And the reason is ya'll don't think they're conspiring.
No, the reason is they hold relatively few positions in high finance and mass media.
For a better comparison in modern times, look at the reaction of black Americans to Korean and Indian small business owners in their neighborhoods. There is a similar pattern of chain immigration and nepotism, and the reaction is one of general hostility because of high visibility.
If you go back a bit farther, you'll see a similar reaction to the pattern of Irish chain migration and nepotism into the police and fire services on the major cities on the East Coast. Once again, there was a strong negative reaction from people not in the group whose daily lives were affected.
If you're going to declare a rational explanation of an extant phenomenon (offered as an alternative which assumes no malice) the moral equivalent of a grand conspiracy narrative (which necessitates the absurd concept of genetic malice), you're not going to find many people who can argue against the conspiracists, and you're a damned fool for turning away the only possible competing theory once people start to notice.
Okay so, you think that I'm denying the existence of own group preference the the resultant interethnic animosity. I'm not. That those exist is self evident.
What I'm saying is that that's not enough to justify the strength of the animosity the antisemities have towards the jewish. The mere fact that in the grand game of intergroup competition one group tends to do really well isn't enough to explain the singular focus that people put on how they think "the jews are behind it".
Basically: I don't believe there are any antisemites who believe what you're pitching.
I think the people who DO believe what you're pitching, don't hate jews for being jews. Instead they simply hate the rich for being rich, and they don't care whether the rich are jews or wasps.
The mere fact that in the grand game of intergroup competition one group tends to do really well isn't enough to explain the singular focus that people put on how they think "the jews are behind it".
That's part 1 - part 2 is that the aforementioned Jews, the ones in the halls of power, do not permit in-group preference to go unchallenged for any other group, unless they also benefit from it.
What really drives the point home isn't that they're winning the race, it's that they're winning a race while demanding that no one else who might have a shot at winning even runs.
The members of the Church of Jesus Christ these Latter-Day Suckers hold power in one US state, not globally.
As for the various flavors of actual Christian, between infighting and a global decline in religiosity, you may not realize that this was a concern that people had as recently as the 1960s, in which a significant argument against Kennedy was that he'd owe his allegiance to the Pope instead of to America.
No, the reason is they hold relatively few positions in high finance and mass media.
For a better comparison in modern times, look at the reaction of black Americans to Korean and Indian small business owners in their neighborhoods. There is a similar pattern of chain immigration and nepotism, and the reaction is one of general hostility because of high visibility.
If you go back a bit farther, you'll see a similar reaction to the pattern of Irish chain migration and nepotism into the police and fire services on the major cities on the East Coast. Once again, there was a strong negative reaction from people not in the group whose daily lives were affected.
If you're going to declare a rational explanation of an extant phenomenon (offered as an alternative which assumes no malice) the moral equivalent of a grand conspiracy narrative (which necessitates the absurd concept of genetic malice), you're not going to find many people who can argue against the conspiracists, and you're a damned fool for turning away the only possible competing theory once people start to notice.
Ah. I see where we're missing each other.
Okay so, you think that I'm denying the existence of own group preference the the resultant interethnic animosity. I'm not. That those exist is self evident.
What I'm saying is that that's not enough to justify the strength of the animosity the antisemities have towards the jewish. The mere fact that in the grand game of intergroup competition one group tends to do really well isn't enough to explain the singular focus that people put on how they think "the jews are behind it".
Basically: I don't believe there are any antisemites who believe what you're pitching.
I think the people who DO believe what you're pitching, don't hate jews for being jews. Instead they simply hate the rich for being rich, and they don't care whether the rich are jews or wasps.
That's part 1 - part 2 is that the aforementioned Jews, the ones in the halls of power, do not permit in-group preference to go unchallenged for any other group, unless they also benefit from it.
What really drives the point home isn't that they're winning the race, it's that they're winning a race while demanding that no one else who might have a shot at winning even runs.
I don't buy it.
In the sense that I don't think they're doing anything different from what the catholics and protestants used to do, or the mormons still do.
Y'ever worked for a company in Salt Lake City?
If you aren't a member of the temple, you're not getting promoted.
The members of the Church of Jesus Christ these Latter-Day Suckers hold power in one US state, not globally.
As for the various flavors of actual Christian, between infighting and a global decline in religiosity, you may not realize that this was a concern that people had as recently as the 1960s, in which a significant argument against Kennedy was that he'd owe his allegiance to the Pope instead of to America.