You seem to be interpreting "yet somehow" as disingenuous conspiracy-theory provocation. But the author was responding to another comment, and from that context (and the lead-up in the comment itself) it's clear that "yet somehow" means "in spite of the ethnicity-level setbacks and targeting that Jews experience", as a counterpoint to the parent comment.
Yeah, it turns out that conversation is somewhat complex, and we have to listen to the people we're conversing with. There are plenty of canards and dogwhistles about all sorts of issues, but evaluating whether a claim is antisemitic has to go deeper than just noting that it discusses Jews and wealth.
That comment, for example, was arguing that the disproportion could be taken as evidence of Jewish superiority, and yet here you are calling it antisemitic.
"Would you use the same superiority argument on white people?"
Are you meaning to imply that the previous poster argued for Jewish superiority? I don't see that. They mentioned a hypothetical argument as a counterexample to disprove any notion that these observations are intrinsically anti-semitic.
