The only two groups of people who don't think Jews are white are White Supremacists and Jewish Supremacists

For a Too Long; Didn't Read, see this comment: /r/stupidpol/comments/1hzfif5/comment/m6p8tmn/

Also in this comment I explain the difference between discussing race and being racialist: /r/stupidpol/comments/1hzfif5/comment/m6prs1m/

I've said before that the only two groups of people who don't think Jews are white are White Supremacists and Jewish Supremacists. If you ask many Jews they will often not identifty as white, but we should know by now that Zionism is a powerful force amongst Jews and they have an ideological reason to deny the charges of being european colonizers. Additionally the original Jews (at the time Israelites) were Canaanites, but the Jewish Bible officially denied this and claimed they were foreigners in order to strengthen the power of a priesthood for a particular Canaanite god that sought to end the worship of all the other gods in the pantheon, so it is in their tradition to set themselves apart from those closest to them that causes them to always try to identify as something other than those that are around them. If they didn't do this then they as a group would have disapeared a long time ago. This process has actually happened three times. The original Canaanites were told to stop worshipping Baal, then after the Babylonian Captivity the returning Jewish priesthood said everyone who had been left behind were actually just foreigners who were doing it wrong and they needed the priesthood to correct them, and then most recently the Zionists returned and expelled the portion of the population that after the destruction of the temple destroyed the priesthood decided to convert to Christianity and subsequently Islam.

Mizahri "Arab Jews" are most at odds with Arabs despite being closest to them and this causes headscratching over why this group which has the most in common with the Arabs seems to be the most stringent about persecuting other arabs, and Ethiopian Jews are most against Ethiopian Christians and Muslims despite directly experiencing ongoing anti-black racism in Israel. The reason for this is partially explainable by the fact that Israel is legally Jewish Supremacist and only culturally white supremacist, so there are legal benefits to constantly be going on about long irrelevant anti-semitism from other black people but consequences for complaining about racism from other Jews as a black person. It would seem that all the various groups of Jews almost form an anti-race of the group they really are. Askenazi Jews are mixed European-Palestinians but who do we find them having the most issues with?

The Jewish identity finds its purpose in being persecuted and not much else, and so in a place like the United States where Jews are not persecuted they quickly disperse themselves into non-existence within some generations. In Montreal where I live I have anecdotal evidence of Jewish inviduals living here their whole lives and only speaking English, but being in social circles with Jews from France and Israel who treat French like a prestige international language worth learning despite not having been around French speakers, with the other option for third language studies having been Arabic. Clearly Jews don't have problems with French, Montreal Jews have problems with French because Quebec has laws trying to get people to use French and being anglophones here is a way of setting themselves apart and keeping themselves distinct as a community. That isn't unusual as Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec hold onto their language in order to retain community identity, but English isn't some kind of cultural language for Jews, there are Yiddish speaking Haredi Ultra-Orthodox Jews here as well, but the Anglophone Jewish population live otherwise normal lives. The point is to deliberately set yourselves apart in order to improve community ties, if something like direct anti-semitism is not there, they might adopt some kind of aparent anglophone persecution as an alternative rallying cry. As such it is not that they don't like being white, it is that they don't want to be the thing that is around them, regardless of what that is.

The absurdity of what I am talking about reaches its pinnacle with those French Jews, as they were Sephardi North Africans. You might think this makes them non-white, but to the contrary these are the most white of all! Sephardis are the most "historically white" group of the planet, and what I mean is that every regime where "white" had legal significance morphed the definition of white to include them while excluding those for which it would have made more sense. With the small exception of the concept of them being classified as "New Christians" rather than "Old Christians" in Spain which was the proto-typical concept that morphed into being White, every other "white european" legal classification (and all those that actually used the term "white", rather than something else which we now can map onto being white like "Old Christian" for Spain or "Aryan" for Germany, which I will remind everyone were for continental european states classifications rather than colonial ones) be it in the United States, Australia, or South Africa included Jews, and especially Sephardi North African Jews. The reasoning is simple, the Sephardi were some of the most involved in the colonial process, and the principle that homecountry minorities end up being disporpotionately involved in colonial enterprises is a principle that extends beyond just Jews, but Sephardi were both no exception and the first example of it, alongside the Basques and other Spanish minority groups. You can even see this in the settlement of the thirteen colonies by various English religious dissenting groups, be they puritans, catholics, quakers, or scotch-irish presybetarians who did a double jump by colonizing Ireland and loving it so much that they went on to colonize appalachia.

This means for instance that North African Jews were not only "white" in America, but were becoming Senators for Florida on the eve of the Civil War on pro-slavery platforms, whereas middle eastern christians, a group you might expect would better fit into America were not included in being white until there was series of court cases in the early twentieth century which formalized the definition that was used until last year where Middle East and North African became a category on the census. (In short, supreme court ruled that Middle Easterners were white, where as the supreme court lead by former President William Howard Taft determined that Japanese and Indians were "Asians" and so they ended up being in the same category for some reason. Now you were never taught in school that Taft eventually lost the weight as a Supreme Court justice, but the image of his man who epitomizes the reason that we refer to Americans as "burgers" preceding over the supreme court getting to decide exactly which parts of the world are white or not in a way that will last for a century is just too hilarious not to mention, it is a discovery of the first instance of a meme in real life relating to American behaviour online that ranks up there with when I discovered that his rotundity President John Adams literally went to England and complained that in America traditions were being kept more alive than in Europe)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_Yulee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozawa_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat_Singh_Thind

Anyway what this was all leading up to was that in Algeria, the North African Jews received the distinction of being classified as Europeans by the French Colonial Regime, despite having never lived in Europe. They were joined by French Jews and Frenchmen as being classified as "pied-noir" in Algeria, but the North African Jews never actually "settled" there despite being "settlers". Rather they followed the retreating Moors back into North Africa once the Reconquista ended the basis of the Islamic state by overthrowing the Jyzia in what should be considered a Revolution rather than a reconquest as a "class" of Muslim converts of Spanish descent emerged as a basis for that rule (The "Arabs" who ruled were limited and the ruler being "an Arab" was a quirk of the extreme-patrilineality of the Arab identity as one could argue that at times their actual descent would have been more Slavic than Arab, much like with the Ottoman Royal Family, and this isn't different than say the British Royal Family being German, or the Swedish royal family being French) and both these converts to islam and the Jews got kicked out largely as a result of them being the populations that perpetuated that system (albeit the Jews also paid Jyzia but they were not numerous enough to form the basis of the Jyzia funded state and instead were part of the ruling class by being able to do stuff Islam banned like usury). When the French colonial regime came though those Jews instantly transformed into Europeans, but a group this did not apply to were those Muslims of Spanish descent who also fled.

Therefore we have examples of North African Jews being "white" before both Muslims of European descent, and middle eastern Christians. One could argue that perhaps this means Jews are the whitest people in the world before which all definitions of white morph themselves around. A simpler answer to this conumdrum is that Sephardi Jews in France lobbied to have North African Jews classified as Europeans for various reasons and France went along with this, where as there weren't any Spanish Muslims or Middle Easern Christians who were able to immediately decide that this newly administered group were part of a pre-existing group. Incidentally while we are on this topic, Khazar Origins Theory for Askenazi Jews was created by a Frenchman (who incidentally also wrote about the importance of forgetting stuff like the persecution of the Hugenots in nation building, hint hint as to if he geneuinely believed this or not) who regarded "semitic" people as being from inferior civilizations, but specifically excluded European Jews from this inferior civilization by propagating this alternative explanation for their origins. He was still called "anti-semitic" by Jews though, despite he himself having likely invented the term "semitic", making him the first person to be called an anti-semite. Incidentally the term "semite" in this context was used to refer to all people we now consider to be semitic EXCEPT Europeans Jews, who are Turks according to the guy who invented the term semite, whereas now "anti-semitic" is a term used to refer to semitic people who have a problem with those european jews the term was never meant to refer to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan

Some Russian rabbi apparently propagated the khazar theory before Renan to argue that the Russian Jews where he lived did not move to Russia from Germany despite speaking Yiddish as they merely adopted that tongue as at the time tensions between Russia and Germany were drawing attention to the Yiddish speakers who spoke a language similar to German, so the rabbi was obviously trying to argue that his Jews were native sons of the soil rather than German migrants. Renan took this and applied it to somehow refer to every European Jew despite the fact that it was seemingly intended to deny a German origin for Askenazi Jews by that Rabbi.

Perhaps some Askenazi Jews in Russia actually were Khazars and were assimilated into the Askenazi population when Jews from Germany started migrating east, but the origins of the Askenazi population appear to be a mixture of levantine and italian ancestry from the roman empire who probably went to places like Colonia (Cologne) and eventually started speaking German when those areas became German (which incidentally means they might actually have longer origins in certain parts of Germany (the Rhineland) than Germans do as they predate the migration period as being part of the Roman population). Specifically though the femal ancestry appears to be Italian while the male ancestry is Levantine, which poses a problem for Askenazi Rabbi who try to deny various African Jews their Jewishness based on lack of female ancestry. How Jews became matrilineal despite the bible and middle easterners in general being patrilineal is a mystery, but I suspect it dates to after the destruction of the second temple and the beginning of Talmudic Judaism which coincidences with the Radhanite period where Jews became Eurasia traversing merchants. The Sahara traversing Berber merchants inexplicable exhibit matrilineal descent tracing so I suspect it has material reasons related to men travelling between various "oasises" where ancestry gets traced by the women who stay put rather than the men who travel between the oasises. For Jews the "oasises" are just the various Jewish communities which were each ruled by a different Rabbi who in the absence of the temple argued he was the "teacher" needed to keep the Jews following the law while in "exile".

So while Jews are historically "white", are the "white supremacists" correct in determining they are not "biologically white" or whatever criteria they are using? Well it depends if you think someone who is roughly half european and half middle eastern is "white enough". Both "Aryans" and "Semites" were classified as "Caucasians" (and that was the criteria by which Syrian Christians (who included Lebanese and Palestinians since it was "Ottoman Province of Syria" rather than Modern Syria) got to classify themselves as white, incidentally the Indians arguing they were "Aryans" were rejected on the basis that '"a great body of our people" would reject assimilation with Indians', which seems to incidate that despite trying to be scientific about this that "we just don't like you" has always been the biggest thing it determining these things, and the Christianity of the middle eastern semites was enough to make people like them combined with scientific theories on Aryans and Semites being both Caucausian, where as "Aryan" Sikhs and Hindus were getting rejected for just being too different, with notions that they had intermixed with some unknown race in India making them permanently distinct from each other in ways opposite to how the semites were fine. Incidentally there was like one naturalization office in one state that was briefly holding up Finnish people from being naturalized on account of them being originally Mongols but the judge just got angry and declared that even if Finns had once been Mongols they had intermixed to such a degree that they had became "the whitest people in Europe". The hold up was likely caused by the fact that Finns were involved in unionzation activities out in the forest and mines places around the great lakes where Finns were settling and some guy was using some obscure theory to stop them from obtaining citizenship. There is no record of any Jewish naturalization in the United States ever being held up an account of some random scientific theory, nor is there any record of them needing to go to court to get reclassified as white. In fact the whole "Irish are not white" thing which is where that concept reaches its most absurd proportions was actually in part started by the first Jewish Congressperson who was the leader of the Know Nothing Party which was against catholic immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Charles_Levin

Noel Ignatiev, identifiyng as a white "race traitor", despite being Jewish later called for the abolision of "whiteness" largely based on this supposed flexibility demonstrated on the Irish "becoming white" which also eventually ended up applying to Jews as well despite it being heavy involvement of Jews in the first place which directed xenophobic religious hatred towards the Irish and introduced that kind of politics into the American discourse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev

When White Supremacists stopped regarding Jews as being white is when legalized white supremacy was being dismantled with Jews playing a leading role in doing so despite being by far the greatest beneficiaries of the system of legalized white supremacy, which coincides with the creation of legalized Jewish supremacy in Zionism. Jews could be said to have outgrown the need for white supremacy and "stabbed them in the back" whilst obfuscating their prior leading role in that white supremacy leaving all the negative consquences of the dismantling of that system on the backs of their accomplices. The parralel with the whole stab-in-the-back notion with Germany is that prior to the end of WW2 Jews were a Germanic speaking group of people who had massive issues with the Russian Tsar. So much so that German Intelligence was working with suppossedly "communist" Jews to overthrow the Tsar, in the form of Alexander Parvus, but after the Tsar was overthrown Germany still experience a revoluton of their own. The same German Intelligence whose formed the bulk of the NSDAP which used Jews to create revolution in Russia felt betrayed and lashed out at Jews, and in fact the person who shot Kurt Eisner (who corporal Hitler was a follower of in the German Revolutionary period when Hitler was in the red army, and the Strassers and Enrst Rohm, who later interrupted Hitler's rise before being defeated, were ironically in the Freikorps who went around shooting the "reds") was a German Noble or partial-Jewish descent and he blamed Jews for the revolution despite being Jewish (he was also the guy whose cell Hitler was placed in when he was arrested following the Beer Hall Putsch)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Graf_von_Arco_auf_Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Parvus

The whole Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy theory seems like projection on the part of German Intelligence as they legitimately had a strategy of "Judeo-Bolshevism" to defeat Russia. Parvus was working with German Intellgience, and Lenin only took him up on his offer for a ride, so Lenin was not directly involved. However at the time German Intelligence treaty the Yiddish speaking Jews as a group with a natural German-affinity due to being anti-Russian and German speaking.

Lenin additionally though the later German Revolutionaries acted incredibly dumb so they weren't coordinated even if Lenin wished they had been. In particular as it related to the stab-in-the-back, Lenin thought the manner in which the German Revolutionaries accepted "war guilt" and pushed for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in support of the now Bourgeois government after their failed uprising was stupid, as historically if you look at the Paris Commune that was a rising that occured in part as a rejection of war guilt reperations payments which were to be extracted from the working class, and it also received support from the "bitter-enders" who refused to accept the war was over in the French case, but the German communists acted dumb and didn't try to Paris Commune as they had already "shooted their shot" so to speak when the Freikorps put down the spartacus uprising.

One must realise that it is utterly false tactics to refuse to admit that a Soviet Germany would have to recognise the Treaty of Versailles for a time, and to submit to it. From this it does not follow that the Independents—at a time when the Scheidemanns were in the government, when the Soviet government in Hungary had not yet been overthrown, and when it was still possible that a Soviet revolution in Vienna would support Soviet Hungary—were right, under the circumstances, in putting forward the demand that the Treaty of Versailles should be signed. At that time the Independents tacked and manoeuvred very clumsily, for they more or less accepted responsibility for the Scheidemann traitors, and more or less backslid from advocacy of a ruthless (and most calmly conducted) class war against the Scheidemanns, to advocacy of a “classless” or “above-class” standpoint.

Thus the later "Nazi" position on the treaty of versailles was actually the Bolshevik position and it was wrong to say it was forced upon Germany by the "Judeo-Bolsheviks" as the Bolsheviks were against it from the start and the problem was the Judeos were not Bolsheviks in Germany if anything.

The problem was basically the failed Communists in Germany accepted an imperialist imposition onto Germany by taking a "classless" or "above-class" standpoint because the German Communists lost their confidence after a failed uprising and started being dumb. Lenin also considered the Treaty of Versailles to be far more brutal and despcable than the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk that Germany and Lenin signed for what that is worth (though its possible he doesn't want to admit that he signed a worse treaty because that poorly reflects upon him for having signed it)

The Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty dictated by monarchist Germany, and the subsequent much more brutal and despicable Versailles Treaty dictated by the "democratic" republics of America and France and also by "free" England, have rendered a most useful service to humanity by exposing both the hired coolies of the pen of imperialism and the petty-bourgeois reactionaries, although they call them selves pacifists and Socialists, who sang praises to "Wilsonism," and who insisted that peace and reforms were possible under imperialism.

Indeed one might even think Lenin was a Nazi based on the ways he talked about the Treaty of Versailles

By means of the Treaty of Versailles, the war imposed such terms upon these countries that advanced peoples have been reduced to a state of colonial dependence, poverty, starvation, ruin, and loss of rights: this treaty binds them for many generations, placing them in conditions that no civilised nation has ever lived in. The following is the post-war picture of the world: at least 1, 250 million people are at once brought under the colonial yoke, exploited by a brutal capitalism, which once boasted of its love for peace, and had some right to do so some fifty years ago, when the world was not yet partitioned, the monopolies did not as yet rule, and capitalism could still develop in a relatively peaceful way, without tremendous military conflicts. Today, after this “peaceful” period, we see a monstrous intensification of oppression, the reversion to a colonial and military oppression that is far worse than before. The Treaty of Versailles has placed Germany and the other defeated countries in a position that makes their economic existence physically impossible, deprives them of all rights, and humiliates them.

Okay so why was Imperial Germany pursuing a policy of "judeo-bolshevism" to overthrow Russia where as Lenin sounds like a Nazi talking about the treaty of versailles?

Well there was an involvement of Jewish billionaires in messing with Russia in the beginning of the twentieth century in order to try to "liberate" the Russian population there. Jacob Schiff for instance gave loans to Japan just to mess with Russia in a war and that contributed to the 1905 revolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff

What was going on here? Well at this point in time the developing of imperialism was beginning to use minority groups like the Armenians and othe Christians in the Ottoman Empire, Jews in Russia, and Christians in China to mess with those large but "backwards" powers. Jacob Shiff was the vector by which imperialism was acting on Russia in doing that, but there was similar things going on with Christians in the Ottoman Empire and China. (See Boxer Rebellion in 1900, and the "Armenian Holocaust" of the Hamidian Massacres in 1895 in the Ottoman Empire)

Jacob Schiff's behaviour was particular eggregious in World War 1, because he was generally supporting the Entente side of the war whilst still trying to mess with Russia, who was on the Entente side. As a corrolary, Germany started trying to get the Ottomans to invoke Jihad against the Christian colonial powers (but not the central powers despite them also being Christian and that the war broke out over the Austro-Hungarians annexing muslim Bosnia from the Ottoman Empire in the first place). The Ottoman alignement with Germany makes more sense from the perspective of the investments Germany kept placing in them such as trying to build the Berlin-Baghdad railway, which would threaten to make it easy for German troops to threaten British India or the Suez Canal without naval dominance, which would allow them to win a naval war overland like Alexander the Great did all those millenia before. This combined with a German Naval build up is what freaked Britain out enough that the British started getting involved in a land war with a European power which they had thus far refused to do as a matter of policy given how godawful the Crimean War against Russia had been.

This contradiction for Schiff was resolved when Kerensky overthrew the Tsar and he could now provide full support for a "Free" Russia. Kerensky's government maintained all Entente investments in Russia, including many of the French loans which provided the basis for their cooperation. The state-backed development model that Soviets had actually has many of its origins in the Tsarist industrialization policies which enabled there to be an industrial proletariat such that the Bolsheviks could overthrow Kerensky in the first place (and incidentally Kerensky could only overthrow the Tsar because of all the imperialist meddling and investment, and so Kerensky was another vector of imperialism in cooperation with Schiff). At the time which was the dawn of Imperialism, there was a distinct lack of domestic bourgeoisie in the "backwards" countries so they required imperialist partners to develop. The Mexican Revolution concurrent with the Russian Revolution was actually caused by many of the same factors but with American rather than French investment.

The Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy is largely reliant on Schiff having funded the Bolsheviks, but that was untrue. German Intellgience funded the Bolsheviks. I think there was some Jewish banker in Sweden who helped did internation finance for the bolshevik, but the timeline for this is related to the New Economic Policy period where the emerging Soviet state needed to reintregrate into the financial system when the world revolution failed, rather than them acting on behalf of some kind of Judeo-Swedish conspiracy to take over Russia. The Jewish financiers of the world DID want to overthrow the Tsar, but they DID NOT want to jeopardize their investments in Russia. The 1905 Revolution attempted this and Februrary Revolution with Keresky accomplished that much, but the Bolsheviks totally ruined those plans when they overthrew Kerensky and eliminated all the imperialist investments in Russia. There is a better case to be made that there was a Judeo-Menshevik conspiracy as their moderate positions suspiciously would always preserve the imperialist investments in Russia, just as accepting the Treaty of Versailles by strategically abandoning a class position for nonsensical "war guilt" positions placed Germany in the thralldom of international finance. Indeed while the Bolsheviks did have roughly double the number of Jews (10%) that one would expect based on the Jewish population of Russia (5%), when one accounts for the Bolseviks being a urban-oriented party they actually have a bit more than half the number of Jews you would expect based on the Jewish portion of the urban population of Russia (15%). You can see this phenomena also in the high Bolshevik support amongst the urbanized Latvians, who formed Lenin's personal guard of the Latvian Riflemen, contrasted with low support amongst the still rural Lithuanians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_census#By_native_language

Twenty-two percent of Bolsheviks were gentry (1.7% of the total population) and 38% were uprooted peasants; compared with 19% and 26% for the Mensheviks. In 1907, 78% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish; compared to 34% and 20% for the Mensheviks. Total Bolshevik membership was 8,400 in 1905, 13,000 in 1906, and 46,100 by 1907; compared to 8,400, 18,000 and 38,200 for the Mensheviks. By 1910, both factions together had fewer than 100,000 members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Demographics_of_the_two_factions

You will also find a far larger over-representation of the gentry amongst the Bolsheviks than you will Jews, and I suspect that if you anazlyze the general phenomena of Jewish over-representation in most fields in might be an outgrowth of this phenomena where rich people are more likely to do specific things in general which are not direct labour, which woukd include trying to overthrow the system of capitalism even if that is a bit counter-intuitive. The main difference I suspect is that people aren't measuring what porportion of nobel prize winners for instance are gentry and when they do they divide them by nationality comparing those wins to their national population which ends up including the large peasant population which makes it look less impressive, but they do this when it comes to Jews and end up comparing it to a much smaller peasant population. Both gentry and Jews were largely of the "leisure class" and so were free to pursue random interests, some of which would be revolutionary activity, and you see Russian gentry involved in lots of revolutionary activity to a greater degree than rich Jews were. However in the western countries like Hungary and Germany that also had communist revolutions in this period there is a much larger Jewish over representation, with the Jewish "over-representation" amongst the Bolsheviks being a pale shadow of the Jewish over-representation in those failed revolutions where you might actually end up with the majority of the leaders being Jewish by descent (but this makes a bit more sense when you consider that at this time 25% of the population of Budapest was Jewish, so it is still and over-representation but not by as much as were you to compare it to the national portion of the population). Relative Jewish under-representation amongst Communists in Russia based on what you would expect when you compare other factors can be in part be explained by the fact that Russian Jews were far more likely to actually be working class, and therefore ironically less likely to be highly involved in time-consuming revolutionary activity. Another factor, which is likely related to Jews in Russia being more likely to be working class, was the existence of the Jewish Labour Bund, which was the working class organizatin for the Pale of Settlement where the Jews lived, and in those places on the borderlands with Poland the system of industry expanded outwards reaching into Russia from Poland and both the factory owners and the factory workers were from the Jewish communities in the area, this likely contributed to Jewish over-representation amongst the urban population of Russia as well as the industrial zone just happened to be within the pale of settlement due to proximity to the industrialzing Poland.

Anyway while the Jewish Labour Bund was in negotiation of wether they should join the Bolshevik/Menshevik Social Democratic Party as a seperate block or as individual members, both the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were united in arguing they needed to join under the same basis as everyone else as the Latvians, Poles, Russians, etc all joined the unified Social Democratic Party rather than having different sections. Martov, who was Jewish and lead the Menshviks, and Lenin, who had Jewish ancestry but also had ancestry from literally every group in a 1000 mile radius and wouldn't even qualify as Jewish in Nazi Germany, both disagreed with the Jewish sections being their own thing and so the Jewish Bund representatives were briefly expelled. This gave Lenin the temporary majority he needed to challenge Martov which contributed to the split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks (there were other things but the Jewish maneuvering was one of the things which contributed to the split). Later on the Mensheviks allowed the Jewish Bund to join back up as its own section despite Martov initially being against the concept which caused the Mensheviks to regain their majority in the party.

Annecdotally as well, even amongst the Bolsheviks you had "Menshevik-Bolshevik bridge" Trotsky as being Jewish, and even the Bolsheviks who were Jewish, Zinoviev and Kamenev, were against taking power in the October Revolution. Lenin's final testament even calls this "no accident", which combined with mentioning Trotsky in that sentence seems suspicious to me as to what he means as he can't blame them "personally".

[T]he October episode with Zinoiev and Kamenev [their opposition to seizing power in October 1917] was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally, any more than non-Bolshevism can upon Trotsky.

If you allow for the interjection of Jewspiracy into this you can create a massive case for Judeo-Menshevism, with Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev being "handlers" tasked with moderating the Bolsheviks, but nobody blames them personally or something. Of course I'm reading into this a lot more than anyone should, but if someobody somewhere is going to make accusation of Judeo-Bolshevism they should at least be cognizant of what those "Judeo-Bolsheviks" were actually doing. The Jews were the moderate faction at every turn. This presents an interesting though experiment: what if everyone is aware that the Jewspiracy is going on but nobody cares? Because if everyone knows about the Jewspiracy you could just keep tabs on your handlers and proceed to do what you would have been doing anyway without the Jewspiracy. You might even marry your handler on account of their being no other women in your revolutionary social circles to make sure you can keep an extra close eye on them. The handlers will become the handeld. A mutually-anihilatory sacrifice that can neutralize the Jewspiracy dead in its tracks on the basis of having a much larger population that resulted in Israel having this weird Russian population that technically qualifies as Jewish that hates the ultra-orthodox Jews.

Leaving aside the tin foil hate theory that Jews have a propensity to inflitrate potentially anti-semitic movements to ensure that they don't turn against them, there are multiple reasons as to why one might not actually care. Namely that one has no real intention of becoming anti-semitic anyway for the simple fact that Jews despite their peculiar traits which might make them an annoyance to deal with will necessarily be required to be included in any working class movement for the simple reason that any excluded group will necessarily end up being fodder for which capital can use to undermine your organization. I will present two opposing cases of excluded Jews vs another group acting in the exact same manner towards included Jews.

The first case is Stalin writing on the National Question and apparently the Jewish Bund was defending strike breaking against the Polish Workers because they were mad at petito-bourgeois and noble Poles for pogroms which were probably intending to target and eliminate loan records like most pogroms were historically. Indeed Engels on anti-semitism addresses that in the "backwards" countries anti-semitism is just a manifestation of arguments over loans that get caught up in groups attacking each other, but that the system of capital, wether Aryan or Semitic, is destroying all of those classes regardless and they soon will be an irrelevant force, and in the mean time the proletariat is being strengthened in these places who have no real need to be anti-semitic in the same way, but with what I am adding to the conversation the strikebreaking is an attempt by capital to create a group of people who can disrupt this proletarian class which is growing in strength by dividing it against itself through using a bunch of increasingly irrelevant grievances to get them to lash out at an entirely unrelated class of people who are not doing the things which lead to those grievances.

(continued 1/3)