What is the historical root for the permanent prevalence of antisemitism ?

what is the historical root for the permanent prevalence of antisemitism ?

is it the significantly higher intelligence of jews that simply caused jealousy ?

or is there some truth to the hypothesis of jewish nepotism ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Scapegoating. That simple.

how did you come to that conclusion ?

why do you reject my possible explanation ?

proof?

I reckon it's butthurt over jewish insularity and systematic parasitism on exonational and secular institutions.

tl;dr Joos are greedy and piss people off

Imagine a world where the devil had a massive influence, and then imagine that the chosen people of God were separated out by language, culture and diet.

Then imagine how the devil would treat those people when they lost their God's protection.

The jews' ability to climb on top of most societies causes butthurt to many

Stereotypes exist because there is usually some reality to them

Anyone who denies Jewish nepotism is an intellectual coward. Not saying ALL Jews, but it exists. We evolved according to environment.

People in the High Middle Ages hated city dwellers in general, because they spend all their time worrying about money instead of Jesus.

So it makes sense that a group of people that were exclusively urbanites would bear the brunt of this, especially when they weren't really connected enough to the rest of society for people to bother standing up for them.

You'll notice that anti-semitism is basically confined to Europe after the High Middle Ages, until like the 30s and 40s when the Germans started to export it to Muslims.

This. Its pretty simple if you just watch them throughout history, or now for example.

They've been a collective of nomads and refugees throughout the ages and humans are biologically wired to be borderline xenophobic.

I covered Judaism in a course on religious studies and their whole history is one of being targeted. I guess the best example I can come up with is the whole Venetian thing when they were blamed for the Ventians losing a battle and sentenced to be expelled en masse but when the Venetians realised doing so would effectively fuck up their banking, they conveniently decided they weren't 'responsible' for them having lost the battle at all (and besides having lost another one additionally). Just stupid shit like that.

Also, the way they're assumed to be rich and diamond dealing by Hassidic Jews given as an example but without discussing the historical fact there was no guild control of the diamond trade in Antwerp at the time so naturally it was one of the few they could trade in.

The whole Hollywood 'is run by Jews' thing. No context and appreciation for the fact they were involved in vaudeville beforehand so obviously they'd step in to the new technology.

A whole lot of stuff like that.

I think also, and this is just my view, that they tend to operate a sort of subtle paradigm diametric in especially Christian cultures. I'd define them less a race or group than a type of large family and I think in that way they are very confident and self-assured in their sense of isolation. I don't think it bothers them and I think operating as that entity (and not consciously) they have a tendency to place themselves as a necessary counterpoint to the prevailing interests (arts, economies, whatever) of those host cultures. I could explain that better but it's the first time I've articulated it so it'll have to do.

In that respect then, I can see why tensions with them occur but I also think it's a very good thing and that that in itself has actually contributed in a massively positive way to those cultures.

And yeah, I like them. I feel bad for them but then I feel bad for most people so that's probably just incidental to my views otherwise.

It probably originally started because Jews were a minority that didn't integrate well. They rebelled against the Romans several times, and it is probably around this time they were established as the back stabbing greedy scapegoats. After they were established as the typical scapegoat they got blamed for everything. Sometimes these accusations were correct, like when Jews attacked and burned Christian churches when Sassanids took Jerusalem and some times they were not. This is the reason why the average peasant would have hated them. Lords didn't hate Jews per say, they just didn't want to pay their debts. They could also confiscate all Jewish posessions which meant that attacking the jews was a net-positive for the kings pockets. Similar thing happened to the Knights Templars too.

No, Jews rarely reached high positions in society (other than some of them becoming courtiers or officials) They usually lived in their ghettos and as they were not feudal serfs they lacked any protection.

why are you discussing anything with obvious Polcucks, their idea of participating in History and Humanities discussion is limited to posting macro jpgs and refusing to have any sort of discourse

Guarentee this thread will devolve into "no, I don't care about your """historical context""" or "historical method", it's all KYKE propaganda! THEYRE EVIL!!!"

Just ignore threads about jews in general, you know who's behind them with preconceived notions and inability to adapt their understanding

>The whole Hollywood 'is run by Jews' thing. No context and appreciation for the fact they were involved in vaudeville beforehand so obviously they'd step in to the new technology.

Remember kids, that it is OKAY to say that immigrants are discriminated because employers favor native born people, BUT IT IS NOT OKAY to say that Hollywood is dominated byJews because they favor other Jews.

No, I know but I didn't want to give them the satisfaction. Besides, every time is an opportunity to post some reason and logic so I'm good. Fuck /pol/ and all it's stupidity anyway.

that's really interesting. Have you also studied other middleman minorities, like Chinese Indonesians or the Armenians? Do they operate in the same way as the Jews?

>Lords could also confiscate all Jewish possessions which meant that attacking the jews was a net-positive for the kings pockets

No one mastered this tactic more so than England did
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England

Jews were basically a tax source the King could raise without having to call Parliament and kindly ask them

Whenever Parliament was pissed at the king, they could easily burn a few jewish villages and deprive the King of assets

France did this less so because their King had more power and didn't need the ulterior soruces of income as much, King in France just taxed them directly without the confiscation of property tactic

Why didn't you ask me to expand further?

Obviously they would give jobs to their families. It's only recently film has been a uni degree blah blah. When it started, it was a trade. Every trade involves father's teaching sons, nephews, etc.

Bear in mind what I said about the prevailing culture paradigm thing, too. They DO question the surrounding culture and yes, it has to do with them being distinct from it and addressing issues in a sense as a family would.

It's not a 'conspiracy'; it's just how it is.

It was religious studies so only the major faith systems. So no, I haven't.

>Hollywood is dominated by Jews


But why aren't you complaining that the Agriculture industry is dominated by Scotts and Irish? Irish immigrants after the 1970s do disproportionately better here than any other group

Come to America as plumber, end up Director of Social Services and CEO of largest Medical Corp in the country, shit makes no sense

Why not complain about modern MD's all being Indian or "southern asian"?

What is your obsession with Jews?

I think it has to be with their tribal mentality and how they refused to integrate in the society being totally closed inside their own niche.
Since jews knew how to read it gave them a significant boost over the general analphabet population and since they didn't care about "goyims" they didn't have any problems in stealing people money trough "legal" ways.
In a sense they were like the romani\gypsies but with high education.

They were an easy scapegoat for the people because they were a minority, they usually were morally """flexible""" and they were easy to kick ass since they didn't do physical activities

A lot of assumptions here. Where did you get the idea that I was obsessed with jews? You have some major issues if you are so paranoid about /pol/ that anyone who points out statistical facts is some neo-nazi.

>But why aren't you complaining that the Agriculture industry is dominated by Scotts and Irish?
I do not know about U.S agriculture or whether you are talking about companies or farmers. Making the distinction between is important so I won't answer your question before you present it clearly.
>Why not complain about modern MD's all being Indian or "southern asian"?
They got there presumably because of their skill, not because of they happened to share the same religion as the people who accepted them.

So you presume one group gets somewhere from their hard work while the other group must be solely on nepotism?

So are you saying you're not a Polcuck and aren't obssessed with Jews? Yet find yourself complaining about them?

>"hurff hurrf" - OP

>So you presume one group gets somewhere from their hard work while the other group must be solely on nepotism?
You're comparing the two groups, MD's and Actors as if they were the same thing and those positions were achieved by the same means.

As it happens you get to universities based on your credentials. There is almost nothing subjective about it. Becoming an actor though is not really skill based, or at least skill isn't the largest factor of your success. It is about your personal connections and other reasons why an employer would favor you.

So please, stop trying to spin this so that I'm treating two same things differently. Becoming an MD and becoming an actor require different assets.

>So are you saying you're not a Polcuck
I've never browsed /pol/
>and aren't obssessed with Jews?
I'm not.
>Yet find yourself complaining about them?
I'm not, actually. Read my original post . I was making fun of the way Jews are given a free pass, which is more making fun of non-Jews who for some reason defend them to the death (you)

>You're comparing the two groups, MD's and Actors
Majority of actors AREN'T jewish, the claim only holds when looking at Execs, producers etc, ie people who don't actually... act

You wasted an entire post considering you have no idea what you talk about

>Majority of actors AREN'T jewish,
Source for this? Most of them are listed as white but have direct Jewish ancestry (either parent being Jewish)

What are you even talking about here? I've only replied to , . Only argued about anything, both of which I answered quite clearly.

Jealousy.

Same reason every hates on the Anglos.

Misfire brought on by tiredness. Sorry.

Nigga, I complain about the heat, so am I obsessed with summer? You're making a mountain of not even a molehill, and I'm not even the user to whom you replied. This thread is about Jews and their being ostracized or what have you in human history, so your /pol/phobia is pointless.

>there some truth to the hypothesis of jewish nepotism ?

There is 100% truth in Jewish nepotism. You don't even need to be some grand conspiracy theorist to know this. If you have ties to an identity, then you will on par like the person who shares the same identity as you. Even if you try and keep yourself unbiased, you will end up hiring people because they share the same identity as you, because you naturally see them as friends and allies.