The academic world has been buzzing with arguments seeking to explain the origins and mechanism of Jewish power in the modern West. The question is rife with landmines and one side of the debate is heavily stifled. One theory gaining traction, promoted by figures such as Richard Hanania and Cambridge lecturer Nathan Cofnas, is that the massive overrepresentation of the Ashkenazi Jewish population derives from their genetic superiority to whites in the area of intellect. This theory has been proliferated through Jewish-owned publications of great import, such as the
The recent “debate” between Alex Jones and Brother Nathaniel touches on the establishment of stock exchanges as a fulcrum of jewish power, with Alex trying (and failing) to claim London’s exchange was a gentile operation. Thank you for making this important information accessible and tying it in to more recent scholarship
Great article. The reason jews and capitalism/money power go together is because it's the most undemocratic form of power, and allows a small number of people to hold all the power in a system by simply stacking capital.
Great piece, Joey. I just order Sombart's book. Are you familiar with the economist Michael Hudson? I just ran across a fascinating interview with him. His economics seems extremely compatible with national socialism, though I expect he'd recoil at the suggestion. He basically points to non-productive finance capitalism as the major ill of our world (though he certainly doesn't connect it to Jews).
I recommend Sombart's "Traders and Heroes" comparing the values and political tradition of the Anglo-Liberal world and the Prussian-German culture. This conflict was highly emphasized on both sides with liberal countries declaring Germany any enemy of Western Civilization due to its failure to embrace liberal democracy.
In fact, propaganda during WW2 from the Atlantic side was a recreation of WW1 propaganda with Nazi's being the rebirth of the evil Prussian authoritarian threat to democracy and freedom. It was only decades after WW2 did anti Nazism become focused upon antisemitism and the holocaust.
This conflict between German-Prussian and Anglo-Atlantic culture is not talked about anymore, the far right today tends to latch on exclusively to the antisemitic world outlook that was thrust to the forefront of German nationalist politics after the rise of Bolshevism and WW1 defeat. I happen to have the unpopular opinion in these circles that the conflict between these 2 political traditions is still the real conflict of out time and the future of the West.
The German political tradition is not merely in conflict with liberalism but is ultimately the antithesis of what is today considered to be conservative or RW politics due to the dominance of Anglo American culture. Nothing can highlight that more than one of the premier conservatives in the old German culture Oswald Spengler referring positively to the German political tradition as "authoritarian socialist".
Today, it is why we have "anti globalist" conservatives celebrating an Argentina men declaring the State as evil and needing to be abolished thus giving power to everything they claim to be opposed to. This merchant-"RW" outlook is incapable of understanding the way power works nor the type of political structure(Authority & Socialism) needed to combat it. Until this merchant money worshiping RW tradition is combated nothing can be done to combat the powers that needed to be combated. It is the culture of the Knight vs the culture of the Merchant.
Sorry for writing my own version of a substack post in your comments.
Milei is part of the tribe but claims he wants to 'convert' to Judaism and runs to the hollering wall as one of his first acts as Argentina's president. The lies they won't tell. See what you think of these physiognomies.
The discrepancy between Jewish and Asian power could be due to GFP (general factor of personality, basically how sociable and hard working you are). Have you looked into that?
>A mountain of studies have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the United States functions as an oligarchy.
I don't buy the GFP argument. Let's say for the sake of argument that Jews are more sociable and hard working than East Asians, we would have to argue the same is true for South Asians viz-a-viz white non-Jewish Americans, since Indians get more corporate promotions than whites.
Few would argue that Indian men are more charismatic or assertive than Europeans by nature.
Would you agree that the growing gap between South Asians and whites when it comes to management promotions is a product of institutional discrimination (affirmative action, DEI, etc)?
As for the US being an oligarchy, there are so many studies and books on the topic it would be impossible to list them all.
The reason we have several people in our congress in their 80s and even 90s is because they build quid pro quo relationships with billionaires and lobbyists who furnish them with so much cash that opponents, both in primaries or opposing parties, struggle to compete.
>I don't buy the GFP argument. Let's say for the sake of argument that Jews are more sociable and hard working than East Asians, we would have to argue the same is true for South Asians viz-a-viz white non-Jewish Americans, since Indians get more corporate promotions than whites.
This isn't valid reasoning, Indians could be more successful (if they even are) for other reasons than Jews.
>Few would argue that Indian men are more charismatic or assertive than Europeans by nature.
That's not necessarily what GFP is. It could be tangibly more like worth ethic and obedience, which Indians are stereotyped as having more of, in my anecdotal experience. One could even argue that low GFP tends to be more assertive.
>Would you agree that the growing gap between South Asians and whites when it comes to management promotions is a product of institutional discrimination (affirmative action, DEI, etc)?
Probably in part, but also Indians may just be more willing to work more for less pay and poorer working conditions.
>As for the US being an oligarchy, there are so many studies and books on the topic it would be impossible to list them all.
There's a serious dearth of studies actually. I'm deeply read and have written a great deal on this topic, more than you I'd bet.
>The reason we have several people in our congress in their 80s and even 90s is because they build quid pro quo relationships with billionaires and lobbyists who furnish them with so much cash that opponents, both in primaries or opposing parties, struggle to compete.
It could also be because younger people are dumber and gayer due to the pervasive dysgenics ruining our society.
This all boils down to "Jews didn't play fair like we Europeans understand fairness." If this is all true then historically Jews appear to have played a good game and continue to do so, high IQ or not. Moreover, I don't see how fair Europeans were when they colonised, enslaved and exploited for their wealth in the past. Just because the Jewish playbook continues to reap them success as a collective diaspora, whereas colonialism went past its sell-by date, doesn't mean there's anything more nefarious going on than there is in any other sphere of current human endeavour predicated on power—it's all ridden with nepotism and the notion of meritocracy has been proven to be a scam in Europe, America, and everywhere else.
From the perspective of the Germans, Werner Sombart did not make a good name for himself through his writings on the Jewish question - if one simply understands him directly. However, it is necessary to view him in the context of his time, which was just before World War I. Even though Bismarck had introduced social laws about 20 years earlier, the Germans were still under pressure to prevent socialist movements, such as those occurring in the Russian Empire. The situation at the time did not really look rosy, and definitely, social upheavals were still present. For this reason, one must ask why the apartheid of the Jews was so central in Europe. It is not as simple as one might think, that Jews could not study, but the academy was not benevolent towards them in this regard. Max Weber also saw this, who was massively against this attitude of the academy and repeatedly emphasized how his ideal type should not be misused to mean that it wanted to depict reality; Sombart did not adhere to this. Even if Sombart’s ideal-typical analysis was technically correct in the scientific view of the time, it is nevertheless clearly antisemitic to read, because it precisely does not grasp the core of why social action is charged with certain types and precisely in this process, the phenomena emerge - it simply reduces them like the science of racial hygiene at the time. The problem here is much more the question of why an image of a Jew was necessary in the purpose-rational world of the early 20th century? And precisely this question allows us to read the problems in this way before World War II.
Not even close. You clearly haven't read the text; he has 3 rational approaches to this question, where merely one of these is the scientific approach. He analyzes social/cultural factors, economic, and religious.
Would you not say that he pursues anti-Semitic tendencies? Even Ebner, who edited the complete works of Sombart here in Germany, is aware of his motives at the time - although it must be read that the anti-Semitic motives were quite common at the time, as were the racist ones in Kant. Starting with Weber, Sombart’s research belongs to the then "Rassenhygiene" (racial hygiene) and he also uses the method of the ideal type; I would advise you to get historically smart before you throw such claims into the room, which clearly take into account the historical background and his anti-Semitism in Sombart research here in the country.
Nevertheless, I insist that these motives have their social reasons and cannot be attributed to Sombart himself. The historical context is crucial here, as anti-Semitism in this form only arises against the background of social upheavals, precisely because it requires a figure who must be mystified as a scapegoat.
Weber was able to escape the mystification, Sombart could not.
I'll assume you're writing in good faith but throwing the word anti-Semitism around may lead to much confusion. To the extent that he is anti-Semetic is to the judgement of the reader. If Werner Sombart is anti-Semetic it is to the extent that he is a Christian Gentile which is by definition spiritually and religiously anti-Semetic and by extension politically. Sombart categorically rejects any sort of ideological characterizations of the Jewish people and coldly analyzes the facts. In fact, he praises them many times for their innovative and pioneering spirit which motivates new developments in Capitalism. There is no such "mystification" at play here.
"Historical context" is a load of nonsense. How about we discuss the merit of the ideas?
Calvin Coolidge described the influence of Jewish lore, Jewish law, Jewish culture and the Jewish spirit, as expressed in the Bible, upon the development of the United States. He quoted the historian, Lecky, who said that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.”
The recent “debate” between Alex Jones and Brother Nathaniel touches on the establishment of stock exchanges as a fulcrum of jewish power, with Alex trying (and failing) to claim London’s exchange was a gentile operation. Thank you for making this important information accessible and tying it in to more recent scholarship
I checked the original German text: the passage is as follows regarding the quote including Slavs:
"Das nur noch von Slaven, Negern, und Juden bewohnt sein wird und in dem die Juden..."
"Slav" translates to "Slaw" or "Slawiche" (Slavic)
Whereas clearly it is written "Slaven" that translates to "Slave". A classic misdirection throwing in the Slavic people's lot in with the Jews.
Explains the differences between the English translations, where Slav turns to slum.
Great article. The reason jews and capitalism/money power go together is because it's the most undemocratic form of power, and allows a small number of people to hold all the power in a system by simply stacking capital.
Great piece, Joey. I just order Sombart's book. Are you familiar with the economist Michael Hudson? I just ran across a fascinating interview with him. His economics seems extremely compatible with national socialism, though I expect he'd recoil at the suggestion. He basically points to non-productive finance capitalism as the major ill of our world (though he certainly doesn't connect it to Jews).
https://youtu.be/4cQbyYBUvzY?si=5KbSQGmbQmaP1Mu1
So, what good is Hudson, ultimately?
I recommend Sombart's "Traders and Heroes" comparing the values and political tradition of the Anglo-Liberal world and the Prussian-German culture. This conflict was highly emphasized on both sides with liberal countries declaring Germany any enemy of Western Civilization due to its failure to embrace liberal democracy.
In fact, propaganda during WW2 from the Atlantic side was a recreation of WW1 propaganda with Nazi's being the rebirth of the evil Prussian authoritarian threat to democracy and freedom. It was only decades after WW2 did anti Nazism become focused upon antisemitism and the holocaust.
This conflict between German-Prussian and Anglo-Atlantic culture is not talked about anymore, the far right today tends to latch on exclusively to the antisemitic world outlook that was thrust to the forefront of German nationalist politics after the rise of Bolshevism and WW1 defeat. I happen to have the unpopular opinion in these circles that the conflict between these 2 political traditions is still the real conflict of out time and the future of the West.
The German political tradition is not merely in conflict with liberalism but is ultimately the antithesis of what is today considered to be conservative or RW politics due to the dominance of Anglo American culture. Nothing can highlight that more than one of the premier conservatives in the old German culture Oswald Spengler referring positively to the German political tradition as "authoritarian socialist".
Today, it is why we have "anti globalist" conservatives celebrating an Argentina men declaring the State as evil and needing to be abolished thus giving power to everything they claim to be opposed to. This merchant-"RW" outlook is incapable of understanding the way power works nor the type of political structure(Authority & Socialism) needed to combat it. Until this merchant money worshiping RW tradition is combated nothing can be done to combat the powers that needed to be combated. It is the culture of the Knight vs the culture of the Merchant.
Sorry for writing my own version of a substack post in your comments.
Milei is part of the tribe but claims he wants to 'convert' to Judaism and runs to the hollering wall as one of his first acts as Argentina's president. The lies they won't tell. See what you think of these physiognomies.
https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.ew0kMB-Vf5MtkzK0-XXsbwHaEK%26pid%3DApi&sp=1708550493T2d94909b2b6a8e7fe49b92d527732328839373f4a246a897bc834940a28813a2
Fantastic Post Joe.
Thank you- a grounded, fact based counterpoint to the current zeitgeist
The discrepancy between Jewish and Asian power could be due to GFP (general factor of personality, basically how sociable and hard working you are). Have you looked into that?
>A mountain of studies have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the United States functions as an oligarchy.
That's one study and it fails to replicate in other datasets, I think this is because varies but policy domain https://x.com/BronskiJoseph/status/1739410199243272230
I don't buy the GFP argument. Let's say for the sake of argument that Jews are more sociable and hard working than East Asians, we would have to argue the same is true for South Asians viz-a-viz white non-Jewish Americans, since Indians get more corporate promotions than whites.
Few would argue that Indian men are more charismatic or assertive than Europeans by nature.
Would you agree that the growing gap between South Asians and whites when it comes to management promotions is a product of institutional discrimination (affirmative action, DEI, etc)?
As for the US being an oligarchy, there are so many studies and books on the topic it would be impossible to list them all.
The reason we have several people in our congress in their 80s and even 90s is because they build quid pro quo relationships with billionaires and lobbyists who furnish them with so much cash that opponents, both in primaries or opposing parties, struggle to compete.
>I don't buy the GFP argument. Let's say for the sake of argument that Jews are more sociable and hard working than East Asians, we would have to argue the same is true for South Asians viz-a-viz white non-Jewish Americans, since Indians get more corporate promotions than whites.
This isn't valid reasoning, Indians could be more successful (if they even are) for other reasons than Jews.
>Few would argue that Indian men are more charismatic or assertive than Europeans by nature.
That's not necessarily what GFP is. It could be tangibly more like worth ethic and obedience, which Indians are stereotyped as having more of, in my anecdotal experience. One could even argue that low GFP tends to be more assertive.
>Would you agree that the growing gap between South Asians and whites when it comes to management promotions is a product of institutional discrimination (affirmative action, DEI, etc)?
Probably in part, but also Indians may just be more willing to work more for less pay and poorer working conditions.
>As for the US being an oligarchy, there are so many studies and books on the topic it would be impossible to list them all.
There's a serious dearth of studies actually. I'm deeply read and have written a great deal on this topic, more than you I'd bet.
>The reason we have several people in our congress in their 80s and even 90s is because they build quid pro quo relationships with billionaires and lobbyists who furnish them with so much cash that opponents, both in primaries or opposing parties, struggle to compete.
It could also be because younger people are dumber and gayer due to the pervasive dysgenics ruining our society.
If you can form an evidence backed argument refuting my theory I will gladly read it and respond.
This all boils down to "Jews didn't play fair like we Europeans understand fairness." If this is all true then historically Jews appear to have played a good game and continue to do so, high IQ or not. Moreover, I don't see how fair Europeans were when they colonised, enslaved and exploited for their wealth in the past. Just because the Jewish playbook continues to reap them success as a collective diaspora, whereas colonialism went past its sell-by date, doesn't mean there's anything more nefarious going on than there is in any other sphere of current human endeavour predicated on power—it's all ridden with nepotism and the notion of meritocracy has been proven to be a scam in Europe, America, and everywhere else.
Organized Jewry is better compared to a Mexican drug cartel or ISIS.
From the perspective of the Germans, Werner Sombart did not make a good name for himself through his writings on the Jewish question - if one simply understands him directly. However, it is necessary to view him in the context of his time, which was just before World War I. Even though Bismarck had introduced social laws about 20 years earlier, the Germans were still under pressure to prevent socialist movements, such as those occurring in the Russian Empire. The situation at the time did not really look rosy, and definitely, social upheavals were still present. For this reason, one must ask why the apartheid of the Jews was so central in Europe. It is not as simple as one might think, that Jews could not study, but the academy was not benevolent towards them in this regard. Max Weber also saw this, who was massively against this attitude of the academy and repeatedly emphasized how his ideal type should not be misused to mean that it wanted to depict reality; Sombart did not adhere to this. Even if Sombart’s ideal-typical analysis was technically correct in the scientific view of the time, it is nevertheless clearly antisemitic to read, because it precisely does not grasp the core of why social action is charged with certain types and precisely in this process, the phenomena emerge - it simply reduces them like the science of racial hygiene at the time. The problem here is much more the question of why an image of a Jew was necessary in the purpose-rational world of the early 20th century? And precisely this question allows us to read the problems in this way before World War II.
Not even close. You clearly haven't read the text; he has 3 rational approaches to this question, where merely one of these is the scientific approach. He analyzes social/cultural factors, economic, and religious.
Would you not say that he pursues anti-Semitic tendencies? Even Ebner, who edited the complete works of Sombart here in Germany, is aware of his motives at the time - although it must be read that the anti-Semitic motives were quite common at the time, as were the racist ones in Kant. Starting with Weber, Sombart’s research belongs to the then "Rassenhygiene" (racial hygiene) and he also uses the method of the ideal type; I would advise you to get historically smart before you throw such claims into the room, which clearly take into account the historical background and his anti-Semitism in Sombart research here in the country.
Nevertheless, I insist that these motives have their social reasons and cannot be attributed to Sombart himself. The historical context is crucial here, as anti-Semitism in this form only arises against the background of social upheavals, precisely because it requires a figure who must be mystified as a scapegoat.
Weber was able to escape the mystification, Sombart could not.
I'll assume you're writing in good faith but throwing the word anti-Semitism around may lead to much confusion. To the extent that he is anti-Semetic is to the judgement of the reader. If Werner Sombart is anti-Semetic it is to the extent that he is a Christian Gentile which is by definition spiritually and religiously anti-Semetic and by extension politically. Sombart categorically rejects any sort of ideological characterizations of the Jewish people and coldly analyzes the facts. In fact, he praises them many times for their innovative and pioneering spirit which motivates new developments in Capitalism. There is no such "mystification" at play here.
"Historical context" is a load of nonsense. How about we discuss the merit of the ideas?
Calvin Coolidge described the influence of Jewish lore, Jewish law, Jewish culture and the Jewish spirit, as expressed in the Bible, upon the development of the United States. He quoted the historian, Lecky, who said that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.”