The Puritan Intellectual Tradition in America, Part 3: Was the 1924 Immigration Law Too Little, Too Late?

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

Concluding Thoughts on the Puritan Intellectual Tradition in America

An interesting feature of Puritanism is the tendency to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues—their susceptibility to utopian appeals to a ‘higher law’ and the belief that the principal purpose of government is moral. New England was the most fertile ground for “the perfectability of man creed,” and the “father of a dozen ‘isms.’”[1] There was a tendency to paint political alternatives as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as evil incarnate—inspired by the devil. Puritan moral intensity can also be seen in their “profound personal piety”[2]—their intensity of commitment to live not only a holy life, but also a sober and industrious life.

Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth century it was directed at the entire country. The moral fervor that had inspired Puritan preachers and magistrates to rigidly enforce laws on fornication, adultery, sleeping in church, or criticizing preachers was universalized and aimed at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism and slavery.

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired and justified the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa. Militarily, the war with the Confederacy was the greatest sacrifice in lives and property ever made by Americans.[3] Puritan moral fervor and punitiveness are also evident in the call of the Congregationalist minister at Henry Ward Beecher’s Old Plymouth Church in New York during World War II for “exterminating the German people . . . the sterilization of 10,000,000 German soldiers and the segregation of the woman.”[4]

With the rise of the Jewish intellectual and political movements described in The Culture of Critique, the descendants of the Puritans (and, of course man other Whites) readily joined the chorus of moral condemnation of America.

The lesson here is that in large part the problem confronting Whites in the contemporary United States stems from the psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other whites. Once Europeans were convinced that their own people were morally bankrupt, any and all means of punishment should be used against their own people. Rather than see other Europeans as part of an encompassing ethnic and tribal community, fellow Europeans came to be seen as morally blameworthy and the appropriate target of altruistic punishment.

The best strategy for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy. A major theme of [The Culture of Critique] is that this is exactly what Jewish intellectual movements have done. They have presented Judaism as morally superior to European civilization and European civilization as morally bankrupt and the proper target of punishment.

As a thought experiment, imagine trying to make Arabs feel guilty about the slave trade and about the Arab expansion throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and into southeastern Europe. Try to imagine making the descendants of the Bantu in Africa feel guilty about their expansion into southern Africa, or the Han Chinese expansion at the expense of other peoples. Mohammed is venerated by all Muslims, and there’s a statue to Genghis Khan in Ulaan Bataar, Mongolia. This is a European problem—particularly northwest Europe.

The Puritan legacy in American culture is indeed pernicious because, once the Puritan-descended intellectual elite had been eradicated, their moral idealism was vulnerable to intellectual and political movements that eventually aimed at replacing the traditional peoples of the United States. The intellectual and political left (which is a product of the post-1965 counter-cultural revolution) have been fundamentally based on a moral critique of traditional American society that aims to eradicate the power of its European-derived traditional majority and relegate them to a relatively powerless demographic minority. At this time, any group identification of Whites has been pathologized—a legacy most of all of the Frankfurt School which has become a linchpin of the intellectual basis for the new elite.[5]

As someone with considerable experience in the academic world, I can attest to feeling like a wayward heretic back in seventeenth-century Massachusetts when confronted, as I have often been, by academic thought police. It’s the moral fervor of these people that stands out. The academic world has become a Puritan congregation of stifling thought control, enforced by moralistic condemnations that a seventeenth-century Puritan minister could scarcely surpass. In my experience, this thought control is far worse in the Ivy League universities founded by the Puritans than elsewhere in academia—a fitting reminder of the continuing influence of Puritanism in American life.

Given this state of affairs, what sorts of therapy might one suggest? To an evolutionary psychologist, this moralistic aggression seems obviously adaptive for maintaining the boundaries and policing the behavior of a close-knit group. The psychology of moralistic aggression against deviating Jews (often termed “self-hating Jews”) has doubtless served Jews quite well over the centuries. Similarly, groups of Puritans in Massachusetts and descendants doubtless benefited greatly from moralistic aggression because of its effectiveness in enforcing group norms and punishing cheaters and defectors, thereby creating effective groups.

There is nothing inherently wrong with moralistic aggression. The key is to convince Whites to alter their moralistic aggression in a more adaptive direction in light of Darwinism. After all, the object of moralistic aggression is quite malleable. Ethnonationalist Jews in Israel use their moral fervor to rationalize the dispossession and debasement of the Palestinians, but many of the same American Jews who fervently support Jewish ethnonationalism in Israel manage to have a keen sense of moralistic outrage at vestiges of White identity in the United States.

A proper Darwinian sense of moralistic aggression would be directed at those of all ethnic backgrounds who have engineered or are maintaining the cultural controls that are presently dispossessing whites of their historic homelands. The moral basis of this proposal is quite clear:

(1) There are genetic differences between peoples, thus different peoples have legitimate conflicts of interest. [6]

(2) Ethnocentrism has deep psychological roots that cause us to feel greater attraction and trust for those who are genetically similar.[7]

(3) As Frank Salter notes , ethnically homogeneous societies bound by ties of kinship and culture are more likely to be open to redistributive policies such as social welfare.[8]

(4) Ethnic homogeneity is associated with greater social trust and political participation.[9]

(5) Ethnic homogeneity may well be a precondition of political systems characterized by democracy and rule of law.[10]

The problem with the Transcendentalists and the other nineteenth-century idealists and moral perfectionists is that they came along before their intuitions could be examined in the cold light of modern evolutionary science. Lacking any firm foundation in science, they embraced a moral universalism that is ultimately ruinous to people like themselves, particularly since—unlike the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when intellectuals like Madison Grant were able to right the ship—they no longer hold the intellectual and moral high ground.

And because the voluntary loss of demographic and cultural hegemony being experienced by the European-derived population is so contrary to human evolved predispositions, their moral universalism needs constant buttressing with all the power of the state—much as the rigorous rules of the Puritans of old required constant surveillance by the authorities. Indeed, as the universalistic, anti-White left assumes greater and greater control, we see censorship of heterodox thought in the universities and the proliferation of police-state measures to ensure conformity of thought and deed—highly reminiscent of Puritan Massachusetts. In the UK, where the Puritans originated, people are being arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts critical of migration and multiculturalism.

The main difference between the Puritan New Jerusalem and the present multicultural one is that multiculturalism will lead to the demise of the very White people who are the mainstays of the current multicultural Zeitgeist. Unlike the Puritan New Jerusalem, the multicultural New Jerusalem will not be controlled by people like themselves, who in the long run will be a tiny, relatively powerless minority. I doubt their descendants will appreciate the moral fervor of their ancestors in destroying White America when they are forced to live in a non-White-dominated multicultural America.

Three take home messages

First, intellectuals can change. The optimism and liberal social activism that guided these nineteenth-century intellectuals turned to a perspective influenced by the realpolitik implications of Darwin—that Whites were in a struggle for racial survival and that controlling immigration was critical to their future prospects.

Second: White people are prone to moralistic outrage. We have to convince them that what is happening to us is a moral outrage. Morally outraged White people are a formidable force.

Third: Even though the forces of immigration restriction won the day in 1924, in a very real sense it was too little, too late. The Marxist-inspired radicals of the day became the parents of the red diaper babies of the 1940s and became the backbone of the left that was triumphant in the 1960s as discussed in my book, The Culture of Critique. This fundamentally Jewish group became an integral component of the intellectual, media, and political establishment of the US and were instrumental in the immigration act of 1965 which opened up immigration to all the peoples of the world. Immediately after this bill was enacted, the activists pushed for greater numbers to the point that we now have well over 1,000,000 per year. This has transformed the political landscape, with the Democrats being the party of non-Whites. Rather than the class-based politics I grew up with, we now have race-based politics, with ever increasing percentages of Whites voting Republican. Indeed, everything has become racialized. We are subjected to endless messages promoting White guilt for the past and the sufferings of non-Whites who nevertheless continue to do whatever they can to get here. And there are the ever-increasing attempts to remove basic freedoms like freedom of speech and gun rights. The UK is already a police state of the left. We are heading in that direction, perhaps only a couple elections away. Political attitudes are more polarized now than at any time since the Civil War.

In 1924 Americans restricted immigration to conform to the ethnic status quo of 1890. What they really needed to do was to deport the newcomers in droves. We are in the same situation now. Even if non-White immigration were to stop tomorrow, the changes wrought by past immigration would continue apace. Whites would become a minority within our lifetimes—and I’m an old guy. One wonders if American Whites have the political courage to do what needs to be done—or at least carve out an ethnostate in part of the US. There is a Chinese curse that goes “May you live in interesting times.” That certainly applies to us.


[1] Fischer, Albion’s Seed, 357.

[2] Vaughn, The Puritan Tradition in America, 1620–1730, 20.

[3] Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, 477.

[4] Ibid., 556.

[5]  Ibid., Chapter 5.

[6] Frank K. Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 2006).

[7] J. Philippe Rushton, “Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology, and Genetic Similarity Theory,” Nations and Nationalism 11 (2005): 489–507.

[8] Frank K. Salter, Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism: New Data and Evolutionary Theory (London: Routledge, 2005).

[9] Robert Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Journal of Political Studies 30 (2007): 137–74.

[10] Jerry Z. Muller, “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008.

28 replies
  1. gibleaux
    gibleaux says:

    Well yes, it’s fairly easily to cultivate guilt, particularly in Anglo-colonies, because unlike the more organic strife/expansion you find in the mid-east, Persia, Eurasia etc… Here we have a model of people sailing half way around the world, plonking themselves down on the land and telling the natives to take a hike. There’s not even the South American “justification” of bringing the gospel/civilization to the natives.

    This “feeling of guilt” wasn’t created by jews. The anxiety over these acts has always been there which is why you find concepts like manifest destiny arise, or heavy identification with the ancient Israelite conquests and even Thanksgiving Day… all to avoid the Might is Right claim.

    The good news is though, if an ethnostate is “carved out”, all that anxiety disappears. Whites would simply be taking their piece of America, just as everyone else is.

    • tadzio
      tadzio says:

      Ethnostates do not have to be “carved out”. Expulsions work the same. Note, Israel 1948, North Africa c. 1960, Sudetenland c. 1945/6; Spain 1492; Crimea and Chechnya 1944; and, many other times and places.

    • JM
      JM says:

      @gibleaux I would have thought that conquest, prevailing over others, is something that is common to the prehistory and history of peoples of all modern land masses; it’s a central point in an evolutionary conception of human groups.The natives of North America never ceased its practice. Those from Europe and the rest of the World who came later were parasites on the conquests of the original pioneers. Insofar as there is any felt guilt it is an entirely new phenomenon played on at the ideological level.
      By the way, a retreat into carved up ‘ethno-states’ would in no way erase these fundamentals, no matter how one sees them.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      gibleaux> “This “feeling of guilt” wasn’t created by jews. ” Of course it was. Christianity was created by Jews to be perpetually weak, outer-directed, institutional, irrational, and created a “flock”. (Why do prelates of major institutional churches have the sherpard’s cane with the crook (pun intended) at the end: for the sheep heads, Schafköpfe.

      “We gave you a Messiah and a religion”- common Chewish refrain, like a chorus.
      Christianity, like inferior machinery, was designed to fail, and be accessible to sabotage and manipulation. It is phantasmagorical and irrational internally. Maintaining this intellectually sloppy and soppy religion is like a human believing all will be well with dormant malaria, HIV, and brain parasites living within the body.

      Starbuck’s Inferior Coffee Houses and the Catholic Church have much in common.

  2. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Just because the other person is bad doesn’t make you good. But, is the other person bad? Maybe, maybe not. Let’s talk about it and find out, using all of the available intellectual and social resources at our disposal while exercising our rights to free speech and assembly in the process. Oh, wait, we can’t do that. And who’s responsible, the Puritans? They’re long gone.

    In any event, when a group is condemned as morally bankrupt and another set up as morally superior one has to consider the source. Judaism passing itself off as morally superior is laughable. It’s literally a religion of projection. It’s guilty of every accusation it hurls at Whites, ie; Ethno-Supremacy; It’s bad to say Master Race but Ok to say Chosen People (and did the Germans really say they were the Master Race, or is that itself a projection?). It’s exclusive, not inclusive, it’s racist and bullying (Palestine! Hello!).

    The irony is that you can’t imagine the Jewish people feeling guilt not because they’re innocent, but because of their Myth of Innocence, which actually says in effect, “We never do anything wrong. Things are done to us.” When you live like that you become incapable of learning, change, and growth. Essential qualities today for any people with the pretention of wanting to be global leaders (or, to put it more baldly, to rule the world).

    Which is why, though they’re certainly good at shame, blame, denial, projection, infiltration and subversion, they’re no damn good at social-management. Just look at the places they rule over. The sun never sets on their dysfunction. It’s literally everywhere. And they’re calling US morally bankrupt?!

    It’s this amazing lack of self-awareness (another important quality needed to lead anything today, let alone an entire civilization) and incredible inability to admit when they’re wrong, about anything, that keeps them from seeing those moments when in fact they are wrong, ie; Whites are capable of feeling guilt exactly because they HAVE a conscience which Jews and many other non-White groups simply lack, as if they all have a morality chip missing in their DNA. In short, having a conscience that the other groups in general and Jews in particular lack makes Whites morally superior, not inferior.

    And if Jews aren’t morally superior but insist on saying they are, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, then what are they? Well aside from being inauthentic and dishonest, it makes them Psychopaths, of course!

    Any one individual or group walking around acting as if they’re morally superior when they’re actually criminal psychopaths are DANGEROUS!
    And this is why so many times throughout history they’ve had to be stopped. And it’s happening again now ON A GLOBAL SCALE!

    No one’s saying Whites are perfect. Kevin’s article makes it clear just how imperfect they are, though there’s certainly lots of other evidence. Evidence we know about because Whites Don’t Hide Their Imperfections! They actually make it a matter of public discourse so they can learn, change, and grow!
    No, we’re not saying Whites are perfect. But we are saying that Jews are dangerous and not just to Whites. But Whites have to think about themselves. The West is a towering human acheivement and Whites have nothing to apologize for. Only a people poisoned by envy and a lust for power would suggest otherwise. And such a people can’t be morally superior to anyone.

    Sure, Whites have made mistakes and given the accidents of history, it’s understanable we’ve made them. But we are the ONLY people in the history of the world who believe in and practice the idea of a Developing Conscience. Whereas the many peoples judging us aren’t even aware that that’s possible or, to the extent they’re aware, desirable.

    Again, we have nothing to apologize for and everything to be proud of. We’re going to see more and more Whites express their justifiable irritation, and not just irritation, at constantly being judged by a people who we all know will never judge themselves, thereby revealing their hypocrisy and moral inferiority. When this happens their worst nightmare is going to turn into a daymare as they realize that the usual accusations don’t work anymore.

  3. Bill R
    Bill R says:

    As a White man descended from a long Protestant tradition, as many White Nationalists are, I confess to a soft spot for Puritans, although I agree with many of your points, and particularly the reference to the moral self-righteousness of the Yankee position in the War for Southern Independence. But let us not forget, the leader of that position, as with millions of other Yankees, also believed emphatically that Whites and Negroes were not meant to live together. Indeed, some have even suggested that the reason for the dearth of Negroes in this Puritan stronghold, in the first place, was less out of any compassion for the Negro, as it was the desire to be as far away from him as possible and to keep their territory exclusive to the White man. The South, of course, by an entire ocean — quite a barrier in those days and no mean one even now — had tragically limited that possibility for the North, and of course even more so for themselves. My impression is that Northern abolitionists were something like the Antifa of their day and were not representative of the attitudes of the average White Northerner.

    I cannot see that there is anything unique about Puritan “moral idealism,” at least compared to any other expressions of Christianity, that somehow made it uniquely “vulnerable to intellectual and political movements that eventually aimed at replacing the traditional peoples of the United States.” Save for perhaps an explicitly White Nationalist one, any moral idealism, at least any Christian one, could have and probably would have proved as much, if not more vulnerable. We know this because, in the event, they have.

    First of all, in Christendom I, for one, cannot imagine a “moral idealism” that sought to invest itself with political power and then use it more aggressively and fanatically than the Roman Catholic Church. What is more fanatically politically correct than burning a human being to death in order to save his soul? Indeed, not only for his soul, but ad majorem Dei gloriam. So how about this version: “As someone with considerable experience in the academic world, I can attest to feeling like a wayward heretic back in 16th-century Inquisitorial Spain…” (Let me add, Dr. MacDonald, that I have not mentioned Roman Catholicism because I believe you are arguing, even implicitly, in its favor, but simply because it logically presents itself if one is attempting to falsify an assertion about Protestantism or a Protestant sect, particularly one that is as ambitious as yours and suggests such a large share of responsibility for such a fateful outcome).

    In fact, it was the very political oppressiveness of the Catholic Church gave rise to Protestant Europe and sects like the Puritans in the first place, and particularly the tradition of religious freedom, a limited expression of which ultimately found its way into the U.S. constitution, and without which Catholics, Jews, and others might have been kept out of the United States, which at its founding was 98% WASP and had no need to ever become anything else. Indeed, one is tempted to suggest that it may be precisely because, both literally and philosophically, the country was not Puritan enough that we find ourselves in the cultural, political, and demographic plight we are in today. (I think the “literally” on that is indisputable since I know of no non-white Puritans.)

    If there had been no history of Protestantism in Europe, it is obvious to me at least that Roman Catholicism could just as easily have been converted into a stance of “moralistic self-punishment” because it has been. The Roman Catholic church today is at the very forefront of Christian churches embracing such self-punishment. Neither, as far as I can see, have they shown any reluctance about embracing moral universalism, and since from the discovery of the New World to date, they have aggressively and successfully sought to add endless millions of non-whites to their fold, White extinction for them need not even be a hiccup in the forward march of their considerable history.

    I have heard some argue that the problem with the Catholic Church is that it proved vulnerable to the liberalizing influence of Protestantism, to which my response is, then what would have prevented it from proving just as vulnerable to those same Judaic forces that allegedly triggered the ideological capsizing of the Puritans?

    Moral idealism wedded aggressively to political power is a goal found prominently in all high-functioning humans, and certainly among all White Europeans. And with the WASP and largely Puritan experiment of the founding the United States, at least an attempt was made to establish a tradition of restraint on political power and enshrine the rule of law, far unlike that immediately unhappy outcome of Catholic France with her Revolution, based as it was on the abstract “rights of man.” (Talk about political correctness!)

    You wrote, “There is nothing inherently wrong with moralistic aggression.” I agree. Yet you have seen fit to single out this one sect of Christians for what you seem to be suggesting is a particular flaw in their form of moralistic aggression that made it ultimately uniquely vulnerable to a kind of infiltration so overwhelming that it eventually reversed it entirely and turned it completely against them, or at least against their ethnic interests as Whites. Yet a little further on you write, “The problem with the Transcendentalists and the other nineteenth-century idealists and moral perfectionists is that they came along before their intuitions could be examined in the cold light of modern evolutionary science.” That suggests a proposition I could agree with but that undermines your own thesis; to wit, that the problem was not, after all, a particularly Puritan moral aggressiveness, but rather the lack of a modern evolutionary science against which to test any of the then existing moral systems. I do not see that this “pernicious moral perfectionism” presented itself in such outstanding fashion among Puritans that, presumably in combination with their influence in the founding of the United States and its early Academy, they deserve such special mention in the history of the great missteps of social and cultural evolution that have brought us to where we are today. Christianity in general might have been such a misstep (hopefully correctable because I think our people like it and are determined to stick with it); the Puritans uniquely, no.

    For me, and especially for me as a White Nationalist, if the Puritans deserve any special mention, it is not for something great that they supposedly, in minds of some, helped, however unwittingly, to destroy, but for the greatness, however imperfect it was as all greatness is, that they contributed and built, and which ultimately, if we Whites do survive, will form no small portion of the foundation upon which that survival must stand.

    • Bill R
      Bill R says:

      There is a need for a correction to my comment above. I wrote that at the country’s founding the population was 98% WASP. I should have said “98% white Protestant (excluding the Negro slave population).” It was not 98% Anglo-Saxon, although they appear to have still comprised the majority. My source for the statement, which I was basing on faulty memory instead of checking it first, comes from p. 17 of Alien Nation by Peter Brimelow and reads as follows: “[I]n 1790 white Americans as a whole were 60 percent English, almost 80 percent British, 98 percent Protestant. (And, of course, some 20 percent of the population were voiceless black slaves.)”

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Bill R> Your first paragraph. I believe you oversimplified. On a public and overt level, yes the Yankee, descendant of Puritans-who were not that much purer than the other common Europeans-believed in racial separation based on irreducible differences, extracted from perception and intuition. But the long implanted Semitic virus and brain parasite was growing and exerting influence concomitantly. This, again, action derived and driven by abstract notions, be it biblical interpretation, Jesus’ directives, etc, ALL are subsets of malignant altruism, and disconnection from further syllogistic reasoning and postulated alternative scenarios. This the dualism, Bill, which you seem to paper over.

      2nd paragraph: “I cannot see that there is anything unique about Puritan “moral idealism,” at least compared to any other expressions of Christianity, that somehow made it uniquely “vulnerable to intellectual and political movements that eventually aimed at replacing the traditional peoples of the United States.” Save for perhaps an explicitly White Nationalist one, any moral idealism, at least any Christian one, could have and probably would have proved as much, if not more vulnerable. We know this because, in the event, they have.” Uh, let’s take a look at Eastern Orthodoxy, the original Christian Church. It’s, well, er, called “Orthodox” for a reason, that being it does not change.

      4th paragraph: “…the Catholic Church gave rise to Protestant Europe and sects like the Puritans in the first place, and particularly the tradition of religious freedom, a limited expression of which ultimately found its way into the U.S. constitution,….”. What religious freedom? They burned “witches”, allowed no other discussion on the nature, or tenets of Christianity. How do you think Eastern Orthodox would have been welcome? I mean, think of a Prelate of the Orthodox Church in a Puritan settlement. I predicate glibness here, Bill.

      Sixth paragraph: “I have heard some argue that the problem with the Catholic Church is that it proved vulnerable to the liberalizing influence of Protestantism, to which my response is, then what would have prevented it from proving just as vulnerable to those same Judaic forces that allegedly triggered the ideological capsizing of the Puritans?” I was raised in Central Texas with the modern day descendants of Puritanism, The Southern Baptists, which everyone assumed would be the bastion and ramparts of Christianity against the dissembling and Demonic machinations of the Bolshevik Jew. That hope is dashed; they are coopted and just as controlled now as the NAACP. Finished With Engines, FWE>http://mccrarey.com/finished-with-engines/

      Eighth paragraph: “Yet you have seen fit to single out this one sect of Christians for what you seem to be suggesting is a particular flaw in their form of moralistic aggression that made it ultimately uniquely vulnerable to a kind of infiltration so overwhelming that it eventually reversed it entirely and turned it completely against them, or at least against their ethnic interests as Whites.” I think that here you have misconstrued the common denotation and connotation of “single out”. The connotation is one of unfairness. Hardly, I believe. I believe Dr. KM emphasized this strain of cultural and social force vector because it was the predominate causative factor. If several background factors cause a machinery casualty, there will be generally a hierarchy of causes or stimuli. Why have not WASP affiliated and associated organizations and relations not withstood Chewish onslaught and why have Protestant organizations facilitated their power? Why did the WASP establishment allow Chews to take over Wall Street?Why in decades of childhood and early adulthood, did I hear NOT ONE WORD OF DISSENT OR CRITICISM of the assaults of Chews from the repressive South Baptists? Their churches were unadorned, and many looked like warehouses. They preached a version of Calvinism that was an attempt to scare shitless an entire laity with prohibitions, punishments, and suppression of natural and joyous expression. There was no art, dancing and any singing outside of approved chorals and church music was forbidden. They did not laugh easily, and were perpetually frightened looking, like vegetative animals. No. no. The Puritans were still around in the last century. They, the girls and boys, were fodder for Jewish clever manipulation and rationalization.

      Your last paragraph is illogical. If a company supplied my ocean going vessel with a large Sea Water Central Cooling Water Pump, that the entire ship’s power plant depended upon, and that pump lasted for a few trips, but then catastrophically failed, leaving all systems ions, and smaller pumps of far less capacity, e.g., fire pumps had to be substituted, and the ship limped to the nearest port at greatly reduced speed, the following would be concluded: the pump, while it worked was fine, but it did not perform due to fatal, internal flaws of design and construction. It was weak and inadequate. This would result in huge losses for our employer, the shipping company, and could, in some cases result in bankruptcy and dissolution. You see, Bill?
      Any questions?

      • Bill R
        Bill R says:

        Your ship analogy is flawed to say the least. It speaks, as does the rest of your comment, of an attitude toward this great tribe of Whites that is crabbed, miserly, ungrateful, and reeking with pretentious arrogance. The Puritans doubtless had their share of flaws, but they were central, a sine qua non, in the building of one of the greatest and most powerful countries that has ever existed on this earth, and while the Puritans lasted, this country remained a demonstrably loyal and mighty friend to the White race. That is hardly a ship limping into the nearest port.

  4. Bill R
    Bill R says:

    “In the UK, where the Puritans originated, people are being arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts critical of migration and multiculturalism.”

    I can’t imagine an assertion with a historical nexus more ridiculously thin than that. How about the rest of Western Europe where, instead of Puritans, Roman Catholics not only originated but still dominate to this day, and they arrest people for the same thing? That’s a comment one might expect from someone who believed Puritans literally invented the concept of political repression, and but for them we Whites would have been able to keep the door closed firmly on Jewish mischief, making Puritans perhaps the greatest curse of all in the racial destiny of Whites. Think of that!

    It’s very disappointing to read something like that coming from the caliber of someone like Dr. MacDonald, and about a legendary group of great, hard working, and gifted White men at that, whatever their flaws may have been. The evidentiary disconnect between cause and effect in a comment like that is frankly so patently extreme that I believe an actual accusation of prejudice is warranted (about the comment, that is, not Dr. MacDonald himself). More charitably, perhaps we can simply say that Dr. MacDonald has, on this occasion, succumbed to the temptation to engage in a bit of “altruistic punishment” himself. The trouble is, great White men like the Puritans don’t deserve it, even if we could still afford it.

    Dr. MacDonald has said that the Puritan legacy in American culture is “indeed pernicious.” That is a non sequitur. Without them, there never would have been an America or an America culture to begin with. Dr. MacDonald himself acknowledges the profoundness of their influence, going so far as to say it dominated until the 1960s counter-culture revolution. What tribe of White men, I wonder, under what banner, following what belief system, would, I wonder, in Dr. MacDonald’s mind, have provided a better outcome for our people on this continent? And where, pray tell, is that tribe today, and where the country that embodies that better outcome? Perhaps Dr. MacDonald really means that, as bad as things were with the Puritans, it would have been as bad or even worse if it had been Whites with any other belief system existing at the time. No, because if he had meant that, he would have said so, and singling out the Puritan legacy as “pernicious” would have made no sense. So I ask again, what tribe of White men existing then would have provided a better outcome for our people on this continent, and where are they today, and where the country that embodies that better outcome?

    As Ann Coulter writes in Adios America, “Harvard professor Samuel Huntington asks: ‘Would America be the America it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics?’ Clearly not: ‘It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil.’ Author Richard Brookheiser writes: ‘The WASP character is the American character… It is the mold, the template, the archetype, the set of axes along which the crystal has grown. Without the WASP it would be another country altogether.'”

    Excuse me, Dr. MacDonald, but neither Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil impresses me as representing a better outcome for our people today.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      How about the rest of Western Europe where, instead of Puritans, Roman Catholics not only originated but still dominate to this day, and they arrest people for the same thing?

      It is silly to assert that there is any longer any country in western Europe—not even Monaco or Luxembourg*—where what is recognizably Roman Catholicism may be said to have significant influence, let alone what you call dominance.

      As long ago as the fifties, so-called rock-solid-Catholic Italy was governed by a (((socialist-communist))) ruling elite whose candidates were elected and reelected and re-rereelected by men and women who constantly heard their priests and bishops denounce those candidates, frequently from the pulpit, in the strongest terms imaginable.

      Of course, after Vatican II, the overwhelming majority of lay Italians extracted themselves from this uncomfortably dilemmatic predicament: they abandoned both the Faith and its churches. Indeed, churchgoing became for Italians what it had already become for millions of other ex-Christians in the Old World and the New: a thrice-a-life event, or just twice for those who never married or who married outside the circles of the ever fewer who gave a damn.
      ______________________
      *I can’t speak for the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, where some sort of Christian (i.e., non-Puritan) influence seems to have persisted for a bit longer.

      • Bill R
        Bill R says:

        “It is silly to assert that there is any longer any country in western Europe—not even Monaco or Luxembourg*—where what is recognizably Roman Catholicism may be said to have significant influence, let alone what you call dominance.”

        You just made my point. If it is silly, as you say, to assert that there is any country in western Europe where Roman Catholicism has significant influence, how much sillier is it to imply, as Dr. MacDonald did with the comment I quoted, that because the Puritans originated in Britain that somehow explains why today they are arresting people there for Facebook and Twitter posts? My point about the rest of western Europe was to draw attention to the glaring fact Dr. MacDonald conveniently omitted, that the Puritans certainly did not originate there and they arrest people there for the same thing, including old ladies in their 80s (Germany) for simply questioning an assertion about an alleged historical event.

        My point loses nothing and, in fact, I think is even better rephrasing it as follows: How about the rest of Western Europe where, instead of Puritans, Roman Catholics originated and they arrest people for the same thing?

        My entire point in mentioning Catholics is to dispute Dr. MacDonald’s Puritan culpability thesis, not to replace it with a Catholic one. I think all of Western civilization, including Catholicism and all of Protestantism, has sustained a catastrophic subversion and moral capsizing because of the largely Jewish-led forces of cultural Marxism. What Dr. MacDonald has done with this article is to not only state something I believe is wrong, but more importantly, he has spent his considerable talents and valuable time on something which, even if he is right, is at best irrelevant now, and at worst a further source of division for our people. As I said, it was a case of Dr. MacDonald engaging in his own bit of “altruistic punishment.” After his good thrashing of the Puritans, I hope he feels better. Now, perhaps he will return to what he does best and what we need most, which is addressing the more immediate threats to our people, and those are certainly not Puritans.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Bill R: I have not made your point nor even reinforced it. No amount of repetition will compel evidence applicable to the past into doing duty as an argument for present circumstances (or vice versa), nor will a “point” supported by assertions either false or wildly exaggerated satisfy a reader whose mind, such as it is, hasn’t already been made up.

          Apropos which, all the points you claim to have made suffer from having little more than insistence for support.

          In the remarks you deprecate, however, Kevin MacDonald looked squarely at the actions of powerful Puritans and matched his observations with the Puritans’ own assertions of what they believed.* More to the point, he did so without the false and vulgar sectarian propaganda you resort to. Thus, disagreement with his conclusions needs to be based on something more than sentimental feelings about people whose storied warm-heartedness must have made its first appearance sometime after the execution of Charles I and the expulsion of Roger Williams from Massachusetts Bay Colony.

          A particularly offensive example of such propaganda is the sneer about burning at the stake. As Calvin, the father of Puritanism, condemned more people to torture and death at the stake during his roughly 15 years in power in Geneva—some of those people being women whose principal crime was liking cats—than the Spanish Inquisition did in 250 years, you (and Poupon Marx, too) have ipso facto called everything you write into serious question.
          _________________
          *There is an axiom in theology: “lex orandi, lex credendi.” Literally, this means “the law of prayer is the law of belief”; more freely, “what you pray for is indicative of what you believe.” The careful historian or psychologist, whose proper professional concern is this world rather than the next, might be said to have his own variant of the theologian’s axiom: “lex agendi, lex credendi”—”actions indicate beliefs.” So, too, do societal structures, of course, but a neatly compendious way to say that in Latin eludes me, alas.

          • the beer seats loves puritans
            the beer seats loves puritans says:

            and it’s their later influence that Dr. MacDonald is bitching about is the very reason your subversive, disloyal anti-American asses are here in their country talking shit a few days before our birthday.. Do you have no country of your own if you have a problem with our history and the white people who made it?

            You all are dong the same thing to the white Americans and their heritage as the very people you are complaining about. The bullshit in here is thick.

            Dr. MacDonald is untouchable, however. so no worries guys.

          • Bill R
            Bill R says:

            You state that my reference to burning at the stake was a “particularly offensive example of [false and vulgar sectarian propaganda]” and then go on to put forward a preposterous comparison (which I address below) between Calvin and the Spanish Inquisition. First of all, you totally ignored my point that I was not trying, as I said, to replace Dr. MacDonald’s Puritan culpability thesis with a Catholic one. Instead, you respond as if I had been championing the Protestant side in a Catholic vs. Protestant contest as to which side was crueler or killed the most people. It is Dr. MacDonald who has been accusing Puritans of this sort of cruel and ruthless brand of totalitarianism as if it were unique to them, and I was simply mentioning Roman Catholicism to point out that even if some of that were true, the Puritans had plenty of company and were hardly unique. As a matter of fact, it wouldn’t make sense if it was any other way. Protestants and Roman Catholics both believed what they believed because they believed it was the will of God, and they naturally saw themselves as fulfilling the role of enforcing that will on earth.

            Dr. MacDonald wrote of his own experience being confronted by the “academic thought police” by comparing it to seventeenth-century Massachusetts, as if the Puritans had cornered the market in making short work of heretics, and that kind of one-sidedness runs through his entire article — Facebook and Twitter users arrested in Britain because that’s where the Puritans originated, but not a word about the rest of western Europe where the same thing is happening, let alone any guilty “origins” for them, and so on. Again, my point with Catholicism was simply to restore a fair and proper context to his charges, and to dispel this frankly incredible impression he creates that somehow the only authoritarian religion on earth at the time were the Puritans.

            Now, to this business about Calvin and the Spanish Inquisition. First of all, it’s a false comparison to begin with since Calvin was an individual and, regardless of his prominence (he was not the “father of Puritanism”), an entire religious movement cannot be held to account because of the actions of a single individual. That is nothing but guilt by association. The Spanish Inquisition, on the other hand, was an entire institution of Roman Catholicism that spanned centuries (and only the one with the most notorious reputation; there were other Inquisitions in other countries). Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church does not even deny these atrocities. The pope himself, in fact, has formally apologized for what you are pleased to call my “vulgar sectarian propaganda.” My only point was that these things happened. It had nothing at all to do with any question as to which side killed more than the other. Nevertheless, you set up this straw man as if that’s exactly what I had been doing. More than that, you indicated that it was because Calvin had executed more than the Spanish Inquisition that I had “ipso facto” brought into question everything I wrote, when I never made any claim whatsoever relating to numbers of people executed.

            Finally, since you have introduced this contest nonetheless, let’s take a look at what that “ipso facto” actually says, after all. It is not known with certainty how many were executed in Geneva in Calvin’s time, but the estimates range from 57 in 4 years at the height of his power, to 38, the latter estimate from Calvin: A Biography by Bernard Cottret. By contrast, the estimate of those executed during the Spanish Inquisition ranges anywhere from 30,000 to 300,000 on one end of the scale, to 1250. The latter figure is unquestionably pro-Catholic as it comes from Catholic Professor Agostino Borromeo of Sapienza University in Rome. In other words, you were wrong by a factor of 22 even if we take the highest estimate for Calvin and compare it to the lowest for the Spanish Inquisition.

            In short, it is you, sir, who are guilty of false and vulgar sectarian propaganda and making statements that ipso facto call into question everything you write. It would be pointless to continue an exchange with someone who engages in such methods and then blithely projects them onto others, and I will not reply to you again.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Bill R:

            … you respond as if I had been championing the Protestant side in a Catholic vs. Protestant contest …

            You misread me. I was responding to your championing of falsehood masquerading as scholarly dispassion.

            Bill R:

            … the estimate of those executed during the Spanish Inquisition ranges anywhere from 30,000 to 300,000 on one end of the scale, to 1250. The latter figure is unquestionably pro-Catholic …

            The scholarship on the Inquisition of the past sixty years, much of it British in origin, has established that the “unquestionably pro-Catholic” numbers are the credible ones. Unlike Calvin, the Inquisition kept comprehensive records, all of which have been open to serious researchers since the fifties. Indeed, some of them were already open in the late monarchic period of the first decades of the twentieth century.

  5. Lancashire Lad
    Lancashire Lad says:

    Very informative, but I prefer Andrew Fraser’s more sympathetic approach to the truth content of religion. The general cultural influence of Darwinism feeds into skepticism and agnosticism. Even Kevin Macdonald admits that it is “not a feel good philosophy”. It may be that the Transcendentalists were responding to the 19th century belief in progress at the expense of the Christian drama of sin and redemption, hence undermining religion. People need a sense of direction and that comes from religion.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      “People need a sense of direction and that comes from religion.”

      It could also come from a belief-system or philosophy of life. Whatever way it comes, it is true that no one, no individual or group, can live without a sense of value and identity and those are expressed in our beliefs, which, again, can be theological, ideological, or philosophical. But to limit ourselves to a belief in one of the Abrahamic religions is, from the perspective of Western history, regressive and self-defeating. In fact, I’d say it’s as silly as assuming that the only thing that will save the West and Whites is the Alt-Right. A more tenuous hold on reality would be impossible to imagine. We can do better. A lot better.

  6. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    Puritans, and in general, ALL Pseudo-Christians of that era (as opposed to today’s X-tians),
    were already well on their way to turning into (((Apologists and Diversity-Whore-shippers))) before Puritan Thought even gained ascendency in the West.

    When Martial-Athleticism turned into “…Musical-Oratory-ism…”,
    when Asceticism and Meditative-Introspection turned into Rote Memorization and Intellectual Prayer-Beggary and,
    when Deed-Based Activism turned into Pew-Confined Spectator Congregations,
    the stage had been set for the present day (((Xtian))) usurpation of what once constituted the Christian Church.

    Moreover, seeing that Jesus never wrote a single word of the Bible himself,
    and that it has been transcribed through more than half a dozen languages over a 2,000 a year period,
    it is a miracle that many of its truths still hold up today.

    However if one were to confront any of these Puritan-minded Xtian Retards about their Church-wide condoning with the addictions of their congregations to the myriad of mild opiates contained in the drinks they regularly consume,
    the obesity and consumerism of the congregations and,
    the sheer political apathy in the face of deteriorating morality all around them,
    let the winging and cringing begin.

    The leaders of these “…convicted-congregations…” know that without copious amounts of mild-opioids, most of the “flock” would keel over in slumber in their pews during sermons.
    Their flawed institutions depend on lower IQed masses that are accustomed to low expectations to sustain a leadership class that shudders in fear at the thought of “…Freude durch Kraft…” and “…Freihiet durch Arbeit…” [reversed on purpose].

    _____________________________

    “…Given this [“…thought control is far worse in the Ivy League universities founded by the Puritans than elsewhere in academia – …”] state of affairs, what sorts of therapy might one suggest?…”

    Based on my own occasional catastrophic lapses into (((induced))) puritanical, suicidal delusions:
    Explosive Anger, above all, has been the catalyst to a re-examination of Implicit Self-worth and Racial Pride.

    Although I don’t enjoy admitting it,
    even with my mental-inoculations as a child against the (((Lies))),
    I had more than once back-slid into Holocaust Lie Affirmation and Minority Worship during late youth and early middle age !
    The second one was (Minority Worship) was re-evaluated with a vengeance after copious amounts of literally groveling at the feet of Orientals in a vain attempt to imitate their culture and become a part of their society.
    Asian Racism, Prejudice and Inferiority-False-Superiority-Complex aside,
    simply having to, day after day after day,
    grovel at the feet of people whom I ran circles around in even their own national games, hobbies and sports
    not to mention vocational proficiency, employer loyalty, and overall company worth,
    I was eventually pushed to the point of explosion.
    One day, after years of this “…Puritanical-Delusionary-Denial…”, the reality of the situation could no longer be shut out and…, BOOM…!.., I exploded into asserting my Germanic Roots and the accomplishments of my forefathers.
    However, that explosion was the beginning of the end of my love affair with East Asian society.

    My advice to White Nationalists would be to “nit pick” every Minor Act of the Liberal Left that could,
    in the remotest way,
    be construed as “…Racist, Prejudiced, Privileged, Bigoted,…, etc. ..”,
    until even the “…Leftist Itself…” can no longer stand walking on the path of politically correct egg-shells that it allowed (((the deceivers))) to lay for it.
    Frustration at doing everything wrong eventually wears even the most Retarded Leftists out.
    One day their (((constructed))) mental bubble will burst.

    _______________________________

    “A proper Darwinian sense of moralistic aggression would be directed at those of all ethnic backgrounds who have engineered or are maintaining the cultural controls that are presently dispossessing whites of their historic homelands. The moral basis of this proposal is quite clear:
    (1)…
    (2)…
    (3)…
    (4)…
    (5)…”

    Although I definitely agree with points (1) through (5),
    I do not see the connection of those points with directing,
    “…moralistic aggression … [against] those of all ethnic backgrounds who have engineered or are maintaining the cultural controls that are presently dispossessing whites…” .

    After all, most White Nationalists agree that Racial Pride,
    no matter which Race practices it,
    is a precondition to a healthy society.
    It is the Satanic Jew who is busy “…pathologizing…” Nationalistic Lines of Thought in all non-Jewish societies and has convinced these non-White peoples of White Guilt as a consequence of largely Crypto-Jewish Crimes.

    Therefore…, and I am probably in error here…,
    if I am to correctly understand what the good professor is trying to say, namely:
    to imitate the Jew in trying to “…pathologize…” Ethnic Nationalism and show aggression against other non-White (((duped))) Nations’ peoples is tantamount to fighting fire with fire.
    IMO, Battling Fire with Ice Water is far more effective.

    Jews are present in miniscule numbers but with overwhelmingly influence in almost every country in the world.
    Moreover, (((they))) are “…pushing the same sh!t-different pile…” scenario everywhere they parasitically persist.
    So to “…psychologically punish…” other non-Jewish people for falling for the same traps that Jews have constructed for Whites is just throwing wood upon a fire that may end up engulfing the very people (White Nationalists) who are feeding the flames that have been built by Jews.

    IMO, a far better solution would be to:
    1) Appeal to other non-Whites from the perspective of a globally dwindling White Minority [a species that is going extinct if you will…],
    using all the arguments we use amongst/against our own Leftist Retarded Whites (loss of culture, genetic and behavioural uniqueness, etc..) and help them find the Satanic Crypto-Jews amongst their own ever increasingly chaotic societies.
    2) Help Non-Whites see the advantages to their own people by maintaining White Genetic Based Culture and
    Rooting out the Deformed Jew and,
    instead of increasing the flames of confrontation,
    increase the Flow of Friendly yet Mutually Advantageous Trade.
    This is something the somewhat Puritanically-Minded, Donald Trump has IMO quite wisely initiated with North Korea.
    Amalgamations (cultural and resource based) are far more “..successful..” if they are amicable instead of hostile.
    3) All Non-Whites who, “… have engineered or are maintaining the cultural controls that are presently dispossessing whites…”, are generally
    one standard deviation in IQ below average Whites,
    two standard deviations in IQ below Jews and,
    three standard deviations in IQ below White Nationalists
    and they are clearly the ones being abused the most in this Perverse Jewish Game of Divide and Conquer.
    So IMO to even remotely imitate the Jew and inflict further harm upon them is not going to gain us any Karma points in the long run.
    I have “Freed” more than one Retard who was wearing Racial Blinders here in Iceland.
    Even the most Staunchly Retarded, Full Blown Transsexual is able to see the light of Truth if presented with piercing acuity.
    Many non-Whites already know that Jews are Deviant,
    they are just clued out as to the Depths of Deviance that Jews can Descend to.
    They are however, far more willing to listen to a White person who points them in the (((right direction))) when it comes to their grievance lobbying.
    If anything “…moralistic aggression [should] be directed at those of [White] ethnic backgrounds who have engineered or are maintaining the cultural controls…”.
    By alienating Retarded Whites through moralistic aggression we push those (((Demented Whites))) into the arms of the non-White people who just might eventually do them the most harm.
    Groveling at the feet of non-White Retards in an attempt to be, Delusionally Puritanically Moral, will indeed grind them to an Explosive Reality.

      • RoyAlbrecht
        RoyAlbrecht says:

        No kidding!…, LOL

        Thankfully none exist…,
        but in case you are unfamiliar with east oriental culture,
        getting down on all fours and bowing to your elders/superiors/sensai (translated as master/teacher in this case), etc…,
        is not only common place,
        but one is considered extremely rude should one refuse.
        In cases where one is attempting to be admitted into a prestigious Dojo as a student,
        or asking potential in-laws for their daughter’s hand in marriage,
        it is an absolute prerequisite.
        The problem that eventually arises however,
        is that no matter what a White man does to attempt to become an accepted member of East Asian society,
        one is always considered a second class citizen.
        The injustice of it, from a Western Altruistic point of view, after years of trying, eventually wears one out.
        All the more apparent in my case, because in so many instances, I behaved in a more Japanese or Korean manner than the Japanese or Koreans themselves, yet to no avail.
        At the end of the day I was always given the short end of the stick.
        In some ways I should consider it a blessing because this Asian prejudicial behaviour propelled me to excel to a level so glaringly better than anyone around me that I was made much stronger than I would otherwise have become.
        The kicker finally came when I had basically saved the company I was employed by from bankruptcy and was an intrinsic part of its doubling in size within a few short years yet was still short changed by the lot of them at the behest of a man who despised me with the jealousy and hatred of a wounded woman.
        Jealousy and envy, because there was practically nothing he could do that I was unable to do better, turned him into a mild psychopath!
        Had I been a clever money chaser, I should have failed far more often than I did.
        Moral of the story: If you go to these countries to work and make money, letting them feel superior in front of their own peers is a sure way to keep the gravy train moving.
        Unfortunately, this is not the way of an Albrecht.

  7. HK Wills
    HK Wills says:

    An effective strategy to catalyze the dormant moral outrage of White conservative Christians – the indispensable group for an effective resistance – is to characterize the what is happening to White America in moral terms that comport with their religious paradigm, much as the Puritans did with the issue of slavery. If they come to regard it as an evil to be confronted, solidarity and action are more likely to result. This would be far more likely to succeed than the chimerical attempt to create a new post Christian religion based on the worship of old pagan gods such as Thor or some such thing. And more likely to persuade than the (accurate) Darwinian analysis: most White conservative Christians would reject a Darwinian paradigm out of hand considering it, wrongly, a thing of the Left.

    By the way, I cannot but sense the puritanical in some of the photos of Hillary Clinton’s face: one sees a dour arrogant certainty never amenable to the reflection that she could be wrong.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      By the way, I cannot but sense the puritanical in some of the photos of Hillary Clinton’s face: one sees a dour arrogant certainty never amenable to the reflection that she could be wrong.

      You are in good company in reacting thus, Mr. Wills. Some twenty-five years ago, Murray Rothbard wrote a long, funny, and brilliant piece in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report—the long-gone, tree-based monthly newsletter he and Lew Rockwell prepared in the days when Internet publishing was still in its infancy—arguing that then-First Trollop Hillary had all but one of the well-documented authoritarian characteristics of the doctrinaire Methodism in which she was raised. The one exception? What else but belief in God, of course!

  8. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    How about adding those dreadful physiognomies of ‘ Sweden’s ‘ Specter and Albrights’ grimace to the head of a list of your very apt assessment of Hillary !

  9. Bill R
    Bill R says:

    I would like to quote two paragraphs from a book written in 1958 by Edmund S. Morgan called The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop. I do so because I believe they help explain why people like Dr. MacDonald, as well as some who have made comments here on his article, write about Puritans and their legacy the way they do and why they’re wrong.

    “The Puritans of New England are not in good repute today. Authors and critics who aspire to any degree of sophistication take care to repudiate them. Liberals and conservatives alike find it advantageous to label the measures they oppose as Puritan. Whatever is wrong with the American mind is attributed to its Puritan ancestry, and anything that escapes these assaults is smothered under a homespun mantle of quaintness by lovers of the antique. Seventeenth-century Massachusetts has thus become in retrospect a preposterous land of witches and witch hunters, of kill-joys in tall-crowned hats, whose main occupation was to prevent each other from having any fun and whose sole virtue lay in their furniture.

    “It is not likely that this vision will ever be wholly dispelled. We have to caricature the Puritans in order to feel comfortable in their presence. They found answers to some human problems that we would rather forget. Their very existence is therefore an affront, a challenge to our moral complacency; and the easiest way to meet the challenge is to distort it into absurdity, turn the challengers into fanatics.”

  10. the beer seats loves puritans
    the beer seats loves puritans says:

    This right here- is proof and a warning to other countries what happens when there are too many different kinds of people in one country. It’s also what happens when people show up long after all the hard work of building a country from scratch is finished. and start their culture of critique on those whose ancestors did all the really hard stuff. It’s what betrayal in sheeps clothing looks like.

Comments are closed.