“The third premise that this demographic change is being perpetrated by a coterie of elites is implausible and dismissible”

Could you write a little about why you believe that the idea that elites perpetrate change in society is “implausible and dismissible”? In any other domain it would be commonplace to agree that nearly all significant change in societies is driven by elite preferences and elite action. This has been a standard school of sociology for centuries. Yet in this one domain, not only do you say it is implausible and dismissible, you provide not only no evidence in support of this bold and unprecedented claim, but not even any reasoning for it. I would be interested to read whether you do in fact have any reasoning (or even evidence) for treating this one domain as uniquely uninfluenced by elites, against all prior precedent in other domains.

Expand full comment

Very fair point. I should have been clear only that I was dismissing the "tiny coteries of Jewish elites" theory. Elites, of course, *do* have a disproportionate influence on policy, and this is perhaps especially true for immigration policy. --Bo W

Expand full comment

Right, so the third premise is accurate too. Even a fourth premise, that those elites are indeed disproportionately drawn from the Jewish people to a vast and undeniable degree, would also be accurate.

Really only a fifth hypothetical premise—something like, “the elites who have a undeniably disproportionate influence on policy, and who are undeniably disproportionately Jewish, are performing these actions that undeniably harm white people out of a deliberately malevolent anti-white agenda rather than out of innocent incompetence”—is what you want to say is implausible. And even this final claim of implausibility has to reckon with the difficult question of why most Jewish people demand policies that they can see are causing the genocide of white people in white countries, but fiercely defend a pure ethnostate for their own people in Israel.

I suppose I think in general that this is still a very open area and it's not wise to rule anything out (unless you were only doing so superficially to make your argument appear more acceptable to elites who might cancel you, in which case I apologise for dobbing you in!).

Expand full comment

Aren't Jews disproportionately represented in all intellectual movements, including those critical to diversity and immigration? (Here I'm thinking of Bo himself, Nathan Cofnass, Steven Pinker, Jon Haidt etc etc)

Expand full comment

Yeah the simplest non-paranoid explanation would just be to say "Jews are high achievers, so they contribute major leaders to every significant cultural movement".

Expand full comment

Agreed, he's still reluctant to get burned by social condemnation. I don't blame him! Censorship is everywhere, I am a complete hypocrite in my public life and carefully repeat the politically acceptable views. Anons have more intellectual freedom to speak during this age of repression, that's the entire value proposition of commenting online.

Expand full comment

C'mon, man. At least have the courage to remain silent on woke ideology but don't PARROT it. We can't make change until we find each other and we can't find each other until we identify each other.

Expand full comment

You're not wrong.

Expand full comment

I definitely resent being complicit in this corrupt system, and that's what motivated me to create a pseudonym and shytpoast online... a feeling of being suffocated IRL, and years of self-censorship, to the point where I was no longer sure what I believed. But I have to say poasting Anon is incredibly intellectually liberating, and has helped inspire huge improvements in my daily life — it's a blessing to be able to think clearly again.

Expand full comment

Look bro, if you are gonna delve into the facts, don't go halfway. Jews were a major influence during the creation of Woke-ism, seizing power with the high-low alliance of Herbert Marcuse (a Jew) and the activism of Saul Alinsky (a Jew) and the finances of funders like George Soros (a Jew), and Obama was bankrolled by Penny Pritzker (a Jew)... this is the same Pritzker family which largely manufactured the current Transgender Social Contagion.

The Pritzker dynasty owns Chicago, and Illinois.



How you choose to interpret these indisputable facts is up to you... there's no need to descend into slobbering, raving incoherence and start being a paranoid illiterate racist conspiracy theorist.

The media, the Cathedral presents you with two options on every single issue: Either you can shut up and submit to progressive Orthodoxy, or you must be some kind of hateful ignorant bigot criminal domestic terrorist.


The reality is that Western Civilization has proceeded thru numerous stages, and numerous elite aristocracies, during the past 300 years.

Napoleon marked (ironically, since Napoleon was an emperor) the end of the feudal monarchies and knighted, mounted aristocracies, which were then replaced by mass democracy, mass conscription, and cheaply, swiftly trained gunpowder armies of cannons and rifles.

Rather than spending their entire lives training how to ride a horse, now peasants could simply pick up a gun and fire.

The bourgeoise, the New Money business class rose to power.

This continued until around the time of the 1920s in America, the Gilded Age of "robber barons" and F. Scott Fitzgerald's Old Money/New Money WASPs.

Who do you think invented, and then popularized smear campaigns against the industrial magnate "robber barons"?

The media... a new elite class.

So, the feudal aristocracy of knights and kings ended around the dying gasps of the 1700s, at the beginning of the 1800s.

Businessmen ruled thru money... a new merchant class, given prestige, wealth, and power by the rise of INDUSTRIAL steam engines, coal, electricity.

The dawn of the Industrial age was a brief era when INDUSTRY (wealth, corporate monopoly, outlandish tycoons) ruled the West.

Later came the journalist-academic class, and the rise of professors and intelligentsia, such as Woodrow Wilson, former President of Princeton University.

You can tell a lot about the shift in internal American political structures by listing which American Presidents rose to power as military generals (Washington, Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, etc.)... then comparing that against the failure of major generals to seize power, such as the defeat of Douglas MacArthur.

Jews were instrumental to the creation of Wokeness, political correctness, Bolshevism, whatever you want to call it...

But the true story here is a classic case of opening Pandora's Box, the mad scientist losing control of Frankenstein's monster... a rampaging, unleashed GOLEM.

Jews cheered the rise of political correctness, genocidal anti-white ideological attacks because they shortsightedly used this as a rhetorical cudgel to outmaneuver, discredit, and seize power from the Old Money WASPs.

Briefly Jewish academics took power in the Ivy Leagues... now their own pet ideology is hunting them, it's gotten out of control, and Jews are also victims of the push for diversity.

This is a very human, very sympathetic narrative, in the style of classical Greek Tragedy. To seize power by changing the selection mechanisms of the cursus honorum, then to have those rule changes blowback of their beneficiaries.

So, to recap: 3 aristocracies have governed the past 300 years: warriors, then merchants, then priests.

Now an insane death cult is rampaging out of control.

Expand full comment

Overall Bo, I am sympathetic towards your reluctance to confront very risky subjects under your real name. Good article overall, enjoyed it.

Expand full comment

>the third premise about jews is wrong

No. A conscientious review of scientific data shows that the statements of the "extreme right" about Jews are quite true, in general:


If you disagree, you should respond to this article "Sean Last".

In opposing white people, Jews are no different from many other ethnic groups: blacks support leftist politicians because they believe that in this way they are fighting white people (especially politically conservative whites) and because they are sure that socialism and welfare are beneficial to them.

Similarly, Jews tend to support leftist politics, because they are sure that in this way they are fighting against white people, especially against white conservative Christians and any ethnocentric whites.("far-right", white nationalists-alt-rightists, southerners, Christian fundamentalists and others).

At the same time, just like blacks, Jews' ethnocentrism, especially in the past, is associated with stronger support for leftist politics

Expand full comment

I think any honest person ought to admit that Jews do disproportionately favour "progressive" policies compared with the level of support for "progressivism" among white people (like most other minorities) . If only jews voted the united states would be democrat run in every state. They vote dem almost 80%.

What they can say is that Jews do not run America like a small cabal and that most of the people advocating for anti-white "progressive" policies are white, not Jewish.

However it's not clear to me that the most important players in anti-white "progressive" policies are not Jews. For example George Soros has probable spent more on "progressive" diversity groups than any other billionaire. Larry Fink has had the most impact in creating a business cartel where all corporations are beholden to the edicts of diversity ideology and must strive to get high diversity points by instituting anti-white hiring and promotion practices like hiring freezes and diversity quotas. The intellectual machinery used in taking over teacher training colleges and from there university departments and the next generation of managers , critical theory, was founded by Jewish western marxists aka cultural marxists of the Frankfurt school.

The shapers of American cultural consciousness movie makers who tell audiences stories that determine which morals are elevated and which targets are designated , many of them Jews like Spielberg. They often tell stories in which particular the outcast is focused on and given sympathy. Compare ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind directed by Spielberg, where aliens with far superior technology who are rationally speaking an existential threat to Earth are meant to be treated with utter trust, to alien movies directed by gentiles like Independence Day and Alien and Predator. They often tell stories in which the bad guys are depicted as white aryan men and shikshas , like the Addams family movie where the designated targets are blond gentile europeans , or Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where the blonde, Germanic woman Elsa is depicted as lurid and sexually loose and depraved. The actress Rachel Weisz actually has an interview where she recounts how early in her acting career, her agent tells her that she should change her name and hide that she is Jewish. She is puzzled and asks "why? Jews run Hollywood" and her agent responds that they do, but they don't like depicting their own women in sexual roles, they prefer objectifying non-jewish women in sexual roles, so you'll have more roles available to you don't reveal that you're Jewish. https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/the-big-picture/story/2009-10-23/hollywood-jewish-guys-shiksas-part-2

Expand full comment

Diversity = conflict

Expand full comment

Clear and concise. A wonderful article.

Expand full comment

"not about real diversity, but only about an ideologically saturated and limited kind of diversity (racial)."

Racial diversity, is the most real form of diversity there is. Communists, and Progressives*, and Conservatives, and Fascists, and Liberals --- Have all participated in the story of scientific and technological achievement that took man beyond being a mere passive recipient of nature's blows. Blacks have not, nor has anyone with 50% indigenous South or Central admixture, like most of our border crossers.

The problem with "diversity is our strength" isn't that they aren't bringing us a real form of diversity, or that that form is "limited". It isn't even that "diversity is a weakness". It's that blacks and mestizos, are a weakness.

Expand full comment

> Those who want to achieve [demographic replacement] are welcome to continue to pursue them [but openly]

Why do you welcome treason?

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Diversity could be a strength, as long as everyone got there by a merit based system. A group of people who all had the same degree, but different skin tones could still rock the stadium.

The problem is that for some reason, the person benefiting from Diversity usually doesn't have the same degree, has no idea what's going on, and has no idea how to fix anything, sort of like a post turtle.

Expand full comment

"the most significant cause of the decline isn’t Jews themselves, but that American liberalism, our civic religion, has turned on us. Where Jewish success was once upheld as a sign of America’s strength and progress over its prejudices, Jewish “overrepresentation” is again something to be solved, not celebrated."

Notice how they acknowledge OUR civic religion


Expand full comment

So good you will be destroyed if you question it!!

Expand full comment
Jul 20, 2023·edited Jul 20, 2023

100% correct. "progressivism" carried out by non-whites is pure racial chauvinism pursuing their shared group interests using diversity, equity and inclusion schemes to ensure more of their fellow races get hired and promoted to positions of power by displacing and discriminating against non-whites.

When white progressives carry it out they are either overcome by sincere guilt and self-hatred for being white , or they are are trying to get ahead and avoid social punishment in progressive-dominated environments where signalling loyalty to the progressive religion of white racial guilt is required, or they are jews using a dual-identity strategy where they happily denounce white people while claiming to be white even though they actually view themselves as jewish and have a healthy sense of identity and in-group preference for their fellow jews, such that when they say make public statements encouraging resentment and hatred against white people , in their mind they are really thinking "white gentiles, not us" .

Why would the latter group do this? Because it has long been historically recognised by Jews that Jews do better in ethnically non-homogenous societies so it is in their interests to undermine ethnic homogeneity, particularly undermine ethnic homogeneity of Europeans and undermine their shared identity as white people. For example Jewish New York Times writer and Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens expresses this fairly longstanding and common belief among jews : " Jews have only really thrived and are only really safe in the world when liberal values are the dominant prevalent values [...] I mean liberal values such as pluralism [...] To be anti-immigrant strikes me as antithetical to the liberal values that have been so good to us as Jews [...] the style of politics that Trump is bringing has never paid dividends to us as a people" https://twitter.com/JennyJ47864/status/1670160447822069760

He's right of course, Jews have done better in countries with less ethnic homogeneity and so have historic reason to want to undermine white identity. Given that this is the case, white people who want to pursue their collective interests against such anti-white agendas designed to discriminate against them, displace them from positions of power and undermine their sense of identity and in-group preference while other groups retain strong in-group preference and benefit from ethnic nepotism have reason to be wary of Jewish influence.

Everything I have said is rational and can't be logically or empirically refuted. I expect to receive no negative responses assigned from impotent expressions of moral disapproval.

I expect Jews with a public facing image of placing truth as a higher priority than wokeness like Nathan Cofnas or Diana Fleischman or other disaffected rationalists to agree with what I'm saying.

Expand full comment