I don't like the word "anti semite"; it does not mean "anti - Jєω" like most who use it would have you believe.  It is ambiguous, and therefore a trap.  Christ was semite, all of the apostles were semites, and many Christians were/are semites.  To embrace this term is a mistake.  The only people who can be truly use the term anti semites are the atheist white supremacist nαzιs.  Catholicism can in no way be anti semitic.

I think the reason that so many(including +Williamson, including myself) have labeled themselves as anti semites is for lack of a better term("anti semitism" has a nice ring to it, it is slick)(the other slick term in use is "Jєω - hater" - however, catholics are not allowed to hate other humans, so that term is not an option), and for convenience sake(its modern use means thus... ).

However, we should not succuмb to Orwellian definitions or cower before the enemy in ambiguity.  If we are going to use a title, that title should describe clearly what we represent, and certainly never mis-present us.  So, I have been thinking about terms that suitably describe my opposition to тαℓмυdic judaism.  

The terms that I think are fitting are "anti rabbinic" or "anti rabbi"(add the "ism" if needed), and I think they will work great.  They have a nice ring to them(anti rabbi rhymes, and "rabbinic" rhymes with "semitic").  It really comes off the tongue nicely, and it contains within itself a clear explanatory meaning(no ambiguity).   By using the term "anti rabbi/anti rabbinic", you not only dodge the bullet of "anti semitism"(ambiguous), but it gives you a chance to enlighten the world about the evil of modern judaism(the source of which is the babylonian тαℓмυd/the teaching of the rabbis).  By adopting this term, you are not only provided with a great defense, but also a serious weapon.

I am making the switch.

I am "anti rabbinic".  I am not anti semitic!

Perevangeladicta - That is one of the reasons(one side of the coin) why the modern use of αnтι-ѕємιтє is faulty.  The other reason why is because the Jєω's hebrew language is not ancient hebrew(it is argued to be like the difference between modern english and shakespeare/old english).  Semites are identified/defined as people who speak one of a group of defined related ancient languages.  Strictly speaking, modern Jєωs/hebrew speakers don't pass that test.  If Jєωs get an exemption from the difference, how many other modern manifestations of ancient languages get exemptions?  The lone fact that Jєωs love labeling us such and having us use the term is enough to raise suspicion.  I have more reasons why the term stinks, but I won't go into it.  The bottom line is, I won't fall for it.

Charles - those are some good examples of why it is orwellian.  However, being like a litmus test, it is way too dangerous a term to be associated with.  

http://henrymakow.com/anti-semitism_is_the_bread_and.html

Anti-Semitism is Zionism's Bread and Butter

MyrnaM - the ambiguous term anti semite means more than just the one thing that just about everyone in the world understands it to mean(anti Jєω).  It could mean anti Jєω, but along with that, it without question means anti everyone else in that region that speaks one of those ancient languages(begging the question, are we anti them as well? - of course not).  The reason that I say it could(and not necessarily does) mean anti Jєω is because the statement becomes doubtful when you consider that all of those israelis are actually european and their hebrew(which is what really matters) is actually not authentically semitic(it is a mutation).  Despite these things, if you are "anti semitic", you lose your job and respectability/are treated like a pariah.  This is why it is orwellian(potentially an opposite understanding/definition), and ambiguous(has two meanings/the doctrinal practice of V2 that tricked millions of catholics into tolerating the new religion that destroyed their soul).  Ambiguity is deadly.

j.paul - I disagree with you.  There is nothing wrong with the concept of being against the Jєωs.  Opposition to them becomes Jєωιѕн inspired when it takes the form of the naturalistic and atheistic european blooded white supremacist.  They are incidentally bright enough to connect the dots and recognize the root cause of our troubles(Jєωιѕн conspiracy); however, they throw out the baby with the bath water(the old testament and therefore christianity).  In my estimation, anti semitism is bad solely because of semantics(ambiguity and inaccuracy).

J.Paul - Here is a paragraph from Fr. Fahey's book on the conversion of the Jєωιѕн race pg 78 - "Now, first of all, it must be remarked that the term(anti semitism) is too wide and too loose.  The arabs are doubtless semites.  Yet, the arabs in palestine, on account of their opposition to Jєωιѕн domination, are anti semites."  

I also recall from reading this book that Fr. Fahey specified that we should oppose Jєωs to the varying degree that they are in communion with their leaders(rabbis=тαℓмυd).  This coincides with scripture - "For with the same measure that you shall mete withal, it shall be measured to you again." - Luke 6:38

Fr. Fahey is correct in noting that anti-semitism is too loose, and I would say that your definition(anti Jєωism) is also too loose(imperfect compared to a more perfect - rabbis are their leaders = strike shepherd and sheep are scattered).  Attack the rabbis, by being anti-rabbi.  

There have been converts from judaism to catholicism that became great evangelists and great saints.  If we go around saying that we were anti all Jєω without determination(equally), we run a risk of uprooting wheat with cockle(and our Lord also said I come not to bring peace, but the sword), and that would be a tragedy.  We do have to preach conversion to the Jєωs as well(our lord healed all the ten lepers, nine of which were proud Jєωs).

Fr. Fahey is correct in noting that anti-semitism is too loose, and I would say that your definition(anti Jєωism) is also too loose(imperfect compared to a more perfect - rabbis are their leaders = strike shepherd and sheep are scattered).  Attack the rabbis, by being anti-rabbi.  

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that "αnтι-ѕємιтє" is meaningless in and of itself (as per Fr Fahey's observation that it is never applied to most of the world's Semites) and it has no practical application except as a cudgel used by Jєωs to silence their opponents (the old truism "an αnтι-ѕємιтє is someone a Jєω hates" comes to mind).

However your proposed "anti Rabbinic" term is too narrow. Religious Jєωs make up a tiny minority of the world population of Jєωry. Most of the wickedest Jєωs in the world today haven't been anywhere near a Rabbi since their Bar Mitzvahs, yet they are still perverse, power hungry, Christ hating sons of Satan in a uniquely Jєωιѕн way. That is because there really is a supernatural character to the race itself... They called down the Blood of Our Lord as a curse upon their entire race... The founding of "Judaism" as a religion expressly designed to oppose God the Son made them a people uniquely consecrated to the Devil ("you are of your father the Devil," "the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan," etc.). And we can see the effects of this curse - spiritual blindness, carnality, diabolic scandals - as well as the rewards reaped by the Jєωs for their service to the Prince of This World (anyone here can admit that the amount of power they wield for so small a group of people is truly inexplicable apart from supernatural influence).  

So we can see that what we must oppose is the Jєωs themselves, inasmuch as they are Jєωs, irrespective of how much direct control the Rabbis have over them. Insofar as they behave as Jєωs, support and work toward Jєωιѕн interests (religious or secular), Jєωs are enemies of the Church... An individual Jєω may not be. An individual Jєω might see the evils of Jєωry for what they are, and such an individual Jєω might be given the Grace to convert to the Catholic Faith. But the Jєωs as a people, as a collective, as a race, must necessarily be seen and treated as enemies of the Church.

Thus, I agree with J. Paul that "anti-Judaism" is the best term to describe the proper Catholic attitude toward the Jєωs.

 
There have been converts from judaism to catholicism that became great evangelists and great saints.  If we go around saying that we were anti all Jєω without determination(equally), we run a risk of uprooting wheat with cockle(and our Lord also said I come not to bring peace, but the sword), and that would be a tragedy.  We do have to preach conversion to the Jєωs as well(our lord healed all the ten lepers, nine of which were proud Jєωs).

I agree there have been individual Jєωs who have converted and have become great Catholics and holy saints (see above). But there is no question of the Jєωs converting en masse any time before the End of the Earth. So quibbles about terminology that might offend them and thus impede that mass conversion are quite moot. If a Jєω is given the grace to convert, he will convert, irrespective of whether we Catholics call ourselves "anti Jєωιѕн" or "anti Rabbinc" (and I honestly can see the Jєωs cottoning to the latter any more than to the former).

And as for the lepers healed by Our Lord - be careful that you do not neglect to make all proper and necessary distinctions. Jєωs who lived in the time of Our Lord (prior to His founding of the Church) still belonged to the One True Religion, not to the false diabolical sect of modern "Judaism." The two must never be confused or equated - it is on that error that Jєωs have made so much headway against us, having fooled so many foolish goyim (lay and clerical) into believing that they are our "elder brothers."