{"id":166661,"date":"2026-01-21T06:55:54","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T14:55:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=166661"},"modified":"2026-01-21T07:20:49","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T15:20:49","slug":"nathan-cofnas-critiques-the-helen-andrews-model-of-wokeness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=166661","title":{"rendered":"Nathan Cofnas Critiques The Helen Andrews Model Of Wokeness"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nathan Cofnas writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\nAccording to former American Conservative editor Helen Andrews, wokism is \u201csimply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.\u201d It \u201cappeared out of nowhere\u201d in the 2010s because that\u2019s when female representation at elite institutions passed the 50% mark. Cancel culture\u2014which she sees as a central component of wokism\u2014is \u201csimply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field.\u201d Women such as herself may be exceptions, able to live up to male standards. But groups of women inevitably go woke because that is their nature.<\/p>\n

Andrews defended this theory at the National Conservatism Conference last September, and her talk<\/a> is one of the most watched videos on NatCon\u2019s YouTube channel (270,000 views as of today). In October, she published a viral According to Arnold Kling<\/a>, \u201cwe have made institutions harder for warriors [i.e., people with stereotypical male psychology] to navigate.\u201d Andrews goes further than anyone else, claiming that wokism just is (by definition?) women being women.<\/p>\n

Her argument<\/a> is as follows:<\/p>\n

The fact that wokism is female nature applied to institutions explains why \u201ceverything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wokism began when the demographics at previously male-dominated institutions and professions tipped to majority female. In the US, women demographically surpassed men at law schools in 2016, the New York Times staff room in 2018, medical schools in 2019, and law firms in 2023. They became the majority of college-educated workers in 2019, and the majority of college instructors in 2023. \u201cSo the timing fits.\u201d As soon as women achieved sufficient representation to impose their \u201cpatterns of behavior\u201d on the rest of society, we got wokism.<\/p>\n

The feminization of our culture (and therefore wokism) is the result of artificial social engineering. Judges and government bureaucrats force institutions to hire unqualified women, and \u201canti-discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized.\u201d If a workplace does not cater to their gender-specific preferences, women can sue and get large payoffs, but men have to suck it up.<\/p>\n

The solution to wokism is to repeal anti-discrimination laws.<\/p>\n

During the George W. Bush years, Stephen Colbert coined the word \u201ctruthiness\u201d to refer to ideas that feel true even if they are not supported by evidence. Andrews\u2019s argument is, I suggest, a case study in truthiness. The idea that women cause wokism seems to jibe with lived experience. If you say something politically incorrect at work or school, you\u2019ll probably be hauled into a woman\u2019s office. (HR departments are 74% female<\/a>.) Woke academic fields such as English, sociology, and Grievance Studies are estuaries of estrogen. The blue-haired female college student is a classic woke stereotype. But there is a big leap from that, which is true, to Andrews\u2019s conclusion.<\/p>\n

On my account, wokism is a coherent ideology. It is what follows from taking the equality thesis seriously, given a background of egalitarian morality. The equality thesis, which says that all groups have the same innate distribution of socially relevant traits, has been a tenet of Western liberalism for more than a century. Virtually everything you think of as wokism is a rational, moral response to persistent inequality of outcome, given the false belief that race is skin deep and the sexes are interchangeable. Over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, wokesters made increasingly desperate attempts to fix the environment and bring about equality of outcome among groups. But, to the extent that race and sex disparities reflect natural differences that cannot be fixed, the woke project failed. Wokesters were forced to resort to magical thinking about microaggressions and systemic racism to explain why the gaps won\u2019t go away.<\/p>\n

…It is ironic that Helen Andrews was the one to popularize the theory that women cause wokism because they don\u2019t care enough about the truth, and that she did so at the National Conservatism Conference. As editor of the American Conservative, Andrews was one of the chief gatekeepers preventing people like me from telling the truth about race on mainstream conservative platforms. Yoram Hazony\u2014the Pope of National Conservatism\u2014explicitly says that he doesn\u2019t want to hear the truth about controversial topics. For example, in 2020, I published<\/a> a paper advocating for free inquiry into all causes of race differences in intelligence, including genes. When wokesters started a petition to get the paper retracted, Hazony tweeted<\/a> the following:<\/p>\n

“You can\u2019t get to viewpoint diversity in academia by defending the \u201cstudy of race differences in intelligence.\u201d Such studies are potentially interesting to political racialists and white identitarians. But most conservatives don\u2019t see much value in them.”<\/p>\n

Later the same day, Hazony referred to \u201cdefending race science and Nazi philosophers\u201d and said that \u201cnone of that is conservative.\u201d Isn\u2019t this exactly the behavior that Andrews says is feminine, i.e., backbiting and ostracism to suppress controversial facts that threaten group cohesion? It is doubly ironic that Andrews and her fellow National Conservatives believe in cancel culture specifically for people who express the one idea that has the power to defeat wokism, which is hereditarianism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nathan Cofnas presents a structural interpretation of modern social movements. He argues that what people call wokism is not a collection of random grievances but a logical byproduct of a single foundational premise. He identifies this premise as the equality thesis, the belief that human groups possess an identical distribution of innate cognitive and behavioral traits.<\/p>\n

His argument rests on a cause-and-effect chain. If one accepts that all groups are biologically identical in potential, then any persistent disparity in wealth, education, or crime must result from external, malevolent forces. When decades of social engineering and massive financial investments fail to close these gaps, the believer in the equality thesis faces a crisis. Cofnas suggests that instead of questioning the thesis, the proponents of this ideology invented increasingly abstract concepts like systemic racism and microaggressions to account for the lack of progress.<\/p>\n

This perspective challenges the prevailing sociological view that environmental factors and historical legacies explain group differences. Most contemporary academics and institutions operate under the assumption that disparities reflect the cumulative effects of past discrimination and current institutional biases. They argue that factors such as the wealth gap, differences in school funding, and disparate treatment in the legal system create a feedback loop that sustains inequality.<\/p>\n

Cofnas effectively flips the script on the “irrationality” often attributed to woke ideology. He treats it as a rational system if you grant its primary assumption. His critique suggests that the movement is a desperate attempt to protect a core liberal tenet from empirical reality. This makes his work part of a broader intellectual trend that seeks to reintroduce biological explanations into the study of social outcomes.<\/p>\n

This Cofnas critique gains traction in certain circles because it offers a simple, coherent, testable, predictable, and unifying theory for a wide range of cultural phenomena. It provides an explanation for why institutional rhetoric has become more radical even as formal legal barriers have vanished. Whether one views his account as a bracing dose of realism or a dangerous return to discredited theories depends entirely on one’s starting point regarding the origins of human capability.<\/p>\n

A social theory gains strength when it is falsifiable, explanatory and predictive. Cofnas’s critique has those qualities.<\/p>\n

Cofnas positions his theory as a direct challenge to the “social constructionist” model precisely because he believes the latter has become unfalsifiable. In his view, if every failure of an egalitarian policy is met with a new, more abstract theory of systemic bias, the theory is no longer science; it is a protective belt for a dogma.<\/p>\n

Cofnas\u2019s account is grounded in a clear empirical claim: the equality thesis is a statement about the world that can be tested. If researchers were to find that group disparities in complex traits disappear when environmental variables are perfectly controlled, his theory would be falsified.<\/p>\n

By contrast, he argues that “wokism” avoids falsification by moving the goalposts. If a specific “systemic” barrier is removed and the gap remains, the ideology simply searches for a more subtle or “internalized” barrier. Cofnas claims that by centering his theory on genetics and biology, he is returning to a model that can actually be proven wrong by data.<\/p>\n

The explanatory power of his model lies in its parsimony. Instead of requiring a vast, interlocking web of conscious and unconscious biases, historical trauma, and “micro-level” interactions, he points to a single source: innate group differences.<\/p>\n

He uses this to explain the timing of the woke turn. As legal barriers were dismantled in the late 20th century, the expectation was that group outcomes would equalize. When they did not, the “equality thesis” believers were forced to radicalize their explanations to maintain their moral worldview. This explains why institutions have become more “woke” even as society has become objectively less racist in its formal laws.<\/p>\n

Cofnas makes several bold predictions that serve as a test for his theory:<\/p>\n

The Failure of Intervention: He predicts that no amount of DEI funding, bias training, or social engineering will close the group outcome gaps so long as they reflect biological reality.<\/p>\n

The Instability of the Center: He predicts that “moderate” conservatives like Hazony will continue to lose ground because they cannot provide a coherent explanation for persistent inequality, leaving the field open to the more internally consistent “woke” narrative.<\/p>\n

The “Hereditarian Revolution”: He predicts that as genetic data becomes more granular and accessible through polygenic scores and large-scale genomic studies, the equality thesis will become impossible to maintain among the general public.<\/p>\n

While Helen Andrews explains the behavioral style of the movement, Cofnas provides the structural logic. If his predictions about the failure of social engineering hold true, his theory gains weight as a structural explanation, regardless of whether the people enforcing the policies are male or female.<\/p>\n

Cofnas attempts to be intellectually fair by granting the woke movement a degree of internal logic. He does not dismiss it as a mental illness or a mere power grab. Instead, he treats it as a series of rational deductions made by people who are committed to a specific moral and scientific premise. By framing the movement as a “moral response,” he acknowledges that the people involved act out of a desire for justice rather than malice.<\/p>\n

However, many would argue his analysis is fundamentally unfair because it treats the movement as a closed system of logic while ignoring the lived experience and historical data that many activists rely upon. To a proponent of these social theories, concepts like systemic racism are not “magical thinking” invented to cover for a failed biology. They are observations of how neutral-sounding rules often produce biased results. A critic of Cofnas would say he ignores the way past policies, like redlining or disparate sentencing, continue to exert a physical and economic pull on the present.<\/p>\n

His fairness is also complicated by the way he defines the “equality thesis.” He presents it as a scientific claim that has been debunked, but many liberals view it as a moral or legal axiom rather than a biological one. For them, the “fairness” of a society is measured by its commitment to treating people as individuals, regardless of group averages. By reducing the entire movement to a biological error, Cofnas may be creating a straw man that ignores the philosophical and legal arguments for equity that do not rely on a claim of identical innate traits.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Cofnas is fair to the structure of the argument but dismissive of its content. He provides a coherent map of why the movement behaves the way it does, but he does so by stripping away the historical and sociological nuance that its adherents consider essential. He treats the movement as a laboratory experiment that failed to yield the expected results, while those inside the movement see it as an ongoing struggle against deeply rooted and very real social structures.<\/p>\n

Cofnas identifies a tension within the conservative movement that he finds both intellectually dishonest and strategically fatal. He argues that by suppressing hereditarianism, mainstream conservatives like Yoram Hazony and Helen Andrews operate within the same moral and empirical framework as their opponents. If conservatives accept the equality thesis, they lose the ability to provide an alternative explanation for group disparities. This forces them into a weak rhetorical position where they must blame the same systemic factors the left cites, or simply offer no explanation at all.<\/p>\n

His critique of Helen Andrews and the National Conservatism movement highlights a specific type of gatekeeping. Andrews argues that feminine traits lead to the social ostracism and “cancel culture” inherent in wokism. Cofnas points out that Andrews and Hazony use those exact tactics\u2014ostracism and the labeling of ideas as radioactive or “un-conservative”\u2014to silence race realism. To Cofnas, this is a form of status closure where elite conservatives protect their institutional standing by policing the boundaries of acceptable thought.<\/p>\n

The strategy of a Hereditarian Revolution seeks to collapse the entire woke edifice by removing its foundation. Cofnas believes that if the public accepts that race and sex disparities reflect innate differences, the moral demand for equal outcomes vanishes. He views the current conservative strategy of “colorblindness” as a failure because it cannot explain why colorblind policies do not lead to equal results. Without a biological explanation, the persistent gaps continue to fuel the narrative that society is fundamentally unjust.<\/p>\n

Critics of this approach argue that a Hereditarian Revolution would not lead to social stability or the end of wokism. Instead, they suggest it could lead to a resurgence of explicit racial hierarchy or social Darwinism that most modern societies find abhorrent. There is also the significant scientific challenge of isolating genetic variables from the massive, compounding effects of environment and history. For many, the “truth” Cofnas wants to tell is less a settled scientific fact and more a return to a 19th-century worldview that ignores modern epigenetics and sociology.<\/p>\n

Hazony\u2019s position represents a different conservative priority: the preservation of social cohesion and traditional values. From his perspective, the study of race differences in intelligence is socially corrosive and provides no utility for building a stable, virtuous national community. He views it as a distraction that invites unnecessary cruelty. Cofnas sees this as a cowardice that ensures the ultimate victory of the left, as it leaves the equality thesis unchallenged as the only permissible explanation for the state of the world.<\/p>\n

I suspect that in private, Yoram Hazony and Helen Andrews and most conservative intellectuals, including close to 100% under age 40, would be quite open to Cofnas’s contentions.<\/p>\n

This claim gets to the heart of the “open secret” dynamic within elite intellectual circles. If this observation is correct, it suggests that a massive generational divide exists between the public posture of the conservative movement and the private convictions of its rising class.<\/p>\n

The logic behind this claim usually rests on three factors:<\/p>\n

First, younger intellectuals grew up in a world where the “equality thesis” was the undisputed baseline for all public policy. Having seen decades of these policies fail to produce equal outcomes, they may find the “systemic racism” explanation less convincing than their predecessors did. This creates a vacuum that hereditarianism fills with a simple, predictive answer.<\/p>\n

Second, this generation is more comfortable with the data emerging from the “genomics revolution.” They see the rapid advancement of polygenic scores and large-scale twin studies as an inevitable tide that will eventually wash away social constructionism. For them, sticking to the “colorblind” or “meritocracy” rhetoric of the 1990s feels like a strategic error\u2014a refusal to use the only tool they believe can actually win the argument.<\/p>\n

Third, there is the issue of “prestige architecture.” As you noted with the behavior of figures like Yoram Hazony or Helen Andrews, the current gatekeepers of “Conservatism Inc.” maintain their status by enforcing certain taboos. Younger thinkers, who are often more alienated from these traditional institutions, have less to lose and may feel a greater sense of urgency to collapse what they see as a dishonest consensus.<\/p>\n

The discrepancy between private belief and public utterance is what Cofnas identifies as the “tragedy” of the current right. He argues that by keeping these views private, younger intellectuals allow the “woke” framework to remain the only permissible explanation for inequality in the public square. This ensures that even as they gain power, they will remain trapped within their opponents’ moral and empirical world.<\/p>\n

This situation reflects the “buffered identity” concept. By maintaining a public persona that adheres to the equality thesis, these intellectuals protect their “buffered” status within mainstream society. However, the private reality of the data creates a “porous” vulnerability where their public arguments are constantly threatened by what they know to be true in private.<\/p>\n

Conservative intellectuals are more aware of the data Cofnas cites than the standard liberal academic. In elite conservative circles, the “hereditarian” perspective is often the “open secret”\u2014the explanation whispered in private to account for why the Great Society or DEI initiatives haven’t produced the promised results.<\/p>\n

The irony is that because they are “inside” the Overton Window, they act as the most effective suppressors of those ideas. A leftist academic can simply dismiss Cofnas as a “pseudo-scientist.” But Andrews and Hazony, who share many of his cultural goals, must actively “excommunicate” him to maintain their own institutional respectability. As Cofnas puts it, they are the “gatekeepers” who ensure that the only permissible conservative critique of wokism remains safely focused on “feminization” or “safetyism” rather than the underlying biological premise.<\/p>\n

Hazony\u2019s public dismissal of race science as “not conservative” is the perfect example of this. When he says these studies are “potentially interesting to political racialists” but of no value to most conservatives, he isn’t necessarily saying the data is false. He is saying it is useless\u2014or worse, socially corrosive\u2014to the project of building a national community.<\/p>\n

To Hazony, the “truth” is secondary to the “good.” If a truth makes it impossible to maintain a cohesive, moral society, he argues a conservative should deprioritize it. Cofnas sees this as a suicidal strategy: you cannot defeat an ideology (wokism) that is built on an empirical claim (the equality thesis) by simply refusing to discuss the evidence.<\/p>\n

Helen Andrews\u2019s focus on the “feminization” of institutions is the ultimate “Overton-safe” version of a radical critique.<\/p>\n

It feels edgy: It allows conservatives to criticize the “values of the nursery” and the “rule of HR.”<\/p>\n

It has high “truthiness”: It maps onto people’s daily experience of cancel culture.<\/p>\n

It is “safe”: Critiquing gender dynamics is common in conservative discourse and won’t get you banned from major platforms.<\/p>\n

Cofnas\u2019s point is that Andrews is using the “feminine” tactics she decries\u2014social ostracism and gatekeeping\u2014to protect the one idea (hereditarianism) she thinks would actually work. The irony is that by staying inside the window, she and Hazony may be preserving the very “woke” landscape they claim to hate, because they refuse to pull the rug out from under its primary assumption.<\/p>\n

The discrepancy between private conviction and public rhetoric among conservative elites is exactly what Cofnas identifies as the primary obstacle to his proposed “hereditarian revolution.”<\/p>\n

If prominent thinkers privately acknowledge a biological basis for group disparities while publicly defending “colorblindness” or “meritocracy,” they find themselves in a strategic bind. By not challenging the equality thesis in public, they effectively cede the moral and empirical high ground to the left. When a colorblind system still produces unequal outcomes, the only permissible explanation left within the public square is systemic bias. This makes the conservative position appear either naive or intentionally obstructive to the justice the left seeks.<\/p>\n

This dynamic can be viewed through the lens of status closure. Intellectuals who hold “taboo” private views may feel that going public would lead to immediate professional and social ostracism. They protect their status by maintaining a “respectable” public profile that stays within the boundaries of acceptable discourse. For Cofnas, this isn’t just a personal compromise; it is a structural failure of the conservative movement. He views figures like Yoram Hazony or Helen Andrews as gatekeepers who prioritize institutional survival over what he sees as a foundational truth.<\/p>\n

The “backdoor” to this conversation often comes through specific fields like genetics or medicine, where racial differences are discussed in more clinical, less politically charged terms. However, as soon as these discussions move into the realm of intelligence or social policy, the gatekeeping mechanisms become much more rigid. The “two faces” of the movement create a vacuum where no coherent counter-explanation for persistent inequality can be offered to the public, which in turn sustains the very “wokism” these intellectuals claim to oppose.<\/p>\n

Helen Andrews is right that the aesthetic and tactics of modern institutional life have shifted toward what sociologists call “feminized” norms. The emphasis on psychological safety, harm prevention, and social cohesion over raw competition or “adversarial” truth-seeking is a documented trend.<\/p>\n

The demographic data she cites is also real. The 2010s saw a tipping point in HR departments, university administrations, and journalism where women moved from a minority to a dominant majority. If you define wokism as a set of social behaviors\u2014specifically “indirect aggression” like ostracism and reputational destruction rather than direct confrontation\u2014then her thesis has high descriptive power. It explains the how of cancel culture quite well.<\/p>\n

The reason many find her argument lacking as a total explanation is that it ignores the ideological engine. Men were the primary architects of the “equality thesis” long before women entered the workforce in large numbers. The legal framework of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the subsequent disparate impact doctrines were largely built by men in the mid-20th century.<\/p>\n

Cofnas\u2019s point is that if you have an all-male board of directors who believe that all groups are identical in talent, they will still arrive at “woke” conclusions when they see unequal results. They might use “masculine” tactics to fix it\u2014like rigid quotas or aggressive litigation\u2014but the ideology remains the same. Andrews mistakes the social etiquette of the movement (empathy, safety, HR mediation) for the logical core of the movement (the belief that any disparity is proof of injustice).<\/p>\n

Cofnas is particularly biting about the “truthiness” of Andrews\u2019s argument. By blaming “female nature,” Andrews provides a convenient scapegoat that allows male conservative elites to avoid the more “radioactive” topic of hereditarianism. If the problem is just “too many women,” the solution is a demographic rollback. But if the problem is a fundamental error in how we understand human biology, then even an all-male institution will eventually go woke as long as it clings to the equality thesis.<\/p>\n

In this sense, her argument functions as a form of “status closure” itself. It is a safe, culturally acceptable way for conservatives to complain about the left without touching the data on group differences that Hazony and others find so distasteful.<\/p>\n

The effectiveness of Andrews’s model lies in its ability to map the “social technology” of modern censorship. Indirect aggression\u2014strategies like social exclusion, reputational smearing, and the use of third-party authorities (HR, DEI committees) to settle disputes\u2014contrasts sharply with the more traditional, “masculine” style of direct, adversarial debate. When people feel that workplace culture has become a “minefield,” they are often reacting to this shift in how conflict is handled.<\/p>\n

This model is popular because it identifies the specific texture of institutional life today. It explains why a person isn’t usually fired for being “wrong” in a technical sense, but rather for “making people feel unsafe” or “disrupting cohesion.” If you view institutions as ecosystems, the introduction of a critical mass of people who prioritize emotional safety naturally changes the environment’s selection pressures. People who are highly adversarial or “disagreeable” in the psychological sense find themselves selected against.<\/p>\n

However, the reason this only accounts for a fraction of the phenomenon is that it confuses the enforcement mechanism with the moral law. While women may dominate the HR departments that carry out the “cancellation,” the moral imperative they are enforcing\u2014the idea that disparities are inherently unjust\u2014is an intellectual and legal and political product.<\/p>\n

Cofnas would argue that Andrews\u2019s focus on “female nature” is a distraction from the real battle. If the goal of the conservative intellectual is to win the argument, blaming women’s “empathy” is a dead end. It offers no way to refute the left’s claims about justice. If you accept that all groups are identical, then the left’s demand for equal outcomes is morally correct, and it doesn’t matter if the person enforcing that demand is a man or a woman; the demand itself will eventually break the institution.<\/p>\n

By focusing on “feminization,” conservative elites can participate in a high-brow version of the “gender wars” which is socially acceptable and even popular on YouTube. It allows them to feel like they are being “edgy” and “telling hard truths” without ever having to touch the third rail of hereditarianism that would actually cost them their mainstream standing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nathan Cofnas writes: According to former American Conservative editor Helen Andrews, wokism is \u201csimply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.\u201d It \u201cappeared out of nowhere\u201d in the 2010s because that\u2019s when … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42838],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nathan-cofnas"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=166661"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166661\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":166672,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166661\/revisions\/166672"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=166661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=166661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=166661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}