But that's a pose all far-right demagogues take up! And they will do so whatever you connect them to, fascism or populism or hate-mongerism or Islamophobia or some new term.

It was anti-semitism that became incorporated into all kind of forms of fascism, including Nazism.

Nitpick: not into the Japanese form and Salazar's Estado Novo, and only as a sideshow into Franco's Falangism; the latter two's rhetorical focus was (AFAIK) anti-communism. Non-nitpick: true, it's not the broad ideology of fascism (which includes a re-make of the state and society) but the anti-some-minority element (which exists as part of ideologies other than fascism too) that's relevant to Wilders' ideology.

At the core, Wilders is forming a new breed of anti-semitism. The focus should go there, and not to any Godwin parallels.

I don't understand your point. What's different in Wilders' new iteration of xenophobia is not what is dangerous in it -- the danger is just what is NOT different. The issue is not what name one gives to his ideology. The parallels, as outlined by Saunders, suggest similar mechanisms at work, which should be exposed similarly; and the possibility of future escalation, which should be warned against -- both of which should be important issues.

I'm sure there are plenty of anti-semitism parallels to be found prior to the rise of Nazism.

Sure, I could refer to the rhetoric of 19th century Hungarian Antisemites for example (which to boot started out more religion- than ethnicity-based); but Saunders, like most people, probably knows much less about those.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}