Fair enough. Many members of the organization that plotted the assassination were Jewish (around 15%, but I can't find a source on that). That's in a nation that's less than 1% ethnically Jewish. Tends to stand out.
It seems quite relevant how many members the organization had to begin with, and at what point in time - before or after the assassination. Also: Jews are overwhelmingly urban. What proportion of the organization consisted of urban and rural people (I'm guessing close to 100% the former)? Also, Jews have a hard-on for education in a country that was overwhelmingly illiterate. Also, Jews lived mostly in the Western areas, which were more developed and industrialized - probably a correlation with radical ideas there as well
That's a fair assessment. The more pressing question is whether radical ideologues skewed Jewish.
That is very likely, then and now. Just recently I saw a 'traditionalist' and Stormfag argue to me that libertarianism is bad (which I agree with) and also that Jews are its source. Generally, Jews with their high verbal IQ will be overrepresented in anything that relies on that. Particularly given their history, it's no surprise to me if they would be attracted to a movement that purports to be against 'racism'.
The question is what this means.
My understanding is they generally lived in small communal settlements in the Pale. Socialism was a way of life. The immigrants skewed younger, though.
Kibbutzes? Or it is Kibbutzim?
The cross means nothing to them but the symbol of a religion they're at odds with. Nothing to do with god fearing. By most accounts, they didn't seem particularly religious.
From what I hear, the German Jews did not want to be associated with the Eastern European Jews because of their 'backwardness'.
Anyway, the point was, it's a situation that creates some fertile ground for Socialism to take root in America, and seed bearers of the ideology.
I am not sure how a small minority of a mostly despised group, concentrated in one area, would be that - and not the massive immigration from Europe of mostly poverty-ridden people, who would likely have been more sympathetic to socialism than the average European.
Organizations like the United Hebrew Trades start popping up. Later on, offshoots of the Bund. Yes, they weren't Marxist in 1880, but that was changing in the 1900s. They found success in textiles, and upward economic mobility, allowing access to education and academic fields.
I think this is what introduced them to radical ideas more than anything. First-generation immigrants work themselves into their grave in order to allow their children to go to universities which will then poison the minds of their children.
This is just setting the stage for the Frankfurt School to find success in America, when relocated to Columbia University.
I do not see the sine qua non there. The most success the FS had was with radical students of the 1960s. Was that nonsense really dependent on the arrival of some Jews. Sure, no doubt you can cite a few of those radical students who were Jews, but that has a high level of TheImpossible1 "a woman created this vaccine, so it must be an attempt to kill me" type argumentation.
What came first, the ideology that rejects "the establishment" or the radical anti-establishment student? That would be an interesting thing to look into.
E: this was a silly comment I didn't hat time to extrapolate on earlier. I should give you more effort. apologies. i'll attempt to give you a more reasoned approach tomorrow (if I still recall). we have so much common ground, yet we have vast differences on how we get to it.
It seems quite relevant how many members the organization had to begin with, and at what point in time - before or after the assassination. Also: Jews are overwhelmingly urban. What proportion of the organization consisted of urban and rural people (I'm guessing close to 100% the former)? Also, Jews have a hard-on for education in a country that was overwhelmingly illiterate. Also, Jews lived mostly in the Western areas, which were more developed and industrialized - probably a correlation with radical ideas there as well
That is very likely, then and now. Just recently I saw a 'traditionalist' and Stormfag argue to me that libertarianism is bad (which I agree with) and also that Jews are its source. Generally, Jews with their high verbal IQ will be overrepresented in anything that relies on that. Particularly given their history, it's no surprise to me if they would be attracted to a movement that purports to be against 'racism'.
The question is what this means.
Kibbutzes? Or it is Kibbutzim?
From what I hear, the German Jews did not want to be associated with the Eastern European Jews because of their 'backwardness'.
I am not sure how a small minority of a mostly despised group, concentrated in one area, would be that - and not the massive immigration from Europe of mostly poverty-ridden people, who would likely have been more sympathetic to socialism than the average European.
I think this is what introduced them to radical ideas more than anything. First-generation immigrants work themselves into their grave in order to allow their children to go to universities which will then poison the minds of their children.
I do not see the sine qua non there. The most success the FS had was with radical students of the 1960s. Was that nonsense really dependent on the arrival of some Jews. Sure, no doubt you can cite a few of those radical students who were Jews, but that has a high level of TheImpossible1 "a woman created this vaccine, so it must be an attempt to kill me" type argumentation.
What came first, the ideology that rejects "the establishment" or the radical anti-establishment student? That would be an interesting thing to look into.
E: this was a silly comment I didn't hat time to extrapolate on earlier. I should give you more effort. apologies. i'll attempt to give you a more reasoned approach tomorrow (if I still recall). we have so much common ground, yet we have vast differences on how we get to it.