Also: The Kulaks in the Ukraine. Various persons during various Maoist upheavals in China.

Everyone has the same illusions to different degrees: "Our side doesn't do these bad things." Then, when the facts come out, "It was justified!"

"We're taking you're stuff."

"I'll kill you if you try."

"Well then we must defend ourselves."

Inevitably, stuff is appropriated and the mob, in its losses, learns to pull the trigger first.

"Society" is this but both sides knowing when to stop before the shooting begins.

"they have all the stuff, and we have nothing. They have it because they're stealing it from us. And they know we're starving and they don't care, so they're existential enemies to us, and they deserve to die".

Thus the process is completely one-sided, and there is very little the other side can do.

They'll still be surprised when the people who have been posting guillotine memes for half a decade start killing rich people. There was always an explicit, if ignored, desire to avoid that by having the system change before it was necessary.

In my experience, most antisemites are fairly stupid* and it is hard for them to understand the logic which says "just because a small subset of a certain ethnic/cultural group has disproportionate influence over the society in which they live does not mean that every member of that ethnic/cultural group has disproportionate influence over that society".

This fallacy is sort of like thinking that, because most NBA players are African-American, it means that most or all African-Americans must be really good at basketball. Rather obviously flawed logic.

*Certainly not all, though - the more intelligent ones probably contribute the bulk of antisemitic literature.

Btw, accusing someone of something should or should not be a bannable offence independently from the accused ethnicity or religion. You don't want to have classes of people who can or cannot be accused of something on a "racial" basis, do you?