>>12096Is it? In the US, Indians are overrepresented among doctors and tech workers and iirc actually earn more as a group than Jews do. This is interesting because Jews used to be vilified partially because of their overrepresentation in medicine (Eustace Mullins, a postwar Nazi who was in contact with Ezra Pound and helped birth modern conspiracy culture, even wrote a book about this). But Indian Americans have never been seen in the same way as Jews by far right movements here. If they're given any thought at all then they're not conniving infiltrators who use their blood ties to take over society, they're dirty inferior brown people who couldn't take over a "white" society if they wanted to. The same thing is true for Nigerian Americans. Wealthy, overrepresented in certain fields, seen by Nazis as subhumans rather than crafty infiltrators anyway.
It was the case for Jewish overrepresentation in the early USSR too. I don't have the data, probably someone will, but if the tables I've seen are true then Poles and Lithuanians were also overrepresented among the Bolsheviks, as you'd expect them to be in a religiously and racially chauvinistic empire. Central Asians probably would have been overrepresented too had they been more economically developed and culturally europeanized. But again, no Nazis see Lithuanians or Poles in the same way they see Jews. Lithuanians weren't much of anything and Poles were Slavic subhumans (conveniently forgotten by postwar Nazis who prefer a universalized "white race" with the ethnic differences papered over to German chauvinism).
>>12135This isn't true either. The Italian Fascists pre-Axis didn't hate Jews and Jews were actually overrepresented in the PNF, ᴉuᴉlossnW had a Jewish mistress even. Which by your logic should mean you have to dismiss them as Jewish puppets. Probably the difference comes down to the fact that Jews in Italy had been assimilated into Italian life for a much longer time than in Germany but in any case the Italians didn't care until the alliance with Germany made them implement some of the same racial laws. Mosley (who was backed by Italian money) did talk about the Jews but was far milder towards them than the Germans (not to say he wasn't bigoted towards them). Arnold Leese even called him a kosher fascist because of this. I suspect but don't know that Francoist Spain, Salazarist Portugal, Metaxist Greece, Japan, and Poland under Pilsudksi were all either not as antisemitic as Nazi Germany or were antisemitic in different ways (if you want to consider any of them Fascist, they're all debated).
Islamists never had the same views on Jews that you do either. In Islam Jews are people of the book, so their religion is seen as partly correct, correct in its essentials but corrupted over time. This means they're enemies when they fight Islam or when Islam can expand into their territories but they have rights guaranteed to them under the sharia (not rights in the same sense as modern liberal pluralism treats religious rights obviously, they're still second class citizens). The same goes for Christians. Historically there was no major hangup on the Jews in the Islamic world. You can check the list of expulsions of Jews that you guys love to post so much, practically none of them will be from the medieval Islamic world. Jews experienced Andalus as a time of relative tolerance and the fall of Andalus precipitated weird messianic movements in the Jewish community. As late as the 1800s, Jews were still fleeing to the Ottoman Empire to escape European persecution. The anti-semitism you see in the Muslim world today is more of a response to the existence of Israel than it is anything representative of how Islam historically saw Jews. There wasn't even an indigenous anti-semitic literature so a lot of European stuff like the Protocols had to be translated into Arabic, Urdu etc. (Some) Islamists adopted European style anti-semitism as a response to a geopolitical situation where Jews occupied one of the holiest lands in Islam, that's pretty different than them coming completely independently to the same conclusions.
And which Communists came to the same conclusion?