith were non-European Semites whose complexion consisted of white Mediterranean features.

Your presumptions about the skin complexion of people that lived 2,000 years ago are baseless and racist. But you don't seem to get it.

The ancient people of that region lived in a Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization; the Arabs and Islam that came hundreds of years after the birth of Christianity has nothing to do with the original preachers of Christianity.........

Arabs were already there during your 'Greco-Roman Mediterranean civilization', whatever that is supposed to mean, they didn't arrive hundreds of years after the birth of Christianity.

The ones that are white Mediterranean and are Christian, though not European, are a matter altogether different, because they could more easily assimilate in society; non-whites cannot; they are different; their skin color cannot be changed.

Your silly argument (which is based on your own misconceptions) runs into a dead end when you have two brothers of the same family who have varying skin complexions. And this is common in both Europe and Asia.

Prior to the Arab invasions of the 6th and 7th century, the Lebanese people were, more or less, white Mediterranean, and closer to their European counterparts, esp. Southern Europeans, then after the invasion of the Arabs. There are still people in Lebanon who refuse to identify as Arab or Muslim; they see themselves as descendants of the ancient noble race of the Phoenicians.

Here is a fact - the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Aramaics and Arabs are all Semitic peoples. You're now insinuating that some segments of this common branch may have been more 'white' than others. I am not sure if I should even take you seriously anymore.

........many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab but rather as descendents of the ancient Canaanites and prefer to be called Phoenicians

Lebanese call themselves Lebanese. And even if some did identify as Phoenicians, and most don't identify as Arabs, it is irrelevant where it concerns your 'white' pre-requisite theories for Europe. They all come from the same Semitic ancestors. In addition to this, to highlight your ignorance even further, Semitic peoples are related to North African peoples such as the ancient Egyptians, as they all stem from a larger linguistic sub-family known as Afro-Asiatic.

Based on your comments, I will have to conclude you are intellectually incapable of grasping the meaning on this issue.

Lol, with the mindless garbage you've spewed up on this thread you would be hard pressed to find a 12 year old that wouldn't have a more basic understanding and appreciation for anthropology, humanity and logic.

I’m glad you have the seen light.

I'm not sure what sort of 'light' you see, but I am not looking at the same one.

Roma’s are already being expelled by France, Italy, and others, because they are not wanted. I say ship them out or fly them out.

Where are we going to ship or fly them out too? What planet do you live on? Only a fruit loop would suggest such a thing.

[Philosopher]

This is my final post on this subject, since we are both wasting our time. I will point out the errors in a few of your quotes; but first I shall borrow your words to prove a point:

Lol, with the mindless garbage you've spewed up on this thread you would be hard pressed to find a 12 year old that wouldn't have a more basic understanding and appreciation for anthropology, humanity and logic.

Compare your statement there with this statement here:

Here is a fact - the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Aramaics and Arabs are all Semitic peoples. You're now insinuating that some segments of this common branch may have been more 'white' than others. I am not sure if I should even take you seriously anymore.

This “fact” you speak of is no fact at all. In fact, quite the contrary. You do realize that the “Phoenicians” were the offspring of the ancient Canaanites, who were a separate people from the Semites.

Canaanites descend from Ham, where as Semites, from Shem. And I would point out that Arabs are a mixture of Hamitic and Semitic. Hence, “Afro-Asiatic.” This is why Arabs are not the same as Phoenicians and Jews.

And with that statement here:

Lebanese call themselves Lebanese. And even if some did identify as Phoenicians, and most don't identify as Arabs, it is irrelevant where it concerns your 'white' pre-requisite theories for Europe. They all come from the same Semitic ancestors. In addition to this, to highlight your ignorance even further, Semitic peoples are related to North African peoples such as the ancient Egyptians, as they all stem from a larger linguistic sub-family known as Afro-Asiatic..

Lebanese are not the offspring of Semites. A person would be hard pressed to find a 12 year old, with any grasp of anthropology, humanity, and logic, who wouldn’t know that Canaanites are not Semites.

Now the good stuff:

In addition to this, to highlight your ignorance even further, Semitic peoples are related to North African peoples such as the ancient Egyptians, as they all stem from a larger linguistic sub-family known as Afro-Asiatic..

You do realize that the ancient Egyptians were Hamitic, not Semitic? And that the people of North Africa were and are Hamitic peoples, not Semitic?

[Soldier of Macedon]

This is my final post on this subject, since we are both wasting our time.

You've wasted your time trying to promote your racist and distorted views. I don't think my time has been wasted in refuting them. Even the mob at wikipedia have more sense as a general overview than yourself:

You do realize that the “Phoenicians” were the offspring of the ancient Canaanites, who were a separate people from the Semites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, including Canaanites, Israelites and Phoenicians.

A person would be hard pressed to find a 12 year old, with any grasp of anthropology, humanity, and logic, who wouldn’t know that Canaanites are not Semites.

You must be 11 years old.

This is why Arabs are not the same as Phoenicians and Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language

Arabic is a name applied to a group of dialects of the Central Semitic languages, thus related to and classified alongside other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and the Neo-Aramaic languages.

You do realize that the ancient Egyptians were Hamitic, not Semitic? And that the people of North Africa were and are Hamitic peoples, not Semitic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages

The Afroasiatic languages constitute one of the world's largest language families with about 375 living languages and more than 350 million speakers spread throughout North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia, as well as parts of the Sahel, and East Africa. The most widely spoken Afroasiatic language is Arabic, with 230 million speakers (all the colloquial varieties). In addition to languages now spoken, Afroasiatic includes several ancient languages, such as Ancient Egyptian, Biblical Hebrew, and Akkadian.


Let me know if you're still having difficulties with joining the dots.

[Philosopher]

I hate to go back on my word but considering the gross deception and incompetence of your last post, I feel compelled to respond. Forgive me this folly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages

The Canaanite languages are a subfamily of the Semitic languages, which were spoken by the ancient peoples of the Canaan region, including Canaanites, Israelites and Phoenicians.

There are two problems here, Soldier. First, Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference. No Academic circle would accept it—so why quote it?

Second, your original statement was

Here is a fact - the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Aramaics and Arabs are all Semitic peoples.

The question at hand was whether the Phoenicians were, as you suggested, a “Semite people.” We are not discussing what the language family of the ancient Phoenicians was—it is obvious to anyone that you decided to pull a Houdini act here and change the meaning of your original statement from a “Semite people” to now a “subfamily of the Semitic language.”

Well that doesn’t fly. We are discussing whether the Phoenicians were a “Semite people,” not what their language family is.

The Phoenicians descend from the Canaanites, who were a separate people from the Semites. The fact they were close geographically and were part of the same language family is wholly not germane here.
Find me a legitimate historic reference that proves that the ancient Phoenicians or Canaanites regarded themselves to be Semites. Of course, Hamitic and Semitic tribes were brothers. They are related. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether the Phoenicians regarded themselves as a Semitic tribe or people.

The Phoenicians were NOT SEMITIES. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who writes otherwise, really has no grasp on ancient Near East history.

Every time you make stupid blunder like this you change the meaning of the original words to make it seem like you meant something else…we are not stupid. Stop distorting and stop lying.

Arabic is a name applied to a group of dialects of the Central Semitic languages, thus related to and classified alongside other Semitic languages such as Hebrew and the Neo-Aramaic languages.

I see you have become quite fond of quoting Wikipedia. Again, no one disputes that the Arabic language is part of the Semitic family. What we are discussing is the identity of this people. The Arabs were the offspring of Hamitic and Semitic people. Stop changing the subject.

The Afroasiatic languages constitute one of the world's largest language families with about 375 living languages and more than 350 million speakers spread throughout North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Southwest Asia, as well as parts of the Sahel, and East Africa. The most widely spoken Afroasiatic language is Arabic, with 230 million speakers (all the colloquial varieties). In addition to languages now spoken, Afroasiatic includes several ancient languages, such as Ancient Egyptian, Biblical Hebrew, and Akkadian.

You can quote Wikipedia all day. The fact remains: The ancient Egyptians and North Africans were Hamitic tribes, not Semitic. Again, no one disputes that the Hamitic and Semitic peoples were brothers. They are kin relations. Find me a legitimate historic reference that proves that the ancient Egyptians and North Africans regarded themselves as Semites?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I hate to go back on my word but considering the gross deception and incompetence of your last post, I feel compelled to respond. Forgive me this folly.

No need to apologise, we've already established that consistency is not your strong point.

Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference. No Academic circle would accept it—so why quote it?

As a general overview, like I stated in my previous post. I don't have to waste my time corroborating that overview because it is common knowledge, just like your insinuations about academic 'circles' are comical.

The question at hand was whether the Phoenicians were, as you suggested, a “Semite people.” We are not discussing what the language family of the ancient Phoenicians was.......

Are you suggesting that the Phoenicians were a group of non-Semitic people that spoke a Semitic language? Does that mean that the Phoenicians spoke a non-Semitic language at one point? What are you talking about? Start making some sense.

it is obvious to anyone that you decided to pull a Houdini act here and change the meaning of your original statement from a “Semite people” to now a “subfamily of the Semitic language.”

The only thing pertinent to a 'houdini act' here is your clownery. When I wrote 'Semitic peoples' it was in the same manner as Balto-Slavic peoples, Indo-Iranian peoples, etc, based on their generally corresponding locations after breaking away from the 'mother-tongues'. Tone down the semantics, it's getting you nowhere.

The fact they were close geographically and were part of the same language family is wholly not germane here.

Don't be ridiculous.

What is in dispute is whether the Phoenicians regarded themselves as a Semitic tribe or people.

Where do I even suggest that the Phoenicians 'regarded themselves' as a Semitic people? Stop creating fictitious arguments and wasting my time.

Every time you make stupid blunder like this you change the meaning of the original words to make it seem like you meant something else…we are not stupid. Stop distorting and stop lying.

There was no blunder, and there is no 'we', you're on your own bizzare ego-driven crusade to go for bat in the name of discriminative stupidity and idiotic misrepresentations, and you've failed, miserably.

What we are discussing is the identity of this people.

No, 'we' aren't discussing that, you are. I have never spoken about how the people identified, you conjured that on your own.

Find me a legitimate historic reference that proves that the ancient Egyptians and North Africans regarded themselves as Semites?

Again, I didn't speak about identity. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you should find yourself a legitimate practionier of the appropriate practice and seek some help. If or when you're there, tell them 'we' tried logic. No luck.

[Philosopher]

Are you suggesting that the Phoenicians were a group of non-Semitic people that spoke a Semitic language? Does that mean that the Phoenicians spoke a non-Semitic language at one point? What are you talking about? Start making some sense.

Hence the problem debating this issue with you; and hence the reason why I do not wish to continue posting on this topic. When a person (i.e. you) does not know the history or facts about a particular question, one would expect that person to refrain from making pronouncements on it.

But, alas, I suppose that is asking too much. If you do not know, do no act like you know. If you do not know, you should inquire. As a teacher educates his students, so I will instruct you. So read carefully and pay close attention…

Yes, the Phoenicians were a non-Semite people. And no, I am not suggesting that the Phoenicians once spoke a non-Semitic language at one point. The problem you have is that you do not have the correct understand of the origins of the Phoenicians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hebrews, etc.

This question is so misunderstood (even by experts) that it makes me wonder about modern day scholarship. In your previous comments, you wrote, quoting Wikipedia, of an “Afro-Asiatic” family of languages. Do you know how or why this is so? Why these two languages are connected? Why the language is called Semitic?

We live in a world where Semites are afforded a privileged place in society; we live in a world wherein Jews are considered Semites, but Arabs and Syrians are excluded. In other words, to be critical of the Jews, one would be branded an anti-Semite, which, somehow, means to be in the opposition to all Semites, which popular culture defines as Jews alone. But the truth of the matter is that one can “hate” Jews, and still not be an anti-Semite, because one that does not hate all Semites, but only Jews. In fact, such a person may be an Arab or Arab supporter, since Arabs are Semites as well. And one can be a Jew who “hates” Arabs, and yet no one dares to suggest a Jew who “hates” Arabs is anti-Semitic.

Enough rambling:

The term “Semitic” comes from the patronymic name “Shem.” And the word “Hamitic” comes from the Patronymic name “Ham.” Both Shem and Ham, the father of Semitic and Hamitic peoples, were brothers; they both spoke the same language-a sort of proto-Afro-Asiatic tongue.

The word “Ham,” means “swarthy,” implying that this person was swarthy skinned. Ham had many sons, one was Cush, whose name means “Black,” and he was the father of the Africans. Another son was “Mitzraim,” who became the father of the Egyptians (and probably North Africans in general). Another son of Ham was “Canaan,” who later became the Canaanites, inhabiting the region of Canaan (the so called holy land) of South West Asia.

Canaan had many sons, one of which is called “Sidon,” and these were known as the Sidonians or Zidonians. This also became the name of the city in Lebanon—Sidon. These were the Phoenicians and they named the city “Sidon.”

Shem had his own sons, of which later the Hebrew and other Semite races evolved. It is now clear that the Canaanites are not the children of Shem; thus, they are not Semites. Since Shem and Ham’s sons inherited their father’s tongue, they also spoke a proto-Afro-Asiatic language.

As the years passed by, these proto languages became more developed and more refined. Hence, the language of the Semites, so called Semitic, and the language of the Hamitic peoples, would have a common origin. The language of the Canaanites, which Wikipedia calls “Semitic,” is really a common language shared and developed over time by the Canaanites and the Semitic peoples of that region in South West Asia. I do not believe it is fair to be called a Semitic language, but in our Semitic oriented world, the Semites get the credit for the language, and the Canaanites are called Semitic speakers, hence “Semites.”

But now we all know too much to know this is true.

The only thing pertinent to a 'houdini act' here is your clownery. When I wrote 'Semitic peoples' it was in the same manner as Balto-Slavic peoples, Indo-Iranian peoples, etc, based on their generally corresponding locations after breaking away from the 'mother-tongues'. Tone down the semantics, it's getting you nowhere.

Maybe that is what you meant…but it was not clear from what you wrote. Since you are the best interpreter of your words, I will cede that to you. But before I do, I will make this point. You did write

Are you suggesting that the Phoenicians were a group of non-Semitic people that spoke a Semitic language?

My impression was/is that you meant the Phoenicians were not merely Semitic speakers, but of Semitic roots.

Where do I even suggest that the Phoenicians 'regarded themselves' as a Semitic people? Stop creating fictitious arguments and wasting my time.

It is implied in your comments that the Phoenicians (it being a fact) are Semite people. This implies that the Phoenicians were in fact Semites; therefore, they regarded themselves to be such. And your above quote

Are you suggesting that the Phoenicians were a group of non-Semitic people that spoke a Semitic language?

implies that you believe that they were in fact Semites.

As for the rest, I don't see a point at this point...

[Onur]

Philosopher, do you realize that you keep telling SOM that he lacks knowledge about this but you, yourself only blabbering about Shem, Ham, Japeth, the genealogy section of Torah. Since when religious information became scientific again??? I thought that was over after medieval era?!!!

You bring weird arguments like Canaanite and Phoneticians was not Semitic people even tough it`s a fact that these people lived in middle-east and spoke today`s Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew like Semitic language. Also you cant support your weird theory besides repeating non-scientific myths of Torah genealogy.


SOM, it`s useless to argue with him about this. He is obsessed with separating the forefathers of christianity from the rest of the Semitic people like Arabs and Jews. He is doing this just because of today`s Arabs and Jews are not enough white skinned for his ideology. So, no matter what you say, he wont even consider to think about it even if you bring only facts versus his myths. Probably he is happy with his myths about "whiter early christians", so lets leave him be.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Hence the problem debating this issue with you; and hence the reason why I do not wish to continue posting on this topic.

Yet here you are, saying one thing, and doing another, like you have in the previous three posts on this thread. It's actually becoming entertaining.

As a teacher educates his students, so I will instruct you.

Lol, you're a clown.

Yes, the Phoenicians were a non-Semite people. And no, I am not suggesting that the Phoenicians once spoke a non-Semitic language at one point.

You don't know what you're suggesting as you keep confusing language with identity. I can't help you with that confusion, perhaps some men in white coats can, surely they must realise that you've gone missing by now?

It is implied in your comments that the Phoenicians (it being a fact) are Semite people. This implies that the Phoenicians were in fact Semites; therefore, they regarded themselves to be such.

It was implied in the manner I suggested earlier, but you seem to be stuck in a permanent state of anachronism where you're applying current circumstances to people from antiquity. It happens with ignorance.

SOM, it`s useless to argue with him about this.

Onur, you wouldn't have said this if you knew him a couple of years ago, but this is what happens to individuals who become religious fanatics.

[Onur]

European Nationalist Parties Top Opinion Polls

Several nationalist and anti-immigration parties have become the most popular in their countries, topping recent opinion polls in France, Austria and Finland.

France’s Front National, Austria’s Freedom Party and Finland’s True Finns have all headed voters’ surveys in recent weeks.

In March, Marine Le Pen’s party received 23 per cent in a poll of voting intentions for 2012’s presidential election. The survey, carried out by the Harris Institute and published in the newspaper Le Parisien, put Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP and the Socialist party at 21 per cent each.

The Front National received a 15.06 per cent vote share in the first round of France’s regional elections in March; however, that total would have been higher had the party contested more seats.

This week the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) also proved the most popular in its country.

The FPÖ would secure 29 per cent of the vote if there were a general election held today, according to a poll by the OGM institute on behalf of the Kurier newspaper. For the first time, the FPÖ overtook the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ), who polled 28 per cent, and the conservative Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), who earned 23 per cent.

The FPÖ stands opposed to EU membership, Turkey’s joining the EU, the Islamificiation of Austria, and immigration.

Previous Austrian polls this year have shown support for the FPÖ at around 24–29 per cent, on par with the SPÖ and ÖVP. Among people under 30 years of age, the FPÖ has the support of 42 per cent.

The BZÖ, a breakaway party from the FPÖ that also advocates stronger immigration controls and opposes Turkish accession, scored highly too, at 13 per cent. The FPÖ already holds 38 seats in the Austrian national parliament, and the BZÖ holds 17.

Meanwhile, in Finland, the anti-immigration and anti-EU True Finns party also surged into the lead.

A poll commissioned by a group of regional newspapers found that 22.4 per cent of those questioned said they would vote for the True Finns, compared with 20.6 per cent for the centre-right National Coalition party and 19.1 per cent for the Social Democrats.

The result reflects another rise in support for the True Finns, whose opposition to EU bailouts and the erosion of Finnish culture saw them become the country’s third-largest party in last month’s national election. The party earned 19.1 per cent of the vote in April, just 1483 votes behind the Social Democrats, who also gained 19.1 per cent, and 1.3 per cent behind the winning National Coalition Party.

The rise of nationalist sentiment is also felt in the Netherlands, where support for Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) increased this week.

A Maurice de Hond poll gives Wilders’ PVV 26 seats if there were a general election tomorrow, three up on the previous poll. The ruling centre-right VVD fell by two seats to 32.

27/05/2011

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/european-...-opinion-polls

The rise of anti-EU nationalist movements continues in Europe. In France, Finland and Austria, they are leading the polls. In Hungary and in Netherlands, the anti-EU party is second in popularity. I believe Germany will follow the trend soon, especially if Merkel tries to send more money to Greece.

[makedonin]

Hence the problem debating this issue with you;
..................
As a teacher educates his students, so I will instruct you. So read carefully and pay close attention…

That is exactly the problem of debating issues with you....

You think you know it all, and don't poses the humility to question your own views, but play the teacher and question others... And your racist complex towards Semitics is astonishing...

Ahh, I should leave this thread before it becomes another mass...

I believe Germany will follow the trend soon, especially if Merkel tries to send more money to Greece.

In the parliament of Baden-Wütenber Neo-Nazi NPD party has it's first sits after WWII.... Germans are not really fond of spending more money to Greeks or others, specially not with the countries debt they have...

Just because the WWII history, they won't ever leave the right parties gain momentum, but we have already very conservative parties such as CDU/CSU that are leading the country, and that is enough already....

[Onur]

Just because the WWII history, they won't ever leave the right parties gain momentum, but we have already very conservative parties such as CDU/CSU that are leading the country, and that is enough already

Yes i know, they don't wanna awake the beast again but if people wants it that way, they cant prevent it forever. Far rightist party is leading in Austria again, their fellow brothers. Also if you consider that Le Pen`s party is leading the polls in France and the father Le Pen openly said that he understands and respects the motives of Hitler. So, if this happens in France, maybe it can happen in Germany too. But you are right, it didn't happen in Germany yet because they are keeping their inner beast as tied up.


The daughter Le Pen, current leader of French nationalist front, speaks about the EU two months ago. Watch it from 2:54min.;
YouTube - ‪Marine Le Pen next French President ? (English OverVoice)‬‏

She basically says that EU is already dead. If this woman becomes the president of France and she is leading the polls now, then EU wont be exist in 2013.