M: How is it "distorting" the facts? I don't see how it is distorting the facts to say the truth, that the Jews supported Communism more than anybody else.
I explicitly stated that I accept this as a fact --- twice if not more. Also, in the preceding sentence, there are two patterns suggested. Yet, you argue against what we both agree on.
The above-given is a case of wrong attribution, not distortion.
TQ: "The Jews have embraces socialist and communism precisely because for the first time in European history someone promised them equality and the ability to get outside the Pal of Settlement in the Russian Empire."
M: If this is so then why did the Western Jews in the USA, France, Britain (who even had a Jewish Prime Minister) To the best of my knowledge, U.K. has never had a Jewish Prime Minister).
and Germany, which had relative equality, also support Communism and Socialism in such great disproportion to their numbers?
This is a legitimate, valid question, to which you actually already gave a partial answer. The Jews indeed had relative equality, they were emancipated but not accepted.
As for France, it is the Dreyfus affair that occurred right at the time under discussion.
As for the U.S., most of the Jews who came here came not even from Germany (that was in early and mid-1880s) but from Poland and Ukraine, at that very time. They were no different in this regard from those who stayed behind.
There were also other oppressed minorities in the Russian Empire, including the Poles, and they did not support Communism as disproportionately as the Jews did. Correct. This is because these minorities: (i) remained on their own land, (ii) could rightly attribute their inequality to the lack of national independence, (iii) could hope that, once they regain independence, their inequality would go away. None of that applied to the Jews. They had no land of their own; the acceptance by Gentiles was the only thing they could hope for.
TQ: "Which explains to my original remark: in all times, then-current problems in Europe were blamed on the Jews. "
M: The problem goes much father back but again it is not as one-sided as you make it sound. The Jews engaged in certain practices that were objectionable to the Christians. They often allied themselves with cruel monarchs and served them as tax collectors, for instance.
That is an example of incorrect attribution of a fact. It is true that many Jews served as tax collectors and in other capacities in finance. It is absolutely wrong to say that they aligned themselves with cruel monarchs. I do not even know where to begin.
Well, to begin, this was not a very active choice on their part: in most of Europe, Jews were prohibited from owning the land, in addition to engaging in specified trades. There was not much else the Jews could do for most of European history. The enlightenment --- which did come to the West, gradually allowed them to enter professions, but this occurred very recently, in 1880s.
Another related charge advanced against the Jews is that some of them were engaged in lending, charging interest. The Christians are taught that interest is immoral and the lending practice is sinful. Economy is economy, it requires lending. This function was essentially left to the Jews and, where applicable, Arabs. Now they are blamed for it.
Next, why is it that the Jews allegedly aligned themselves with cruel monarchs? What happened when a benevolent monarch was in power? Did the Jewish tax collectors quit the profession then? Clearly not. SO why are they not given credit for "aligning themselves" with kind monarchs, why does credit go only one way?
Further, if they alighted themselves with monarchs --- and you think that the populous did not like it -- why is it that the monarchs themselves remained anti-Semitic. It is well known, for instance that Kishinev (sp?) pogroms in the beginning of XX century were initiated at the top echelons of the government. In the very least, why did the monarchs not protect their Jewish population, which you allege to have "aligned" with them? The answer is that the reason was elsewhere.
Furthermore, the idea of anyone "aligning" himself with cruel monarchs against the people is a Marxist one. Also, even if true, the more powerful people --- the generals of the army, the nobility --- that aligned themselves with cruel monarchs --- why are they and their offspring not hated for centuries?
Finally, even the "fact" is distorted: there were not that many tax collectors among the Jews. Those few that actually did have that occupation were simply more noticed because they were... well, the Jews, not one of "us."
You have adopted an economic justification of anti-Semitism, Marduk. This version is well-known: when the communists finnally turned anti-Semitic, they have tried to "explain" the "justifiable rage" of the masses by these economics-based allegations: in their system, everything is economics and the strugge of economic classes, remember?
This "economics" is a misattribution of selectively collected fact. But, even more importantly, economics has alsmost nothing to do with anti-Semitism in Europe. Here is just one of myriad examples, well documents, which yu can find with great ease, This is a part of the Law of Theodosius, passed on January 31, 439 (("Novella III: Concerning Jews, Samaritans, Heretics, And Pagans)") --- shortly after the conversion of the Roman rulers.
Wherefore, although according to an old saying [of the Greek Hippocrates, the "father" of medicine] "no cure is to be applied in desperate sicknesses," nevertheless, in order that these dangerous sects which are unmindful of our times may not spread into life the more freely, in indiscriminate disorder as it were, we ordain by this law to be valid for all time:Most Jews, for most part of the European history were rather poor. The recorded history, which until the advent of Marxism concentrated on the deeds of the monarchs and generals rather than general populous, recorded an occasional Jewish doctor and an occasional Jewish bookkeeper on the service of the rulers. For each such doctor, there were literally hundreds and thousands of simple workers who weaved buckets, milked cows, minor merchants that would buy produce and deliver it to the market, repaired watches, artisans, etc. It is only in about XIX century that they started to enter profession is noticeable quantities, and only in Western Europe. Russia, for instance, had an infamous quota system, allowing only a miniscule proportion of Jews to enter the universities as students.No Jew - or no Samaritan who subscribes to neither [the Jewish nor the Christian] religion - shall obtain offices and dignities; to none shall the administration of city service be permitted; nor shall any one exercise the office of a defender [that is, overseer] of the city. Indeed, we believe it sinful that the enemies of the heavenly majesty and of the Roman laws should become the executors of our laws…
Moreover, for the same reason, we forbid that any synagogue shall rise as a new building. [Fewer synagogues meant less chance of Christians becoming Jews.]…
On the one hand, whoever has built a synagogue must realize that he has worked to the advantage of the Catholic church [which will confiscate the building]; on the other hand, whoever has already secured the badge of office shall not hold the dignities he has acquired…
Of course the common people then hated the Jews for being the ones that taxed them to death.
Another misattribution: there has never been a monarch or duke that would allow his subordinate to set the tax rates. Whether the tax collector was Jewish or not, he merely executed his employer's will. Why do we not hear about the estates of Christian tax collectors being constantly burned by the angry crowd? Why are the stories of these people not past from generation to generation? Instead, we hear only about the "Jewish tax collectors." We hear this so often that you even write about this with the clause "of course." There is nothing natural about this, Marduk.
This often resulted in pogroms. When the Jew-hatred got out of hand the monarchs who had allied themselves with the Jews then kicked out the Jews and misrepresented themselves to the people as the ones who saved them from the Jewish tax-collectors. Perhaps, in some instances that was the case. But most certainly, this does not even describe, let alone explain, the millennia of persecution. This is because there were only few of such instances --- with very lasting consequences . -- but very few nonetheless. The Jews were expelled from England, after a serious of riots, in 1290. They have not been seen there for about 400 years after that.
Incidentally, the riots had nothing to do with tax collection. The first recorded blood libel --- alleging that Jews kill Christian children to make Matzo for Passover --- is that of Norwich, in 1144. Here is an image from 1462, portrays the martyrdom of a three year-old boy Andrew: he is held down while his throat is slit; the perpetrators are clearly marked as Jews by their clothes and turbans (the distinguishing mark that, by a Church decree, the Jews had to wear) 
There is even a whole Austrian Blood Libel cult --- of Anderl (Andrew) von Rinn, which originated in XV and became particularly popular in XVII. To shed some light on the "Enlightened" Europe and "economic" origins of anti-Semitism, here is an update by Veronika Schoennegger of the University of Innsbruck, Austria] (emphasis mine - TQ)
Some years ago, the bishop of Innsbruck [Bishop Stecher] tried to forbid the anti-Semitic cult and the body of Anderl was transferred from the church to the churchyard of Judenstein in 1985. And in 1994 the cult was officially forbidden and Anderl was supposed to become a symbol of antisemitism and of crimes against little children. Nevertheless, some very conservative people make a procession to his grave every year.This is presently, in the third millennium. This is in the enlightened Western Europe. And this has nothing to do with tax collection and economics.
It appears to me, Marduk, that you are an honest person, trying to arrive at a conclusion of "an issue," which is often brought up. It appears to me --- and I may be wrong, of course --- that the version and explanation of history you have been presented, together with the standards that somehow the Jews (and they only) must satisfy, leads you to the conclusions you have made.
I have made this and preceding post so extensive to show you that "not all is well" with the knowledge base that had been presented to you. I am not a historian to give exhaustive accounts, nor does my occupation permit me go into such details regularly. I just hope that I gave you enough to question your conclusions, to seek alternative and/or additional sources. You may find the short book by Sartre (which I posted here) to be of interest as well.
Regards, TQ.