I have been planning to write this cladistics post which looks at the history of Kansas and its connection with the Cathedral for some time. Recently, Occam’s Razor had yet another post where he tries to say that progressivism is 100% Jewish and not Christian which convinced me it was time to add yet more evidence to the cathedral description camp. Much has been written on this which draws the link between puritanical Christianity and the modern progressive movement and I am no less convinced that this is an open and shut case. You can see my previous posts which talk about this: The missing links and the cathedral compilation.
As far as the “Jewish Question” is concerned (since Occam brings it up), I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it. Much like they have an outsized number of nobel prizes. All this shows is that given a certain popular trend, progressivism being only one such trend, Jews have a tendency to produce unusually successful individuals. In my opinion, this is entirely explained by biological intelligence differentials. The Jewish intelligence distribution is to the right of most other groups so I wouldn’t expect anything else. In addition, lets not forget that half of the Christian bible is Jewish. The two religions share part of their common core with each other. Logically, that both are capable of propping up progressivism is not surprising in the least. However, I would argue that the new testament does a better job supporting progressivism than the old. In short, individual Jews looking for success saw that progressivism was popular with the majority Christian culture around them and simply did the smart thing from a personal perspective in becoming leaders within said cultures. If reactionary culture had been dominant, they probably would have gone after that instead. Lastly, today brahmin whites and Jews are in my opinion the exact same culturally. These two groups are barely distinguishable as it is and are currently engaging in a great deal of admixture with Jews marrying non-jews at an astounding rate of 58-70% (only current marriages are addressed in link, so divorce probably makes it higher overall), so before too many generations they will be genetically the same, not just culturally the same.
Moving on to the main topic. Surprisingly given their modern conservakin demographics, the history of Kansas makes for an excellent example of a transitional period for progressivism. Kansas became a center for progressive politics in the 1800s which peaked around 1890 because so many of them moved to Kansas because of the slavery issue. New England abolitionists were invested in a pure morality status signaling way in the outcome of whether new states came into the union as free state or slave states. Based on purely moral reasoning without regard to economics or convenience, many of these New England proto-cathedralites moved to Kansas just so they could ensure Kansas would be a free state.
The most famous example is that of abolitionist John Brown. He was every bit of the same kind as the violent far-left activist/terrorist of today, but in the setting of the 1850s. Brown led raids with other activists and even murdered a number of people as he believed a peaceful end of slavery was not possible so a violent overthrow of government was the only solution. He was motivated by his religion: “He believed he was the instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of owning slaves.” The stage was set for the civil war by conflict between free-state puritans who had moved to Kansas and Slave-state Missourians who had a number of small conflicts that happened before the civil war. These events became known as bleeding Kansas. Brown later went on a raid of an armory in Virginia in 1859 in which he and his supporters killed five men. Brown was executed for treason for this act, but its effect was to greatly increase the tensions between the North and South. The South was correct in identifying the highly aggressive posturing and support of violence by Northern abolitionists. Even if most paid lip-service to a peaceful resolution, they weren’t exactly angry that the fringe of their movement was engaging in violence and were dead set in isolating and inconveniencing the south as much as possible. This was Anarcho-tyranny at its very core. During the civil war proper, the union army even had a marching song celebrating Brown as a martyr.
After the civil war, abolition was no longer an issue, but Kansas was still full of puritans and through their activism the state became one of the main centers of progressivism during last half of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century. They instituted or tried to institute child labor laws (somewhat understandable, but this had an undesirable side-effect of turning children from a economic gain into an economic cost for families), temperance/prohibition, direct election of federal senators, and labor reform among other things. They even had a populist party called “the people’s party” which engaged in outright illegal actions in the Kansas house of representatives. For example, locking the republican party out of the state congressional hall. Armed conflict almost resulted in Kansas because of these sorts of antics, which demonstrates that democracy really is just a low level civil war that always has the potential to turn violent.
Though this is just a very brief synopsis of progressive Kansas, it clearly draws a link between the progressive movement and Christianity. I invite you to do more research on this historical period yourself, but even from this summary it is clear that Jews were not all that involved in significant portions of the evolution of progressivism. Puritanical Christians were the ones driving this movement from the bottom up and it is the same movement that has evolved into the modern cathedral. A few Jews which punch above their weight in terms of influence here and there does not undermine the fact that the cathedral is a christian spawned demon through and through. I am not sure how much of this was because of their particular version of Christian culture or because of the genetics they possessed from direct descent from English dissenters. I would imagine that it was a little bit of both, culture and biology have a lot of feedback with each other. Either way, the christian character of the cathedral cannot just be washed away.Find other great dissident right content with the two Atavisionary RSS feeds: Atavisions and Prolific Atavisions. In addition, download the free ebook Smart and Sexy to learn what, how and why there are biologically based cognitive differences between the sexes
14 Replies to “We’re not in Kansas anymore”
In addition, lets not forget that half of the Christian bible is the Jewish Torah.
A technical glitch (having no bearing on the argument AFAICT): The “Old Testament” (OT) (fully 2/3 if not 3/4 of “The Bible) is not equal to “The Torah” which is “the law”–the first 5 books of the OT/Bible. How much Hebrew thought became Christian thought remains the subject of scholarly debate and probably will until Jesus comes back and settles it once and for all. But it is important to maintain a distinction between Hebraic though and Jewish (Rabbinical Judaic) thought which dates to about the destruction of the Temple.
Cool, thanks for the update. Still, there is a lot of overlap and that was really all I was trying to say.
As far as the “Jewish Question” is concerned (since Occam brings it up), I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it. Much like they have a outsized number of noble prizes. All this shows is that given a certain popular trend, progressivism being only one such trend, Jews have a tendency to produce unusually successful individuals. In my opinion, this is entirely explained by biological intelligence differentials.
I am generally agreed with your main thesis: We have puritan (genes + ideology) problem. Ergo if you think Jews are the only problem, then ipso facto you don’t have a problem with William Wilberforce, Charles Sumner, or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Which is clearly a fail for reactionary thought.
But I think you go too far here. I admit that the Null Hypothesis (no extra cultural destabilization due to Jewish) is possible, but I tend to doubt it, at least for the simple reason that ethnic/religious minorities in general tend to be destabilizing. High functioning minorities would be even more destabilizing in a nation with nearly universal franchise and free speech. Of course the lesson is two-fold: First, don’t have a nation with universal franchise and free speech; Second, keep an eye on your high-functioning ethno/religious minorities.
There are many confounding variables here, which may not ultimately be extricable. The most crucial one is how much protestantism, among the most radical versions of which gave birth to American republicanism in the first place, is in fact a type of judaicization of Christianity. The puritans were well-known for their opposing to “Romish” practices of the Anglican church. That’s WHY they came to North America. They referred to these practices as “pagan”. Well Christianity is properly understood as a blend of Hebrew and pagan thought. What do you get when you strip away the pagan? That’s right: something a lot more Hebraic, which while not EQUAL TO Judaism is much closer to it, subject to similar social dynamics.
I don’t know if you have ever read Kevin MacDonald’s work, but if you haven’t I highly recommend you take a look. The way I understand his position is that, it’s not so much that Jews invented modern progressivism, but rather that they hijacked the Anglo-Puritan moral apparatus and steered it in such a way that whites would self-destruct. MacDonald isn’t denying that modern day political correctness and the progressive mentality have their root in Puritan thought and culture. I think that the connection is obvious. However, if you look at progressives in the 1920s and 30s you’ll find they supported things like eugenics and were opposed to non-white immigration. It was the Jews who overturned this during and after WWII in the United States. The idea is that the Jews hacked into the Puritan moral signaling apparatus and turned whites against themselves. Anything that is good for white flourishing was turned into something that is morally reprehensible and anything that enables white dispossession is a moral good. It the same Puritan moral do-good mentality; it is just turned toward our own destruction.
I have read a little from MacDonald, specifically parts of culture of critique. Certain Jews do end up as thought leaders in these movements, but my question is how are whites so easily manipulable. I don’t think Jews could make them that way by their own doing. There is something about whites that makes them amenable to self-hate. The Christian doctrine of sin comes to mind here. I think a lot of whites are biologically predisposed to feel guilty about SOMETHING. This is the real problem. Outside groups wouldn’t get anywhere if it weren’t for this flaw. Knowing is half the battle however, and once the problem is spelled out it can be actively worked against.
It wasn’t so much “the Jews who overturned this during and after WWII” as it was the war itself that turned the West decisively toward ideological antiracism. When you’re fighting a hated enemy (and in war, enemies quickly become hated), you want to put as much daylight as possible between yourself and him; thus, since the Nazis were avowedly racist and eugenicist, the Allies had to reimagine themselves as antiracist and antieugenicist. Partly this reimagining was the conscious work of cognitive elites, both Jewish and Gentile; partly it was the natural, uncoordinated revulsion of a people at war from whatever smacks of the enemy’s ideology.
Atavisionary is right to draw our attention to the era of the slavery controversy, which is full of lessons concerning the historical dialectics of progressivism’s advance. The Civil War accomplished something similar to the process I described above in terms of Northern whites’ attitudes toward blacks. Before the war, most Northern liberals were white-supremacist Free Soilers, like Lincoln, who wanted to round up and ship all the blacks to Africa or, failing that, to Texas. The idea of letting blacks vote, even after emancipation was accomplished, would have struck the vast majority of Lincoln’s 1860 voters as absolutely insane. And yet within a decade Northern opinion ratified a Constitutional amendment that forbade states to withhold the franchise on the basis of race. What intervened? The war; the bad blood it engendered between the sections, the libido dominandi it bred in the North vis-a-vis the South. Which, obviously, allowed elements of radical egalitarian abolitionist ideology, which, again, was previously despised even by most Northern liberals, to enter the mainstream far more rapidly than it ever could have done otherwise.
“Atavisionary is right to draw our attention to the era of the slavery controversy”
I agree, it is vital to understanding our current political environment.
“It wasn’t so much ‘the Jews who overturned this during and after WWII’ ”
I disagree, again I would point you to MacDonald’s work.
Any neorxnary not reading the Talmud with a basic understanding of the Mishnah in discussing the historical and spiritual relationships with Christianity is typing like a blind bat. Historical variables however accurate between the two religions is almost irrelevant now when compared to The Protocols. That race is in control with containment in every potent variable. That control was not handed over. It was stolen through cunning and boldness. It can only be taken back by men of dire conviction with action. You know who is in charge by those who can not be mocked and NOT face the consequences. Neorxn has to learn, be bold or sit down.
“how are whites so easily manipulable. I don’t think Jews could make them that way by their own doing. There is something about whites that makes them amenable to self-hate.”
MacDonald answers that in this talk here. https://t.co/SQ4A04asJK
It may help paint a clearer picture for you.
” It wasn’t so much “the Jews who overturned this during and after WWII” as it was the war itself that turned the West decisively toward ideological antiracism. When you’re fighting a hated enemy (and in war, enemies quickly become hated), you want to put as much daylight as possible between yourself and him; thus, since the Nazis were avowedly racist and eugenicist, the Allies had to reimagine themselves as antiracist and antieugenicist. Partly this reimagining was the conscious work of cognitive elites, both Jewish and Gentile; partly it was the natural, uncoordinated revulsion of a people at war from whatever smacks of the enemy’s ideology.”
This well under way even before the war:
The problem with this is modern jewery don’t really follow the Old Testament. They go by the Talmud. Which rival’s the koran and hadith in nastiness.
This is one of those you are both right deals. jews exploit the natural tendencies of yankees, women, Quakers, Purtians etc but in and of themselves they don’t really have the numbers to do much
I think of it as a special forces A-team. 14 dudes who are the cadre to train up 100’s of other fighters and act as the tip of the spear in those indigent operations
“I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it.”
Perhaps the greatest mind of neoreaction, Moldbug, is a case in point. Progressivism does come from Christianity, but Protestant Christianity in particular. Though, it might be worth noting the Old Testament emphasis of the Puritans.
It’s not how are whites so easily manipulable, it’s how people in general are duped by specious arguments, in particular those crafted by the Alt-Right.