“People refuse to believe antisemitism is unique.”– Melanie Phillips That’s jus

–“People refuse to believe antisemitism is unique.”– Melanie Phillips

That’s just another claim of special pleading “we’re special”. No, antisemitism isn’t unique. They Gypsies operate at the opposite end of the spectrum, by homeland defeat, diaspora, parasitism on hosts, petty crime, and manual labor until they accumulate enough exasperation that they are prosecuted sufficiently to move on.

So antisemitism is common, and far more it’s more consistent and intense, but it’s because jews are internal conflict generators of exceptional ability to specialize in baiting into hazard and sedition against the european people their traditions and their civilization – something they not only do not understand but oft appear incapable of (as many jews and europeans have stated throughout history) for the same reason men (europeans) and women (jews) are oft incapable of understanding one another. I have, we have, done extensive work explaining that europeans (masculine heroic adversarialism) and jews (feminine special-pleading sedition) are both the only two sets of intellectual product producers on earth, and that both represent polar opposites of sex differences in strategy.

Subpopulations that are systematically persecuted or marginalized for being perceived as parasitic on host populations typically operate under strategies of extracting rents or resources without adequate or visible reciprocation.
Such groups can vary significantly in their means of extraction (economic, cultural, or social) and in the types of criminal to coercive to seditious to rent-seeking behavior they engage in.
These populations tend to evoke resentment due to a mismatch between what they consume and what they produce, or how they influence host societies without perceived contributions.

Jews are persecuted because they rely on the the female strategy of seduction (“Baiting into hazard”) by pursuit of asymmetry in risk, while hiding under the plausible deniability that their victims are engaging in voluntary exchange – which, as a product of individual sovereignty as the first principle of european civilization and law provides the jewish culture with the equivalent of a hunting license to prey upon the impulses for experience and consumption on one hand and total willingness to participate in slavery and piracy in the middle, and at the upper end, the funding of internecine wars on the other.

All made possible by the aristocratic prohibition on usury, the aristocratic costs of governance and defense, combined with the french-papal destruction of the Templars (europe’s naturally evolved bankers), and the failure of other than the french to nationalize banking and credit under the monarchies. (Which is is one half of the American problem of parasitism upon our people by capture of media, government, and academic institutions).

The difference that separates jews from others is that because europeans (unlike middle easterners and east asians) tolerate predation in matters of volition (baiting into hazard). (Read “200 years together”.)

A LIST OF PERSECUTED GROUPS
Here is a list of groups that practice systematic parasitism on host populations across the spectrum of means of parasitism from the most subtle, to the cultural, to the economic, to the martial:

EXAMPLES
Below are a few examples spanning different contexts:

1. Jewish Diaspora (Historical Example)
Historical Context: Historically persecuted across Europe, Jews were often accused of parasitism, especially in the economic sphere. During periods of expulsion and persecution, they were cast as usurers or middlemen who extracted wealth from the host societies without contributing materially to production. Their distinct separateness in terms of religion, culture, and economic specialization (e.g., money lending and trade) reinforced these perceptions.
Resulting Dynamics: This led to systematic pogroms, ghettoization, and expulsions (e.g., from Spain in 1492 or England in 1290), justified by accusations of undermining the host society’s cohesion and economic stability.

2. Mercenary Populations (e.g., Varangian Guard, Free Companies)
Historical Context: Mercenary populations, like the Varangian Guard in Byzantium or the Free Companies in Europe, were often seen as temporary, parasitic presences that extracted wealth through the provision of violence and coercion. In unstable periods, these groups gained influence and power through their martial capacity but were often distrusted and expelled once their utility waned.
Resulting Dynamics: Once the host society no longer needed their services, these groups were often violently driven out or disbanded, as the perceived value they provided was eclipsed by the costs they imposed.

3. Nomadic Pastoralists (e.g., Cossacks, Bedouins)
Historical Context: Nomadic groups like the Cossacks in Russia or the Bedouins in the Middle East historically engaged in what could be seen as a predatory relationship with sedentary agricultural populations. They operated at the fringes of societies, raiding, extorting, and sometimes serving as mercenaries or irregular military forces.
Resulting Dynamics: These groups were often tolerated when they provided protection or filled a military niche, but were persecuted or expelled when their predation outweighed their utility. Sedentary societies often attempted to force them into submission or assimilation, resulting in cycles of rebellion and suppression.

4. Roma (Gypsies)
Context: The Roma operate as a modern example of a group engaging in a form of economic parasitism (from petty theft to welfare dependency) while maintaining a distinct cultural identity. This distinctiveness and lack of assimilation into host societies make them vulnerable to expulsion, persecution, and discrimination.
Resulting Dynamics: Governments often oscillate between tolerating the Roma under regulated circumstances and taking measures to expel or relocate them due to rising public resentment over perceived criminality or burden on social services.

5. Pirate/Maritime Societies (e.g., Barbary Corsairs, Caribbean Pirates)
Historical Context: Pirate communities like the Barbary Corsairs or Caribbean pirates operated as systematic extractors of wealth from merchant vessels and coastal settlements, often providing no reciprocation other than the sale of stolen goods.
Resulting Dynamics: Seen as parasitic on trade routes, these groups were often the targets of eradication campaigns by navies, leading to systematic hunting down and destruction of pirate bases once the cost of their predation exceeded the tolerance of affected states.

6. Migratory Traders and Market Dominant Minorities (e.g., Chinese in Southeast Asia, Lebanese in West Africa)
Context: Market-dominant minorities, such as the Chinese in Indonesia or the Lebanese in West Africa, often occupy key economic niches that are perceived as rent-seeking (e.g., control of retail, finance, or certain trades), which can create resentment among native populations.
Resulting Dynamics: This resentment can lead to pogroms, forced expropriation, or expulsion. For example, anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia or the expulsion of Indians from Uganda under Idi Amin were driven by the perception that these groups were extracting wealth without contributing to the host nation.

7. Dalit Communities in India (Caste-Based Outcasts)
Context: While not traditionally viewed as parasitic, Dalits have historically been segregated due to their perceived lack of contribution to the ritual economy of higher castes. Considered ‘polluters’ rather than producers, they were economically and socially marginalized.
Resulting Dynamics: Dalits face systemic persecution through exclusion from land, markets, and even basic rights. The discrimination arises from a perceived lack of value in traditional caste economies, making them perpetual economic outsiders.

8. Diaspora Middlemen Minorities (e.g., Armenians in the Ottoman Empire)
Context: Armenian and Greek populations in the Ottoman Empire often acted as middlemen, filling commercial roles that Muslims were either forbidden or disinclined to pursue. This created a perception of parasitic wealth extraction.
Resulting Dynamics: During periods of economic or political crisis, such minorities were targeted for systematic persecution, expulsion, or genocide, as was the case with the Armenian Genocide in 1915, which was partly justified on accusations of disloyalty and economic exploitation.

COMMON FEATURES AND PATTERNS
Groups considered parasitic typically:

– Maintain distinct cultural or social identities that resist assimilation.
– Occupy roles or engage in behaviors that are perceived as extractive or unproductive by host societies.
– Invoke resentment due to perceived privilege, lack of contribution, or rent-seeking behavior.
– Experience cyclical tolerance and persecution based on the host society’s tolerance for their perceived value versus cost.
– Understanding these patterns reveals how host societies differentiate between perceived productive and parasitic populations, often with extreme and violent outcomes when the balance shifts.

My point here, and the objective our my and our organization’s research is to reform the law to prohibit the means by which the jews specialize, and europeans imitate, the means of baiting into hazard and the industrialization of false promise and deceit in government.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle