Incompatibility of behavior. Behavior that is extremely marginal and stigmatized becomes more pronounced when a small minority amplifies that behavior by disproportionately engaging in it.

That argument, even if we are going to accept it, is an 'is' and not an 'ought'. You cannot get an ought from an is, in other words, you cannot justify your own focus and behavior by saying that "oh, that is just an ingrained psychological mechanism".

My question is: why do you care about 'Jews', when woke Jews are just a subset of the people who are the problem (wokeists), and the vast, vast majority of Jews have nothing at all to do with it?

When a group that consists of 2% of the population comprises 50% of the subversion vs 65% causing 40%, it's the issue that is more urgent, because 3% will snowball into greater subversiveness (or criminality) quicker than 66%.

I don't agree. First of all, it's not 2% causing 50%, but (assuming that your numbers are right) 0.02% causing 50%. And the remaining 50% would then be caused by 0.98%. That is being generous, as it is the demented and reprehensible elites doing this.

Furthermore, I don't agree that a small population causing a lot of the subversion would be a problem. If anything, it would make things more difficult for them, as they generally have a harder time spreading their agenda than if the demographic is broadly based.

Interesting thought, and I think the answer is likely yes. The problem is that we don't really have masses of white people migrating into asian countries.

In order to cause the instability, or to get the information about whether this would cause the instability? Because most Jews today have not emigrated to Western countries in living memory, so that would not be a correct analogy in the former case.

Probably the best proxy we have are things like US servicemen raping or killing Japanese, which certainly causes a lot of strife, if not outright destabilization. But again, it's an imperfect proxy, as those servicemen raping and murdering are black as often as not, and the fact that they're young and male further skews any usefulness we could glean from the observation.

I certainly do agree with you that a small group being disproportionately criminal creates resentment against that group. But that is quite different from the question, again, of whether this is justified - the is-ought.