Thread by @mischrev

This new thread is honestly a great example of the widespread confirmation bias on the Right. If you’re only looking for X, you’ll find only X, pin all blame onto only X, and then your applauding midwit followers will eat it up.
I’m blocked but might as well make this a 🧵

One of the authors Keith cites give some crucial context: within the social sciences, of which Boas was obviously a part, the trend was the OPPOSITE and egalitarianism was becoming increasingly pronounced well prior to Boas.

This strongly suggests Boasianism simply pushed the discipline along a path already set for it. But by omitting this context, and omitting any of the numerous non-J actors, Keith is able to advance his thesis: the modern stigma behind race is a Jewish invention.

Consider how those desperate for a simplistic Jewish answer often think pointing to Barbara Spectre in Sweden is somehow enough evidence to attribute the entirety of Swedish multiculturalism to Jewish culprits, when Jews have ofc been uninfluential on the whole, here.

Finding Jews who pushed for a certain outcome doesn't at all mean the outcome was entirely/mostly caused by them, esp. when much bigger advocates were around
The example of Boas may not be as absurd as Spectre, bc he’s actually had an impact, but a similar thing is happening here

Look at what Keith does with the UNESCO statement, e.g.: The panel was not chaired by Montagu. It was convened and led by Arthur Ramos (as learned from Keith’s own quote), then chaired by Franklin Frazier after Ramos’ death. Similarly, the good majority of panelists were non-Js.

Keith doesn’t mention the members’ names for that reason. He instead goes on to insinuate that the statement was essentially a Jewish reaction to the Holocaust.
Subsequent statements were even more radical, yet even less Jewish in authorship.

Now consider the context: the initial UNESCO declaration was hot on the heels of history's deadliest war/genocide, which provided a major blow to the public perception of racialism/eugenics. This is why it was ordained (by an international committee of non-Js) in the first place.

So overwhelmingly non-J UN elites set in place a doctrine of universal rights/fraternity in response to the unprecedented threats just barely vanquished, setting up a mostly non-J panel of scientists, headed by non-Js, to provide support. Something bigger than Jewish interests...

is clearly at work, yet Keith is able to point to Ashley Montagu being on the panel, and thus pretend the entire thing is a Jewish operation. Half of the tweets in this thread are to do with this nonissue.
And his audience can’t get enough of it. “Every single time,” am I right?

Keith’s other tweets deal with Boas, whom he paints as an extreme environmentalist and cultural relativist.
Carl Degler (again, cited by Keith ITT, as well as a lot by Kmac) explicitly refutes both assumptions:

Even regarding Boas the picture isn’t so simple: lots of evidence suggests that his “Early Life” was more incidental than decisive, i.e., that his Jewish ancestry had very little to do with his political beliefs.
He wasn't impacted in his thinking by antisemitism as Keith alleges

And his views can be traced to the non-Js he studied under in university, famous for their racial egalitarianism.
If anything, they were identical to those of the German immigrants of the period, and Boasianism is best interpreted as a German, not Jewish, intellectual movement.

Regardless, it’s well accepted that the most influential of the Boasians were, predictably, non-Js: Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict. The egalitarian conception of race has been chiefly associated with their work.
From Kmac’s The Culture of Critique:

It’s clear Boasian anthropology was a multiethnic episode along an organic trend of egalitarianism concretized by WWII. This isn't to say that Jews had no part in this process, ofc they did. Js skew left for many reasons, so the net effect of J influence was toward anti-racialism

But Keith’s J-monomania is dishonest and really nothing more than lazy “us vs them” scapegoating. He starts the thread by asking “How did our perception of race change so drastically?” Literally the only reason he gives is “the Jews did it.” No other reason is considered. Why?

Cherrypicking J names to weave a faulty, very simplistic narrative (a recurring problem on the Right) can go both ways. What Keith is doing is almost as misleading as selectively highlighting the disproportionate Jewish role in hereditarianism, which can just as readily be done.

Consider Richard Herrnstein, Hans Eysenck, Cesare Lombroso. The field of psychometrics was pioneered by Jews: just who could be behind the Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, or Kaufman IQ tests? William Stern literally coined the term IQ.

Interestingly, the Jewish share of the hereditarian “Mainstream Science on Intelligence” letter isn’t too far off from the Jewish share of the UNESCO commission.

Sometime not too far in the future I can see a blacknat version of Keith writing out a thread that blames Jews for white supremacy highlighting the above names.
Keef is gonna need to do a lot more than Early Life Boas or Ashley Montagu…

(🧵)

I should clarify something here: not only were the members majority non-Jewish, aside from Montagu I've also found no evidence that they were Boasians, either, in case that's what Keith was going for instead.

@threadreaderapp unroll