I do wonder if the zio-right will succeed in subverting the online right before the elections.
For years major figures were playing footsie with sailer and the others and now they've got a whole network set up and enough people reading them to be a threat. If they had been called out years ago, the project would have gotten no where. Now it is up in the air who will win this round. The Alt-Lite beat out the Alt-Right which got itself arrested, essentially and totally left out in the cold by Trump. Let's see what happens this time. I'm rooting for you, Keith!
Curious to meet you here, Rolo! Don't you blame all Abrahamism for this woke mess, however? It's weird to see you exonerating Christianity. Sure, the Jews are a tough little people, but they are dime a dozen - and as you're an expert on Russia, you should be aware that Russian Christians have been suffering from cancer that is Caucasian churkas all the same - the same old universality worship of foreigners who have genocided the Russians in Tuva, in Chechnya, in Uzbekistan, etc.
That can all be true but misses the point being made in this debate: Is Wokeism primarily a child of Puritan-Quaker culture? This culture went on to found very radical universalist churches, while the Southern churches were of course conservative and maybe only because they were from different European groups than the Northerners.
My starting view is that, at least by the numbers but possibly also by intellectual strength, Wokeism is primarily a child of Puritan-Quaker culture, but that plenty of Jews melded with the same mindset.
The stances that it was all one or another group is going to run into a brick wall of easy facts. Many things can be true: you can have multiple enemies.
No, the question is on the origins of Woke with the Jewish Elite capture being one theory and Christian Heresy theory being another. The relative political affiliation of Protestants was only one point in a much larger rebuttal.
Obviously if Prots being lefty now is evidence of the latter theory, then Jews being the more lefty, both now and back when the shift occurred, is evidence of the former theory being better. Since if your theory was correct Jews should be assimilated to the Protestant elite distribution.
I don't believe it is your "starting theory", someone convinced you and you're not offering any reason to believe it. Unless you think Southerners were overrepresented in Northeastern elite schools, which makes no sense.
Jews don't have enough power (numbers * ability + financial translation) to outdo White elites. As I said, Mormons are probably more powerful than Jews and exist all throughout the upper echelons of the security state; they just aren't hysterical and loud like Jews.
Jews do have power and are indeed more powerful than nationalists when they're disorganized (i.e. don't have White elite backing), but they're not more powerful than White elites.
That's my claim and most succinct answer to your question.
We should also keep in mind that high IQ Jews have very low fertility and often further mix with Whites. This isn't as big of a problem as you guys might think and is working itself out anyways.
It is a problem and I see it all the time with some shitty article and I see the -witz, -stein, -berg, -man surname, or just see it in their eyebrows or skin accent.
But it's not the one problem to rule them all. That would more be the Axial Age, which does indeed parent all ideology and moral hysteria. I don't want to be only a critic, so I'll make that case and insert myself into the arena for critique, too.
None of what you're saying is pertinent to the topic. You seem more interested in obfuscating Jewish involvement in Wokeism and the left-wing hegemony than proving the Christian Heresy theory makes more sense.
In my earlier comment, I said it was perfectly fine to map Jewish networks who harm you (committing violence against them, obviously I cannot endorse: you should instead intelligently contest the politics).
Go whole hog researching Jewish networks. It's no skin off my back. I would even enjoy reading it.
And no, I'm 0.0% Jewish. I come from ancient Scandinavian lines that settled the American frontier and was never around the eastern urban areas to collect a Jewish line:
Actually the Irish lobby is more powerful than the Jewish lobby, which must give Keith quite a kick. But it's true.
As a lobby, it's obviously not commensurate with his nationalist interests, but the lobby of Irish elites is more powerful than the Israeli lobby. You can look up the numbers for yourself. And any follower of geopolitics is already aware how Israel frequently doesn't get its way from the US.
"Jews being the more lefty, both now and back when the shift occurred, is evidence of the former theory being better"
Not at all. Of course Jews are going to be particularist to their interests. It's orthogonal to the debate and scores no points.
Left and Right don't really mean things to the elite anyways. The populists themselves are both left and right. There will always be a complex of universal perception and difference. The differences between classes is one of varying commitments, capital, and skills.
The difference between populism and elitism is whether a principle or commonplace can go beyond concrete realities. It almost never can and the responsible leaders of the classes need to begin discourse and discipline the stupid in their ranks.
"if your theory was correct Jews should be assimilated to the Protestant elite distribution"
That seems to be the most probable theory. Ashkenazi Jews are significantly more European in temperament than the other tribes. Many of them are outright 85% European in the first place.
Jews in diaspora evolved to be an urban bourgeoisie, beside their White bourgeois counterparts. If you don't like the money mindset, liquidation of embedments, blame Whites first, then blame the West Asian empires that invented money (and who enslaved Jews).
Where are our laws making it illegal to question the legitimacy of the Irish state? Where are our PACs dedicated to funneling billions of dollars to Irish nationalist causes? When was the IRA getting F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks during the Troubles? Where are the Catholic-Irish cooperation organizations that send elderly Catholics mail telling them that for just 10 cents every year they can feed an elderly Irish widow for a year? Where is our annual Hollywood film/miniseries about how the Potato Famine was the worst event in the history of mankind? Is Keith being bankrolled by Wall Street hedge fund managers chipping in a dime to save the old country from Muslims?
If your idea of an Irish Lobby is any O'Mickle with a net worth of >$50 million then I could see your argument, but I really don't see how Irish elites are organizing politically for Irish ethnic interests, let alone to the degree that Jews do.
everyone knows that AIPAC runs the US political system but what few people understand is that AIPAC = American-IRELAND Political Action Committee. Keith is its shadow president and got Trump elected to lower potato tariffs.
> "the political affinities of Protestans in the late 60s were the most conservative, with Catholics slightly more liberal and Jews wildly more liberal."
But it was the Catholics who conducted the French Revolution, and the Catholics who mixed with the Amerindians in Latin America. All of Christianity is inherently universalist - especially when coupled with technological advancements in transportation. The Christians "save souls", not exterminate populations for their own gain (like the Hitlerian Germans or the non-Christian Turks).
why are people who write under keith's posts the most schizo people. I assume it's because the normal reader just takes the content and leaves with new info, but ofc some people see a stat of Catholics in 1969's America being conservative and go down to the comments to say "the Catholics who mixed with the Amerindians in Latin America". Truly I wonder how you people's brain's work.
What are you talking about? That was one of the biggest blows against Catholicism to ever occur. I don’t doubt some self hating Christians were apart of the rabble, but just on its face this statement is ridiculous.
See my other comment. "By their fruits ye shall know them." I blame the Bolsheviks for the Russian genocide of the 1990s, too. If a Catholic country turns revolutionary in the 1790s, I blame the previous culture which led to that point. Just how the tsarist Russia led to the Bolshevik revolution. Just how most Christian nations right now are gay. Coincidence?
"Jews are the activist vanguard which tipped the natural political balance of White society and any honest examination cannot get around that fact."
Jews were allowed in England and later America by elite White families for their own grand schemes. Jews could never strong arm their way in—even to this day the security elite are overwhelming White—and the elites that brought them in were not stupid and had no illusions about Jews, nor incentives and mechanisms not on them, just as they do us all.
You can say that was detrimental to those beneath the elites and you could easily be right, but these elites already didn't care much for you. If you guys want to become more aware of what uses or abuses you, that's fine; let's just get the order of forces right. Jews are an attache: media and finance specialists.
Keith had this debate once where he showed me political appointees, like a functionary is a security elite family. These do exist through Israel, but they're small in comparison to the total IC and Israel's intelligence is only in decline, most obviously by the Oct 7 attack but also their demographic trajectory.
If anything Mormon security elites are more powerful than the Jews—trivially more powerful than Harvard, though that seems to be intentionally kept quiet—and whose fertility will keep them here well after the high IQ Jews further disappear and mix.
Who exactly are the high iq jews mixing with? Also it doesn't matter, Jews themselves are mainly European ethnically due to racial admixture, but still have extreme collective identity based on "being Jewish". It's not about the maternal line either. Jews will never disappear, this is a clear cope and defence for Jews by someone I assume is a jew.
LoL BAP-ass comment. You literally state random things like "Israel's intelligence is in decline" to take away from the obvious unconditional support of America for this random tiny country in the middle East. You're entire perspective is wrong, it's not "Ireland's more useful to us than Israel", it's that THEY themselves are Jewish, so they support Israel. Israel has never materially benefited America in anyway, only ruining their international reputation, making enemies more close and taking more money that would have gone to actual Americans [but once again, the elite don't care as they themselves are Jewish or friends of Jews as Jews are overrepresented in the Elite enit, so you have to befriend them to be a part of the elite in the first place]
Don't know what a 'BAP-ass comment' is supposed to mean. I don't even follow him.
I'm sure he's somewhat thoughtful with political operations, but beyond that, intellectually he comes off as a brain-damaged Nietzsche.
And Israel failing on Oct 7 is not a random thing to state, in the context of me telling you their intelligence _system_ is not as good as you might think.
If you really despise Jews, this should be good news to your ears, but for some reason you can't believe it possible.
"the obvious unconditional support of America for this random tiny country"
Do you not track geopolitics at all or something? Every other day the US is frustrating Israel's interests and it's been this way since their founding. Pointing to times where they were helped by the US does not change this fact.
I don't know how a scientific mind could read the data and say Israel rules America as more probable than America rules Israel.
Of course neither are completely true, and Israel is trying to find its place in an alliance with the Saudis and a first generation alliance with Egypt transitioned into an alliance with Turkey as Egypt falls to the Muslim Brotherhood as America becomes less interested and shifts its focus to Southeast Asia and South America.
We never actually cared that much about Israel. What we cared about was Arab oil to Europe and China when China was still friendly. That's why we were in the Middle East. Israel punches above its weight, but it's still a small weight.
That must blow your mind because your entire worldview is constructed out of this one variable: Jews.
Jews do everything and trick everyone. There can never be a larger force than Jews, though maybe Christ. It's a cartoonish theory of history that you can't even build anything with.
Jewish elites are a mid-tier people, bro. You only don't know that because you never bothered to measure the entire landscape and see how powerful all other nations are (population * ability + financial translation).
What you are is this working class white guy who has an obsession with what is just adjacent to you and all of world dynamics must be simply explained by it.
That's not how the world works and it's never been how elites think, which is precisely why you are not in the elite and are stuck in the drug den.
Obviously a Russian shill will downplay the jews and start pushing conspiracy theories about protestants and Mormons lol. The definition of wokeism is very simple no need for your pilpul. Frankfurt school neo Marxism changing from economic warfare to cultural Marxism. That's literally what wokeism is.
lmao, how to lie with statistics. Episcopalians are about 1.5 million of America's population, and still declining for obvious reasons. Southern Baptists alone are nearly 10x that amount, and adding all other Evangelicals will dwarf the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and LCMS combined. Saying it's "just" Evangelicals holding out is obviously misleading and ignores the long left-oriented descent of today's most liberal churches.
Good article. It's nice that someone making the case for the prosecution admits that the idea of leftism as evolving in some sense out of Protestantism isn't something Curtis Yarvin invented to bamboozle WNs, but a commonplace of historical writing for decades. It's also good to state clearly that the significance one ascribes to Jewish involvement principally comes down to how significant one thinks the Boasian and Frankfurt schools were.
Now, as to that, the one part of your article which I think is simply wrong is this:
"Looking at the record of Montagu and Boas’s work, it would be absurd to suggest their advocacy was motivated by a desire to assimilate to the Christian liberal values of their time."
It's not absurd at all since Boas was consistently committed to the values of liberal *German* society - then considered the preeminent progressive nation - throughout his life. Unlike the Frankfurt School, he was fully committed to Jewish assimilation, identified his own ethical/spiritual beliefs as Protestant, and did not seek out Jewish subculture. His sole alleged Jewish identification is opposition to antisemitism, which is a bit like saying he had a strong black identity because he opposed segregation. It's true he looked down to a large extent on America as uneducated and violent, but that was exactly what of would expect of a cultured European liberal. (Indeed, it's what one would expect of a cultured *American* liberal.)
The other main omission is the fact that most of the Frankfurt School were brought over to America to America and employed by the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. The question is who was pulling whose strings. Probably a bit of both, but Occam's Razor is that it was the OSS in the driver's seat.
Boas is squarely within the German historicist tradition (Ranke, Dilthey, Windelband, Rickert, etc.), where understanding something in the humanities is not to subsume it under laws but to grasp it in its particularity. While Kevin MacDonald is probably responsible for why Boas has entered the conservative rogues' gallery, at a theoretical level, Boas was not revolutionary. He cleaned up anthropology with the conceptual tools that were already there, making it consistent with value-neutral empiricism and a Darwinism without teleology.
Behaviorism, in contrast, had a profound impact on the mid-century understanding of human behavior, positing that it is highly adaptable and easily influenced by environmental factors. This perspective was a logical one to adopt. Research couldn't shift towards a "nativist" or internalist stance without two key developments. One, Chomsky's transformational-generative grammar, which opened new avenues for cognitive exploration. Secondly, the "gene's eye" view of evolution established by W.D. Hamilton, George Williams, John Maynard Smith, and Robert Trivers in the 1960s and 70s.
Some conservatives give the impression that Jewish people are behind a plan to prevent us from holding the orthogenetic evolutionary views of, let us say, Herbert Spencer, so that we can be controlled into policing each other's behavior at the pronoun level. They need to rethink this.
The followers of KMac, it seems to me, both drastically overstate the importance of ideas and also have complete contempt for them. On the one hand, we are expected to believe that, absent the immigration of a few dozen zany Jewish intellectuals and their counterintuitive readings of Shakespeare, Alabama would still have segregated water fountains, but the actual content of intellectual debates is of no value and just a disguise for Jewish interests.
I think it's best to look at things in precisely the opposite way. Political formulas with mass appeal are mostly conditioned by the needs of power given certain economic, technological and geopolitical conditions. Inherited traditions play a role in shaping how these formulas emerge, but that's about it and fundamentally who said what when isn't very important, because if they hadn't someone else would. What person really believes that the welfare state is built around Rawl's 'theory' of justice rather than the other way round? However, at the same time, debates happen within academia that are actually interesting and, though they often go down blind alleys, often profoundly illuminate the world around us. It's notable that every Skinner and Chomsky debate degenerated into each one accusing the other of promoting fascism while insisting his theory and only his theory was compatible with progressive liberalism. What this shows is that actually neither theory has any obvious political implications at all, but the actual ideas they discussed are among the most important things that anyone could possibly think about.
It isn't implausible that Bowden Prime, Legacy Bowden, Bong Bowden -- whatever we want to call him -- is a distant relation. I learned a few years ago that I'm related to Elvis on the maternal side, so who knows?
Despite some similarities in interests and temperament, I'm not conservative, and I'm in solid mental and physical health. I'm closer to what Aris Roussinos or Angela Nagle are doing. There are ways of infusing modernity with identity and participating in a civilization without being a Hitler-worshipping dickhead. Why shouldn't leftism integrate culture into itself as part of the good life?
Who considered Germany the preeminent progressive nation, and for what reasons? It's no secret that Jews will identify themselves as proud fellow nationals of the nation that hosts them. Boas refusing to identify as a Jew while supporting the left-wing ideals of certain secular Jewish sects is not just self-consistent, it's arguably obligate.
>Who considered Germany the preeminent progressive nation, and for what reasons?
Germany shocked the world with its resounding victory over France in 1871. France's defeat by what was for centuries considered a backwater was regarded as impossible. The feeling was France? France? Lost to *these* people? How? Despite its recent formation as a unified nation, Germany's rapid ascent to the status of a global power was attributed to its embrace of modernism, characterized by efficient bureaucracy, scientific advancements, and a culture of professionalism.
This supercharged a trend often called "academicism" in the sciences and humanities. From university systems to armed forces to urban planning to public works projects, everyone scrambled to catch up to Germany, and every field was infused with rigor. Mathematics became rigorous, philosophy became rigorous, physics became rigorous, psychology became rigorous, music became rigorous, etc., all on the German model. Emerging powers like Japan, Russia, and America made it a point to emulate Germany explicitly. Think of Rimsky-Korsakov in Russian music -- it was an effort to raise the bar. There was eventually a primitivist reaction to all of this stuff, but that came later.
Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876, serves as a prime example of Germany's influence. It was explicitly modeled on the German system, with its research orientation, seminar system, graduate programs (including the first modern German-style Ph.D. program in the country), and professional schools. This was a significant departure from the previous emphasis on moral instruction in American schools. Even in 1920, figures like Santayana lamented that Harvard was still more focused on Puritan morality than intellect.
The best of the Germanic states of the 17th and 18th centuries were already far in advance of most of the world in mathematics, science, engineering, music, etc. They were behind the English and French in terms of warfare because of demographic (relatively heterogeneous) and geographic deficits and were a backwater in that uncharitable sense, but considering how the printing press spread first through the HRE and Prussia pioneered compulsory education, if anything they were probably more literate and progressive than their neighbors with superior navies. That kind of progressivism (creating minds like Liebniz) shouldn't be conflated with the progressivism we commonly refer to in the social sciences. I strongly agree that Germany was exceptionally advanced and influential on the world in the 19th century.
None of that really refutes how Boas was an exemplar of social and racial progressivism, consistent with modern secular Jewish culture, nor does it give strength to the argument that his lack of open Jewish identity is relevant, also consistent with modern secular Jewish culture.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I'm not diminishing the achievements of Euler, Telemann, or Leibniz. The fact is, though, that France was the center of gravity in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Even Frederick the Great considered France superior in just about everything and tried to speak as little German as possible.
In War and Peace, Tolstoy depicts German generals as blundering, needlessly scholastic autismos who create intricate plans based on abstract theories entirely unrelated to battle conditions. But after 1871, everyone was like, wtf i like German autism now, tell me more about rail logistics plz
What's being contested about Boas is whether his anthropology was "Jewish subversion" and a root cause of today's wokeness. If we go back further, what made John Brown believe that becoming an axe murderer would bring people together on the slavery issue? Social science? No, Puritanism. Meanwhile, most Jews in the Western Hemisphere were in Charleston, South Carolina, up until the Civil War. Brazil, when phasing out slavery, didn't have a war that killed 620,000 people with the grim aftermath of limbless people walking around for decades. And the hang'em high punish-the-evildoer attitude is still here in full force, left and right alike.
> The best of the Germanic states of the 17th and 18th centuries were already far in advance of most of the world in mathematics, science, engineering, music, etc.
Rather dubious. I'd say in science and definitely engineering they were behind Britain. The industrial revolution started in England and Flanders. For years the standard for science was set by the Royal Society.
There was a general belief in the later 19th century that Germany had overtaken the UK, and that in particularly English universities were moribund centres of irrelevant learning (and buggery). Maybe that's wrong - subsequent history seems to point that way - but that's what people thought.
As to the first point, Jason Bowden got there first. It's hard to imagine now, but in the early 20th century, America was regarded as rich, but also a backwater in terms of intellectual and high culture. Even what we now call STEM was 3rd rate. American elites were very successful in transplanting parts of European academia - facilitated in large part by the Nazis - and using it to achieve global dominance.
"Boas refusing to identify as a Jew while supporting the left-wing ideals of certain secular Jewish sects is not just self-consistent, it's arguably obligate."
You can't have it every way. KMac and his followers put a lot of effort into establishing that the Frankfurt school maintained a specifically Jewish identity, ethos, and self conception, and though they exaggerate this quite a bit, there is some truth to it. But the exact opposite was true of the Boasians, and if it's significant that the Frankfurt school had certain characteristics, it must also be signficant that the Boasians didn't.
Like Germany, America was already progressive and advanced by the start of the 19th century, it just took generational growth and overcoming barriers from the major naval powers to get there. Would never imagine it any other way.
I don't try to assume the particular motives of influential academics/philosophers/politicians based purely on their words but rather the circles they emerge from and find themselves in. I don't believe Keith Woods is trying to argue the origins of woke are a purely Jewish phenomenon, and I personally would include a number of White gentile ethnic demographics (particularly working-class Irish and Scandinavians broadly) as necessary components of its rise through a majoritarian democratic system. But a disproportionate number of its early forebears were in fact Jewish, and that fact alone is more connected to the roots than Sailer's consequentialist argument of "Protestant liberals happened first therefore it's them". One of the earliest hate speech laws in America was passed in Chicago, signed by a crooked Irish mayor by the name of Martin Kennelly, explicitly citing a paper by one Martin Diamond for doing so, a man from a Jewish socialist labor group who was also a boyhood friend of Irving Kristol and fellow newcon convert.
Some Jews like Boas can downplay their Jewish identity entirely, others can be Marxists and still cling onto some Jewish identity, others can convert from Marxism to neoconservatism and push "Judeo-Christianity", others yet can become non-religious Prime Ministers of Israel and push open genocide invoking the Jewish people. The thing that connects all of them is a tendency to emerge from one of many Jewish philosophical sects, all of which disproportionately promote members of their own and attack those who attack their Jewishness. When Boas was a foundational influence on race denialists like Lewontin, who also lean strongly Jewish, the relevance becomes even clearer.
Mr.Ham penned a brilliant comment..still the root of luciferian leftwingnut Wokeism is Talmud..kabala....Jews*. All ancillary extrapolation s or tertiary supportive influencers aside..it's JEWS.*.
Keith Woods is paraphrasing Kevin MacDonald. There's nothing wrong with that: it's the most intellectually respectable anti-semitic theory in circulation, orders of magnitude better than Fuentes-tier spastistry. However, if you are going to a go with a theory, you have to stick with it.
Now, the thing about MacDonald's theory is that it leaves out a lot of things you might expect an antisemitic theory of Jewish leftism to contain. There's no Chomsky, no Marx, no Trotsky. That's because MacDonald has a very specific model of how the Jewish evolutionary strategy works and they don't fit. That seems to be me a pretty big flaw in the theory, but an even bigger flaw is that it doesn't even fit the groups MacDonald does include. It fits the Frankfurt school, kind of, if you squint, but it doesn't fit the Boas school at all, which is why Culture of Critique includes outright false information, such as that Boas married a Jewess.
Now, your theory is that "The thing that connects all of them is a tendency to emerge from one of many Jewish philosophical sects" which is not really a theory at all, but in as much as it is, it obviously would also include American Libertarianism and Italian Fascism among other examples of disproportionately Jewish movements. The simplest education is that Jewish success in diverse academic and ideological fields is basically the same as their success in physics or finance. The only exceptions are movements that are overtly antisemitic, but it turns out that even this was basically a logistical issue. Once the internet allowed you to become a Nazi anonymously, Jews got in on that act too. Just ask Mike Enoch!
The 20th century Jewish academics used what were positive aspects of Christianity in a rational hierarchal society and contorted them to fit the Jewish egalitarian pipe dream. It seems as though their Frankenstein like worldview is starting to turn on them, again. Hopefully lessons will be learned this time.
Amwrican protestantism isn't conservative, its just the South that is conservative. Almost 100% of the protestant churches in the north (i'm from New York) display Pride flags and BLM signs. Only the Catholic churches do not. (im curious but are they not allowed to?)
It's a denominational thing mostly. The mainline churches like the CoE (Episcopalians), PCA (Presbyterians), ELCA (Lutherans), are all progressive, while their conservative members split off and formed the ACNA, and PCUSA respectively, while for Lutherans it was more decentralized to begin with, and some sub-denominations remained conservative (mostly), like the Missouri Synod. A similar schism has happened (and is currently ongoing) with the Methodists.
Catholics have become a lot let less progressive in the last 20 years or so because for the most part the ones that were just left the church, while the conservatives stayed. Meanwhile the mainline Protestant churches tried to stop this from happening by following the cultural trends, but they just ended up alienating the conservatives while the progressives largely still ended up leaving anyways.
Protestantism is deeply heterogeneous, and you will find conservative Protestants in large numbers in the Midwest and the West Coast as well, and you also have progressive Protestants in Southern cities. It's more of an urban-rural divide, although suburban Christians are generally conservative as well, though perhaps with the exception of the Northeast.
You're in New York, obviously the protestant churches that exist will serve the more liberal communities of that region. It doesn't mean protestantism is non-conservative, it means your in a liberal area. Protestantism and Conservatism in America are directly linked.
LOL I love the anti-nazbolism [feel free to describe what you mean by that, or you can keep using it as a slur like lefties use "fascist"], but are you defending liberals or something? Liberalism and "leftism" are the same, someone like Vaush say's how "I'm a leftist, not a liberal!" but what these far-left individuals mean is that they are completely socially liberal, but economically they want co-ops. They aren't even against free trade, so it's clear that they are literally just extremist liberals. Marxism was a bulwark against this but has obviously failed with the proliferation of social liberalism on the left. Keep pretending that these two groups have not merged in the modern day to suit your I assume classical liberal or reactionary or something view but it doesn't change the reality
Right-wing Jews and Pro-Whites could make an incredibly powerful alliance against "Third-Worldist" wokes. But as long as the right-wing Jewish community refuses to acknowledge their role in anti-White hatred and their overrepresentation (cannot be explained meritocratically) this cannot be. They want our support but play games around their role in creating this mess and their undue power in managing said mess: they want their cake and they'd like to eat it too.
Thanks Keith for challenging the Jewish power obfuscaters. If they want us on their side - they have to make these concessions. Otherwise, no dice.
To remake a society you manipulate the symbols and touchstones existing already. So merely laying out similarities between now and then tells us nothing about what we really want to know: who got us here & who's in charge now? Woods does this well. Sailer is obviously running cover for some reason.
Sailer's observation is astute. Wokeness is secular Protestantism. It erupted worldwide in white Christian countries, most intensely where Protestantism dominates. No one else cared. Within the Protestant countries, it had the most energy in the English-speaking countries. And from there, the stronger the American influence, the stronger the wokeness.
To begin, let's read the following together in a mindless Borg-voice:
"Most merciful God, we confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name. Amen."
Wokeness echoes the very words of the Lutheran liturgy.
In an anthropological tone, Hume once remarked that religious belief "is more affected than real." Behavioral patterns matter and persist. People in the Northeastern United States didn't lose their propensity for burning witches just because they redecorated their language in secular clothing. They still feel innately depraved (privileged). Getting along with others isn't enough since salvation is by Faith alone. Their Original Sin is racism. For redemption, one must engage in Confession and Repentance by acknowledging complicity in systemic injustices. Any deviation from orthodoxy is not a difference of opinion but heresy -- ignorant and harmful. One becomes more sanctified, holy, and righteous after justification by doing the work through awareness, workshops, workplace diversity trainings, and activism. (Protest is literally in the word Protestant.)
Richard Rorty is a central influence on contemporary American liberalism. His grandfather is Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist theologian involved in the Social Gospel movement. If we're seeking examples for a genealogy of wokeness, start here.
America, fortunately, isn't New York. I'm from the Midwest/Midlands, which is culturally demarcated from the rest of the country by Grain, Grids, and Germans. People here who think thoughtfully, pragmatically, and holistically earn the most respect. Think Ryan Grim from Breaking Points or Barack Obama. It wasn't Jews that kept Frederick Stock from conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra until he showed his naturalization papers. It wasn't Jews who deported Karl Muck at the Boston Symphony over fake news about the Star Spangled Banner. It was Mencken's "booboisie."
The neo-Hegelian Jews who criticized how our Mickey Mouse Ronald McDonald American civilization turns everyone into mindless NPCs (Adorno did nothing wrong!) were sorely needed. Christopher Lasch did it all better -- a synthesis and culmination of the Heideggerian Freudo-Marxist way of thinking essential to anyone engaged in this space, whether enthusiastically or critically. His book "The New Radicalism in America 1889-1963" is required reading for this conversation.
While Heidegger was the last man standing in Europe, European influence in America, including Jewish and Jewish-adjacent influence, generally added a less moralistic and more professional, scientific flavor to American intellectual life. Again, America is not New York. In most places, analytic philosophy completely eclipsed Continental thinking. Herbert Feigl was in Minnesota for three decades. Gustav Bergmann had a good run in Iowa. Reichenbach went to UCLA and taught Hilary Putnam and Wesley Salmon. Hempel bounced around between Chicago, CUNY, Yale, and Princeton. Carnap did his best work while here in Chicago for two decades.
We shouldn't leave Ernst Cassirer, the last of the great Kantians, out of the discussion. He ended up in New York. Despite everything, he had a deep trust in Western Civilization. With some philosophical knowledge, we can see why—it is not influence but convergence.
It was Calvin who launched a revolution in social consciousness by reinterpreting the Eucharist, a mimetoclastic act dissolving any bond between a representamen and the represented beyond faith. This made Newton, Einstein, and post-Aristotelian physics possible, along with the desacralization of politics and commerce. (I embrace the Weber thesis about Protestantism and capitalism.) It is often overlooked how modernist Judaism transformed itself by merging into this Lockean current through the thought of Spinoza, which made everything immanent. Judaism inherited a cryptographic, numerological sensibility from Magian civilization -- think of the work of the Muslim Abbasid polymath Al-Kindi (801-873). Cassirer poured the ghost of that spirit into Kant and created a philosophy of symbolic forms that bridges science and culture.
Modern Anglo thinking is also influenced by Kant, via Herbart (the grandfather of analytic philosophy), to Fechner, Mach, Helmholtz, Wundt, and others. From that point, William James brought it to the United States. James Ward and G.F. Stout brought it to England and taught Russell and Moore. America is not New York. The world is not New York either.
tl;dr Let's leave bogus complaining about Cultural Marxism to Jordan Peterson.
This is literally retarded, but I like how the very first paragraph is basically just saying how it all comes from America but you make some venn diagram of protestant countries > anglosphere countries > America. M8 America's the superpower, and half of the Jews in the world live in America, their propaganda and direct control obviously affects Anglosphere countries more. Northern European countries obvs speak English more, so once again it's basically just about relation to America. This whole post is retarded.
These are all the points that I was going to make, and more. It’s notable that Spinoza was someone who was casted out of his community for his heterodox theology. When Carl Schmitt called Spinoza “the first liberal Jew” a few centuries later (I believe it was in The Concept of the Political), he was establishing the fact that Jews weren’t associated with liberalism until Spinoza, and even then, Spinoza was an outcast among Jews. So the Jewish adoption of liberalism was from outside, not inside.
Classical liberalism is not wokeism and predates it by centuries. You've failed to understand even the basics of Woods' essay if you do not understand that. No one denies that Jews thrive in the societies/nations/empires that White Christians build.
Jews view liberalism and Enlightenment in general as a joint influence of Germans and Germanophile Jews. Moses Mendelssohn, Haskalah movement and Leibniz are central to understanding of relations between reformist Judaism and liberalism. I mentioned these things in my article - https://qorachius.substack.com/p/jews
"The neo-Hegelian Jews who criticized how our Mickey Mouse Ronald McDonald American civilization turns everyone into mindless NPCs (Adorno did nothing wrong!) were sorely needed. Christopher Lasch did it all better -- a synthesis and culmination of the Heideggerian Freudo-Marxist way of thinking essential to anyone engaged in this space, whether enthusiastically or critically. His book "The New Radicalism in America 1889-1963" is required reading for this conversation."
I personally am less into this stuff, but it's pretty obvious that a lot of the ideas of the Frankfurt School are actually in harmony with common sentiment in trad online circles. I think most people around here think that Marcuse just wrote 'white people are bad, give n**gers more money, rub hands shekels' a thousand times though.
If you unironically use "neo-Feudalism" as name for the unfolding global order you are a nazbol/duginist clown. We already have the term "Socialism" and what is unfolding today is almost exactly what Socialists from the 1800s to the 20th century have described as their ideal system, especially the Fabians, who were one of the leading forces behind creating the UN globalist.
"Neo-Feudalism" is an anti right buzzword created by the New Left, like "post-colonialism" or "neo-liberalism," which immediately makes it gay. It also does the stereotypical Left-Wing thing of taking problems caused by Leftist and blaming them on the Right-Wing — "Globalists are evil right-wing reactionaries, they're just like medieval lords and kings!". In few words your work is absolute garbage
this is just libertarian-schizo sperging. The reason he uses neo-feudalism is because the capitalist system is reaching a level of extreme classes, with very few people having extreme wealth and having basically all of the control over society, as a peasent technically-not-a-slave population labours for them forevor with no material reward. Also I like how you don't even like "neo-liberalism", so which one is it? Are you a reactionary trying to protects reactionary feudalism from being used by "nazbols" or a liberal trying to protect classical liberalism? The answer is of course your a capitalist jew who doesn't want to submit to reality, that both of these former systems are trash and directly led to the even worse one we're currently in, with a authoritarian national socialist system being the only feasible alternative [i.e. china]. Also, they're much more powerful than medieval kings, that's the reason for the term, people think of kings as dictators, saying "neo-" implying something different shows how the current Elite are the most powerful and evil in history. Nazbolism is jsut another word for national socialism or the third position btw if if you have an issue with socially right wing and economically left wing idk how you're even here lul
Not to mention the paradox of the "anti-Democratic right" complaining about neo-Feudalism. And yet being anti-Democratic they presumably want to go back to what we had before Democracy, i.e., Feudalism.
I hope Steve writes a response, because this is about as strong a rebuttal there could be.
Excellent work Keith
Thanks!
I do wonder if the zio-right will succeed in subverting the online right before the elections.
For years major figures were playing footsie with sailer and the others and now they've got a whole network set up and enough people reading them to be a threat. If they had been called out years ago, the project would have gotten no where. Now it is up in the air who will win this round. The Alt-Lite beat out the Alt-Right which got itself arrested, essentially and totally left out in the cold by Trump. Let's see what happens this time. I'm rooting for you, Keith!
Steve Sailer doesn't seem to be Zionist, however.
https://www.takimag.com/article/uclas-mostly-peaceful-counterprotest/
Curious to meet you here, Rolo! Don't you blame all Abrahamism for this woke mess, however? It's weird to see you exonerating Christianity. Sure, the Jews are a tough little people, but they are dime a dozen - and as you're an expert on Russia, you should be aware that Russian Christians have been suffering from cancer that is Caucasian churkas all the same - the same old universality worship of foreigners who have genocided the Russians in Tuva, in Chechnya, in Uzbekistan, etc.
Sure but some strains of abrahamism are more virulent and less assimilated.
So the merrier! Accelerate, vroom vroom. Vroom vroom!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mhlzyxLgoI
That's where Posadas may agree with César Tort.
Things must be getting incredibly noticey out there if Mr. Sailer felt the need to do a bit of philo-semitic boot cleaning and kissing.
Isn't he in the club?
I did find it strange reading Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin) claim it was the Puritans who started wokeness.
I also found it strange how he calls it the "Cathedral" rather than the "Synagogue..."
Then I did an early life check.
I am so glad we have a vanguard in the dissident right that is calling their BS out.
It’s telling that so many of the “big brains” “on the right” always want to run cover for a certain group.
Zionist jews defend bolshevik jews yes
"Protestant Christians have consistently shown the most conservative attitudes on everything from desegregation to gay marriage"
It's really just the Evangelicals holding out. All the other branches converged, and you should really be examining the Episcopalians.
As Sean Last covers here; https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/05/17/jewish-influence-on-american-politics/
the political affinities of Protestans in the late 60s were the most conservative, with Catholics slightly more liberal and Jews wildly more liberal.
Jews are the activist vanguard which tipped the natural political balance of White society and any honest examination cannot get around that fact.
That can all be true but misses the point being made in this debate: Is Wokeism primarily a child of Puritan-Quaker culture? This culture went on to found very radical universalist churches, while the Southern churches were of course conservative and maybe only because they were from different European groups than the Northerners.
My starting view is that, at least by the numbers but possibly also by intellectual strength, Wokeism is primarily a child of Puritan-Quaker culture, but that plenty of Jews melded with the same mindset.
The stances that it was all one or another group is going to run into a brick wall of easy facts. Many things can be true: you can have multiple enemies.
No, the question is on the origins of Woke with the Jewish Elite capture being one theory and Christian Heresy theory being another. The relative political affiliation of Protestants was only one point in a much larger rebuttal.
Obviously if Prots being lefty now is evidence of the latter theory, then Jews being the more lefty, both now and back when the shift occurred, is evidence of the former theory being better. Since if your theory was correct Jews should be assimilated to the Protestant elite distribution.
I don't believe it is your "starting theory", someone convinced you and you're not offering any reason to believe it. Unless you think Southerners were overrepresented in Northeastern elite schools, which makes no sense.
Jews don't have enough power (numbers * ability + financial translation) to outdo White elites. As I said, Mormons are probably more powerful than Jews and exist all throughout the upper echelons of the security state; they just aren't hysterical and loud like Jews.
Jews do have power and are indeed more powerful than nationalists when they're disorganized (i.e. don't have White elite backing), but they're not more powerful than White elites.
That's my claim and most succinct answer to your question.
We should also keep in mind that high IQ Jews have very low fertility and often further mix with Whites. This isn't as big of a problem as you guys might think and is working itself out anyways.
It is a problem and I see it all the time with some shitty article and I see the -witz, -stein, -berg, -man surname, or just see it in their eyebrows or skin accent.
But it's not the one problem to rule them all. That would more be the Axial Age, which does indeed parent all ideology and moral hysteria. I don't want to be only a critic, so I'll make that case and insert myself into the arena for critique, too.
None of what you're saying is pertinent to the topic. You seem more interested in obfuscating Jewish involvement in Wokeism and the left-wing hegemony than proving the Christian Heresy theory makes more sense.
Are you Jewish?
In my earlier comment, I said it was perfectly fine to map Jewish networks who harm you (committing violence against them, obviously I cannot endorse: you should instead intelligently contest the politics).
Go whole hog researching Jewish networks. It's no skin off my back. I would even enjoy reading it.
And no, I'm 0.0% Jewish. I come from ancient Scandinavian lines that settled the American frontier and was never around the eastern urban areas to collect a Jewish line:
https://x.com/Imperius__13/status/1739717881837871296
Actually the Irish lobby is more powerful than the Jewish lobby, which must give Keith quite a kick. But it's true.
As a lobby, it's obviously not commensurate with his nationalist interests, but the lobby of Irish elites is more powerful than the Israeli lobby. You can look up the numbers for yourself. And any follower of geopolitics is already aware how Israel frequently doesn't get its way from the US.
"Jews being the more lefty, both now and back when the shift occurred, is evidence of the former theory being better"
Not at all. Of course Jews are going to be particularist to their interests. It's orthogonal to the debate and scores no points.
Left and Right don't really mean things to the elite anyways. The populists themselves are both left and right. There will always be a complex of universal perception and difference. The differences between classes is one of varying commitments, capital, and skills.
The difference between populism and elitism is whether a principle or commonplace can go beyond concrete realities. It almost never can and the responsible leaders of the classes need to begin discourse and discipline the stupid in their ranks.
"if your theory was correct Jews should be assimilated to the Protestant elite distribution"
That seems to be the most probable theory. Ashkenazi Jews are significantly more European in temperament than the other tribes. Many of them are outright 85% European in the first place.
Jews in diaspora evolved to be an urban bourgeoisie, beside their White bourgeois counterparts. If you don't like the money mindset, liquidation of embedments, blame Whites first, then blame the West Asian empires that invented money (and who enslaved Jews).
Where are our laws making it illegal to question the legitimacy of the Irish state? Where are our PACs dedicated to funneling billions of dollars to Irish nationalist causes? When was the IRA getting F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks during the Troubles? Where are the Catholic-Irish cooperation organizations that send elderly Catholics mail telling them that for just 10 cents every year they can feed an elderly Irish widow for a year? Where is our annual Hollywood film/miniseries about how the Potato Famine was the worst event in the history of mankind? Is Keith being bankrolled by Wall Street hedge fund managers chipping in a dime to save the old country from Muslims?
If your idea of an Irish Lobby is any O'Mickle with a net worth of >$50 million then I could see your argument, but I really don't see how Irish elites are organizing politically for Irish ethnic interests, let alone to the degree that Jews do.
its fucking insane for him to expect anyone to believe that.
everyone knows that AIPAC runs the US political system but what few people understand is that AIPAC = American-IRELAND Political Action Committee. Keith is its shadow president and got Trump elected to lower potato tariffs.
what a bold lie lol
Spotted.
Yes. And we know that jews only ever gave credit to those who they knew reliably would pay it back.
> "the political affinities of Protestans in the late 60s were the most conservative, with Catholics slightly more liberal and Jews wildly more liberal."
But it was the Catholics who conducted the French Revolution, and the Catholics who mixed with the Amerindians in Latin America. All of Christianity is inherently universalist - especially when coupled with technological advancements in transportation. The Christians "save souls", not exterminate populations for their own gain (like the Hitlerian Germans or the non-Christian Turks).
why are people who write under keith's posts the most schizo people. I assume it's because the normal reader just takes the content and leaves with new info, but ofc some people see a stat of Catholics in 1969's America being conservative and go down to the comments to say "the Catholics who mixed with the Amerindians in Latin America". Truly I wonder how you people's brain's work.
“Catholics conducted the French Revolution”
What are you talking about? That was one of the biggest blows against Catholicism to ever occur. I don’t doubt some self hating Christians were apart of the rabble, but just on its face this statement is ridiculous.
See my other comment. "By their fruits ye shall know them." I blame the Bolsheviks for the Russian genocide of the 1990s, too. If a Catholic country turns revolutionary in the 1790s, I blame the previous culture which led to that point. Just how the tsarist Russia led to the Bolshevik revolution. Just how most Christian nations right now are gay. Coincidence?
"Jews are the activist vanguard which tipped the natural political balance of White society and any honest examination cannot get around that fact."
Jews were allowed in England and later America by elite White families for their own grand schemes. Jews could never strong arm their way in—even to this day the security elite are overwhelming White—and the elites that brought them in were not stupid and had no illusions about Jews, nor incentives and mechanisms not on them, just as they do us all.
You can say that was detrimental to those beneath the elites and you could easily be right, but these elites already didn't care much for you. If you guys want to become more aware of what uses or abuses you, that's fine; let's just get the order of forces right. Jews are an attache: media and finance specialists.
Keith had this debate once where he showed me political appointees, like a functionary is a security elite family. These do exist through Israel, but they're small in comparison to the total IC and Israel's intelligence is only in decline, most obviously by the Oct 7 attack but also their demographic trajectory.
If anything Mormon security elites are more powerful than the Jews—trivially more powerful than Harvard, though that seems to be intentionally kept quiet—and whose fertility will keep them here well after the high IQ Jews further disappear and mix.
Who exactly are the high iq jews mixing with? Also it doesn't matter, Jews themselves are mainly European ethnically due to racial admixture, but still have extreme collective identity based on "being Jewish". It's not about the maternal line either. Jews will never disappear, this is a clear cope and defence for Jews by someone I assume is a jew.
Keith knows who I am and that I'm not the type to lie. If you don't believe my test results, I guess the conversation is over.
LoL BAP-ass comment. You literally state random things like "Israel's intelligence is in decline" to take away from the obvious unconditional support of America for this random tiny country in the middle East. You're entire perspective is wrong, it's not "Ireland's more useful to us than Israel", it's that THEY themselves are Jewish, so they support Israel. Israel has never materially benefited America in anyway, only ruining their international reputation, making enemies more close and taking more money that would have gone to actual Americans [but once again, the elite don't care as they themselves are Jewish or friends of Jews as Jews are overrepresented in the Elite enit, so you have to befriend them to be a part of the elite in the first place]
Don't know what a 'BAP-ass comment' is supposed to mean. I don't even follow him.
I'm sure he's somewhat thoughtful with political operations, but beyond that, intellectually he comes off as a brain-damaged Nietzsche.
And Israel failing on Oct 7 is not a random thing to state, in the context of me telling you their intelligence _system_ is not as good as you might think.
If you really despise Jews, this should be good news to your ears, but for some reason you can't believe it possible.
"the obvious unconditional support of America for this random tiny country"
Do you not track geopolitics at all or something? Every other day the US is frustrating Israel's interests and it's been this way since their founding. Pointing to times where they were helped by the US does not change this fact.
I don't know how a scientific mind could read the data and say Israel rules America as more probable than America rules Israel.
Of course neither are completely true, and Israel is trying to find its place in an alliance with the Saudis and a first generation alliance with Egypt transitioned into an alliance with Turkey as Egypt falls to the Muslim Brotherhood as America becomes less interested and shifts its focus to Southeast Asia and South America.
We never actually cared that much about Israel. What we cared about was Arab oil to Europe and China when China was still friendly. That's why we were in the Middle East. Israel punches above its weight, but it's still a small weight.
That must blow your mind because your entire worldview is constructed out of this one variable: Jews.
Jews do everything and trick everyone. There can never be a larger force than Jews, though maybe Christ. It's a cartoonish theory of history that you can't even build anything with.
Jewish elites are a mid-tier people, bro. You only don't know that because you never bothered to measure the entire landscape and see how powerful all other nations are (population * ability + financial translation).
What you are is this working class white guy who has an obsession with what is just adjacent to you and all of world dynamics must be simply explained by it.
That's not how the world works and it's never been how elites think, which is precisely why you are not in the elite and are stuck in the drug den.
Obviously a Russian shill will downplay the jews and start pushing conspiracy theories about protestants and Mormons lol. The definition of wokeism is very simple no need for your pilpul. Frankfurt school neo Marxism changing from economic warfare to cultural Marxism. That's literally what wokeism is.
lmao, how to lie with statistics. Episcopalians are about 1.5 million of America's population, and still declining for obvious reasons. Southern Baptists alone are nearly 10x that amount, and adding all other Evangelicals will dwarf the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and LCMS combined. Saying it's "just" Evangelicals holding out is obviously misleading and ignores the long left-oriented descent of today's most liberal churches.
Good article. It's nice that someone making the case for the prosecution admits that the idea of leftism as evolving in some sense out of Protestantism isn't something Curtis Yarvin invented to bamboozle WNs, but a commonplace of historical writing for decades. It's also good to state clearly that the significance one ascribes to Jewish involvement principally comes down to how significant one thinks the Boasian and Frankfurt schools were.
Now, as to that, the one part of your article which I think is simply wrong is this:
"Looking at the record of Montagu and Boas’s work, it would be absurd to suggest their advocacy was motivated by a desire to assimilate to the Christian liberal values of their time."
It's not absurd at all since Boas was consistently committed to the values of liberal *German* society - then considered the preeminent progressive nation - throughout his life. Unlike the Frankfurt School, he was fully committed to Jewish assimilation, identified his own ethical/spiritual beliefs as Protestant, and did not seek out Jewish subculture. His sole alleged Jewish identification is opposition to antisemitism, which is a bit like saying he had a strong black identity because he opposed segregation. It's true he looked down to a large extent on America as uneducated and violent, but that was exactly what of would expect of a cultured European liberal. (Indeed, it's what one would expect of a cultured *American* liberal.)
The other main omission is the fact that most of the Frankfurt School were brought over to America to America and employed by the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. The question is who was pulling whose strings. Probably a bit of both, but Occam's Razor is that it was the OSS in the driver's seat.
Very concise and well put.
Boas is squarely within the German historicist tradition (Ranke, Dilthey, Windelband, Rickert, etc.), where understanding something in the humanities is not to subsume it under laws but to grasp it in its particularity. While Kevin MacDonald is probably responsible for why Boas has entered the conservative rogues' gallery, at a theoretical level, Boas was not revolutionary. He cleaned up anthropology with the conceptual tools that were already there, making it consistent with value-neutral empiricism and a Darwinism without teleology.
Behaviorism, in contrast, had a profound impact on the mid-century understanding of human behavior, positing that it is highly adaptable and easily influenced by environmental factors. This perspective was a logical one to adopt. Research couldn't shift towards a "nativist" or internalist stance without two key developments. One, Chomsky's transformational-generative grammar, which opened new avenues for cognitive exploration. Secondly, the "gene's eye" view of evolution established by W.D. Hamilton, George Williams, John Maynard Smith, and Robert Trivers in the 1960s and 70s.
Some conservatives give the impression that Jewish people are behind a plan to prevent us from holding the orthogenetic evolutionary views of, let us say, Herbert Spencer, so that we can be controlled into policing each other's behavior at the pronoun level. They need to rethink this.
The followers of KMac, it seems to me, both drastically overstate the importance of ideas and also have complete contempt for them. On the one hand, we are expected to believe that, absent the immigration of a few dozen zany Jewish intellectuals and their counterintuitive readings of Shakespeare, Alabama would still have segregated water fountains, but the actual content of intellectual debates is of no value and just a disguise for Jewish interests.
I think it's best to look at things in precisely the opposite way. Political formulas with mass appeal are mostly conditioned by the needs of power given certain economic, technological and geopolitical conditions. Inherited traditions play a role in shaping how these formulas emerge, but that's about it and fundamentally who said what when isn't very important, because if they hadn't someone else would. What person really believes that the welfare state is built around Rawl's 'theory' of justice rather than the other way round? However, at the same time, debates happen within academia that are actually interesting and, though they often go down blind alleys, often profoundly illuminate the world around us. It's notable that every Skinner and Chomsky debate degenerated into each one accusing the other of promoting fascism while insisting his theory and only his theory was compatible with progressive liberalism. What this shows is that actually neither theory has any obvious political implications at all, but the actual ideas they discussed are among the most important things that anyone could possibly think about.
Are you Jonathan Bowden's son?
>Are you Jonathan Bowden's son?
lol
It isn't implausible that Bowden Prime, Legacy Bowden, Bong Bowden -- whatever we want to call him -- is a distant relation. I learned a few years ago that I'm related to Elvis on the maternal side, so who knows?
Despite some similarities in interests and temperament, I'm not conservative, and I'm in solid mental and physical health. I'm closer to what Aris Roussinos or Angela Nagle are doing. There are ways of infusing modernity with identity and participating in a civilization without being a Hitler-worshipping dickhead. Why shouldn't leftism integrate culture into itself as part of the good life?
Who considered Germany the preeminent progressive nation, and for what reasons? It's no secret that Jews will identify themselves as proud fellow nationals of the nation that hosts them. Boas refusing to identify as a Jew while supporting the left-wing ideals of certain secular Jewish sects is not just self-consistent, it's arguably obligate.
>Who considered Germany the preeminent progressive nation, and for what reasons?
Germany shocked the world with its resounding victory over France in 1871. France's defeat by what was for centuries considered a backwater was regarded as impossible. The feeling was France? France? Lost to *these* people? How? Despite its recent formation as a unified nation, Germany's rapid ascent to the status of a global power was attributed to its embrace of modernism, characterized by efficient bureaucracy, scientific advancements, and a culture of professionalism.
This supercharged a trend often called "academicism" in the sciences and humanities. From university systems to armed forces to urban planning to public works projects, everyone scrambled to catch up to Germany, and every field was infused with rigor. Mathematics became rigorous, philosophy became rigorous, physics became rigorous, psychology became rigorous, music became rigorous, etc., all on the German model. Emerging powers like Japan, Russia, and America made it a point to emulate Germany explicitly. Think of Rimsky-Korsakov in Russian music -- it was an effort to raise the bar. There was eventually a primitivist reaction to all of this stuff, but that came later.
Johns Hopkins University, founded in 1876, serves as a prime example of Germany's influence. It was explicitly modeled on the German system, with its research orientation, seminar system, graduate programs (including the first modern German-style Ph.D. program in the country), and professional schools. This was a significant departure from the previous emphasis on moral instruction in American schools. Even in 1920, figures like Santayana lamented that Harvard was still more focused on Puritan morality than intellect.
The best of the Germanic states of the 17th and 18th centuries were already far in advance of most of the world in mathematics, science, engineering, music, etc. They were behind the English and French in terms of warfare because of demographic (relatively heterogeneous) and geographic deficits and were a backwater in that uncharitable sense, but considering how the printing press spread first through the HRE and Prussia pioneered compulsory education, if anything they were probably more literate and progressive than their neighbors with superior navies. That kind of progressivism (creating minds like Liebniz) shouldn't be conflated with the progressivism we commonly refer to in the social sciences. I strongly agree that Germany was exceptionally advanced and influential on the world in the 19th century.
None of that really refutes how Boas was an exemplar of social and racial progressivism, consistent with modern secular Jewish culture, nor does it give strength to the argument that his lack of open Jewish identity is relevant, also consistent with modern secular Jewish culture.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I'm not diminishing the achievements of Euler, Telemann, or Leibniz. The fact is, though, that France was the center of gravity in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. Even Frederick the Great considered France superior in just about everything and tried to speak as little German as possible.
In War and Peace, Tolstoy depicts German generals as blundering, needlessly scholastic autismos who create intricate plans based on abstract theories entirely unrelated to battle conditions. But after 1871, everyone was like, wtf i like German autism now, tell me more about rail logistics plz
What's being contested about Boas is whether his anthropology was "Jewish subversion" and a root cause of today's wokeness. If we go back further, what made John Brown believe that becoming an axe murderer would bring people together on the slavery issue? Social science? No, Puritanism. Meanwhile, most Jews in the Western Hemisphere were in Charleston, South Carolina, up until the Civil War. Brazil, when phasing out slavery, didn't have a war that killed 620,000 people with the grim aftermath of limbless people walking around for decades. And the hang'em high punish-the-evildoer attitude is still here in full force, left and right alike.
NYC 1911:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FZAdEYUWK3s
> The best of the Germanic states of the 17th and 18th centuries were already far in advance of most of the world in mathematics, science, engineering, music, etc.
Rather dubious. I'd say in science and definitely engineering they were behind Britain. The industrial revolution started in England and Flanders. For years the standard for science was set by the Royal Society.
There was a general belief in the later 19th century that Germany had overtaken the UK, and that in particularly English universities were moribund centres of irrelevant learning (and buggery). Maybe that's wrong - subsequent history seems to point that way - but that's what people thought.
Yes, in the 19th century. Jason was talking about the 17th and 18th.
As to the first point, Jason Bowden got there first. It's hard to imagine now, but in the early 20th century, America was regarded as rich, but also a backwater in terms of intellectual and high culture. Even what we now call STEM was 3rd rate. American elites were very successful in transplanting parts of European academia - facilitated in large part by the Nazis - and using it to achieve global dominance.
"Boas refusing to identify as a Jew while supporting the left-wing ideals of certain secular Jewish sects is not just self-consistent, it's arguably obligate."
You can't have it every way. KMac and his followers put a lot of effort into establishing that the Frankfurt school maintained a specifically Jewish identity, ethos, and self conception, and though they exaggerate this quite a bit, there is some truth to it. But the exact opposite was true of the Boasians, and if it's significant that the Frankfurt school had certain characteristics, it must also be signficant that the Boasians didn't.
Like Germany, America was already progressive and advanced by the start of the 19th century, it just took generational growth and overcoming barriers from the major naval powers to get there. Would never imagine it any other way.
I don't try to assume the particular motives of influential academics/philosophers/politicians based purely on their words but rather the circles they emerge from and find themselves in. I don't believe Keith Woods is trying to argue the origins of woke are a purely Jewish phenomenon, and I personally would include a number of White gentile ethnic demographics (particularly working-class Irish and Scandinavians broadly) as necessary components of its rise through a majoritarian democratic system. But a disproportionate number of its early forebears were in fact Jewish, and that fact alone is more connected to the roots than Sailer's consequentialist argument of "Protestant liberals happened first therefore it's them". One of the earliest hate speech laws in America was passed in Chicago, signed by a crooked Irish mayor by the name of Martin Kennelly, explicitly citing a paper by one Martin Diamond for doing so, a man from a Jewish socialist labor group who was also a boyhood friend of Irving Kristol and fellow newcon convert.
Some Jews like Boas can downplay their Jewish identity entirely, others can be Marxists and still cling onto some Jewish identity, others can convert from Marxism to neoconservatism and push "Judeo-Christianity", others yet can become non-religious Prime Ministers of Israel and push open genocide invoking the Jewish people. The thing that connects all of them is a tendency to emerge from one of many Jewish philosophical sects, all of which disproportionately promote members of their own and attack those who attack their Jewishness. When Boas was a foundational influence on race denialists like Lewontin, who also lean strongly Jewish, the relevance becomes even clearer.
Mr.Ham penned a brilliant comment..still the root of luciferian leftwingnut Wokeism is Talmud..kabala....Jews*. All ancillary extrapolation s or tertiary supportive influencers aside..it's JEWS.*.
Keith Woods is paraphrasing Kevin MacDonald. There's nothing wrong with that: it's the most intellectually respectable anti-semitic theory in circulation, orders of magnitude better than Fuentes-tier spastistry. However, if you are going to a go with a theory, you have to stick with it.
Now, the thing about MacDonald's theory is that it leaves out a lot of things you might expect an antisemitic theory of Jewish leftism to contain. There's no Chomsky, no Marx, no Trotsky. That's because MacDonald has a very specific model of how the Jewish evolutionary strategy works and they don't fit. That seems to be me a pretty big flaw in the theory, but an even bigger flaw is that it doesn't even fit the groups MacDonald does include. It fits the Frankfurt school, kind of, if you squint, but it doesn't fit the Boas school at all, which is why Culture of Critique includes outright false information, such as that Boas married a Jewess.
Now, your theory is that "The thing that connects all of them is a tendency to emerge from one of many Jewish philosophical sects" which is not really a theory at all, but in as much as it is, it obviously would also include American Libertarianism and Italian Fascism among other examples of disproportionately Jewish movements. The simplest education is that Jewish success in diverse academic and ideological fields is basically the same as their success in physics or finance. The only exceptions are movements that are overtly antisemitic, but it turns out that even this was basically a logistical issue. Once the internet allowed you to become a Nazi anonymously, Jews got in on that act too. Just ask Mike Enoch!
Excellent essay. Well done!
Thank you
The 20th century Jewish academics used what were positive aspects of Christianity in a rational hierarchal society and contorted them to fit the Jewish egalitarian pipe dream. It seems as though their Frankenstein like worldview is starting to turn on them, again. Hopefully lessons will be learned this time.
Amwrican protestantism isn't conservative, its just the South that is conservative. Almost 100% of the protestant churches in the north (i'm from New York) display Pride flags and BLM signs. Only the Catholic churches do not. (im curious but are they not allowed to?)
It's a denominational thing mostly. The mainline churches like the CoE (Episcopalians), PCA (Presbyterians), ELCA (Lutherans), are all progressive, while their conservative members split off and formed the ACNA, and PCUSA respectively, while for Lutherans it was more decentralized to begin with, and some sub-denominations remained conservative (mostly), like the Missouri Synod. A similar schism has happened (and is currently ongoing) with the Methodists.
Catholics have become a lot let less progressive in the last 20 years or so because for the most part the ones that were just left the church, while the conservatives stayed. Meanwhile the mainline Protestant churches tried to stop this from happening by following the cultural trends, but they just ended up alienating the conservatives while the progressives largely still ended up leaving anyways.
Protestantism is deeply heterogeneous, and you will find conservative Protestants in large numbers in the Midwest and the West Coast as well, and you also have progressive Protestants in Southern cities. It's more of an urban-rural divide, although suburban Christians are generally conservative as well, though perhaps with the exception of the Northeast.
You're in New York, obviously the protestant churches that exist will serve the more liberal communities of that region. It doesn't mean protestantism is non-conservative, it means your in a liberal area. Protestantism and Conservatism in America are directly linked.
Leftist not liberal. Deliberate mistake or ignorance? Blaming liberals for what socialist did is such a nazbol cope
LOL I love the anti-nazbolism [feel free to describe what you mean by that, or you can keep using it as a slur like lefties use "fascist"], but are you defending liberals or something? Liberalism and "leftism" are the same, someone like Vaush say's how "I'm a leftist, not a liberal!" but what these far-left individuals mean is that they are completely socially liberal, but economically they want co-ops. They aren't even against free trade, so it's clear that they are literally just extremist liberals. Marxism was a bulwark against this but has obviously failed with the proliferation of social liberalism on the left. Keep pretending that these two groups have not merged in the modern day to suit your I assume classical liberal or reactionary or something view but it doesn't change the reality
Maybe because of foreign subversion? Why didn't any churches had blm lgbt flags until civil rights 1.0/2.0??
Right-wing Jews and Pro-Whites could make an incredibly powerful alliance against "Third-Worldist" wokes. But as long as the right-wing Jewish community refuses to acknowledge their role in anti-White hatred and their overrepresentation (cannot be explained meritocratically) this cannot be. They want our support but play games around their role in creating this mess and their undue power in managing said mess: they want their cake and they'd like to eat it too.
Thanks Keith for challenging the Jewish power obfuscaters. If they want us on their side - they have to make these concessions. Otherwise, no dice.
To remake a society you manipulate the symbols and touchstones existing already. So merely laying out similarities between now and then tells us nothing about what we really want to know: who got us here & who's in charge now? Woods does this well. Sailer is obviously running cover for some reason.
Sailer's observation is astute. Wokeness is secular Protestantism. It erupted worldwide in white Christian countries, most intensely where Protestantism dominates. No one else cared. Within the Protestant countries, it had the most energy in the English-speaking countries. And from there, the stronger the American influence, the stronger the wokeness.
To begin, let's read the following together in a mindless Borg-voice:
"Most merciful God, we confess that we are in bondage to sin and cannot free ourselves. We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart; we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. For the sake of your Son, Jesus Christ, have mercy on us. Forgive us, renew us, and lead us, so that we may delight in your will and walk in your ways, to the glory of your holy name. Amen."
Wokeness echoes the very words of the Lutheran liturgy.
In an anthropological tone, Hume once remarked that religious belief "is more affected than real." Behavioral patterns matter and persist. People in the Northeastern United States didn't lose their propensity for burning witches just because they redecorated their language in secular clothing. They still feel innately depraved (privileged). Getting along with others isn't enough since salvation is by Faith alone. Their Original Sin is racism. For redemption, one must engage in Confession and Repentance by acknowledging complicity in systemic injustices. Any deviation from orthodoxy is not a difference of opinion but heresy -- ignorant and harmful. One becomes more sanctified, holy, and righteous after justification by doing the work through awareness, workshops, workplace diversity trainings, and activism. (Protest is literally in the word Protestant.)
Richard Rorty is a central influence on contemporary American liberalism. His grandfather is Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist theologian involved in the Social Gospel movement. If we're seeking examples for a genealogy of wokeness, start here.
America, fortunately, isn't New York. I'm from the Midwest/Midlands, which is culturally demarcated from the rest of the country by Grain, Grids, and Germans. People here who think thoughtfully, pragmatically, and holistically earn the most respect. Think Ryan Grim from Breaking Points or Barack Obama. It wasn't Jews that kept Frederick Stock from conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra until he showed his naturalization papers. It wasn't Jews who deported Karl Muck at the Boston Symphony over fake news about the Star Spangled Banner. It was Mencken's "booboisie."
The neo-Hegelian Jews who criticized how our Mickey Mouse Ronald McDonald American civilization turns everyone into mindless NPCs (Adorno did nothing wrong!) were sorely needed. Christopher Lasch did it all better -- a synthesis and culmination of the Heideggerian Freudo-Marxist way of thinking essential to anyone engaged in this space, whether enthusiastically or critically. His book "The New Radicalism in America 1889-1963" is required reading for this conversation.
While Heidegger was the last man standing in Europe, European influence in America, including Jewish and Jewish-adjacent influence, generally added a less moralistic and more professional, scientific flavor to American intellectual life. Again, America is not New York. In most places, analytic philosophy completely eclipsed Continental thinking. Herbert Feigl was in Minnesota for three decades. Gustav Bergmann had a good run in Iowa. Reichenbach went to UCLA and taught Hilary Putnam and Wesley Salmon. Hempel bounced around between Chicago, CUNY, Yale, and Princeton. Carnap did his best work while here in Chicago for two decades.
We shouldn't leave Ernst Cassirer, the last of the great Kantians, out of the discussion. He ended up in New York. Despite everything, he had a deep trust in Western Civilization. With some philosophical knowledge, we can see why—it is not influence but convergence.
It was Calvin who launched a revolution in social consciousness by reinterpreting the Eucharist, a mimetoclastic act dissolving any bond between a representamen and the represented beyond faith. This made Newton, Einstein, and post-Aristotelian physics possible, along with the desacralization of politics and commerce. (I embrace the Weber thesis about Protestantism and capitalism.) It is often overlooked how modernist Judaism transformed itself by merging into this Lockean current through the thought of Spinoza, which made everything immanent. Judaism inherited a cryptographic, numerological sensibility from Magian civilization -- think of the work of the Muslim Abbasid polymath Al-Kindi (801-873). Cassirer poured the ghost of that spirit into Kant and created a philosophy of symbolic forms that bridges science and culture.
Modern Anglo thinking is also influenced by Kant, via Herbart (the grandfather of analytic philosophy), to Fechner, Mach, Helmholtz, Wundt, and others. From that point, William James brought it to the United States. James Ward and G.F. Stout brought it to England and taught Russell and Moore. America is not New York. The world is not New York either.
tl;dr Let's leave bogus complaining about Cultural Marxism to Jordan Peterson.
This is literally retarded, but I like how the very first paragraph is basically just saying how it all comes from America but you make some venn diagram of protestant countries > anglosphere countries > America. M8 America's the superpower, and half of the Jews in the world live in America, their propaganda and direct control obviously affects Anglosphere countries more. Northern European countries obvs speak English more, so once again it's basically just about relation to America. This whole post is retarded.
How are you directly controlled? Marvel movies? Anderson Cooper?
These are all the points that I was going to make, and more. It’s notable that Spinoza was someone who was casted out of his community for his heterodox theology. When Carl Schmitt called Spinoza “the first liberal Jew” a few centuries later (I believe it was in The Concept of the Political), he was establishing the fact that Jews weren’t associated with liberalism until Spinoza, and even then, Spinoza was an outcast among Jews. So the Jewish adoption of liberalism was from outside, not inside.
Classical liberalism is not wokeism and predates it by centuries. You've failed to understand even the basics of Woods' essay if you do not understand that. No one denies that Jews thrive in the societies/nations/empires that White Christians build.
Jews view liberalism and Enlightenment in general as a joint influence of Germans and Germanophile Jews. Moses Mendelssohn, Haskalah movement and Leibniz are central to understanding of relations between reformist Judaism and liberalism. I mentioned these things in my article - https://qorachius.substack.com/p/jews
"The neo-Hegelian Jews who criticized how our Mickey Mouse Ronald McDonald American civilization turns everyone into mindless NPCs (Adorno did nothing wrong!) were sorely needed. Christopher Lasch did it all better -- a synthesis and culmination of the Heideggerian Freudo-Marxist way of thinking essential to anyone engaged in this space, whether enthusiastically or critically. His book "The New Radicalism in America 1889-1963" is required reading for this conversation."
I personally am less into this stuff, but it's pretty obvious that a lot of the ideas of the Frankfurt School are actually in harmony with common sentiment in trad online circles. I think most people around here think that Marcuse just wrote 'white people are bad, give n**gers more money, rub hands shekels' a thousand times though.
Thank you! This was really helpful and illuminating. This one is going in the archives!
Glad you liked it
Very interesting read
Thanks!
Nice and strong essay, Keith. I made a similar argument in this post which you may appreciate: https://neofeudalreview.substack.com/p/the-complicated-relationship-between
Looks interesting, will check it out
If you unironically use "neo-Feudalism" as name for the unfolding global order you are a nazbol/duginist clown. We already have the term "Socialism" and what is unfolding today is almost exactly what Socialists from the 1800s to the 20th century have described as their ideal system, especially the Fabians, who were one of the leading forces behind creating the UN globalist.
"Neo-Feudalism" is an anti right buzzword created by the New Left, like "post-colonialism" or "neo-liberalism," which immediately makes it gay. It also does the stereotypical Left-Wing thing of taking problems caused by Leftist and blaming them on the Right-Wing — "Globalists are evil right-wing reactionaries, they're just like medieval lords and kings!". In few words your work is absolute garbage
this is just libertarian-schizo sperging. The reason he uses neo-feudalism is because the capitalist system is reaching a level of extreme classes, with very few people having extreme wealth and having basically all of the control over society, as a peasent technically-not-a-slave population labours for them forevor with no material reward. Also I like how you don't even like "neo-liberalism", so which one is it? Are you a reactionary trying to protects reactionary feudalism from being used by "nazbols" or a liberal trying to protect classical liberalism? The answer is of course your a capitalist jew who doesn't want to submit to reality, that both of these former systems are trash and directly led to the even worse one we're currently in, with a authoritarian national socialist system being the only feasible alternative [i.e. china]. Also, they're much more powerful than medieval kings, that's the reason for the term, people think of kings as dictators, saying "neo-" implying something different shows how the current Elite are the most powerful and evil in history. Nazbolism is jsut another word for national socialism or the third position btw if if you have an issue with socially right wing and economically left wing idk how you're even here lul
“Neo” actually implies that something has been co-opted by God’s Chosen lol
Not to mention the paradox of the "anti-Democratic right" complaining about neo-Feudalism. And yet being anti-Democratic they presumably want to go back to what we had before Democracy, i.e., Feudalism.