The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Marilynne Robinson: Why Don't the Woke Care About My Leftist Puritan Ancestors Anymore?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Marilynne Robinson is a distinguished literary novelist (e.g., Housekeeping) and English professor from Idaho who converted from Presbyterianism to Congregationalism (i.e., the Protestant sect most descended from Puritanism). She has conventional left-of-center views, except that she’s very proud of her New England WASP ancestors and their left-of-center views.

In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.

Which Way to the City on a Hill?

Marilynne Robinson JULY 18, 2019

… Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness? Those who control the word “American” control the sense of the possible.

Well, because your heroes, Professor Robinson, tend to be straight gentile white men, and in the Current Year nobody cares about differences in ideas among straight gentile white men. Caring about intellectual differences as opposed to identity differences is Not Who We Are (anymore). The Diversitariat have reduced all thinking to the equivalent of “Four legs good, two legs bad.”

 
Hide 295 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Caring about intellectual differences as opposed to identity differences is Not Who We Are Anymore.

    I think Not Who We Are (Anymore) is a more impactful way of putting that.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Then Marilynne is addressing her meditations to the wrong forum, because all the Rocket Scientists on here love, absolutely adore, categorically and without qualification, Identity Politics. It's blackety-white whitety-black all de liblong day on here and don't you forget it.
  2. I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    • Agree: AndrewR, Kronos, Hail
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Wow I'm literally shaking at your anti-Semitism
    , @Anonymous

    Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    More like a hundred, according to the most observant observers.
    , @Kronos
    They’ve been on the cultural revolution express since 1968. They’ve burned down countless cultural forests to destroy the past. Now, they want a few trees to survive?!

    Cortez and Omar found the old Woody Allen phrase correct that “90% of life is showing up.” Those bastards (and bitches) have performed 90% of the work destroying America. They’ve done their best to kill the West. The third world is just getting ready to fill the vacuum.

    , @Anon

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    Those in the tradition of Judaized Christianity (aka, Protestantism, a Jewish revolutionary movement) should and will be the last to question this.
    , @Anonymous
    Presumably you're talking just about Jews, but the original "coalition of the fringes" that displaced WASP hegemony was not exclusively Jewish (and couldn't be, given their small numbers). It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.
    , @S. Anonyia
    They weren’t popular even 50 years ago. Cowboys and pioneers and southerners and wise guys were in fashion 50 years ago. You’d have to go back 50 years ago to find an era when her dour, stuffy old ancestors were popular.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    The Puritans were not all of a piece; even less their heirs and descendants.
    Henry Adams was no liberal; neither were Lathrop Stoddard or Madison Grant. Nor, I am certain, were some 90% of the graduating classes of Harvard, Yale, and the minor Ivies, from their various foundations until after the second world war.

    Power was taken from us: weakened by internal traitors like Ward Beecher and the Abolitionists, we were disarmed by the time the immigrants from one country in particular (and I mean neither Ireland or Italy) were ready to make the decisive moves, both financial and cultural, which have indeed granted them a victory which is now, I fear, irreversible.
  3. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    I thought she was Obama’s mother in law ?

  4. Those who control the word “American” control the sense of the possible.

    How very true……

    • Replies: @JimB
    Mike Judge needs to bring back Beavis and Butthead to ridicule these foopies.
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    A lizard, tarsier, and donkey walk into a bar...
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Good grief, AOC looks like a certified psycho.
  5. @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    Wow I’m literally shaking at your anti-Semitism

  6. Read her article several times a few weeks ago. The nice folks at the NYRB put what should have been their lead article at the back of that issue next to the personal ads

    Really is worth the read

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Really is worth the read

    What about it is worthwhile?
  7. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    More like a hundred, according to the most observant observers.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Well, she did mention Cromwell. I won't say 370, but perhaps before a 100.
    , @Hail
    There is no single-year turning point, of course, and transitions tend to last decades, to some extent.

    Lately I have come to believe that "quarters of a century" are the most useful unit-of-analysis for these purposes:

    - 20th century Q1 - Traditional US ruling class (our own people, flaws and all) in power;

    - 20th century Q2 - Power bid by Jews (who had begun to arrive in 19th century Q4) begins, but US White-Protestant power is still dominant nationwide;

    - 20th century Q3 - Jewish power bid continues/intensifies, largely successful by the end of this period;

    - 20th century Q4 - Jews are, in this period, the defacto ruling caste in the USA; taboos around Jews and Israel define US politics and Jews begin to be quasi-venerated in US culture thru the "Big H" religious narrative (the "Big H" to which I refer was, not coincidentally, awarded its capital letter at the beginning of this period, whereas previously it could refer to any large-scale, destructive, traumatic event and was lower-case.)

    - 21st century Q1 - the Jewish power caste is in fairly firm control and the dominant element of the new US ruling class; its project for transforming the US into a vast, ethnocultural-mush and vassal state to Israel proceeds steadily. The recent incident of the pair of chutzpah Israelis (Hazony and Brog) aggressively policing American nationalism from the inside is an example of their typical modus operandi by this period;

    - 21st century Q2 - ? As the power structure since 20th century Q4 has sponsored many elite foreign immigrants; three scenarios: (1) Jews could begin to be displaced at the top by a successor ethnocultural coalition, (2) Jewish power could maintain its tight hold on the US, (3) The process of US breakup could begin, which could turn things in unpredictable directions but which will inevitably weaken Jewish power.

  8. “formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown”

    A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived. Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever. A motivator for much of the actual history of the USA, properly understood. And anybody who doesn’t understand the Secular Loony Left is just as Puritan as the Historical Puritans, does not understand the Left.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    http://www.interfaithimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pope-Francis-Visit-Graphic-1.jpg

    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pope-Francis-Migrant-Crisis-Petrus-Romanus.jpg

    https://78.media.tumblr.com/7b9325a20f8a6140d6097d5b930893f9/tumblr_mqptjeSObP1rncn8lo1_400.png
    , @PhysicistDave
    theMann wrote:

    Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever.
     
    Back during the early seventeenth century, there were not too many people on either the Protestant or Papist side who had much use for religious tolerance.

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams, founder of Rhode Island, and "Free-born" John Lilburne.

    Let us give credit where it is due.
    , @Lockean Proviso
    "A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived"

    Yeah, that Wycliffe thinking he could let the common folks read the bible for themselves, bypassing getting told only what was needed by priests. What a bigot!

    , @Bill Jones
    I hate to agree, but I do,
  9. Cromwell? John Brown?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Cromwell, as in the guy who banned Christmas, and John Brown, the guy who killed in the name of the gospel.
    , @Bubba
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D28NRcdsVR0

    Oliver's army is here to stay
    Oliver's army are on their way
    And I would rather be anywhere else
    But here today

    There was a checkpoint Charlie
    He didn't crack a smile
    But it's no laughing party
    When you've been on the murder mile
    Only takes one itchy trigger
    One more widow, one less white nigger

    Oliver's army is here to stay
    Oliver's army are on their way
    And I would rather be anywhere else
    But here today

    Hong Kong is up for grabs
    London is full of Arabs
    We could be in Palestine
    Overrun by a Chinese line
    With the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne

    But there's no danger
    It's a professional career
    Though it could be arranged
    With just a word in Mr. Churchill's ear
    If you're out of luck or out of work
    We could send you to Johannesburg
     
    , @syonredux
    Milton, Sonnet 16


    To the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652,
    On the proposals of certain ministers at the Committee for
    Propagation of the Gospel


    Cromwell, our chief of men, who through a cloud
    Not of war only, but detractions rude,
    Guided by faith and matchless fortitude,
    To peace and truth thy glorious way hast plough'd,
    And on the neck of crowned Fortune proud
    Hast rear'd God's trophies, and his work pursu'd,
    While Darwen stream with blood of Scots imbru'd,
    And Dunbar field, resounds thy praises loud,
    And Worcester's laureate wreath; yet much remains
    To conquer still: peace hath her victories
    No less renown'd than war. New foes arise
    Threat'ning to bind our souls with secular chains:
    Help us to save free Conscience from the paw
    Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw.
    , @guest
    Onward Christian soldier...
  10. Caring about intellectual differences as opposed to identity differences is Not Who We Are Anymore.

    Caring about intellectual differences requires the capacity to perceive, understand, compare, discern, and make judgements about ideas and abstractions.

    This is Not What We Teach Anymore.

    Today it’s all concrete and superficial – animal: white skin bad; all others good.

    • Agree: Forbes
  11. @Anonymous

    Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    More like a hundred, according to the most observant observers.

    Well, she did mention Cromwell. I won’t say 370, but perhaps before a 100.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Cromwell was the first leak in the dam, to be sure.
  12. Throwing the baby out with the white bath water.

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Must've been the Ivory Soap...
  13. Well, she made certain Unzers happy!

  14. Robinson’s “Great American Novel” was a harder chore to read than “Moby Dick”; at least Melville produced “Bartleby” – a masterpiece.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I don’t know about this woman’s work, but your assessment of Melville is spot on. Typee and Omoo are also good reads.
    , @guest
    I didn't care for Moby Dick, or what I read of it. But Pierre; or, the Ambiguities is worse. The Confidence Man is crap too.
  15. @syonredux

    Those who control the word “American” control the sense of the possible.
     
    How very true......


    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1900492/images/o-JULIAN-CASTRO-facebook.jpg


    https://www.wnd.com/files/2019/02/Ilhan-Omar-official_portrait_116th_Congress-600.jpg


    https://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Donald-Trump.jpg

    Mike Judge needs to bring back Beavis and Butthead to ridicule these foopies.

  16. Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

    Another way of saying: “We’ve ceded Arts, Letters, and a large chunk of Science to the political Left, and we’re not getting much liberty or happiness anymore.”

  17. As someone from a Tory background, it seems ironic to see her lamenting the lack of reverence for iconoclasts and regicides. “Live by the sword, die by the sword”.

    I want to sympathize with her tribe but they’re a big part of how the West got into this mess.

    • Replies: @Logan
    “Live by the sword, die by the sword."

    Does that not also apply to kings and aristocrats, who are after all simply the descendants of the most successful members of the Brute Squad?

    , @Anonymous

    I want to sympathize with her tribe but they’re a big part of how the West got into this mess.
     
    No they aren't.
  18. @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    They’ve been on the cultural revolution express since 1968. They’ve burned down countless cultural forests to destroy the past. Now, they want a few trees to survive?!

    Cortez and Omar found the old Woody Allen phrase correct that “90% of life is showing up.” Those bastards (and bitches) have performed 90% of the work destroying America. They’ve done their best to kill the West. The third world is just getting ready to fill the vacuum.

    • Agree: Counterinsurgency
  19. Anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.
     
    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly "Blacked" by the late 18th century...
    , @syonredux

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.
     
    Well, they weren't behind the spread of slavery, and that was by far the most destructive social movement in American history......

    As for Political Correctness, I tend to think that Jews play a key role....
    , @Alden
    I agree and I’m a descendant of the Pilgrims. .

    Their motive for leaving England was simply hatred of the Catholic roots of the Church of England and the old European seasonal festivals such as Christmas Easter St John’s day

    John Brown and the genocidal Oliver Cromwell some heroes.
    , @SimpleSong
    Jamestown should probably hold significance not just for white Americans but for the entire diaspora of the British Isles: it was the first toehold on a new continent, and the real beginning of the British Empire and colonization. Anyone of English, Irish, or Scots ancestry in the US, Canada, or Australia in a tiny way owes what they are to the exploits of John Smith and his comically inept band of wannabe gentlemen farmers in a mosquito infested tidewater swamp.

    It was also the beginning of the German diaspora in North America.

    It was also a much, much more entertaining story than that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. See for example John Smith and the reason why his coat of arms had three severed heads. Or his stint as a slave in Constantinople who ended up seducing his mistress. All of which may or may not be true.
    Anyway that was all before Jamestown, when things got really strange.
    , @guest
    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that's what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they're the longterm winners.
    , @Ancient Briton
    Pilgrims aka seperatists, settled Plymouth (1620) - the Puritans of Boston (1630) hated them.
    , @William Badwhite
    We always hear they came for their religious freedom. Not exactly. They wanted a place that would allow them to deny others their religious freedom.
  20. Is there a more insidious and perfidious group of people than whites?

    Slavet colonialydn hatred

    Look up Garrett Phillips tragedy

    People of Color agree with me that white make Christian’s are evil brutes

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Yet your commenting in English from the nation they founded just a short time ago.

    The worlds your oyster tiny duck, poc land awaits your genius.
    , @fish
    Ya know.....you might like Leonard Pitts! Check him out Trent.
  21. @songbird
    Well, she did mention Cromwell. I won't say 370, but perhaps before a 100.

    Cromwell was the first leak in the dam, to be sure.

  22. Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I’m unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small “o” orthodox Christian of any sort.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I’m unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small “o” orthodox Christian of any sort.
     
    She likes his left-wing heterodoxy......And she probably sees some kind of link to the more radical Protestants of the 17th Century (Levellers and Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, etc)
    , @anon
    I don't give a damn about any of those tools, except for Blake, and yeah, he doesn't really belong. I suppose he was a "dissenter" of some sort, but his dissent took the form of playing naked Adam and Eve with his wife. Well, at least it was his wife, not some 12 year old. He attended the Swedenborgian Church, not any First Presbyterian. He hated Milton by the way.
    , @obwandiyag
    He was an English Dissenter.

    But you wouldn't know what that is.

    It is diverting to watch you braindead bozos lob back and forth your incredibly garbled sophomoric versions of "history." Graduate from 5th grade and get back to me.
  23. @syonredux

    Those who control the word “American” control the sense of the possible.
     
    How very true......


    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1900492/images/o-JULIAN-CASTRO-facebook.jpg


    https://www.wnd.com/files/2019/02/Ilhan-Omar-official_portrait_116th_Congress-600.jpg


    https://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Donald-Trump.jpg

    A lizard, tarsier, and donkey walk into a bar…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If this is going to be a groaner contest....

    A frog goes into a bank, and hops up on the desk of the loan officer. ''Hi,'' he croaks.''What's your name?''

    The loan officer says, ''My name is John Paddywack. May I help you?''

    ''Yeah,'' says the frog. ''I'd like to borrow some money.''

    The loan officer finds this a little odd, but gets out a form. ''Okay,what's your name?''

    The frog replies, ''Kermit Jagger.''

    ''Really?'' says the loan officer. ''Any relation to Mick Jagger?''

    ''Yeah, he's my dad.''

    ''Hmmm,'' says the loan officer. ''Do you have any collateral?''

    The frog hands over a pink ceramic elephant and asks, ''Will this do?''

    The loan officer says, ''Um, I'm not sure. Let me go check with the bank manager.''

    ''Oh, tell him I said hi,'' adds the frog. ''He knows me.''

    The loan officer goes back to the manager and says, ''Excuse me, sir, but there's a frog out there named Kermit Jagger who wants to borrow some money. All he has for collateral is this pink elephant thing; I'm not even sure what it is.''

    The manager says: ''It's a knick-knack, Paddywack, give the frog a loan; his old man's a Rolling Stone.''
     
  24. The religion called Puritan is still with us; they (d)evolved into Universalists and Unitarians. All the arbitrary rules without any of the consequences. It is the religion closest to modern Wokeness.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    evolved into Universalists and Unitarians.
     
    I hear that they got their name from calling each other "nits". Never actually heard them do that myself, but the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose. Individually, I've found Unitarians to be the most intolerant and closed minded people I've met so far, including hostile Jews, which makes the "nits" story at least plausible. The name fits.

    Counterinsurgency
    , @TelfoedJohn
    I kind of like the idea of the U-U - finding your own spiritual path. But it inevitably turns into mush. The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally.
  25. In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.

    I saw “Wicked” a decade or so ago, back when it was all the rage. Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    The show features a wizard who rose to power after a war in Oz (like Hitler), and talking animals who are initially treated like humans but are starting to be treated like animals again (i.e., Jews), and in Act 2 one of the characters, Fiyero, comes out in a costume not so subtly resembling a Nazi uniform, with armband and all. When I remarked about the allusions to Nazi Germany to my then girlfriend, an intelligent girl who had already seen the show a few times, she was taken aback. She had never noticed the references nor, according to a few Google searches, had anyone else much noticed, either.

    So I concluded that I was either crazy (probably a little) or that people just don’t notice that much, especially when it comes to hit Broadway musicals with what really are truly awful scores.

    But as I was saying…early in the show there’s a scene where Glinda (the good witch) and Elpheba (the wicked witch) arrive at school together. It’s almost like an allusion to Jews vs WASPs at Harvard. Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is only concerned about being “Popular” (yes, she sings a song about it), while Elpheba arrives in a get-up looking not at all unlike a Hasidic Jew. And of course Elpheba is truly the smart one (just like Jews are the only ones who truly deserve to be at WASP-founded Harvard!). Glinda is only a good witch because she’s a conformist, whereas Elpheba is only bad because the Ozzians have chosen to demonize her.

    Well anyway…so I had a point here somewhere…but that is that there’s a huge war between Jews and WASPs (at least in the minds of Jews, even if most WASPs no longer realize it) and anything that acknowledges the WASP contribution to anything good is strictly verboten – though there will of course be several thousand productions of “The Crucible” every single year – in fact your child is probably rehearsing for one as you read this.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Of course it's about Nazism. Everything always is.
    , @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.
    , @syonredux

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.
     
    Did they do anything to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown back in 2007? I certainly can't recall anything....
    , @Anonymous

    Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.
     
    What "show" isn't a war of Jews against people of European descent?

    Please desist from using the term "WASP". Not only is it inaccurate but it is an attempted racial slur.
  26. I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired. Lord Protector my ass.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    He avenged the Irish Rebellion.
    , @Kronos
    He beat the French to first modern era regicide.
    , @Fen Tiger

    I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired
     
    Well, Cromwell

    - brought to an end a catastrophic civil war, one for which the king had been responsible.

    - had the strength to hold all three kingdoms together in the aftermath of that terrible war, and to suppress a series of royalist attempts to reignite it.

    - had the moral courage to lead in the regicide; Charles was an utterly incompetent king, who had shown repeatedly that he could not be trusted at all and was incapable of learning any significant lessons from his (many) failures. Any course other than execution would inevitably have led to betrayal.

    Nobody has to "like" Cromwell, but sneering at what he achieved and the strength of character and intellect that allowed him to achieve it is absurd.*

    * - accusing Cromwell of being a genocidalist is even more absurd: anachronistic and credulous.
  27. Anon[388] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    Those in the tradition of Judaized Christianity (aka, Protestantism, a Jewish revolutionary movement) should and will be the last to question this.

    • Troll: Hail
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Never go full goon....
    , @Alden
    I’ve always suspect the reformation was inspired by Jews. That and cheap printed bibles so the perverts could get off on the OT tales of sex violence lying stealing and cheating

    The only Americans still enamored of the Puritan heritage and the OT are fundamentalist White southerners.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    I thought he left out a zero there.
  28. @Father O'Hara
    Cromwell? John Brown?

    Cromwell, as in the guy who banned Christmas, and John Brown, the guy who killed in the name of the gospel.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    Cromwell, as in the guy who banned Christmas,
     
    Parliament did that actually.
  29. I actually went and read the article. Most of it wasn’t half bad–until the end, where she turns it into an exercise in bashing the South (surprise!).

  30. @Wilkey

    In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.
     
    I saw "Wicked" a decade or so ago, back when it was all the rage. Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    The show features a wizard who rose to power after a war in Oz (like Hitler), and talking animals who are initially treated like humans but are starting to be treated like animals again (i.e., Jews), and in Act 2 one of the characters, Fiyero, comes out in a costume not so subtly resembling a Nazi uniform, with armband and all. When I remarked about the allusions to Nazi Germany to my then girlfriend, an intelligent girl who had already seen the show a few times, she was taken aback. She had never noticed the references nor, according to a few Google searches, had anyone else much noticed, either.

    So I concluded that I was either crazy (probably a little) or that people just don't notice that much, especially when it comes to hit Broadway musicals with what really are truly awful scores.

    But as I was saying...early in the show there's a scene where Glinda (the good witch) and Elpheba (the wicked witch) arrive at school together. It's almost like an allusion to Jews vs WASPs at Harvard. Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is only concerned about being "Popular" (yes, she sings a song about it), while Elpheba arrives in a get-up looking not at all unlike a Hasidic Jew. And of course Elpheba is truly the smart one (just like Jews are the only ones who truly deserve to be at WASP-founded Harvard!). Glinda is only a good witch because she's a conformist, whereas Elpheba is only bad because the Ozzians have chosen to demonize her.

    Well anyway...so I had a point here somewhere...but that is that there's a huge war between Jews and WASPs (at least in the minds of Jews, even if most WASPs no longer realize it) and anything that acknowledges the WASP contribution to anything good is strictly verboten - though there will of course be several thousand productions of "The Crucible" every single year - in fact your child is probably rehearsing for one as you read this.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    Of course it’s about Nazism. Everything always is.

  31. @Father O'Hara
    Cromwell? John Brown?

    Oliver’s army is here to stay
    Oliver’s army are on their way
    And I would rather be anywhere else
    But here today

    There was a checkpoint Charlie
    He didn’t crack a smile
    But it’s no laughing party
    When you’ve been on the murder mile
    Only takes one itchy trigger
    One more widow, one less white nigger

    Oliver’s army is here to stay
    Oliver’s army are on their way
    And I would rather be anywhere else
    But here today

    Hong Kong is up for grabs
    London is full of Arabs
    We could be in Palestine
    Overrun by a Chinese line
    With the boys from the Mersey and the Thames and the Tyne

    But there’s no danger
    It’s a professional career
    Though it could be arranged
    With just a word in Mr. Churchill’s ear
    If you’re out of luck or out of work
    We could send you to Johannesburg

  32. If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    • Replies: @jsm
    Then why are you here?

    If there's no animus by jews against gentiles and we're all just crazy, why are you so worried about it that you feel compelled to come here and insult us all that we're all crazy?

    Orrrr.... maybe YOU are projecting YOUR animus on us, your animus demonstrated by your compulsion to come here and insult us by telling us we're just crazy. Maybe YOU are the crazy one, little mouse. Maybe YOU justify your obvious hatred of gentiles, that you just displayed, by imputing to legacy Americans your hatred of us?

    tl:dr Project, much, there, yourself, do you?

    Also, how about shut up and listen for five seconds? Maybe, just MAYBE, we have the tiniest legitimate complaint, like all those Jewish orgs, funded by donations of lots and lots of jews, that are dead-set on aiding and abetting the immigration of hostile foreigners, regardless how much us Legacy Americans ask you guys not to.

    , @Stebbing Heuer
    If there is hope, it is in people such as yourself, your wife, and the many like you, such as my parents, who see people as people and who see categories as nothing more than descriptors.
    , @L Woods
    Meta-projection: impressive.
    , @SFG
    I kind of felt like you did until a few years ago, but looking at the output of Hollywood and the NYT, I have come to agree there is this anti-WASP animus among the liberal Jews who produce a lot of cultural and academic output.

    I suspect it started as a reaction to actual exclusion back in the 50s through 80s, and changed into a desire to prove they still have oppressed status from the 90s onward. You see this in stuff like the Forward where they are worried Jews are going to get kicked out of the social justice movement.

    That does *not* seem to extend to people like you or my mom (who did the same thing in reverse), and it's more among people who work in these glamour industries. Your average Jewish oncologist in Scarsdale or Beachwood? Nah.

    I do wonder how much of the Kevin MacDonald stuff is a boiling-off effect, where less ethnocentric and/or philojaphetic/non-anti-gentile Jews just marry out of the tribe and are lost to it. If you're of Jewish ancestry and lean conservative temperamentally but not willing to lead an Orthodox life, you just marry a Christian, let the kids pick what religion what they want, and the grandkids wind up Christian. You think Stephen Miller's going to find a Jewish girl?

    Oh, and (((Freud))) is BS. Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy.
    , @BB753
    I don't mean to be offensive, but marrying the women of a different ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean you like the other group. In fact, it's usually the opposite. Historically, in tribal and ancient warfare the winners used to take up as wives the women of the defeated tribe or nation. They were war booty.
    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband's ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.
    I know you'll say that Jews follow matrilineal descent, but we all know it's no longer so, because of the high rate of outmarriage.
    For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with hating other groups and loving your own ethnic group. It's human nature. So is sexual attraction to other races. Myself, I find it increasingly difficult to love my own ethnic group because of its weakness and decadence, while still finding other groups alien and hostile for the most part.
    , @Hypnotoad666
    If there is an ethnic conflict/rivalry, it's definitely not at the individual level.

    I think for those on the Right the perception of a "war" stems mostly from the overabundance of jews among highly influential leftist in politics, academia and culture. Plus the fact that maybe 80% of rank and file are liberal democrats.
    , @Neuday
    If, as a jew, you have no animus toward the Gentiles, how do see the dominance of jews in finance, media, jewish control of government, the Federal Reserve, and our universities, the wars fought on behalf of our greatest ally, Emmanuel Cellar, Morganthau, the Balfour Declaration, the jewish schemes that led us into WWI and WWII, the ADL, the jewish roots of feminism, the jewish influence on Vatican II, how do you view the complete control of our institutions that has resulted in their corruption and destruction, the laws passed that ban any criticism of your co-ethny or any questioning of the holohoax, how can you look at all this and conclude, "Meh"?

    If the jews did want to destroy Christendom what would they have done any differently? By their works you will know them, indeed!

    I imagine it's difficult to be born a self-aware jew in America. If I had that fate I suppose I'd either reject the faith of my fathers, reject Satan and all of his works and become a devout Christian in hope of making amends (e.g. Gertrude Stein), or move to Israel where I belonged.
    , @William Badwhite

    Apparently, their hatred of jews
     
    You have the persistently dishonest habit of using "hate" or "hatred" when "disagree" or "object to certain aspects of Jew behavior" would be more accurate.

    Using "hate" is a way of labeling the views of others as irrational, and therefore there is nothing you need to do examine in yourself or your (2nd person, not first person your) behavior.

    The use of name-calling, character assassination, and slander in place of actually making an argument is one aspect of Jewish behavior people find objectionable. The fact that you continue to do this when its been pointed out to you may cause you to wonder if some of that "hatred" may be justified.
  33. Who? Whom?

  34. Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback — a dinosaur of the first order. It’s no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she’s a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century ‘enlightened’ post-Puritan.

    It’s no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century ‘celebrity preacher’ of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans’ progressive instincts while downplaying — or even outright ignoring — the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God’s radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:

    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I’ve highlighted? It’s Jonathan Edwards’s ‘fresh and joyful’ anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson’s selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that ‘City on a Hill’. To wit:

    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that’s way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we’ve been there, done that, and here we are — nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be ‘just right’.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My understanding is that Christian Zionism and Christian Identity both date to British Israelism, a doctrine at least two hundred years later than Calvin or Knox, and that it was the Scofield Reference bible that did more than anything to make CZ popular. Is this your understanding as well?
    , @Barnard
    Yes, every single man she mentions, even the murdering lunatic John Brown would reject her characterisation of his beliefs. I suppose no one on the modern left knows enough about any of these or cares enough to challenge her.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Ann Douglas opened The Feminization of American Culture with a similar nostalgia for Puritan fire and brimstone. That was 42 years ago.
    , @stillCARealist
    Have you read her novel Gilead? It's highly recommended. You'd find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

    You get the sense that she really wants to thread the needle between grace and works salvation and still get liberals reading the gospel. I didn't read this article, admittedly, so maybe she's more on the works side now, but she seemed like a true Christian author in Gilead.
    , @Alden
    In 1834, Lyman Beecher, father of Harriet and Henry Beecher preached such an anti catholic sermon that the fanatics marched from his church and burnt down a convent boarding school full of children and teens. I believe all the nuns and girls escaped death. How brave, not even a Catholic Church or neighborhood with men to defend it. Just a convent full of women and girls


    1834, mind you, 300 years after the reformation, but only about 10-12 years after Massachusetts passed a freedom of religion law. It was Baptist, not Catholic or Quaker lobbying that got that law passed.
  35. @theMann
    "formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown"


    A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived. Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever. A motivator for much of the actual history of the USA, properly understood. And anybody who doesn't understand the Secular Loony Left is just as Puritan as the Historical Puritans, does not understand the Left.

    • Replies: @HA
    There are three prinicples of Catholic social justice with regard to immigration. For some reason only the first and third gets mentioned in the media (I wonder why that is?) but let's go through the second principle:


    Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.

    The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. ...While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land... no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized....For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation's immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.
     

    All of this, moreover, is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, which means bishops cannot claim infallible authority in the realm of political statements. To the extent that Catholics feel the second principle is given short shrift, they have the right to make their views known and implemented.

    And as for whatever the current may claim about gay people who are chaste (i.e., who pretend to be chaste), he has not yet dared to change Catholic doctrine on that.

    , @Forbes

    All people should be treated with dignity and compassion...
     
    The admonition is reciprocal. If the invading hordes of immigrants do not respect the rule of law and sovereignty--it's quite natural to treat them with the dignity and compassion appropriate to an illegal alien. Conduct and responsibility are a two-way street, not one way.

    It behooves those who hold themselves as a moral avatar to proselytize thusly...
  36. @Anon

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    Those in the tradition of Judaized Christianity (aka, Protestantism, a Jewish revolutionary movement) should and will be the last to question this.

    Never go full goon….

  37. @Wilkey

    In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.
     
    I saw "Wicked" a decade or so ago, back when it was all the rage. Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    The show features a wizard who rose to power after a war in Oz (like Hitler), and talking animals who are initially treated like humans but are starting to be treated like animals again (i.e., Jews), and in Act 2 one of the characters, Fiyero, comes out in a costume not so subtly resembling a Nazi uniform, with armband and all. When I remarked about the allusions to Nazi Germany to my then girlfriend, an intelligent girl who had already seen the show a few times, she was taken aback. She had never noticed the references nor, according to a few Google searches, had anyone else much noticed, either.

    So I concluded that I was either crazy (probably a little) or that people just don't notice that much, especially when it comes to hit Broadway musicals with what really are truly awful scores.

    But as I was saying...early in the show there's a scene where Glinda (the good witch) and Elpheba (the wicked witch) arrive at school together. It's almost like an allusion to Jews vs WASPs at Harvard. Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is only concerned about being "Popular" (yes, she sings a song about it), while Elpheba arrives in a get-up looking not at all unlike a Hasidic Jew. And of course Elpheba is truly the smart one (just like Jews are the only ones who truly deserve to be at WASP-founded Harvard!). Glinda is only a good witch because she's a conformist, whereas Elpheba is only bad because the Ozzians have chosen to demonize her.

    Well anyway...so I had a point here somewhere...but that is that there's a huge war between Jews and WASPs (at least in the minds of Jews, even if most WASPs no longer realize it) and anything that acknowledges the WASP contribution to anything good is strictly verboten - though there will of course be several thousand productions of "The Crucible" every single year - in fact your child is probably rehearsing for one as you read this.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.
     
    I've caught a couple of eps. As one might expect, it's thoroughly pozzed....And it didn't come out in 2007....
    , @Kronos
    There’s this PBS thing though:

    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/story-jews/

    https://youtu.be/kIDeejW2Fs4

    , @hooodathunkit
    That's what you get for watching PBS.

    There's also two Jamestown(e)s. One is a partnership of the Virginia elite ARPVA & the National Park Service which bought Jamestown Island and made Colonial National Historical Park. Their contributions are scholarly but tend toward the narrative.

    Jamestown Settlement & the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown are private foundations merged at the site of the recreated Jamestown Fort. They cater to current thought far less, and their historyisfun.org URL tends to be true; ie more fun. Every year in March they host Military Through the Ages, re-enactment camps of military units from 1 AD through today that (gasp!) shoot guns and suchlike.

    The National Park is too big to ignore, but the whole area of Jamestown is not to be experienced though PBS journo-lists.

    , @Ancient Briton
    Bored by those hot colonial chicks in tight bodices?
    , @Alden
    Wait till the Netflix version comes out. All movies and TV shows are made with sex scenes illegal to be shown in theaters and on TV.

    Netflix, Amazon , Hulu all show all the full porn scenes

    Like Gone With The Wind and every movie and TV show set in the south, just too many blacks for me
  38. @Wilkey

    In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.
     
    I saw "Wicked" a decade or so ago, back when it was all the rage. Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    The show features a wizard who rose to power after a war in Oz (like Hitler), and talking animals who are initially treated like humans but are starting to be treated like animals again (i.e., Jews), and in Act 2 one of the characters, Fiyero, comes out in a costume not so subtly resembling a Nazi uniform, with armband and all. When I remarked about the allusions to Nazi Germany to my then girlfriend, an intelligent girl who had already seen the show a few times, she was taken aback. She had never noticed the references nor, according to a few Google searches, had anyone else much noticed, either.

    So I concluded that I was either crazy (probably a little) or that people just don't notice that much, especially when it comes to hit Broadway musicals with what really are truly awful scores.

    But as I was saying...early in the show there's a scene where Glinda (the good witch) and Elpheba (the wicked witch) arrive at school together. It's almost like an allusion to Jews vs WASPs at Harvard. Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is only concerned about being "Popular" (yes, she sings a song about it), while Elpheba arrives in a get-up looking not at all unlike a Hasidic Jew. And of course Elpheba is truly the smart one (just like Jews are the only ones who truly deserve to be at WASP-founded Harvard!). Glinda is only a good witch because she's a conformist, whereas Elpheba is only bad because the Ozzians have chosen to demonize her.

    Well anyway...so I had a point here somewhere...but that is that there's a huge war between Jews and WASPs (at least in the minds of Jews, even if most WASPs no longer realize it) and anything that acknowledges the WASP contribution to anything good is strictly verboten - though there will of course be several thousand productions of "The Crucible" every single year - in fact your child is probably rehearsing for one as you read this.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    Did they do anything to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown back in 2007? I certainly can’t recall anything….

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Well Disney did a movie about it a while back - Pocahontas - with godawful song lyrics (but not the story) written by the aforementioned Stephen Scwartz. It would have been better if Disney had just left it alone. Gene Siskel (ethnicity and religion unknown) praised the film as a "surprisingly serious...feature about the American birthright of exploitation and racism."
    , @Alden
    I remember some diatribes about evil Whites slaves and genocide of the Indians Some genocide they’ve increased by about 2/3ds since 1600. There was some article that Pocahontas was actually kidnapped by the settlers and John Rolfe. There’s a PBS or history channel show about her death in England

    I was surprised the anti White diatribes weren’t worse. The 500 th anniversary of Columbus discovery of America was horrible Just one anti White article after another.
  39. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    I’ve caught a couple of eps. As one might expect, it’s thoroughly pozzed….And it didn’t come out in 2007….

  40. @RudyM
    Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I'm unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small "o" orthodox Christian of any sort.

    Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I’m unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small “o” orthodox Christian of any sort.

    She likes his left-wing heterodoxy……And she probably sees some kind of link to the more radical Protestants of the 17th Century (Levellers and Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, etc)

  41. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly “Blacked” by the late 18th century…

    • Replies: @Alden
    Agree. Plus the Puritans were more Democratic. The Jamestown gentlemen sneered at the apprentice boys and useful tradesmen.

    The Puritans kept records of everyone including the indentured servants whereas the southerners scorned anyone who was not a gentleman.

    The wealthy southerners used their black slaves to keep the other Whites down. Just as LBJ, Nixon the Supreme Court and their hordes of war on poverty funded Jewish lawyers and activists created affirmative action to keep most Whites down
    , @Alden
    In 1770 blacks were the highest percentage they’ve ever been, about 20 percent. I believe S Carolina was about 60 percent black. And as soon as DC became the capitol blacks swarmed to it and have been running it ever since. It’s just disgusting especially at 5 pm when the black federal workers are coming out of the buildings Might as well be in Lagos or any other African capital.
    , @RichardTaylor

    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly “Blacked” by the late 18th century…
     
    Puritans could be productive but it's overstated. Jefferson was from Virginia as were many of the first Presidents. And no, the South wasn't blacked by the 18th century or now. However, they did have more race-realist views due to actually living around Blacks.

    See the Alabama sorority video.

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US's most economically prosperous region. New England wasn't anywhere close.
  42. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    Well, they weren’t behind the spread of slavery, and that was by far the most destructive social movement in American history……

    As for Political Correctness, I tend to think that Jews play a key role….

    • Agree: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Kronos
    We Puritans actually started the institutionalization of slavery first. It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.) We consequently switched to indentured servitude of the Irish (all the perks of slavery but fewer costs.) Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.

    Also, the first slave owner was black.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    , @Hibernian
    New England shipowners were heavily involved in the slave trade. The shipyards of Marblehead MA produced ships custom fitted for the slave trade.
    , @Forbes
    Agreed.

    Used the button already.
  43. @Father O'Hara
    Cromwell? John Brown?

    Milton, Sonnet 16

    To the Lord General Cromwell, May 1652,
    On the proposals of certain ministers at the Committee for
    Propagation of the Gospel

    Cromwell, our chief of men, who through a cloud
    Not of war only, but detractions rude,
    Guided by faith and matchless fortitude,
    To peace and truth thy glorious way hast plough’d,
    And on the neck of crowned Fortune proud
    Hast rear’d God’s trophies, and his work pursu’d,
    While Darwen stream with blood of Scots imbru’d,
    And Dunbar field, resounds thy praises loud,
    And Worcester’s laureate wreath; yet much remains
    To conquer still: peace hath her victories
    No less renown’d than war. New foes arise
    Threat’ning to bind our souls with secular chains:
    Help us to save free Conscience from the paw
    Of hireling wolves whose gospel is their maw.

  44. Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    My guess is that there will be an absolute firestorm of controversy and woke revisionism, especially since the 400th anniversary will be about a week after Election day.

    As it is, in recent years, woke undergraduates and activists from the Boston area have been going out to Plymouth Rock for Thanksgiving and screeching and wailing at the ocean, in some weird annual ritual show of solidarity with Native Americans.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    What can we expect. The Pilgrims were Thought Criminals of the highest order:

    But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people's present condition; and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which went before), they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less towns to repair to, to seek for succor. It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appear) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they know that the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men--and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succor them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the master and company? But that with speed they should look out a place (with their shallop) where they would be, at some near distance; for the season was such that he would not stir from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them, where they would be, and he might go without danger; and that victuals consumed space but he must and would keep sufficient for themselves and their return. Yea, it was muttered by some that if they got not a place in time, they would turn them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply and succor they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them or themselves; and how the case stood between them and the merchants at their coming away hath already been declared.

     


    What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: "Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity," etc. "Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and his mercies endure forever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, show how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them." "Let them confess before the Lord His lovingkindness and His wonderful works before the sons of men."
     
    William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation
    , @David
    The Lost Colony is a play by Paul Green produced in 1937 with WPA funding to observe the 350th anniversary of Virginia Dare's birth. It's still performed several times annually at the original site of the colony. That's as close as we're likely to get.

    It won some kind of Tony award in 2013. Hard to believe they would give it an award today, given the subject.

  45. OT: The Atlantic reveals that the Soviet motive in sending a woman into space was all about competitive men and their nationalistic dominance games:

    The Soviet Space Program Was Not Woke

    And you thought that only American white men need criticism and correction! Men, they’re all alike.

    Leftist feminist progressives not only demand the right outcome, they demand that you do it for the right reasons. Sound like any women you know?

    Women really don’t have politics or ideology, they only have biology.

  46. @Anon
    I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired. Lord Protector my ass.

    He avenged the Irish Rebellion.

    • Agree: LondonBob
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The British claim to Ireland was nominally based on a land grant by the only English Pope in History. It was really based on British greed just like all their other territorial claims. The best place for Britain and Ireland would be as principalities in a revived Holy Roman Empire, except that Empire keeps threatening to become a latter day Western European USSR. Anyway, Mr. London Bob and Mr. Braxton, you will never be able to undo the results of the rebellions of 1776, and 1916.
  47. @Anon
    I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired. Lord Protector my ass.

    He beat the French to first modern era regicide.

  48. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    There’s this PBS thing though:

    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/story-jews/

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    I tried to watch Schama's History of Britain series 10 or 15 years ago. It was purely political. No mention of Shakespeare or Newton that I can recall. Bloody boring as hell.
  49. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback -- a dinosaur of the first order. It's no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she's a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century 'enlightened' post-Puritan.

    It's no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century 'celebrity preacher' of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans' progressive instincts while downplaying -- or even outright ignoring -- the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God's radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:


    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

     

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I've highlighted? It's Jonathan Edwards's 'fresh and joyful' anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson's selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that 'City on a Hill'. To wit:


    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

     

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that's way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we've been there, done that, and here we are -- nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be 'just right'.

    My understanding is that Christian Zionism and Christian Identity both date to British Israelism, a doctrine at least two hundred years later than Calvin or Knox, and that it was the Scofield Reference bible that did more than anything to make CZ popular. Is this your understanding as well?

    • Replies: @Alden
    Both Calvin and Knox preached that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. In other words the Puritans didn’t believe Jesus was God which is the one thing all Christians agree on.
  50. @PiltdownMan

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.
     
    My guess is that there will be an absolute firestorm of controversy and woke revisionism, especially since the 400th anniversary will be about a week after Election day.

    As it is, in recent years, woke undergraduates and activists from the Boston area have been going out to Plymouth Rock for Thanksgiving and screeching and wailing at the ocean, in some weird annual ritual show of solidarity with Native Americans.

    What can we expect. The Pilgrims were Thought Criminals of the highest order:

    But here I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amazed at this poor people’s present condition; and so I think will the reader, too, when he well considers the same. Being thus passed the vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembered by that which went before), they had now no friends to welcome them nor inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies; no houses or much less towns to repair to, to seek for succor. It is recorded in Scripture as a mercy to the Apostle and his shipwrecked company, that the barbarians showed them no small kindness in refreshing them, but these savage barbarians, when they met with them (as after will appear) were readier to fill their sides full of arrows than otherwise. And for the season it was winter, and they know that the winters of that country know them to be sharp and violent, and subject to cruel and fierce storms, dangerous to travel to known places, much more to search an unknown coast. Besides, what could they see but a hideous and desolate wilderness, full of wild beasts and wild men–and what multitudes there might be of them they knew not. Neither could they, as it were, go up to the top of Pisgah to view from this wilderness a more goodly country to feed their hopes; for which way soever they turned their eyes (save upward to the heavens) they could have little solace or content in respect of any outward objects. For summer being done, all things stand upon them with a weatherbeaten face, and the whole country, full of woods and thickets, represented a wild and savage hue. If they looked behind them, there was the mighty ocean which they had passed and was now as a main bar and gulf to separate them from all the civil parts of the world. If it be said they had a ship to succor them, it is true; but what heard they daily from the master and company? But that with speed they should look out a place (with their shallop) where they would be, at some near distance; for the season was such that he would not stir from thence till a safe harbor was discovered by them, where they would be, and he might go without danger; and that victuals consumed space but he must and would keep sufficient for themselves and their return. Yea, it was muttered by some that if they got not a place in time, they would turn them and their goods ashore and leave them. Let it also be considered what weak hopes of supply and succor they left behind them, that might bear up their minds in this sad condition and trials they were under; and they could not but be very small. It is true, indeed, the affections and love of their brethren at Leyden was cordial and entire towards them, but they had little power to help them or themselves; and how the case stood between them and the merchants at their coming away hath already been declared.

    What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace? May not and ought not the children of these fathers rightly say: “Our fathers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this wilderness; but they cried unto the Lord, and He heard their voice and looked on their adversity,” etc. “Let them therefore praise the Lord, because He is good: and his mercies endure forever. Yea, let them which have been redeemed of the Lord, show how He hath delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. When they wandered in the desert wilderness out of the way, and found no city to dwell in, both hungry and thirsty, their soul was overwhelmed in them.” “Let them confess before the Lord His lovingkindness and His wonderful works before the sons of men.”

    William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation

  51. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike
    A lizard, tarsier, and donkey walk into a bar...

    If this is going to be a groaner contest….

    A frog goes into a bank, and hops up on the desk of the loan officer. ”Hi,” he croaks.”What’s your name?”

    The loan officer says, ”My name is John Paddywack. May I help you?”

    ”Yeah,” says the frog. ”I’d like to borrow some money.”

    The loan officer finds this a little odd, but gets out a form. ”Okay,what’s your name?”

    The frog replies, ”Kermit Jagger.”

    ”Really?” says the loan officer. ”Any relation to Mick Jagger?”

    ”Yeah, he’s my dad.”

    ”Hmmm,” says the loan officer. ”Do you have any collateral?”

    The frog hands over a pink ceramic elephant and asks, ”Will this do?”

    The loan officer says, ”Um, I’m not sure. Let me go check with the bank manager.”

    ”Oh, tell him I said hi,” adds the frog. ”He knows me.”

    The loan officer goes back to the manager and says, ”Excuse me, sir, but there’s a frog out there named Kermit Jagger who wants to borrow some money. All he has for collateral is this pink elephant thing; I’m not even sure what it is.”

    The manager says: ”It’s a knick-knack, Paddywack, give the frog a loan; his old man’s a Rolling Stone.”

    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    Punchline definitely worth the set up.

    I don't know if that genre of joke has a name but it could be called "reverse engineered."

    It's also interesting that it works better in writing than if it were spoken.
  52. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    Presumably you’re talking just about Jews, but the original “coalition of the fringes” that displaced WASP hegemony was not exclusively Jewish (and couldn’t be, given their small numbers). It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Southerners consider themselves proud WASPs but a different variety than the northern ones.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Well, “WASPs,” as in Puritans, did try to destroy the British Isles so for some of the groups you mentioned there was surely memory of that. Their revolution laid the groundwork for the French Revolution and Communist revolutions. They were the original radicals who wanted to destroy images and erase history.

    And the other groups who helped end WASP dominance (were WASPs ever that popular? In my mind the archetypal American is some guy blazing a trail through the frontier trying to make his fortune, not a stuffy New Englander) don’t really have the microphone now, do they? Southerners and Catholics seem to be more reviled than WASPs.

    , @Anonymous

    It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.
     
    Irish Catholics perhaps merit mention for their hostility, but not other ethnics and Southerners.
  53. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback -- a dinosaur of the first order. It's no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she's a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century 'enlightened' post-Puritan.

    It's no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century 'celebrity preacher' of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans' progressive instincts while downplaying -- or even outright ignoring -- the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God's radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:


    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

     

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I've highlighted? It's Jonathan Edwards's 'fresh and joyful' anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson's selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that 'City on a Hill'. To wit:


    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

     

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that's way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we've been there, done that, and here we are -- nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be 'just right'.

    Yes, every single man she mentions, even the murdering lunatic John Brown would reject her characterisation of his beliefs. I suppose no one on the modern left knows enough about any of these or cares enough to challenge her.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The fanaticism was passed down from generation to generation.
  54. @syonredux

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.
     
    Well, they weren't behind the spread of slavery, and that was by far the most destructive social movement in American history......

    As for Political Correctness, I tend to think that Jews play a key role....

    We Puritans actually started the institutionalization of slavery first. It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.) We consequently switched to indentured servitude of the Irish (all the perks of slavery but fewer costs.) Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.

    Also, the first slave owner was black.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    • Replies: @syonredux

    . It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.)
     
    New England's climate was God's greatest gift to the Puritans......

    Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.
     
    And "Blacked" their region, forever tainting it with the polluting touch of the African.....
  55. Anonymous[181] • Disclaimer says:

    The flawed reformation of the Church of England is what created the Puritans in the first place. The English Reformation was less principled than the reformations of Luther and Calvin. That’s why the religious landscape in England is confused between non-conformist Protestants, Evangelical Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and Roman Catholics. Anglo-Catholicism is a really strange pick-and-choose form of pseudo-Catholicism and there’s different degrees of it. Some Anglo-Catholics are basically Protestants, while others are hardly any different from Roman Catholics. And you have everything in between.

    Some people seem to think the Puritans were a distinct ethnic group, but they were just a subset of the English nation. Religion doesn’t change blood. A Puritan and a Catholic Englishman are of the same ethnic group.

    I like the Puritans because of common blood, but I do dislike their leaders who destroyed the Anglo-Saxon South and tried to impose the mixing of the races, which was only beaten back by paramilitaries such as the Red Shirts, White League, rifle clubs, etc. Slavery was something we inherited from colonial times so we didn’t deserve the demonization or destruction. But I do think that Southern civilization was superior:

    A major theme of the Cult of the Lost Cause was the clash of two civilizations, one inferior to the other. The North, “invigorated by constant struggle with nature, had become materialistic, grasping for wealth and power.” The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-i-learned-about-cult-lost-cause-180968426/

    • Replies: @Logan
    The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”

    And slavery. By my lights, kidnapping and enslaving people because you don't want to actually work yourself is not exactly "veracity and honor." In fact, I find it difficult to think of anything more dishonorable.

    It was of course well known that northern women were all lying whores.

    , @Dr Van Nostrand
    The Southerners didn't think of themselves as Anglo Saxon. The elites consider themselves if Norman origin and the plebes were Scots Irish. Though no shortage of Anglos in both categories. The KKK symbols and clothing were purely Scottish . The Confederate flag was based in the St. Andrews cross rather St. George.
    Its real funny how both leftists and white nationalists both discount the vital ,visceral role of religion in forming identity. Just think of the Trump/ anti Trump factions on steroids and you can get idea if religion divisions in 17th century Europe and Britain.
  56. @theMann
    "formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown"


    A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived. Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever. A motivator for much of the actual history of the USA, properly understood. And anybody who doesn't understand the Secular Loony Left is just as Puritan as the Historical Puritans, does not understand the Left.

    theMann wrote:

    Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever.

    Back during the early seventeenth century, there were not too many people on either the Protestant or Papist side who had much use for religious tolerance.

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams, founder of Rhode Island, and “Free-born” John Lilburne.

    Let us give credit where it is due.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams
     
    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan. As were those who founded nearby Portsmouth. As was Lady Deborah Moody, who founded the Anabaptist English village of Gravesend in Dutch "Breukelen".

    All these people were holy rollers, but they turned the calculus upside-down: salvation was too important not to be left to the individual.

    The next appearance of freedom of conscience appeared in Catholic Maryland. That seems to have been more of a deal cut than any resort to principle.

    Then came William Penn and his Quakers.

    The main Puritan contribution to religious liberty was in chasing out those who believed in it, the Williamses and Moodys.
    , @anonymous coward
    'Religious liberty' means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for 'spiritual reasons' and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.

    No thanks. Do not want.

    P.S. The Puritans are kissing cousins of these three groups, so it makes sense that they were the ones who pioneered the toxic virus of 'religious liberty'.
  57. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    I agree and I’m a descendant of the Pilgrims. .

    Their motive for leaving England was simply hatred of the Catholic roots of the Church of England and the old European seasonal festivals such as Christmas Easter St John’s day

    John Brown and the genocidal Oliver Cromwell some heroes.

  58. @Kronos
    We Puritans actually started the institutionalization of slavery first. It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.) We consequently switched to indentured servitude of the Irish (all the perks of slavery but fewer costs.) Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.

    Also, the first slave owner was black.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

    . It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.)

    New England’s climate was God’s greatest gift to the Puritans……

    Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.

    And “Blacked” their region, forever tainting it with the polluting touch of the African…..

    • Replies: @Kronos
    In terms of crop profitability, cotton was king! (Tobacco was a relatively distant second.) Both grew much better in the South than North. Those two crops created wealth akin to contemporary marijuana. Think how much potatoes you’d need to grow today to match one ounce of marijuana. Even the wine was better in the South. Industry and shipyards were the best niche for us.

    In terms of climate, malaria wasn’t so much of a problem. New England had fewer disease related deaths than any other region of colonial America. But we had more witch burnings per capita for a LONG time.

    Yeah, but who allowed the Irish and Italians in? Sure, they were smarter and less violent (than blacks) but that creates its own problems. We also invited Eastern European Jews in, which proved our downfall.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    New England’s climate was God’s greatest gift to the Puritans……
     
    Don't forget the geology. Slavery never worked in the mountains, here or anywhere else. And in the Northeast, the mountains lie very close to the shore.

    It was in those few flat places that the slave economy held on the longest-- Cape Cod, Rhode Island, Long Island, and West Jersey, which we now call South Jersey.
  59. One wonders if the whole essay is just a screen to mainline this paragraph in the veins of the Goodthinkers. Or more likely it is just a Freudian slip, a bit of id penetrating the superego.

    “The Beechers, John Brown, and many other Abolitionists were descendants of the Pilgrims or Puritans. This is not especially remarkable, since after the great migration that followed the fall of the Commonwealth there was a long period without significant immigration. They became a sort of grand-scale Pitcairn Island, amazing Thomas Malthus with the prodigious increase in their numbers from a fairly small original population. So their sense of themselves as a culture with a highly particular history would no doubt have been strongly reinforced by circumstance. “

  60. @Anon

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    Those in the tradition of Judaized Christianity (aka, Protestantism, a Jewish revolutionary movement) should and will be the last to question this.

    I’ve always suspect the reformation was inspired by Jews. That and cheap printed bibles so the perverts could get off on the OT tales of sex violence lying stealing and cheating

    The only Americans still enamored of the Puritan heritage and the OT are fundamentalist White southerners.

  61. Well, this is pretty subversive…

    “The Beechers, John Brown, and many other Abolitionists were descendants of the Pilgrims or Puritans. This is not especially remarkable, since after the great migration that followed the fall of the Commonwealth there was a long period without significant immigration. They became a sort of grand-scale Pitcairn Island, amazing Thomas Malthus with the prodigious increase in their numbers from a fairly small original population. So their sense of themselves as a culture with a highly particular history would no doubt have been strongly reinforced by circumstance. So their sense of themselves as a culture with a highly particular history would no doubt have been strongly reinforced by circumstance. “

  62. @Cortes
    Robinson’s “Great American Novel” was a harder chore to read than “Moby Dick”; at least Melville produced “Bartleby” - a masterpiece.

    I don’t know about this woman’s work, but your assessment of Melville is spot on. Typee and Omoo are also good reads.

  63. @syonredux

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.
     
    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly "Blacked" by the late 18th century...

    Agree. Plus the Puritans were more Democratic. The Jamestown gentlemen sneered at the apprentice boys and useful tradesmen.

    The Puritans kept records of everyone including the indentured servants whereas the southerners scorned anyone who was not a gentleman.

    The wealthy southerners used their black slaves to keep the other Whites down. Just as LBJ, Nixon the Supreme Court and their hordes of war on poverty funded Jewish lawyers and activists created affirmative action to keep most Whites down

    • Replies: @Forbes
    Agreed.
  64. @syonredux

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.
     
    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly "Blacked" by the late 18th century...

    In 1770 blacks were the highest percentage they’ve ever been, about 20 percent. I believe S Carolina was about 60 percent black. And as soon as DC became the capitol blacks swarmed to it and have been running it ever since. It’s just disgusting especially at 5 pm when the black federal workers are coming out of the buildings Might as well be in Lagos or any other African capital.

  65. @Anon

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    Those in the tradition of Judaized Christianity (aka, Protestantism, a Jewish revolutionary movement) should and will be the last to question this.

    I thought he left out a zero there.

  66. @Anonymous
    My understanding is that Christian Zionism and Christian Identity both date to British Israelism, a doctrine at least two hundred years later than Calvin or Knox, and that it was the Scofield Reference bible that did more than anything to make CZ popular. Is this your understanding as well?

    Both Calvin and Knox preached that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. In other words the Puritans didn’t believe Jesus was God which is the one thing all Christians agree on.

    • Disagree: Hail
    • Replies: @James Braxton
    The Calvinists and the Puritans most certainly did not (and do not, we still exist) deny the divinity of Christ.

    The Calvinists/Puritans were trinitarians. To suggest otherwise is ignorant libel.
  67. @syonredux

    . It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.)
     
    New England's climate was God's greatest gift to the Puritans......

    Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.
     
    And "Blacked" their region, forever tainting it with the polluting touch of the African.....

    In terms of crop profitability, cotton was king! (Tobacco was a relatively distant second.) Both grew much better in the South than North. Those two crops created wealth akin to contemporary marijuana. Think how much potatoes you’d need to grow today to match one ounce of marijuana. Even the wine was better in the South. Industry and shipyards were the best niche for us.

    In terms of climate, malaria wasn’t so much of a problem. New England had fewer disease related deaths than any other region of colonial America. But we had more witch burnings per capita for a LONG time.

    Yeah, but who allowed the Irish and Italians in? Sure, they were smarter and less violent (than blacks) but that creates its own problems. We also invited Eastern European Jews in, which proved our downfall.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
    There were no witch burnings in this era inNew England or Olde England. Burnings went out of fashion a century earlier. A noose was the way to go.
  68. jsm says:
    @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    Then why are you here?

    If there’s no animus by jews against gentiles and we’re all just crazy, why are you so worried about it that you feel compelled to come here and insult us all that we’re all crazy?

    Orrrr…. maybe YOU are projecting YOUR animus on us, your animus demonstrated by your compulsion to come here and insult us by telling us we’re just crazy. Maybe YOU are the crazy one, little mouse. Maybe YOU justify your obvious hatred of gentiles, that you just displayed, by imputing to legacy Americans your hatred of us?

    tl:dr Project, much, there, yourself, do you?

    Also, how about shut up and listen for five seconds? Maybe, just MAYBE, we have the tiniest legitimate complaint, like all those Jewish orgs, funded by donations of lots and lots of jews, that are dead-set on aiding and abetting the immigration of hostile foreigners, regardless how much us Legacy Americans ask you guys not to.

  69. The Puritans were the OG American Progressives. Europe was glad to be rid of them.

    I should read the article to be fair – at least the woman can put sentences together, that’s a dying art.

  70. @Anonymous
    Presumably you're talking just about Jews, but the original "coalition of the fringes" that displaced WASP hegemony was not exclusively Jewish (and couldn't be, given their small numbers). It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.

    Southerners consider themselves proud WASPs but a different variety than the northern ones.

  71. In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions … to modern American liberalism.

    One of the above words does not belong with the others.

    OT

    Petula Clark — A Sign of the Times

    https://twitter.com/CECheeseESQ/status/1154597159263723520

  72. @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    They weren’t popular even 50 years ago. Cowboys and pioneers and southerners and wise guys were in fashion 50 years ago. You’d have to go back 50 years ago to find an era when her dour, stuffy old ancestors were popular.

  73. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback -- a dinosaur of the first order. It's no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she's a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century 'enlightened' post-Puritan.

    It's no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century 'celebrity preacher' of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans' progressive instincts while downplaying -- or even outright ignoring -- the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God's radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:


    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

     

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I've highlighted? It's Jonathan Edwards's 'fresh and joyful' anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson's selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that 'City on a Hill'. To wit:


    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

     

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that's way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we've been there, done that, and here we are -- nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be 'just right'.

    Ann Douglas opened The Feminization of American Culture with a similar nostalgia for Puritan fire and brimstone. That was 42 years ago.

  74. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    Jamestown should probably hold significance not just for white Americans but for the entire diaspora of the British Isles: it was the first toehold on a new continent, and the real beginning of the British Empire and colonization. Anyone of English, Irish, or Scots ancestry in the US, Canada, or Australia in a tiny way owes what they are to the exploits of John Smith and his comically inept band of wannabe gentlemen farmers in a mosquito infested tidewater swamp.

    It was also the beginning of the German diaspora in North America.

    It was also a much, much more entertaining story than that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. See for example John Smith and the reason why his coat of arms had three severed heads. Or his stint as a slave in Constantinople who ended up seducing his mistress. All of which may or may not be true.
    Anyway that was all before Jamestown, when things got really strange.

    • Agree: S. Anonyia, Cagey Beast
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Smith was from the Puritan stronghold of Alford. Ten years younger than he was his neighbor the future Anne Hutchinson. Small world, in those days.
    , @Lockean Proviso
    Your reminder of John Smith's adventurous life prompted me to find this PC-free review of his autobiography:

    https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2007/januaryfebruary/feature/soldier-fortune-john-smith-jamestown

    What a great movie it would make- though of course not these days in Hollywood. Even if half of it is true, John Smith was a hero of our people: brave, clever, pragmatic, adventurous, hard-working, and adaptable. Would that young men could learn about it if there's any space in the shaming and correction curriculum.

  75. longshanks banned jews from england.

    you know who let them back in, 400 years later?

    oliver cromwell.

    how’s that working out today?

    self-eliminating leftist WASPs: nature’s dodo birds.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    Didn't a Jewish Naturalization Act fail in the House of Commons during the mid-1750's and their status as "aliens" not change for another hundred years?
  76. @Anonymous
    Presumably you're talking just about Jews, but the original "coalition of the fringes" that displaced WASP hegemony was not exclusively Jewish (and couldn't be, given their small numbers). It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.

    Well, “WASPs,” as in Puritans, did try to destroy the British Isles so for some of the groups you mentioned there was surely memory of that. Their revolution laid the groundwork for the French Revolution and Communist revolutions. They were the original radicals who wanted to destroy images and erase history.

    And the other groups who helped end WASP dominance (were WASPs ever that popular? In my mind the archetypal American is some guy blazing a trail through the frontier trying to make his fortune, not a stuffy New Englander) don’t really have the microphone now, do they? Southerners and Catholics seem to be more reviled than WASPs.

    • Disagree: Hail
  77. ‘…John Brown…’

    John Brown?

  78. @J.Ross
    Cromwell, as in the guy who banned Christmas, and John Brown, the guy who killed in the name of the gospel.

    Cromwell, as in the guy who banned Christmas,

    Parliament did that actually.

  79. @PhysicistDave
    theMann wrote:

    Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever.
     
    Back during the early seventeenth century, there were not too many people on either the Protestant or Papist side who had much use for religious tolerance.

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams, founder of Rhode Island, and "Free-born" John Lilburne.

    Let us give credit where it is due.

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan. As were those who founded nearby Portsmouth. As was Lady Deborah Moody, who founded the Anabaptist English village of Gravesend in Dutch “Breukelen”.

    All these people were holy rollers, but they turned the calculus upside-down: salvation was too important not to be left to the individual.

    The next appearance of freedom of conscience appeared in Catholic Maryland. That seems to have been more of a deal cut than any resort to principle.

    Then came William Penn and his Quakers.

    The main Puritan contribution to religious liberty was in chasing out those who believed in it, the Williamses and Moodys.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Reg Caesar wrote to me:

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan.
     
    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    The Anabaptists were basically Germans. Roger Williams, not. As Wikipedia warns readers, "Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist." Different roots indeed.

    You are also assuming more uniformity among Puritans than existed. The Pilgrim Fathers, for example, were Separatists. Most of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, not.

    Furthermore, Williams certainly came to the colonies as a Puritan, and, indeed, spent some time at Plymouth, though he decided the Pilgrims were not separatist enough. He was sympathetic to the Baptists at least for a while, but probably the best term for him was "Seeker."

    I think it was the historian George Brown Tindall who quipped that Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife -- and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    A childhood hero of mine, so I do know a lot about him.

    Of course, for those who consider Williams a bit too much on the moderate side, there is the heroic Anne Hutchinson, who rejected not only religious authority but also any human temporal authority of any sort whatsoever -- she compelled her husband to leave a post in Roger Williams' government in Rhode Island because, after all, only God should presume to command adult human beings.

    I think I would have liked to have talked with Anne. I am not sure I would have enjoyed being her husband.
  80. @syonredux

    . It just wasn’t profitable (family secret.)
     
    New England's climate was God's greatest gift to the Puritans......

    Our Cavalier cousins in the South found a better use for it.
     
    And "Blacked" their region, forever tainting it with the polluting touch of the African.....

    New England’s climate was God’s greatest gift to the Puritans……

    Don’t forget the geology. Slavery never worked in the mountains, here or anywhere else. And in the Northeast, the mountains lie very close to the shore.

    It was in those few flat places that the slave economy held on the longest– Cape Cod, Rhode Island, Long Island, and West Jersey, which we now call South Jersey.

    • Replies: @Jim bob Lassiter
    "Slavery never worked in the mountains, here or anywhere else."

    Well yes, and no. That needs to be refined to pre-industrial/pre-mechanized agricultural slavery.

    My guess is that there is plenty of industrial sweatshop slavery going on in Asian hidden hollows as we clack away on our slave labor produced keyboards.
  81. Marilynne Robinson is a distinguished literary novelist

    Does anybody else confuse her with Marianne Williamson?

    Ironically, it’s the one with the more (by adoption) “Jewish-sounding” name who lacks that ancestry.

  82. Call it synchronicity if you like. I call it Providence. I just happened to post a little something about the Puritans at Plymouth and their near disastrous attempt at implementing a common storehouse on my modest little blog yesterday

    https://hxchristian.typepad.com/metal_dad/2019/07/learn-a-lesson-from-the-puritans.html

  83. @SimpleSong
    Jamestown should probably hold significance not just for white Americans but for the entire diaspora of the British Isles: it was the first toehold on a new continent, and the real beginning of the British Empire and colonization. Anyone of English, Irish, or Scots ancestry in the US, Canada, or Australia in a tiny way owes what they are to the exploits of John Smith and his comically inept band of wannabe gentlemen farmers in a mosquito infested tidewater swamp.

    It was also the beginning of the German diaspora in North America.

    It was also a much, much more entertaining story than that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. See for example John Smith and the reason why his coat of arms had three severed heads. Or his stint as a slave in Constantinople who ended up seducing his mistress. All of which may or may not be true.
    Anyway that was all before Jamestown, when things got really strange.

    Smith was from the Puritan stronghold of Alford. Ten years younger than he was his neighbor the future Anne Hutchinson. Small world, in those days.

  84. One of my nine times great grandmothers was hung as a witch in Salem. Do I get any victim points?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    I think you have to prove she was a lesbian.
    , @Pericles
    You should definitely bring it up when the occasion requires it.
  85. May I remind to you the important book about “the origins of totalitarian democracy” written bei J.L. Talmon? He not accidentally starts with Calvinism/Puritanism, following the track from Geneva to Rousseau, from Rousseau to the French Jacobins and from the Jacobins to the Bolshevists. (He ignores the many ways Puritanism revived ancient Jewish thinking, but then we must not expect too much.)

    As for John Brown, he never became unpopular – he was the star of the Civil Rights Movement and is now the star of the Antifa.
    But I concede to Ms. Robinson that both Cromwell and John Brown are legitimate precursors of modern Leftism.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    He not accidentally starts with Calvinism/Puritanism, following the track from Geneva to Rousseau, from Rousseau to the French Jacobins and from the Jacobins to the Bolshevists.
     
    Reconstruction was the first serious attempt at "nation building" -- conquer, then impose a comletely new society ("Soviet Man" in a later attempt). The destruction of the Middle East shows that the spirit of Reconstruction still exists, and we might see it at first hand if the Dems ("Change America!") get control of the US Government and try a raw force version of our current soft reconstruction. It'll be "fewer but better historic Americans".

    Counterinsurgency
  86. I am descended from New England Puritans (Henry Ward Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe are relatives), and my extended family is mostly left-wing — stuck on perfecting the world.

  87. @Kronos
    There’s this PBS thing though:

    https://www.pbs.org/wnet/story-jews/

    https://youtu.be/kIDeejW2Fs4

    I tried to watch Schama’s History of Britain series 10 or 15 years ago. It was purely political. No mention of Shakespeare or Newton that I can recall. Bloody boring as hell.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Schama is another over promoted Jew, the flamboyant homosexual conservative David Starkey is much more entertaining.

    I don't think modern leftism translates in to anything more than a hundred years ago, it really is a thing of our times.

    People really are very ignorant of Puritan beliefs, also Cromwell was noted for his willingness to reconcile with former enemies and apart from the massacre at the siege of Basing House, itself retaliation for the massacre at Bolton, I am not aware of any atrocities, in an age of atrocities with the thirty years war, that he carried out. Royalist and Irish Black legends are just false.
  88. @syonredux

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.
     
    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly "Blacked" by the late 18th century...

    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly “Blacked” by the late 18th century…

    Puritans could be productive but it’s overstated. Jefferson was from Virginia as were many of the first Presidents. And no, the South wasn’t blacked by the 18th century or now. However, they did have more race-realist views due to actually living around Blacks.

    See the Alabama sorority video.

  89. @syonredux

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.
     
    Did they do anything to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown back in 2007? I certainly can't recall anything....

    Well Disney did a movie about it a while back – Pocahontas – with godawful song lyrics (but not the story) written by the aforementioned Stephen Scwartz. It would have been better if Disney had just left it alone. Gene Siskel (ethnicity and religion unknown) praised the film as a “surprisingly serious…feature about the American birthright of exploitation and racism.”

  90. F**k Puritanism. All that it is has given the World is a shining Cemetary on a Hill.

  91. @syonredux

    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.
     
    Yeah, but the Puritans were more productive and industrious. Without them, Anglo-America would have been lobotomized. Plus, NE was the most purely European section of the country. The South, sadly, was thoroughly "Blacked" by the late 18th century...

    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US’s most economically prosperous region. New England wasn’t anywhere close.

    • Replies: @anon
    Well, yeah, then there was that pesky "Industrial Revolution" thing. Hey, another "revolution" for conservatives to bemoan!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US’s most economically prosperous region. New England wasn’t anywhere close.
     
    So you're saying wealth is in direct proportion to African percentage in the population? That's counterintuitive, to say the least.

    Panama has a higher per capita income than Costa Rica, so it could happen. But which country would you rather live in?

    Puerto Rico's per capita GDP is higher than that of Costa Rica's and Panama's combined. How do they all rank on Trump's cloaca index?

    Even if true, was that wealth worth the eventual price? If George Soros could show that you'd be better off economically with open borders, would you go along?

    Panama is richer than Costa Rica because that's where the Canal was cut. Was cotton the Canal of the 19th century?
    , @Logan
    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US’s most economically prosperous region. New England wasn’t anywhere close.

    However, it was also the region with the highest inequality. Obviously between whites and blacks, but also even among whites. A pretty small number of extremely wealthy planters dominated society and the economy.

    That wealth was built largely by the theft of most of the value of the labor performed by the slaves.
  92. @Reg Cæsar

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams
     
    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan. As were those who founded nearby Portsmouth. As was Lady Deborah Moody, who founded the Anabaptist English village of Gravesend in Dutch "Breukelen".

    All these people were holy rollers, but they turned the calculus upside-down: salvation was too important not to be left to the individual.

    The next appearance of freedom of conscience appeared in Catholic Maryland. That seems to have been more of a deal cut than any resort to principle.

    Then came William Penn and his Quakers.

    The main Puritan contribution to religious liberty was in chasing out those who believed in it, the Williamses and Moodys.

    Reg Caesar wrote to me:

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan.

    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    The Anabaptists were basically Germans. Roger Williams, not. As Wikipedia warns readers, “Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer’s baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist.” Different roots indeed.

    You are also assuming more uniformity among Puritans than existed. The Pilgrim Fathers, for example, were Separatists. Most of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, not.

    Furthermore, Williams certainly came to the colonies as a Puritan, and, indeed, spent some time at Plymouth, though he decided the Pilgrims were not separatist enough. He was sympathetic to the Baptists at least for a while, but probably the best term for him was “Seeker.”

    I think it was the historian George Brown Tindall who quipped that Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife — and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    A childhood hero of mine, so I do know a lot about him.

    Of course, for those who consider Williams a bit too much on the moderate side, there is the heroic Anne Hutchinson, who rejected not only religious authority but also any human temporal authority of any sort whatsoever — she compelled her husband to leave a post in Roger Williams’ government in Rhode Island because, after all, only God should presume to command adult human beings.

    I think I would have liked to have talked with Anne. I am not sure I would have enjoyed being her husband.

    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Was Williams Welsh? A lot of extreme non conformists were so.
    , @Reg Cæsar
    Anne Hutchinson grew up in the same village as John Smith. One wonders about the water supply there.

    That everyone has heard of Anne Hutchinson and no one Deborah Moody is good evidence for "Well-behaved women don't make history."

    John Winthrop banned Lady Moody from his colony, even though he expressed admiration for her. But rules are rules.

    ...Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife — and he had a few doubts about the wife!
     
    The joke among genealogists is that you went to Rhode Island if you weren't good enough for Massachusetts. You went to Connecticut if you were too good for Massachusetts.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!
     
    I shouldn't have capitalized the latter. There is a difference between fascists and Fascists, after all, and communists and Communists, and conservatives and Conservatives for that matter.

    The Baptists rebaptized the baptized, so they'd have been anabaptist in the generic sense.


    (Jeez, the Kindle just "corrected" generic to genetic. Let's not even get into that.)
  93. “Those who control the word ‘American’”

    Who are they? Immigration officials? Italians?

    “control the sense of the possible”

    Is this what’s left of New England culture that produced the prose of Emerson and Hawthorne?

    By the way, John Brown was a blood-mad mercenary.

  94. Another factor is that many on the woke left aren’t really leftists. Many are black ethno-nationalists and Muslim imperialists. An ideological leftist is someone who is interested in a number of leftist causes, not just someone from a racial minority who is trying to gain more power for their own race or religious group.

    The modern Democrat party doesn’t actually contain many true leftists. It basically consists of socially liberal white neoliberal technocrats who try to shepherd a variety of non-white ethno-nationalists.

    An actual leftist would be someone like Jill Stein of the Green Party. She probably is kind of interested in dead white leftists.

  95. @Father O'Hara
    Cromwell? John Brown?

    Onward Christian soldier…

  96. @Cortes
    Robinson’s “Great American Novel” was a harder chore to read than “Moby Dick”; at least Melville produced “Bartleby” - a masterpiece.

    I didn’t care for Moby Dick, or what I read of it. But Pierre; or, the Ambiguities is worse. The Confidence Man is crap too.

  97. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.
     
    They've had their ups and downs. The usual pattern is that they win control, disgust the rest of the country, and lose control.

    So far, 3 ups: Van Buren, CivilWar/Reconstruction, our current "soft reconstruction" and resettlement. Downs: Van Buren's attempt to impose stricter government ("Alien and sedition acts") failed badly, and his party vanished (although its population group later became Republicans). Reconstruction was rejected c.a. 1890s, current rejection of current programs is ongoing.

    Quite a bunch. In the 1950s, American settlement was propagandized as being _only_ by the Pilgrims - nobody else was mentioned as a founding group in the popular media.

    Counterinsurgency
  98. @theMann
    "formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown"


    A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived. Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever. A motivator for much of the actual history of the USA, properly understood. And anybody who doesn't understand the Secular Loony Left is just as Puritan as the Historical Puritans, does not understand the Left.

    “A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived”

    Yeah, that Wycliffe thinking he could let the common folks read the bible for themselves, bypassing getting told only what was needed by priests. What a bigot!

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
  99. @SimpleSong
    Jamestown should probably hold significance not just for white Americans but for the entire diaspora of the British Isles: it was the first toehold on a new continent, and the real beginning of the British Empire and colonization. Anyone of English, Irish, or Scots ancestry in the US, Canada, or Australia in a tiny way owes what they are to the exploits of John Smith and his comically inept band of wannabe gentlemen farmers in a mosquito infested tidewater swamp.

    It was also the beginning of the German diaspora in North America.

    It was also a much, much more entertaining story than that of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. See for example John Smith and the reason why his coat of arms had three severed heads. Or his stint as a slave in Constantinople who ended up seducing his mistress. All of which may or may not be true.
    Anyway that was all before Jamestown, when things got really strange.

    Your reminder of John Smith’s adventurous life prompted me to find this PC-free review of his autobiography:

    https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2007/januaryfebruary/feature/soldier-fortune-john-smith-jamestown

    What a great movie it would make- though of course not these days in Hollywood. Even if half of it is true, John Smith was a hero of our people: brave, clever, pragmatic, adventurous, hard-working, and adaptable. Would that young men could learn about it if there’s any space in the shaming and correction curriculum.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in "The New World." Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    It's a beautiful movie but very slow.

  100. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    If there is hope, it is in people such as yourself, your wife, and the many like you, such as my parents, who see people as people and who see categories as nothing more than descriptors.

  101. Alliance between Yankeedom and New York City forms the core of the current US political class. One is lost in the theory and history that is all they know, the other lost in blind greed and desperation because they lack an economic and demographic base except what they can eke out from their political importance.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @SFG
    Not really the political class so much as the Boston-NYC-DC axis that comprises academia, media, and finance.

    The political class is a little more diverse (hah)--Texas oil barons and Midwestern agribusiness bosses and so on.
  102. @SF
    One of my nine times great grandmothers was hung as a witch in Salem. Do I get any victim points?

    I think you have to prove she was a lesbian.

    • Replies: @Laurence Whelk

    One of my nine times great grandmothers was hung as a witch in Salem. Do I get any victim points?
     

    I think you have to prove she was a lesbian.
     
    A black lesbian.
  103. @Lockean Proviso
    Your reminder of John Smith's adventurous life prompted me to find this PC-free review of his autobiography:

    https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2007/januaryfebruary/feature/soldier-fortune-john-smith-jamestown

    What a great movie it would make- though of course not these days in Hollywood. Even if half of it is true, John Smith was a hero of our people: brave, clever, pragmatic, adventurous, hard-working, and adaptable. Would that young men could learn about it if there's any space in the shaming and correction curriculum.

    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in “The New World.” Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    It’s a beautiful movie but very slow.

    • Replies: @guest
    And Mel Gibson voiced Smith in Diznee's animated Pocahontas. Saturday Night Live did an entire sketch about how nobody cares about that character.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard
    I thought Malick did a great job with the locations and cinematography.

    I felt like I was looking into a window on the past rather than watching a film.
    , @Charles Pewitt

    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in “The New World.” Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

     

    The Virginia Company in the new world in 1607 was after gold, glory and God -- in that order.

    Good use of Wagner by Malick but the guy taking some of the water and putting it to his mouth and spitting it out seems out of place. It didn't seem ceremonial and they were aware of contaminants at that point in history.

    Farrell is a Leprechaun turd with a full head of hair -- why should we watch him -- and Plummer is a pissant who didn't like the way Malick did things.

    Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he's another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.

    As far as Leprechauns go, I like Jeremiah Sullivan, he fought in the American Secessionary War against the British Empire and he was born in North Carolina and he's my blood.

    I get angry with misbehaving Leprechaun slobs such as Jim Comey and John Brennan and any other random Leprechaun drunk I run across because they make the Irish look bad.

    https://youtu.be/lFkyAD9gS6g
  104. @hooodathunkit
    The religion called Puritan is still with us; they (d)evolved into Universalists and Unitarians. All the arbitrary rules without any of the consequences. It is the religion closest to modern Wokeness.

    evolved into Universalists and Unitarians.

    I hear that they got their name from calling each other “nits”. Never actually heard them do that myself, but the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose. Individually, I’ve found Unitarians to be the most intolerant and closed minded people I’ve met so far, including hostile Jews, which makes the “nits” story at least plausible. The name fits.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Pericles

    the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose.

     

    Even for Clownworld a bit too 'on the nose'.
    , @anon
    IIRC, there was a trend or fad (theology has them, like business) called "Clown Ministry." At least, there was a book with that title, but I never had the heart to look into it. Come to think of it, wasn't Jesus a clown in some musical, like Godspell? I guess it's part of that whole "foolishness to the Greeks" stuff, that's some of the worse Christian notions (explaining how they thrived among slaves and women: don't listen to those smarty-pants masters and philosophers! When they call you fools, embrace it!")
  105. @Stogumber
    May I remind to you the important book about "the origins of totalitarian democracy" written bei J.L. Talmon? He not accidentally starts with Calvinism/Puritanism, following the track from Geneva to Rousseau, from Rousseau to the French Jacobins and from the Jacobins to the Bolshevists. (He ignores the many ways Puritanism revived ancient Jewish thinking, but then we must not expect too much.)

    As for John Brown, he never became unpopular - he was the star of the Civil Rights Movement and is now the star of the Antifa.
    But I concede to Ms. Robinson that both Cromwell and John Brown are legitimate precursors of modern Leftism.

    He not accidentally starts with Calvinism/Puritanism, following the track from Geneva to Rousseau, from Rousseau to the French Jacobins and from the Jacobins to the Bolshevists.

    Reconstruction was the first serious attempt at “nation building” — conquer, then impose a comletely new society (“Soviet Man” in a later attempt). The destruction of the Middle East shows that the spirit of Reconstruction still exists, and we might see it at first hand if the Dems (“Change America!”) get control of the US Government and try a raw force version of our current soft reconstruction. It’ll be “fewer but better historic Americans”.

    Counterinsurgency

  106. Slightly off-topic, there was a couple of articles in the Guardian (by presumably left-wing writers), who were tying themselves in knots because an Amish-like community in the UK seemed so appealing to them:

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jul/25/inside-the-bruderhof-review-is-this-a-religious-stirring-i-feel

    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jul/23/just-dont-call-it-a-cult-the-strangely-alluring-world-of-the-bruderhof

  107. @guest
    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that's what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they're the longterm winners.

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.

    They’ve had their ups and downs. The usual pattern is that they win control, disgust the rest of the country, and lose control.

    So far, 3 ups: Van Buren, CivilWar/Reconstruction, our current “soft reconstruction” and resettlement. Downs: Van Buren’s attempt to impose stricter government (“Alien and sedition acts”) failed badly, and his party vanished (although its population group later became Republicans). Reconstruction was rejected c.a. 1890s, current rejection of current programs is ongoing.

    Quite a bunch. In the 1950s, American settlement was propagandized as being _only_ by the Pilgrims – nobody else was mentioned as a founding group in the popular media.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Van Buren was Jackson's successor and a Democrat, not a Whig or a proto-Whig. His party is still with us today. He was Northern and he did become a Free Soiler later. Also the only President who spoke English as a second language, after Dutch.
    , @Logan
    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.

    There are some things we can criticize VB for, but that isn't one of them.
    , @Alden
    The Pilgrims kept better records and included everyone even indentured servants. The descendants made an effort to publicize the Plymouth colony and Puritan Boston.
    The Jamestown descendants didn’t keep good records and scorned everyone who worked with their hands. The Jamestown descendants were a small group as they didn’t include ordinary people, just the wealthy. The known Mayflower descendants were just more numerous and active in promoting themselves.

    No First Family of Virginia person would ever admit to an ordinary tradesman or shopkeeper as an ancestor. Their ancestors were all the gentlemen of Jamestown and Cavalier Gentry fleeing from Cromwell yeah right But the Puritans recorded all the ancestors. .

    The Virginians were much more important to the settlement if America than the northerners
    BECAUSE of the cash crop TOBACCO they raised and sold to Europe and the Mid East.

    The 1600’s colonies all depended on English investors and the English government. Had not Raleigh ans the Virginia colony not promoted tobacco, the English colonies could have failed. Tobacco was like oil in the 1600 1700s. So was sugar.

  108. @hooodathunkit
    The religion called Puritan is still with us; they (d)evolved into Universalists and Unitarians. All the arbitrary rules without any of the consequences. It is the religion closest to modern Wokeness.

    I kind of like the idea of the U-U – finding your own spiritual path. But it inevitably turns into mush. The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally.

    • Replies: @anon
    "The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally."

    I did not know that. If true, more evidence that "religion" is as meaningless as "proposition nation;" it's the people (racial or ethnic) that make the culture.
  109. @Steve Sailer
    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in "The New World." Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    It's a beautiful movie but very slow.

    And Mel Gibson voiced Smith in Diznee’s animated Pocahontas. Saturday Night Live did an entire sketch about how nobody cares about that character.

  110. @SF
    One of my nine times great grandmothers was hung as a witch in Salem. Do I get any victim points?

    You should definitely bring it up when the occasion requires it.

  111. @Counterinsurgency

    evolved into Universalists and Unitarians.
     
    I hear that they got their name from calling each other "nits". Never actually heard them do that myself, but the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose. Individually, I've found Unitarians to be the most intolerant and closed minded people I've met so far, including hostile Jews, which makes the "nits" story at least plausible. The name fits.

    Counterinsurgency

    the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose.

    Even for Clownworld a bit too ‘on the nose’.

  112. @Wilkey
    I tried to watch Schama's History of Britain series 10 or 15 years ago. It was purely political. No mention of Shakespeare or Newton that I can recall. Bloody boring as hell.

    Schama is another over promoted Jew, the flamboyant homosexual conservative David Starkey is much more entertaining.

    I don’t think modern leftism translates in to anything more than a hundred years ago, it really is a thing of our times.

    People really are very ignorant of Puritan beliefs, also Cromwell was noted for his willingness to reconcile with former enemies and apart from the massacre at the siege of Basing House, itself retaliation for the massacre at Bolton, I am not aware of any atrocities, in an age of atrocities with the thirty years war, that he carried out. Royalist and Irish Black legends are just false.

    • LOL: Alden
  113. @Reg Cæsar

    New England’s climate was God’s greatest gift to the Puritans……
     
    Don't forget the geology. Slavery never worked in the mountains, here or anywhere else. And in the Northeast, the mountains lie very close to the shore.

    It was in those few flat places that the slave economy held on the longest-- Cape Cod, Rhode Island, Long Island, and West Jersey, which we now call South Jersey.

    “Slavery never worked in the mountains, here or anywhere else.”

    Well yes, and no. That needs to be refined to pre-industrial/pre-mechanized agricultural slavery.

    My guess is that there is plenty of industrial sweatshop slavery going on in Asian hidden hollows as we clack away on our slave labor produced keyboards.

  114. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Is there a more insidious and perfidious group of people than whites?

    Slavet colonialydn hatred

    Look up Garrett Phillips tragedy

    People of Color agree with me that white make Christian's are evil brutes

    Yet your commenting in English from the nation they founded just a short time ago.

    The worlds your oyster tiny duck, poc land awaits your genius.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yet your commenting in English
     
    English?
  115. @Alden
    Both Calvin and Knox preached that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. In other words the Puritans didn’t believe Jesus was God which is the one thing all Christians agree on.

    The Calvinists and the Puritans most certainly did not (and do not, we still exist) deny the divinity of Christ.

    The Calvinists/Puritans were trinitarians. To suggest otherwise is ignorant libel.

    • Replies: @Hail

    ignorant libel
     
    A lot of that in this thread, I see.

    Who is behind it?

    I suspect the non-troll component is wannabe-aristocrat Catholics, in alliance with nihilists and general-use trolls? Almost certainly some of our Kosher buddies piling on, too, with (classic) misdirectionist, Absolve-the-Jews-totally, Blame-the-Whites-themselves -- in the tradition of Mencius Moldbug.

    , @Alden
    You’re the ignorant one. Knox and Calvin both endlessly proclaimed “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel.

    They even seriously discussed not eating pork oysters keeping kosher and holding services on Saturday instead of Sunday For centuries some held to the Jewish custom of not cooking on the Sabbath. They cooked a big meal on Saturday and ate the cold food on Sunday.

    They denied that Jesus was God, laughed at the idea of the Trinity and scorned Mary the mother of Jesus. They didn’t ban Christmas solely because it was an ancient European winter festival. Another and more important reason was that it celebrates the birth of Jesus and the role of his mother in conceiving carrying abd birthing him. One of their biggest quarrels with the Catholics was the catholic glorification of Mother Mary and thus all women.

    Whatever your fundamentalist preacher is telling you 470 years later, he’s wrong. Get yourself to a real respected university theology department library and learn about the puritans

    They were twisted warped weirdo wanna be jews. They were seduced by the sex and violence of the OT.
    , @Logan
    Quite right.

    In fact, Servetus was famously burned atop a pyre of his own books by the Calvin-dominated city-state of Geneva for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.
  116. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    Meta-projection: impressive.

  117. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    I kind of felt like you did until a few years ago, but looking at the output of Hollywood and the NYT, I have come to agree there is this anti-WASP animus among the liberal Jews who produce a lot of cultural and academic output.

    I suspect it started as a reaction to actual exclusion back in the 50s through 80s, and changed into a desire to prove they still have oppressed status from the 90s onward. You see this in stuff like the Forward where they are worried Jews are going to get kicked out of the social justice movement.

    That does *not* seem to extend to people like you or my mom (who did the same thing in reverse), and it’s more among people who work in these glamour industries. Your average Jewish oncologist in Scarsdale or Beachwood? Nah.

    I do wonder how much of the Kevin MacDonald stuff is a boiling-off effect, where less ethnocentric and/or philojaphetic/non-anti-gentile Jews just marry out of the tribe and are lost to it. If you’re of Jewish ancestry and lean conservative temperamentally but not willing to lead an Orthodox life, you just marry a Christian, let the kids pick what religion what they want, and the grandkids wind up Christian. You think Stephen Miller’s going to find a Jewish girl?

    Oh, and (((Freud))) is BS. Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy.

    • Replies: @anon
    "Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy."

    Ellis and perhaps Beck just ripped off Stoics, but good to see a good word put in for RET or whatever they're calling it now (have to keep changing the name so it looks new, being just Stoicism warmed over)
  118. @Counterinsurgency
    Alliance between Yankeedom and New York City forms the core of the current US political class. One is lost in the theory and history that is all they know, the other lost in blind greed and desperation because they lack an economic and demographic base except what they can eke out from their political importance.

    Counterinsurgency

    Not really the political class so much as the Boston-NYC-DC axis that comprises academia, media, and finance.

    The political class is a little more diverse (hah)–Texas oil barons and Midwestern agribusiness bosses and so on.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    Not really the political class so much as the Boston-NYC-DC axis that comprises academia, media, and finance.
     
    Agreed, but until very recently the Boston-NYC-DC (Yankeedom, New Amsterdam, and bureaucracy) were the dominant alliance in the US political class, with subject allies on the Left Coast and islands of subject ally support (the megacities) distributed over CONUS. Boston-NYC-DC still thinks its dominant, but it looks shaky.

    Counterinsurgency
  119. The ethnic thing plays a role, but there’s something simpler also at work.

    Why aren’t progressives interested in the past? Well, what do you call people who are interested in the past? What do you call people who seek to preserve tradition? What do you call people who are interested in using the best ideas that have been passed down to us from our ancestors and looking for applicable things in the practices of the past?

    Oh, right, conservatives.

  120. As the Jews tend to be meddlesome rootless cosmopolitans, the so called “Puritans” were meddlesome and churlish louts. The “Puritan legacy” in America is a fusion of a zeal for some kind of tidy minded perfectionism and a compulsive obsession with righting every wrong in the world trivial enough not to matter while ignoring the metaphysical battles being waged for the heart and soul of Euro-Christian civilization, culture and spirituality, or of even siding with the enemy of same.

    The original Puritans and their spiritual brethren were little different than modern day Wahhabi extremists, what with their animosity to the traditions and decidedly Catholic folkways of Merry Old England. There is a spiritual affinity between both movements that manifests itself in the destruction- or the desire for destruction- of great cultural and spiritual landmarks and monuments and an aversion to beauty and joy.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Very very true says this proud descendant of William Mullins, the man who bought out the Merchant Adventurers and was the primary purchaser of the Mayflower and Speedwell

    It’s strange that Puritanism and OT obsessed fundamentalist Christianity are now confined to the south. Very strange considering that the civil war, reconstruction desegregation affirmative action and school bussing were all Puritan efforts
  121. @PhysicistDave
    theMann wrote:

    Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever.
     
    Back during the early seventeenth century, there were not too many people on either the Protestant or Papist side who had much use for religious tolerance.

    However, there were a few among the radical Puritans who truly valued religious liberty: e.g., Roger Willams, founder of Rhode Island, and "Free-born" John Lilburne.

    Let us give credit where it is due.

    ‘Religious liberty’ means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for ‘spiritual reasons’ and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.

    No thanks. Do not want.

    P.S. The Puritans are kissing cousins of these three groups, so it makes sense that they were the ones who pioneered the toxic virus of ‘religious liberty’.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    anonymous coward wrote to me:

    ‘Religious liberty’ means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for ‘spiritual reasons’ and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.
     
    Hmmm.... So, what are you going to do? Outlaw Satanists? And exactly how do you plan on dealing with Jews?

    Perhaps we can deport you to a society where you will feel comfortable -- North Korea, perhaps?

    And the rest of us will live with the Jews and the Satanists -- better neighbors than you, I fear.

    (One of the funny things about you anti-Semites -- you seem to think you are in the majority. You don't realize that if the majority lashes out at anyone, it's gonna be you!)

    , @Alden
    Not really. Religious liberty doesn’t cover things that are criminal, such as human sacrifice, prostitutes and pimps claiming g to be Priests and Priests of a religious cult, torture assault and battery.

    I kind of like the European idea of religious liberty only for real, recognized religions, not Scientology or silly cults.

    In pursuit of religious liberty American judges have banned the very word Christmas but allow the thieving con artists of Scientology full freedom.
    Oh well.
  122. The Puritans were the spiritual ancestors of today’s SJW’s; in this case, both ancestor and descendant share the same soulless joyless and disenchanted vision of the world coupled with an obsessive zeal to right every perceived social wrong and impost a rigid pseudo-morality upon the greater community. Political correctness is a good example of this- with the stocks being replaced by mainstream media vilification and ostracism.

    Once the Puritan world was left void of its Christian orthodoxy- however marginal it may have been- it was bound to embrace every worldly cause imaginable, up to and including globo-homo. The “Puritan legacy” embraces the rainbow flag with the same zeal it once embraced the Old Testament or Calvin’s Institutes.

  123. @Steve Sailer
    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in "The New World." Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    It's a beautiful movie but very slow.

    I thought Malick did a great job with the locations and cinematography.

    I felt like I was looking into a window on the past rather than watching a film.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    I’ve been meaning to see that for some time, but I slept through the middle 9/10ths of The Thin Red Lone.
  124. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @RudyM
    Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I'm unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small "o" orthodox Christian of any sort.

    I don’t give a damn about any of those tools, except for Blake, and yeah, he doesn’t really belong. I suppose he was a “dissenter” of some sort, but his dissent took the form of playing naked Adam and Eve with his wife. Well, at least it was his wife, not some 12 year old. He attended the Swedenborgian Church, not any First Presbyterian. He hated Milton by the way.

  125. @Redneck farmer
    I think you have to prove she was a lesbian.

    One of my nine times great grandmothers was hung as a witch in Salem. Do I get any victim points?

    I think you have to prove she was a lesbian.

    A black lesbian.

  126. HA says:
    @syonredux
    http://www.interfaithimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pope-Francis-Visit-Graphic-1.jpg

    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pope-Francis-Migrant-Crisis-Petrus-Romanus.jpg

    https://78.media.tumblr.com/7b9325a20f8a6140d6097d5b930893f9/tumblr_mqptjeSObP1rncn8lo1_400.png

    There are three prinicples of Catholic social justice with regard to immigration. For some reason only the first and third gets mentioned in the media (I wonder why that is?) but let’s go through the second principle:

    Second Principle: A country has the right to regulate its borders and to control immigration.

    The overriding principle of all Catholic social teaching is that individuals must make economic, political, and social decisions not out of shortsighted self-interest, but with regard for the common good. …While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land… no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized….For this reason, Catholics should not view the work of the federal government and its immigration control as negative or evil. Those who work to enforce our nation’s immigration laws often do so out of a sense of loyalty to the common good and compassion for poor people seeking a better life. In an ideal world, there would be no need for immigration control. The Church recognizes that this ideal world has not yet been achieved.

    All of this, moreover, is subject to the principle of subsidiarity, which means bishops cannot claim infallible authority in the realm of political statements. To the extent that Catholics feel the second principle is given short shrift, they have the right to make their views known and implemented.

    And as for whatever the current may claim about gay people who are chaste (i.e., who pretend to be chaste), he has not yet dared to change Catholic doctrine on that.

  127. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago–to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.
     
    More like a hundred, according to the most observant observers.

    There is no single-year turning point, of course, and transitions tend to last decades, to some extent.

    Lately I have come to believe that “quarters of a century” are the most useful unit-of-analysis for these purposes:

    20th century Q1 – Traditional US ruling class (our own people, flaws and all) in power;

    20th century Q2 – Power bid by Jews (who had begun to arrive in 19th century Q4) begins, but US White-Protestant power is still dominant nationwide;

    20th century Q3 – Jewish power bid continues/intensifies, largely successful by the end of this period;

    20th century Q4 – Jews are, in this period, the defacto ruling caste in the USA; taboos around Jews and Israel define US politics and Jews begin to be quasi-venerated in US culture thru the “Big H” religious narrative (the “Big H” to which I refer was, not coincidentally, awarded its capital letter at the beginning of this period, whereas previously it could refer to any large-scale, destructive, traumatic event and was lower-case.)

    21st century Q1 – the Jewish power caste is in fairly firm control and the dominant element of the new US ruling class; its project for transforming the US into a vast, ethnocultural-mush and vassal state to Israel proceeds steadily. The recent incident of the pair of chutzpah Israelis (Hazony and Brog) aggressively policing American nationalism from the inside is an example of their typical modus operandi by this period;

    21st century Q2 – ? As the power structure since 20th century Q4 has sponsored many elite foreign immigrants; three scenarios: (1) Jews could begin to be displaced at the top by a successor ethnocultural coalition, (2) Jewish power could maintain its tight hold on the US, (3) The process of US breakup could begin, which could turn things in unpredictable directions but which will inevitably weaken Jewish power.

    • Replies: @anon
    Correction: Walter Lippmann was Jewish.
  128. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US's most economically prosperous region. New England wasn't anywhere close.

    Well, yeah, then there was that pesky “Industrial Revolution” thing. Hey, another “revolution” for conservatives to bemoan!

  129. Do Puritans run over their relatives because of a “dirty look” at kindergarten graduation? Probably not.

    “A woman who was at a kindergarten graduation ceremony on June 5 believed that Perez-Hernandez, a relative, “was giving her dirty looks,” according to a search warrant affidavit. After the ceremony, Perez-Hernandez drove to the woman’s home….”

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900081331/utah-woman-ran-over-other-woman-following-dirty-look-at-kindergarten-graduation-police-say.html

    Also note that Utah’s #1 paper provides a fascinating glimpse of how to report “news” without admitting the obvious of what is reported.

    Today’s front web page headlines this article implying immigration enforcement harms US values:

    “Religious groups react to rumors the U.S. will stop admitting refugees. What would it mean for U.S. values?”

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900081365/mike-pompeo-president-trump-refugees-syria-afghanistan-south-sudan.html

    Followed by this article:

    “Voters not so pleased with Utah members of Congress, especially Sen. Mitt Romney”

    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900081384/utah-members-congress-approval-rating-mitt-romney-ben-mcadams-john-curtis.html

  130. @Steve Sailer
    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in "The New World." Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    It's a beautiful movie but very slow.

    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in “The New World.” Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

    The Virginia Company in the new world in 1607 was after gold, glory and God — in that order.

    Good use of Wagner by Malick but the guy taking some of the water and putting it to his mouth and spitting it out seems out of place. It didn’t seem ceremonial and they were aware of contaminants at that point in history.

    Farrell is a Leprechaun turd with a full head of hair — why should we watch him — and Plummer is a pissant who didn’t like the way Malick did things.

    Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.

    As far as Leprechauns go, I like Jeremiah Sullivan, he fought in the American Secessionary War against the British Empire and he was born in North Carolina and he’s my blood.

    I get angry with misbehaving Leprechaun slobs such as Jim Comey and John Brennan and any other random Leprechaun drunk I run across because they make the Irish look bad.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Don’t forget the representative of Satan on earth, supreme scumbag Chief Justice William Brennan who created the doctrine that disproportionate representation is “ in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination “ in Griggs vs Duke Power 1973.

    What a traitor. The best thing the American Irish Catholics ever did was create an alternative private K- University education system that’s proved infinitely superior to the public school system. So what did this Irish Catholic do?

    He completely destroyed the merit system that benefited the well educated. And changed affirmative action from “ do not discriminate against qualified blacks” into
    “ you must discriminate against the best qualified Whites in favor of functionally retarded blacks and never ever fire them for total incompetency embezzlement or any other justifiable cause”
    , @anonymous
    "Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair."

    What's with the hair?

    I was very fond of my hair, and would like to have it back.
  131. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    I don’t mean to be offensive, but marrying the women of a different ethnic group doesn’t necessarily mean you like the other group. In fact, it’s usually the opposite. Historically, in tribal and ancient warfare the winners used to take up as wives the women of the defeated tribe or nation. They were war booty.
    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband’s ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.
    I know you’ll say that Jews follow matrilineal descent, but we all know it’s no longer so, because of the high rate of outmarriage.
    For the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with hating other groups and loving your own ethnic group. It’s human nature. So is sexual attraction to other races. Myself, I find it increasingly difficult to love my own ethnic group because of its weakness and decadence, while still finding other groups alien and hostile for the most part.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband’s ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.
     
    Well, judging from hwhite perspective- blacks are visually the most different race. Yet, according to Brits, they're not "conquering" anyone, but are trying to "get bleached". I don't know how it all will work, but I don't think your line of reasoning holds water.

    https://qz.com/1279306/royal-wedding-2018-meghan-markles-mixed-race-marriage-isnt-unusual-in-the-uk/

    Mixed race women (who are black and white), like Markle, are more likely to marry or cohabitate with white men in the UK. According to the 2011 census, 65% of mixed-race women (black and white) are married or cohabitate with white men. Around 16% are in a relationship with mixed race men (black and white), while just 14% are in a relationship with black men.
  132. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @Counterinsurgency

    evolved into Universalists and Unitarians.
     
    I hear that they got their name from calling each other "nits". Never actually heard them do that myself, but the one time I attended a Unitarian service the preacher was dressed as a clown, complete with red nose. Individually, I've found Unitarians to be the most intolerant and closed minded people I've met so far, including hostile Jews, which makes the "nits" story at least plausible. The name fits.

    Counterinsurgency

    IIRC, there was a trend or fad (theology has them, like business) called “Clown Ministry.” At least, there was a book with that title, but I never had the heart to look into it. Come to think of it, wasn’t Jesus a clown in some musical, like Godspell? I guess it’s part of that whole “foolishness to the Greeks” stuff, that’s some of the worse Christian notions (explaining how they thrived among slaves and women: don’t listen to those smarty-pants masters and philosophers! When they call you fools, embrace it!”)

    • Replies: @FPD72
    I don’t think you’re grasping what Paul meant by “wise” and “foolish” in the passage you cite.

    By “Greeks search for wisdom” Paul meant that like much of the Greco-Roman world, the Corinthians were obsessed with the pursuit of status, one means of which was a philosophical mastery of life demonstrated by achievement, success, esteem, and honor. The wisdom of a philosophical system was measured by the ability of its leader and his followers to acquire such status.

    By “foolishness” Paul was describing concepts in the gospel of Christ that were not in accordance with received wisdom, with the spirit and way of thinking of the then existing world order. If wisdom resulted in status for a philosopher or teacher, then a despised Savior, hanging on a cross, was foolishness indeed.
  133. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @TelfoedJohn
    I kind of like the idea of the U-U - finding your own spiritual path. But it inevitably turns into mush. The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally.

    “The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally.”

    I did not know that. If true, more evidence that “religion” is as meaningless as “proposition nation;” it’s the people (racial or ethnic) that make the culture.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
    Religion, or at least the successful ones, are simply a way to keep your culture while within (or surrounded by) hostile territory. The Homburg hat and frock coat of the Orthodox Jew has little connection with the ancient Hebrews of the Holy Land - it’s just to differentiate.

    Same kind of thing with Islam - both the promoters and detractors of Islam are keen to spread the idea that Islam conquered with the sword. But the evidence suggests that Islam only became a formidable religion decades after the invasions, and long after Mohamed. In other words, the invaders needed to find a way to separate themselves from the pagans/christians around them, and Islam filled this purpose.
  134. @SFG
    Not really the political class so much as the Boston-NYC-DC axis that comprises academia, media, and finance.

    The political class is a little more diverse (hah)--Texas oil barons and Midwestern agribusiness bosses and so on.

    Not really the political class so much as the Boston-NYC-DC axis that comprises academia, media, and finance.

    Agreed, but until very recently the Boston-NYC-DC (Yankeedom, New Amsterdam, and bureaucracy) were the dominant alliance in the US political class, with subject allies on the Left Coast and islands of subject ally support (the megacities) distributed over CONUS. Boston-NYC-DC still thinks its dominant, but it looks shaky.

    Counterinsurgency

  135. What you’re seeing here is the withering away of the old white Left. Engels wrote the following about what happens as the new order establishes itself:

    The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.

    The Squad et.al. are not trying to abolish old-style leftism, the quaint bougie* lifestyle accoutrement of wealthy San Francisco Democrats. As the Somalians, the Tamils and Hindus, the Latinx and the Han establish themselves, all of these old American Left ideas will wither away and be replaced. It will all happen naturally. The government of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton will be replaced by the efficient administration of mass immigration and the replacement of the legacy stock.

    It’s worth noting that when Stalin took power he decided that at least a few Soviet State institutions needed to exist to protect the delicate plant of communism. I’d expect that when Ilan Omar and AOC take control of the House they won’t try to abolish it; they’ll want to use it to protect the movement, or at least their clan, la Raza, etc. and collect the money that remains in the 401K plans of old white Leftists.

    *Millennial slang taken from “bourgeois” and used ironically.

  136. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    I kind of felt like you did until a few years ago, but looking at the output of Hollywood and the NYT, I have come to agree there is this anti-WASP animus among the liberal Jews who produce a lot of cultural and academic output.

    I suspect it started as a reaction to actual exclusion back in the 50s through 80s, and changed into a desire to prove they still have oppressed status from the 90s onward. You see this in stuff like the Forward where they are worried Jews are going to get kicked out of the social justice movement.

    That does *not* seem to extend to people like you or my mom (who did the same thing in reverse), and it's more among people who work in these glamour industries. Your average Jewish oncologist in Scarsdale or Beachwood? Nah.

    I do wonder how much of the Kevin MacDonald stuff is a boiling-off effect, where less ethnocentric and/or philojaphetic/non-anti-gentile Jews just marry out of the tribe and are lost to it. If you're of Jewish ancestry and lean conservative temperamentally but not willing to lead an Orthodox life, you just marry a Christian, let the kids pick what religion what they want, and the grandkids wind up Christian. You think Stephen Miller's going to find a Jewish girl?

    Oh, and (((Freud))) is BS. Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy.

    “Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy.”

    Ellis and perhaps Beck just ripped off Stoics, but good to see a good word put in for RET or whatever they’re calling it now (have to keep changing the name so it looks new, being just Stoicism warmed over)

    • Replies: @SFG
    I remember reading the books, and Ellis at least gave full credit to the Stoics as precursors of his philosophy.

    You read his stuff these days, and you think, "Man, if the intellectual class had read this instead of Freud we'd be a lot better off". The whole bit about how you have to choose to be offended? Can you imagine telling someone they can just ignore someone saying something offensive?

    , @stillCARealist
    REBT. I had to look it up, and it seems it's cognitive behavioral therapy, which is itself just a return to common sense. I did a form of it about 15 years ago while dealing with anxiety and panic attacks. The most useful advice I got was, "Don't drink caffeine. Ever." What a difference it's made!
  137. “Marilynne Robinson: Why Don’t the Woke Care About My Leftist Puritan Ancestors Anymore?”

    Based on this claim from Infogalactic and Wikipedia it seems unlikely that Williamson had any Puritan Ancestors. She may have had communist ancestors, though:

    Williamson was born in Houston, Texas, in 1952.[10][11][12] She is the youngest of three children of Samuel “Sam” Williamson, an immigration lawyer,[12][13] and Sophie Ann (Kaplan), a homemaker.[14][15] Her family is Jewish, and she was raised in Conservative Judaism.[13][16] Her father’s original surname was Vishnevetsky.[17] After graduating from Houston’s Bellaire High School, Williamson spent two years studying theater and philosophy at Pomona College in Claremont, California.[14]

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Marianne_Williamson

    • Replies: @SFG
    You've, uh, got the wrong Marilynne...I mean Marianne...I can see how this happened.

    Have a jade egg.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Williamson is not Robinson.

    Williamson is a typical New Ager (Findhorn, Jane Roberts, EST, Alan Watts, Helen Schucman, P.V.I. Khan, Raymond Moody, Kenneth Ring, Phylis Atwater, Castaneda, Oscar Ichazo, Louise Hay, Ken Wilber (he doth protest),..) with great ancestors in HPB, Rudolf Steier, Max Heindel, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Crowley, MacGregor Mathers, Evans Wentz, Roerich, David-Neel etc.

    Williamson has nothing to do with Robinson.
  138. anon[588] • Disclaimer says:

    The cracks in the WASP establishment were showing up the 1910’s. The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann, and the like. They saw themselves more as modern “men of ideas”, as opposed to men hewn primarily by their ancestry and culture. Another prevailing theme was contempt for what we would call “core American” values. For some perspective, this intellectual movement won out completely by the 1940’s.

    Enter Jewish intellectuals in the 1950’s. Jewish academics took these ideas, combined them with an existing contempt for traditional Gentile culture, and kicked the process into overdrive. The Culture War starting in the 1950’s — basically, Secular Cosmopolitan thinkers going after traditional Protestant culture in the courts and media — was a disaster, and spearheaded by secular Jewish intellectuals. But, they were enabled by WASP progressives and modernists of the prior 50 years. Another undercurrent to all of this, was 2nd and 3rd generation Jews reverting back to historical, anti-Gentile patterns, whereas their parents/grand-parents had probably been grateful to be in the US. Just a guess.

    There are two factors changing this going forward:

    1) Collapsing Jewish birth rates outside of Orthodox circles, and a high degree of miscegeny among secular Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi culture that defined American intellectual life from 1960-present has about ten years left in it. After that, the demographic math ends it. The most obvious example of this is the current Democratic party which resembles ethno-politics crème brûlée — a thin crust of geriatrics with world views squarely inside the Ashkenazi-defined box, but not resembling the younger cohort that follows them in any intellectual regard.

    2) The growth of big tech. Someone pointed out on here that the internet has been a disaster for the Jews. True on many levels. First, it has displaced many middle-man industries, where Jews tend to work. Additionally, there is the geographic aspect of it being on the West Coast, where mathematically-inclined Indians and Asians gained a foothold, before Jewish nepotism could become the defacto hiring practice. Zuckerburg and Page are probably the last of the Jewish moguls in tech. Finally, tech has completely disrupted the Jewish control of information. I suspect this is just getting started, but we’ll see.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann ....

    H. L. Mencken was German-American and Walter Lippmann Jewish-American.
    , @Alden
    A few elderly Ashkenazi types are desperately trying to revive Yiddish. A couple times a year the Jewish press publishes articles about this desperate attempt. The baby boomer Ashkenazi women stopped cooking that Yiddish E European food as soon as they got out of their mothers houses.

    All they have left is Ellis Island and Auschwitz
    , @Anonymous
    In addition to Walter Lippman being Jewish, Randolph Bourne was a protege of Horrace Kallen, a Polish Zionist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Kallen ).

    The historical record is unequivocal: immediately upon disembarking in the US, the European Jewish intelligentsia was pushing for open borders. This was not unnoticed at the time. During the debates for the 1924 Immigration Act, it was discussed. Also see this 1924 clipping from the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

    https://www.jta.org/1924/02/05/archive/you-must-fight-this-nordic-nonsense-says-zangwill

    Kevin MacDonald documents this era of WASP intellectual history extensively, here: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/07/29/macdonald-kaufmann/

    Once the Ivy League professoriate became predominately Jewish (particularly in law), it was a matter of time before a WASP-centric view of the America became an anachronism.
  139. @syonredux

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.
     
    Well, they weren't behind the spread of slavery, and that was by far the most destructive social movement in American history......

    As for Political Correctness, I tend to think that Jews play a key role....

    New England shipowners were heavily involved in the slave trade. The shipyards of Marblehead MA produced ships custom fitted for the slave trade.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    • Replies: @Flip
    Yes. You can read about the Brown family of Rhode Island for some background.
  140. Another Puritan descendant here; can’t deny some of the points against the New England WASPs, but note that Calvin Coolidge’s government passed the 1924 Immigration Act. With the active support of Lodge, etc. There has always been a conservative wing despite the progressive Unitarian types. But that portion of the WASP elite was largely done in once it lost control of its spiritual and cultural strongholds like Boston and Hartford to the Irish and the Depression knocked the Lodge-Coolidge crowd out of national power more or less permanently.

    • Agree: EldnahYm
  141. We Jamestown Americans feel your pain.

  142. @James Braxton
    He avenged the Irish Rebellion.

    The British claim to Ireland was nominally based on a land grant by the only English Pope in History. It was really based on British greed just like all their other territorial claims. The best place for Britain and Ireland would be as principalities in a revived Holy Roman Empire, except that Empire keeps threatening to become a latter day Western European USSR. Anyway, Mr. London Bob and Mr. Braxton, you will never be able to undo the results of the rebellions of 1776, and 1916.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!
  143. @Barnard
    Yes, every single man she mentions, even the murdering lunatic John Brown would reject her characterisation of his beliefs. I suppose no one on the modern left knows enough about any of these or cares enough to challenge her.

    The fanaticism was passed down from generation to generation.

  144. @Counterinsurgency

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.
     
    They've had their ups and downs. The usual pattern is that they win control, disgust the rest of the country, and lose control.

    So far, 3 ups: Van Buren, CivilWar/Reconstruction, our current "soft reconstruction" and resettlement. Downs: Van Buren's attempt to impose stricter government ("Alien and sedition acts") failed badly, and his party vanished (although its population group later became Republicans). Reconstruction was rejected c.a. 1890s, current rejection of current programs is ongoing.

    Quite a bunch. In the 1950s, American settlement was propagandized as being _only_ by the Pilgrims - nobody else was mentioned as a founding group in the popular media.

    Counterinsurgency

    Van Buren was Jackson’s successor and a Democrat, not a Whig or a proto-Whig. His party is still with us today. He was Northern and he did become a Free Soiler later. Also the only President who spoke English as a second language, after Dutch.

  145. @PiltdownMan

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.
     
    My guess is that there will be an absolute firestorm of controversy and woke revisionism, especially since the 400th anniversary will be about a week after Election day.

    As it is, in recent years, woke undergraduates and activists from the Boston area have been going out to Plymouth Rock for Thanksgiving and screeching and wailing at the ocean, in some weird annual ritual show of solidarity with Native Americans.

    The Lost Colony is a play by Paul Green produced in 1937 with WPA funding to observe the 350th anniversary of Virginia Dare’s birth. It’s still performed several times annually at the original site of the colony. That’s as close as we’re likely to get.

    It won some kind of Tony award in 2013. Hard to believe they would give it an award today, given the subject.

  146. @Anonymous
    If this is going to be a groaner contest....

    A frog goes into a bank, and hops up on the desk of the loan officer. ''Hi,'' he croaks.''What's your name?''

    The loan officer says, ''My name is John Paddywack. May I help you?''

    ''Yeah,'' says the frog. ''I'd like to borrow some money.''

    The loan officer finds this a little odd, but gets out a form. ''Okay,what's your name?''

    The frog replies, ''Kermit Jagger.''

    ''Really?'' says the loan officer. ''Any relation to Mick Jagger?''

    ''Yeah, he's my dad.''

    ''Hmmm,'' says the loan officer. ''Do you have any collateral?''

    The frog hands over a pink ceramic elephant and asks, ''Will this do?''

    The loan officer says, ''Um, I'm not sure. Let me go check with the bank manager.''

    ''Oh, tell him I said hi,'' adds the frog. ''He knows me.''

    The loan officer goes back to the manager and says, ''Excuse me, sir, but there's a frog out there named Kermit Jagger who wants to borrow some money. All he has for collateral is this pink elephant thing; I'm not even sure what it is.''

    The manager says: ''It's a knick-knack, Paddywack, give the frog a loan; his old man's a Rolling Stone.''
     

    Punchline definitely worth the set up.

    I don’t know if that genre of joke has a name but it could be called “reverse engineered.”

    It’s also interesting that it works better in writing than if it were spoken.

  147. Marilynne Robinson likes John of Gaunt.

    If you are related to the Inman family that is connected to John of Gaunt, you should like John of Gaunt too.

    Marilynne Robinson:

    Since he was at the same time an eminent scholar, Wycliffe helped to give British religious dissent a distinctive intellectualism that bypassed barriers of class. He accomplished this, notably, by making the first translation of the entire Bible into English and by writing religious/political tracts in English, like the one just quoted, some of which circulated for more than a century, though possession of them was deeply incriminating. Oxford students and others took pages of Scripture out among the poor so that they could hear them read in their own language. At this time there was a moment of early literary brilliance, in the English writing of Geoffrey Chaucer, John Gower, William Langland, and others. These poets, and Wycliffe as well, enjoyed the protection of important figures, notably John of Gaunt, possibly Richard II and certainly his wife, Anne of Bohemia. The movement associated with Wycliffe, called Lollardy, was violently suppressed and driven underground by Henry IV. Many Lollards were burned, but their movement remained active and influential, finally merging with the Reformation and Puritanism.

  148. @Hail
    There is no single-year turning point, of course, and transitions tend to last decades, to some extent.

    Lately I have come to believe that "quarters of a century" are the most useful unit-of-analysis for these purposes:

    - 20th century Q1 - Traditional US ruling class (our own people, flaws and all) in power;

    - 20th century Q2 - Power bid by Jews (who had begun to arrive in 19th century Q4) begins, but US White-Protestant power is still dominant nationwide;

    - 20th century Q3 - Jewish power bid continues/intensifies, largely successful by the end of this period;

    - 20th century Q4 - Jews are, in this period, the defacto ruling caste in the USA; taboos around Jews and Israel define US politics and Jews begin to be quasi-venerated in US culture thru the "Big H" religious narrative (the "Big H" to which I refer was, not coincidentally, awarded its capital letter at the beginning of this period, whereas previously it could refer to any large-scale, destructive, traumatic event and was lower-case.)

    - 21st century Q1 - the Jewish power caste is in fairly firm control and the dominant element of the new US ruling class; its project for transforming the US into a vast, ethnocultural-mush and vassal state to Israel proceeds steadily. The recent incident of the pair of chutzpah Israelis (Hazony and Brog) aggressively policing American nationalism from the inside is an example of their typical modus operandi by this period;

    - 21st century Q2 - ? As the power structure since 20th century Q4 has sponsored many elite foreign immigrants; three scenarios: (1) Jews could begin to be displaced at the top by a successor ethnocultural coalition, (2) Jewish power could maintain its tight hold on the US, (3) The process of US breakup could begin, which could turn things in unpredictable directions but which will inevitably weaken Jewish power.

    Correction: Walter Lippmann was Jewish.

  149. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    If there is an ethnic conflict/rivalry, it’s definitely not at the individual level.

    I think for those on the Right the perception of a “war” stems mostly from the overabundance of jews among highly influential leftist in politics, academia and culture. Plus the fact that maybe 80% of rank and file are liberal democrats.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Yeah, the high verbal IQ acts as a force multiplier, for good and ill (mostly ill in this case sadly).

    Jews are more than the 0.4% you'd expect of conservative pundits for the same reason. (There's also the perception that you're arguing against interest which makes you more convincing, all else equal. It's the reason Thomas Sowell is so much better known than, say, Arthur Jensen.)

  150. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    If, as a jew, you have no animus toward the Gentiles, how do see the dominance of jews in finance, media, jewish control of government, the Federal Reserve, and our universities, the wars fought on behalf of our greatest ally, Emmanuel Cellar, Morganthau, the Balfour Declaration, the jewish schemes that led us into WWI and WWII, the ADL, the jewish roots of feminism, the jewish influence on Vatican II, how do you view the complete control of our institutions that has resulted in their corruption and destruction, the laws passed that ban any criticism of your co-ethny or any questioning of the holohoax, how can you look at all this and conclude, “Meh”?

    If the jews did want to destroy Christendom what would they have done any differently? By their works you will know them, indeed!

    I imagine it’s difficult to be born a self-aware jew in America. If I had that fate I suppose I’d either reject the faith of my fathers, reject Satan and all of his works and become a devout Christian in hope of making amends (e.g. Gertrude Stein), or move to Israel where I belonged.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    All points you've enumerated are pure unadulterated trash. Jews & their influence in US society may be an interesting topic- but to discuss something, you have to know the issues discussed. Which is not the case.

    US Jews - I mean Jewy Jews who retained some kind of their tribal consciousness- represent not more than 15-20% of American Jewry (and yes, they're pain in the @ss). And many of them, especially those with Israeli connections, are humorless & boring people no free spirit would bother to associate with, whichever his (non)religious persuasion.
    , @Neuday
    Edith Stein, not Gertrude.
  151. @Cagey Beast
    As someone from a Tory background, it seems ironic to see her lamenting the lack of reverence for iconoclasts and regicides. "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

    I want to sympathize with her tribe but they're a big part of how the West got into this mess.

    “Live by the sword, die by the sword.”

    Does that not also apply to kings and aristocrats, who are after all simply the descendants of the most successful members of the Brute Squad?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    It applies to many people, in many instances. In the case of the WASPs though, the sword is mostly metaphorical. They're a bourgeois people, so their weapons of choice have been economic and social, rather than physical.

    WASPs came into being after the Civil War and during the Second Industrial Revolution. That's when a group of money-grubbing, iconoclastic, Europhobic people did everything they could to become a new patrician class in America. Now a new group is giving that a try.
  152. @Anonymous
    The flawed reformation of the Church of England is what created the Puritans in the first place. The English Reformation was less principled than the reformations of Luther and Calvin. That's why the religious landscape in England is confused between non-conformist Protestants, Evangelical Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and Roman Catholics. Anglo-Catholicism is a really strange pick-and-choose form of pseudo-Catholicism and there's different degrees of it. Some Anglo-Catholics are basically Protestants, while others are hardly any different from Roman Catholics. And you have everything in between.

    Some people seem to think the Puritans were a distinct ethnic group, but they were just a subset of the English nation. Religion doesn't change blood. A Puritan and a Catholic Englishman are of the same ethnic group.

    I like the Puritans because of common blood, but I do dislike their leaders who destroyed the Anglo-Saxon South and tried to impose the mixing of the races, which was only beaten back by paramilitaries such as the Red Shirts, White League, rifle clubs, etc. Slavery was something we inherited from colonial times so we didn't deserve the demonization or destruction. But I do think that Southern civilization was superior:

    A major theme of the Cult of the Lost Cause was the clash of two civilizations, one inferior to the other. The North, “invigorated by constant struggle with nature, had become materialistic, grasping for wealth and power.” The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”
     
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-i-learned-about-cult-lost-cause-180968426/

    The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”

    And slavery. By my lights, kidnapping and enslaving people because you don’t want to actually work yourself is not exactly “veracity and honor.” In fact, I find it difficult to think of anything more dishonorable.

    It was of course well known that northern women were all lying whores.

    • Replies: @Alden
    I assumed you’re a southerner.

    The worst thing about the southern slave owners was the way they used the slaves to keep down non slave owning Whites Slavery made most Whites poor and the slave owning Whites despised the other Whites for being poor.

    Very similar to affirmative action’s abolishing the merit system. It keeps the Whites down.

    So you disapprove of enslaving Africans but approve of the war criminal genocidal Oliver Cromwell enslaving 250,000 White Irish Catholics and selling them in the Caritabd American colonies. I wonder how much money he made from that slavery business?

  153. @Counterinsurgency

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.
     
    They've had their ups and downs. The usual pattern is that they win control, disgust the rest of the country, and lose control.

    So far, 3 ups: Van Buren, CivilWar/Reconstruction, our current "soft reconstruction" and resettlement. Downs: Van Buren's attempt to impose stricter government ("Alien and sedition acts") failed badly, and his party vanished (although its population group later became Republicans). Reconstruction was rejected c.a. 1890s, current rejection of current programs is ongoing.

    Quite a bunch. In the 1950s, American settlement was propagandized as being _only_ by the Pilgrims - nobody else was mentioned as a founding group in the popular media.

    Counterinsurgency

    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.

    There are some things we can criticize VB for, but that isn’t one of them.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency

    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.
     
    Right you are. I've been making that mistake for so long that I didn't check it. Bad move.

    Change the names around and the analysis is correct. The Whigs got a President early on, and it was their last President as Whigs. They later formed the core of the Republican party.

    Counterinsurgency
  154. @Tiny Duck
    Is there a more insidious and perfidious group of people than whites?

    Slavet colonialydn hatred

    Look up Garrett Phillips tragedy

    People of Color agree with me that white make Christian's are evil brutes

    Ya know…..you might like Leonard Pitts! Check him out Trent.

  155. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    That’s what you get for watching PBS.

    There’s also two Jamestown(e)s. One is a partnership of the Virginia elite ARPVA & the National Park Service which bought Jamestown Island and made Colonial National Historical Park. Their contributions are scholarly but tend toward the narrative.

    Jamestown Settlement & the American Revolution Museum at Yorktown are private foundations merged at the site of the recreated Jamestown Fort. They cater to current thought far less, and their historyisfun.org URL tends to be true; ie more fun. Every year in March they host Military Through the Ages, re-enactment camps of military units from 1 AD through today that (gasp!) shoot guns and suchlike.

    The National Park is too big to ignore, but the whole area of Jamestown is not to be experienced though PBS journo-lists.

  156. The Beechers, John Brown, and many other Abolitionists were descendants of the Pilgrims or Puritans. This is not especially remarkable, since after the great migration that followed the fall of the Commonwealth there was a long period without significant immigration.

    Sorry, sweetie. Your history is off.

    The Great Migration occurred before the civil wars started, not during the Restoration. It ended in 1840. It did not start in 1860.

    In fact, something like 10% of the people of New England went back to join in the fighting.

    Also, the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms.

    • Replies: @Hail

    the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms
     
    Exactly.
    , @Logan
    That should of course read 1640 and 1680.

    Sorry.
  157. @Hypnotoad666
    If there is an ethnic conflict/rivalry, it's definitely not at the individual level.

    I think for those on the Right the perception of a "war" stems mostly from the overabundance of jews among highly influential leftist in politics, academia and culture. Plus the fact that maybe 80% of rank and file are liberal democrats.

    Yeah, the high verbal IQ acts as a force multiplier, for good and ill (mostly ill in this case sadly).

    Jews are more than the 0.4% you’d expect of conservative pundits for the same reason. (There’s also the perception that you’re arguing against interest which makes you more convincing, all else equal. It’s the reason Thomas Sowell is so much better known than, say, Arthur Jensen.)

  158. The correct answer is: because all Leftist revolutions eventually get around to cannibalizing their own, including their most important own. Stalin, for example, survived only because he cannibalized most major Jewish Bolsheviks before they could cannibalize him..

    At the end of this revolution against Christendom, WASPs will go from being ignored for their indispensable service to Leftism to being cannibalized.

  159. I’ve skimmed through her confused article & she is- not even wrong. Blake has basically nothing to do with Cromwell. I could catalog her confusions, but this is a comments section.

    Puritan spirit in imaginative literature, to call it that, is well & alive even in contemporary dreadful academia. Hawthorne is one of the most celebrated authors; Faulkner called himself “Puritan”, although in the Dixie context (he meant, I guess, Calvinist extreme Augustinian obsessions). William Gaddis is your Puritan’s Puritan & is hailed as the true American classic & one of the precursors of the two most celebrated living American novelists McCarthy & Pynchon (OK, they’re both, technically, Catholics, but Pynchon is, I think, of old Puritan stock). Wallace & Auster are some kind of wishy-washy Protestants (Auster has partly Jewish ancestry), so although secular, they retain something of an old spirit.
    Updike …well, he was a Dutchman.

    Robinson is basically deploring the fact that her female readership is into multi-cultural colored 3rd world trash & crude leftism, while she, like a typical liberal Unitarian leftist, is left to hang out to dry. Hard cheese, old gal!

    White womyn of today are reading worthless gynecological turd world fiction; on the other hand, men, those who still sometimes read, are mostly into lower-level faction which is not amenable to canonization (too low-brow).

    High level American canonical imaginative literature is now mostly Catholic & Puritan (after all, those guys always liked to burn witches). Jews had mostly shot their bolt, blacks have never been a big deal, while you Puritan broads with your tiresome lefty preaching better decide whose side you’re on.

    Or switch to self-help.

  160. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    Pilgrims aka seperatists, settled Plymouth (1620) – the Puritans of Boston (1630) hated them.

  161. @Hibernian
    The British claim to Ireland was nominally based on a land grant by the only English Pope in History. It was really based on British greed just like all their other territorial claims. The best place for Britain and Ireland would be as principalities in a revived Holy Roman Empire, except that Empire keeps threatening to become a latter day Western European USSR. Anyway, Mr. London Bob and Mr. Braxton, you will never be able to undo the results of the rebellions of 1776, and 1916.

    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I'm proposing a compromise settlement: Ulster will continue as is and the UK will cede Glasgow and Liverpool, to become exclaves of the Republic of Ireland.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    You're a bit behind the times. It is the Catholics who have surrendered: not so much to Ulster as to the EU and the modern age.
    I have just returned from a few days in Dublin, a place I knew well in the 1980s. The Church was still reasonably respectable, and most people smiled as they passed the many priests in the streets and crossed themselves as they passed the many churches.
    Today the Church echoes secular thought, and the ill-dressed and international mob which walks the streets of a once dowdy but at least recognisably Irish city now glower at the (very few) clerics who venture fearfully out of their now normally shuttered edifices to go about their increasingly pointless "pastoral activities". Dublin, I learned, has precisely two seminarians for a "Catholic" population of over one million. The average age of the priests is closer to seventy than sixty.

    The "Catholic" part of de Valera's vision is over and done with; the disappearance of the"Irish" part is a matter of mere decades.

    , @Cagey Beast
    You sound like someone who lies on the carpet and plays with toy soldiers.
    , @Alden
    My husband’s a descendant of Ulstermen in his father’s side. They traced the family direct descent back to 1,300s AD southern Scotland

    The Ulstermen were southern Scotland border bandits for centuries. They made their living from extortion and protection rackets in Scotland and cattle thieving and kidnapping over the border in England. They were uncontrollable in Scotland since there was no effective national or local government in Scotland. Just various warlords and mafias as in Africa

    Only the great Lords of the North, Percy Rutland York and others kept Northern England somewhat safe from the Scots bandits and cattle rustlers.

    Now to the mid and late 1500s AD. Queen Mary of Scotland was the only child of Scots King James 5. As per standard Scottish custom, James mysteriously died when she was a week old. But the mafia warlords were foiled by James’ wife Queen Mary’s Mother, Mary of Guise a very formidable warlord, herself.

    James 5 had another child an older half brother of Mary, James Stewart Earl of Moray. James and his maternal warlord family were of course furious that James 5 had a legitimate daughter who became Queen.

    James Stewart hired an itinerant canting Puritan preacher, John Knox to rant and rave about women and papism. The cheaply printed copies of the sex and violence OT were very popular with the Scots primitives.

    James Stewart's plan succeeded in that Queen Mary was overthrown largely due to Knox’s rants. But the other warlords defeated his attempt to install himself as King and instead crowned Mary’s 1 year old baby as James 6. James 6 survived 17 assassination attempts before he was safely installed as King of England.

    Which brings us to 1590 1600. Elizabeth of England was getting old with no heir. There were several heirs including James King of Scotland. Both the heirs and lords and politicians of England discussed who the heir to the English throne would be. James 6 claim was a bit weakened in that he was descended from only one of Henry 7 ‘s daughters, Margaret.

    So the movers and shakers of England discussed with the heirs what each heir could do for England when he or she became sovereign.

    James 6, King of Scotland promised he’d solve the centuries long problem of the Scots border bandit kidnappers cattle rustlers robbers and thieves. James kept his promise when he became James 1 of England

    James 1 did solve the problem. James 1 deported all the southern Scots border bandits to Ulster with orders to genocide the Irish Resistants to English rule and enslavement.

    That’s the history of the Ulstermen, a criminal warlord mafia deported to Ireland by James 1 in accordance with his promise to English politicians and Lords to rid N England of the Scots border bandits.

    Now, Elizabeth 1 managed to suppress Catholic dissidents against the Church of England. James 1 was faced with the growing Puritan rebels which ended in Oliver Cromwell’s regicide and installation of a tyrannical dictatorship.

    The Scots border bandits now relocated to Scotland didn’t fulfill their promise to James and the English politicians. They started up a new version of Puritanism and tried to overthrow James official Church of Ireland. Plus they didn’t manage to genocide the Irish. Nor did they settle down, work hard and pay taxes.

    So James came up with another solution. He deported the Ulstermen to the American frontier where they were plopped down to fight off the Indians to keep the coastal merchants and plantation owners safe.

    And there the Scots Irish Ulstermen have stayed ever since in the poorest part of the country. Except for the ones who went west and got out of poverty stricken Appalachia.

    As for your hero King Billy? He was nothing but a tool of the Jewish Amsterdam bankers who established The Bank of England soon after they installed William and Mary on the throne of England.
    That’s the proud history of the Ulstermen insane religious fanatics deported from both Scotland and Ireland and now stuck in the poorest part of America
    , @Flip
    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.
  162. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    Bored by those hot colonial chicks in tight bodices?

  163. @syonredux
    http://www.interfaithimmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pope-Francis-Visit-Graphic-1.jpg

    http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Pope-Francis-Migrant-Crisis-Petrus-Romanus.jpg

    https://78.media.tumblr.com/7b9325a20f8a6140d6097d5b930893f9/tumblr_mqptjeSObP1rncn8lo1_400.png

    All people should be treated with dignity and compassion…

    The admonition is reciprocal. If the invading hordes of immigrants do not respect the rule of law and sovereignty–it’s quite natural to treat them with the dignity and compassion appropriate to an illegal alien. Conduct and responsibility are a two-way street, not one way.

    It behooves those who hold themselves as a moral avatar to proselytize thusly…

    • Agree: Hibernian
  164. @anon
    Throwing the baby out with the white bath water.

    Must’ve been the Ivory Soap…

  165. @syonredux

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.
     
    Well, they weren't behind the spread of slavery, and that was by far the most destructive social movement in American history......

    As for Political Correctness, I tend to think that Jews play a key role....

    Agreed.

    Used the button already.

  166. @Alden
    Agree. Plus the Puritans were more Democratic. The Jamestown gentlemen sneered at the apprentice boys and useful tradesmen.

    The Puritans kept records of everyone including the indentured servants whereas the southerners scorned anyone who was not a gentleman.

    The wealthy southerners used their black slaves to keep the other Whites down. Just as LBJ, Nixon the Supreme Court and their hordes of war on poverty funded Jewish lawyers and activists created affirmative action to keep most Whites down

    Agreed.

  167. @Logan
    The Beechers, John Brown, and many other Abolitionists were descendants of the Pilgrims or Puritans. This is not especially remarkable, since after the great migration that followed the fall of the Commonwealth there was a long period without significant immigration.

    Sorry, sweetie. Your history is off.

    The Great Migration occurred before the civil wars started, not during the Restoration. It ended in 1840. It did not start in 1860.

    In fact, something like 10% of the people of New England went back to join in the fighting.

    Also, the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms.

    the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms

    Exactly.

    • Replies: @Logan
    For every "left-wing" utterance of a prominent Puritan it's not at all difficult to find an equivalent extremely right-wing statement.

    Same is true on the other side, BTW. The Royalists were actually riding the wave of the future at the time, absolutist monarchy. The Parliamentarians were behind the curve of history, upholding the authority of an assembly of estates, an arm of government that had existed almost everywhere in Europe during the Middle Ages but had been almost completely swept away by the 1600s.
  168. @James Braxton
    The Calvinists and the Puritans most certainly did not (and do not, we still exist) deny the divinity of Christ.

    The Calvinists/Puritans were trinitarians. To suggest otherwise is ignorant libel.

    ignorant libel

    A lot of that in this thread, I see.

    Who is behind it?

    I suspect the non-troll component is wannabe-aristocrat Catholics, in alliance with nihilists and general-use trolls? Almost certainly some of our Kosher buddies piling on, too, with (classic) misdirectionist, Absolve-the-Jews-totally, Blame-the-Whites-themselves — in the tradition of Mencius Moldbug.

  169. @anon
    "Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy."

    Ellis and perhaps Beck just ripped off Stoics, but good to see a good word put in for RET or whatever they're calling it now (have to keep changing the name so it looks new, being just Stoicism warmed over)

    I remember reading the books, and Ellis at least gave full credit to the Stoics as precursors of his philosophy.

    You read his stuff these days, and you think, “Man, if the intellectual class had read this instead of Freud we’d be a lot better off”. The whole bit about how you have to choose to be offended? Can you imagine telling someone they can just ignore someone saying something offensive?

  170. @anon
    "The funny thing about the U-U is that the largest growth is in Africa where they are resolutely anti-gay, whereas the US flavor is a non-stop pride rally."

    I did not know that. If true, more evidence that "religion" is as meaningless as "proposition nation;" it's the people (racial or ethnic) that make the culture.

    Religion, or at least the successful ones, are simply a way to keep your culture while within (or surrounded by) hostile territory. The Homburg hat and frock coat of the Orthodox Jew has little connection with the ancient Hebrews of the Holy Land – it’s just to differentiate.

    Same kind of thing with Islam – both the promoters and detractors of Islam are keen to spread the idea that Islam conquered with the sword. But the evidence suggests that Islam only became a formidable religion decades after the invasions, and long after Mohamed. In other words, the invaders needed to find a way to separate themselves from the pagans/christians around them, and Islam filled this purpose.

  171. You won’t get anywhere on here with talk like that.

    All these bozos love identity politics of the white/black variety especially, and can talk about nothing else.

    So you’re not preaching to the choir here. More like the devil’s minions.

  172. @RudyM
    Unless there is an important Puritan William Blake of whom I'm unaware, William Blake was certainly no Puritan, and probably not remotely a small "o" orthodox Christian of any sort.

    He was an English Dissenter.

    But you wouldn’t know what that is.

    It is diverting to watch you braindead bozos lob back and forth your incredibly garbled sophomoric versions of “history.” Graduate from 5th grade and get back to me.

  173. @silviosilver

    Caring about intellectual differences as opposed to identity differences is Not Who We Are Anymore.
     
    I think Not Who We Are (Anymore) is a more impactful way of putting that.

    Then Marilynne is addressing her meditations to the wrong forum, because all the Rocket Scientists on here love, absolutely adore, categorically and without qualification, Identity Politics. It’s blackety-white whitety-black all de liblong day on here and don’t you forget it.

  174. @Neuday
    If, as a jew, you have no animus toward the Gentiles, how do see the dominance of jews in finance, media, jewish control of government, the Federal Reserve, and our universities, the wars fought on behalf of our greatest ally, Emmanuel Cellar, Morganthau, the Balfour Declaration, the jewish schemes that led us into WWI and WWII, the ADL, the jewish roots of feminism, the jewish influence on Vatican II, how do you view the complete control of our institutions that has resulted in their corruption and destruction, the laws passed that ban any criticism of your co-ethny or any questioning of the holohoax, how can you look at all this and conclude, "Meh"?

    If the jews did want to destroy Christendom what would they have done any differently? By their works you will know them, indeed!

    I imagine it's difficult to be born a self-aware jew in America. If I had that fate I suppose I'd either reject the faith of my fathers, reject Satan and all of his works and become a devout Christian in hope of making amends (e.g. Gertrude Stein), or move to Israel where I belonged.

    All points you’ve enumerated are pure unadulterated trash. Jews & their influence in US society may be an interesting topic- but to discuss something, you have to know the issues discussed. Which is not the case.

    US Jews – I mean Jewy Jews who retained some kind of their tribal consciousness- represent not more than 15-20% of American Jewry (and yes, they’re pain in the @ss). And many of them, especially those with Israeli connections, are humorless & boring people no free spirit would bother to associate with, whichever his (non)religious persuasion.

    • Replies: @Neuday
    Your time is coming. God be with you.
  175. @AnotherDad
    I think her real name must be Marilynne van Winkle.

    How clueless do you have to be to not understand why your ancestors are out of fashion? Hello your people ceded control 50+ years ago--to people not known for fair play, good manners or sharing.

    The Puritans were not all of a piece; even less their heirs and descendants.
    Henry Adams was no liberal; neither were Lathrop Stoddard or Madison Grant. Nor, I am certain, were some 90% of the graduating classes of Harvard, Yale, and the minor Ivies, from their various foundations until after the second world war.

    Power was taken from us: weakened by internal traitors like Ward Beecher and the Abolitionists, we were disarmed by the time the immigrants from one country in particular (and I mean neither Ireland or Italy) were ready to make the decisive moves, both financial and cultural, which have indeed granted them a victory which is now, I fear, irreversible.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It's reversible if we can raise enough awareness. But I wouldn't bet on it, sadly.
  176. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback -- a dinosaur of the first order. It's no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she's a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century 'enlightened' post-Puritan.

    It's no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century 'celebrity preacher' of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans' progressive instincts while downplaying -- or even outright ignoring -- the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God's radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:


    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

     

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I've highlighted? It's Jonathan Edwards's 'fresh and joyful' anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson's selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that 'City on a Hill'. To wit:


    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

     

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that's way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we've been there, done that, and here we are -- nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be 'just right'.

    Have you read her novel Gilead? It’s highly recommended. You’d find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

    You get the sense that she really wants to thread the needle between grace and works salvation and still get liberals reading the gospel. I didn’t read this article, admittedly, so maybe she’s more on the works side now, but she seemed like a true Christian author in Gilead.

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Have you read her novel Gilead? It’s highly recommended. You’d find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

     

    Yes, I've read Gilead, and yes, my reaction was much as you've suggested.

    Gilead is an unusual work that I at first found compelling (it is very elegantly written), but something started bothering me as I read, and this feeling of unease only increased as I worked through the novel.

    It was this: although its plot is essentially a take on the parable of the prodigal son, and its protagonist is an Iowa pastor, there is little mention of Jesus, the Cross, the Resurrection -- really, of the Good News, full stop. There is an odd lack of depth to Revd Ames's considerations of baptism and especially the eucharist. They are presented more as aesthetic than as spiritual events. And I know the Old Testament stories Robinson references repeatedly are in keeping with the prophetic, fire-and-blood legacy of Revd Ames's grandfather, but a lifelong pastor who's the descendant of pastors would simply not talk about sin and redemption without coming before the Cross over and over again.

    If you read the essay, you will see that Robinson's interests in the Puritans have only tangential connections to the heart of their theology. She likes aspects of their political program.

  177. @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    I’m proposing a compromise settlement: Ulster will continue as is and the UK will cede Glasgow and Liverpool, to become exclaves of the Republic of Ireland.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    As long as we get to keep Ibrox Stadium.
    , @degsy88
    Liverpool and Everton FC were both formed by prods and there is a parade to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne through Liverpool every year, so you may be biting off more than you can chew there..
  178. @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    You’re a bit behind the times. It is the Catholics who have surrendered: not so much to Ulster as to the EU and the modern age.
    I have just returned from a few days in Dublin, a place I knew well in the 1980s. The Church was still reasonably respectable, and most people smiled as they passed the many priests in the streets and crossed themselves as they passed the many churches.
    Today the Church echoes secular thought, and the ill-dressed and international mob which walks the streets of a once dowdy but at least recognisably Irish city now glower at the (very few) clerics who venture fearfully out of their now normally shuttered edifices to go about their increasingly pointless “pastoral activities”. Dublin, I learned, has precisely two seminarians for a “Catholic” population of over one million. The average age of the priests is closer to seventy than sixty.

    The “Catholic” part of de Valera’s vision is over and done with; the disappearance of the”Irish” part is a matter of mere decades.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Agree.
    , @Cagey Beast
    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: "that never would have happened here in the old days".
  179. @anon
    The cracks in the WASP establishment were showing up the 1910's. The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann, and the like. They saw themselves more as modern "men of ideas", as opposed to men hewn primarily by their ancestry and culture. Another prevailing theme was contempt for what we would call "core American" values. For some perspective, this intellectual movement won out completely by the 1940's.

    Enter Jewish intellectuals in the 1950's. Jewish academics took these ideas, combined them with an existing contempt for traditional Gentile culture, and kicked the process into overdrive. The Culture War starting in the 1950's -- basically, Secular Cosmopolitan thinkers going after traditional Protestant culture in the courts and media -- was a disaster, and spearheaded by secular Jewish intellectuals. But, they were enabled by WASP progressives and modernists of the prior 50 years. Another undercurrent to all of this, was 2nd and 3rd generation Jews reverting back to historical, anti-Gentile patterns, whereas their parents/grand-parents had probably been grateful to be in the US. Just a guess.

    There are two factors changing this going forward:

    1) Collapsing Jewish birth rates outside of Orthodox circles, and a high degree of miscegeny among secular Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi culture that defined American intellectual life from 1960-present has about ten years left in it. After that, the demographic math ends it. The most obvious example of this is the current Democratic party which resembles ethno-politics crème brûlée -- a thin crust of geriatrics with world views squarely inside the Ashkenazi-defined box, but not resembling the younger cohort that follows them in any intellectual regard.

    2) The growth of big tech. Someone pointed out on here that the internet has been a disaster for the Jews. True on many levels. First, it has displaced many middle-man industries, where Jews tend to work. Additionally, there is the geographic aspect of it being on the West Coast, where mathematically-inclined Indians and Asians gained a foothold, before Jewish nepotism could become the defacto hiring practice. Zuckerburg and Page are probably the last of the Jewish moguls in tech. Finally, tech has completely disrupted the Jewish control of information. I suspect this is just getting started, but we'll see.

    The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann ….

    H. L. Mencken was German-American and Walter Lippmann Jewish-American.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Many idiots, especially the descendants of Ellis Island Jews consider that WASPs are just any White American who doesn’t have an Italian name . This includes all the Scots, Irish and Scots Irish descendants plus Roosevelt the WASP even Kennedy the WASP.
    , @Alden
    Bourne’s a French name brought to England by the Norman’s who defeated the angles and saxons.
  180. @Peripatetic Commenter

    "Marilynne Robinson: Why Don't the Woke Care About My Leftist Puritan Ancestors Anymore?"
     
    Based on this claim from Infogalactic and Wikipedia it seems unlikely that Williamson had any Puritan Ancestors. She may have had communist ancestors, though:

    Williamson was born in Houston, Texas, in 1952.[10][11][12] She is the youngest of three children of Samuel "Sam" Williamson, an immigration lawyer,[12][13] and Sophie Ann (Kaplan), a homemaker.[14][15] Her family is Jewish, and she was raised in Conservative Judaism.[13][16] Her father's original surname was Vishnevetsky.[17] After graduating from Houston's Bellaire High School, Williamson spent two years studying theater and philosophy at Pomona College in Claremont, California.[14]
     
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Marianne_Williamson

    You’ve, uh, got the wrong Marilynne…I mean Marianne…I can see how this happened.

    Have a jade egg.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    Whoa. I can't even blame autocorrect, because I just searched again and came up with a Marilynne Robinson ...

    Oh well. The Internet is a wonderful, if somewhat unpredictable place.
  181. @Old Palo Altan
    You're a bit behind the times. It is the Catholics who have surrendered: not so much to Ulster as to the EU and the modern age.
    I have just returned from a few days in Dublin, a place I knew well in the 1980s. The Church was still reasonably respectable, and most people smiled as they passed the many priests in the streets and crossed themselves as they passed the many churches.
    Today the Church echoes secular thought, and the ill-dressed and international mob which walks the streets of a once dowdy but at least recognisably Irish city now glower at the (very few) clerics who venture fearfully out of their now normally shuttered edifices to go about their increasingly pointless "pastoral activities". Dublin, I learned, has precisely two seminarians for a "Catholic" population of over one million. The average age of the priests is closer to seventy than sixty.

    The "Catholic" part of de Valera's vision is over and done with; the disappearance of the"Irish" part is a matter of mere decades.

    Agree.

  182. @Peripatetic Commenter

    "Marilynne Robinson: Why Don't the Woke Care About My Leftist Puritan Ancestors Anymore?"
     
    Based on this claim from Infogalactic and Wikipedia it seems unlikely that Williamson had any Puritan Ancestors. She may have had communist ancestors, though:

    Williamson was born in Houston, Texas, in 1952.[10][11][12] She is the youngest of three children of Samuel "Sam" Williamson, an immigration lawyer,[12][13] and Sophie Ann (Kaplan), a homemaker.[14][15] Her family is Jewish, and she was raised in Conservative Judaism.[13][16] Her father's original surname was Vishnevetsky.[17] After graduating from Houston's Bellaire High School, Williamson spent two years studying theater and philosophy at Pomona College in Claremont, California.[14]
     
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Marianne_Williamson

    Williamson is not Robinson.

    Williamson is a typical New Ager (Findhorn, Jane Roberts, EST, Alan Watts, Helen Schucman, P.V.I. Khan, Raymond Moody, Kenneth Ring, Phylis Atwater, Castaneda, Oscar Ichazo, Louise Hay, Ken Wilber (he doth protest),..) with great ancestors in HPB, Rudolf Steier, Max Heindel, Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Crowley, MacGregor Mathers, Evans Wentz, Roerich, David-Neel etc.

    Williamson has nothing to do with Robinson.

  183. @Logan
    “Live by the sword, die by the sword."

    Does that not also apply to kings and aristocrats, who are after all simply the descendants of the most successful members of the Brute Squad?

    It applies to many people, in many instances. In the case of the WASPs though, the sword is mostly metaphorical. They’re a bourgeois people, so their weapons of choice have been economic and social, rather than physical.

    WASPs came into being after the Civil War and during the Second Industrial Revolution. That’s when a group of money-grubbing, iconoclastic, Europhobic people did everything they could to become a new patrician class in America. Now a new group is giving that a try.

  184. @James Braxton
    The Calvinists and the Puritans most certainly did not (and do not, we still exist) deny the divinity of Christ.

    The Calvinists/Puritans were trinitarians. To suggest otherwise is ignorant libel.

    You’re the ignorant one. Knox and Calvin both endlessly proclaimed “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel.

    They even seriously discussed not eating pork oysters keeping kosher and holding services on Saturday instead of Sunday For centuries some held to the Jewish custom of not cooking on the Sabbath. They cooked a big meal on Saturday and ate the cold food on Sunday.

    They denied that Jesus was God, laughed at the idea of the Trinity and scorned Mary the mother of Jesus. They didn’t ban Christmas solely because it was an ancient European winter festival. Another and more important reason was that it celebrates the birth of Jesus and the role of his mother in conceiving carrying abd birthing him. One of their biggest quarrels with the Catholics was the catholic glorification of Mother Mary and thus all women.

    Whatever your fundamentalist preacher is telling you 470 years later, he’s wrong. Get yourself to a real respected university theology department library and learn about the puritans

    They were twisted warped weirdo wanna be jews. They were seduced by the sex and violence of the OT.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
    Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith? It summarizes the essentials of Reformed theology less than a century after Calvin's death.
    , @James Braxton
    You keep using that quote. I don't think it means what you think it means.
  185. @anon
    "Read (((Ellis))) and (((Beck))), they did much better things for talk therapy."

    Ellis and perhaps Beck just ripped off Stoics, but good to see a good word put in for RET or whatever they're calling it now (have to keep changing the name so it looks new, being just Stoicism warmed over)

    REBT. I had to look it up, and it seems it’s cognitive behavioral therapy, which is itself just a return to common sense. I did a form of it about 15 years ago while dealing with anxiety and panic attacks. The most useful advice I got was, “Don’t drink caffeine. Ever.” What a difference it’s made!

  186. @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    You sound like someone who lies on the carpet and plays with toy soldiers.

  187. @anon
    IIRC, there was a trend or fad (theology has them, like business) called "Clown Ministry." At least, there was a book with that title, but I never had the heart to look into it. Come to think of it, wasn't Jesus a clown in some musical, like Godspell? I guess it's part of that whole "foolishness to the Greeks" stuff, that's some of the worse Christian notions (explaining how they thrived among slaves and women: don't listen to those smarty-pants masters and philosophers! When they call you fools, embrace it!")

    I don’t think you’re grasping what Paul meant by “wise” and “foolish” in the passage you cite.

    By “Greeks search for wisdom” Paul meant that like much of the Greco-Roman world, the Corinthians were obsessed with the pursuit of status, one means of which was a philosophical mastery of life demonstrated by achievement, success, esteem, and honor. The wisdom of a philosophical system was measured by the ability of its leader and his followers to acquire such status.

    By “foolishness” Paul was describing concepts in the gospel of Christ that were not in accordance with received wisdom, with the spirit and way of thinking of the then existing world order. If wisdom resulted in status for a philosopher or teacher, then a despised Savior, hanging on a cross, was foolishness indeed.

  188. @Anonymous
    The Puritans were NOT the founders of this country, either in fact or in spirit. Jamestown was the first settlement, not Plymouth Rock.

    The Puritan population was behind pretty much every destructive social movement in this country, from witch burning to the civil war to prohibition and now Political Correctness.

    We always hear they came for their religious freedom. Not exactly. They wanted a place that would allow them to deny others their religious freedom.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast, dfordoom
    • Replies: @Logan
    Actually, that's not quite right either.

    They wanted a place where they had freedom to worship in the right way.

    Which, to their minds, also required them to prevent others from worshiping wrongly and especially spreading false doctrine.

    BTW, Cromwell and a great man other Puritans were willing to tolerate a very great variety of religious practice indeed. With, to be sure, the exception of Catholicism, though even at its worst their persecution of Catholics was a great deal less harsh than that of Protestants in many Catholic countries.
    , @EldnahYm
    Despite all the ahistorical nonsense being bandied about, the Puritans were not particularly repressive compared to many other groups around them. Nor were they a unified group with an agreed set of policies. There were some who wanted a Presbyterian church of England and there were others who wanted freedom to practice religion in their own non-conforming churches.

    In the Protestant context, it was the Arminians under William Laud who were most keen on enforcing religious uniformity. There were similar incidents in Scotland and Ireland as well incidentally, Presbyterians(who would be the closest theologically to the Puritans) were often persecuted by high church Anglican types. The same was true years earlier under Henry VIII as well.

    The Catholics were the worst of all of course. Mary I had 280 people burned at the stake for the crime of not being Catholic. In this she was following a long history of Catholic practice.

    It is also worth remembering that Catholics for over 100 years were behind plots to overthrow and kill English monarchs and trying to get English and Spanish to invade, even having the support in these initiatives of Pope Gregory XIII. Roman Catholicism is not just a religion, especially in those days, it was a political system. In other words, many Catholics were traitors. You do not respond to such a state of affairs with tolerance and love. Protestant England persecution of Catholics was justified.

    Stories of Cromwell's massacres against the Irish are complete fiction by the way. The claims of civilian massacres at Drogheda were all propaganda after the restoration, they were not based upon eyewitness accounts. Previous to this, no sources, including royalist accounts, mentions anything about civilian deaths. We also have surviving Cromwell's order of August 24, 1649 not to harm any civilians. This all stands in contrast to the undisputed fact that the Irish, of their own volition killed 3-4,000 Protestants in 1641, and likely caused the death of numerous others by driving them out of their homes.
  189. @anon
    The cracks in the WASP establishment were showing up the 1910's. The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann, and the like. They saw themselves more as modern "men of ideas", as opposed to men hewn primarily by their ancestry and culture. Another prevailing theme was contempt for what we would call "core American" values. For some perspective, this intellectual movement won out completely by the 1940's.

    Enter Jewish intellectuals in the 1950's. Jewish academics took these ideas, combined them with an existing contempt for traditional Gentile culture, and kicked the process into overdrive. The Culture War starting in the 1950's -- basically, Secular Cosmopolitan thinkers going after traditional Protestant culture in the courts and media -- was a disaster, and spearheaded by secular Jewish intellectuals. But, they were enabled by WASP progressives and modernists of the prior 50 years. Another undercurrent to all of this, was 2nd and 3rd generation Jews reverting back to historical, anti-Gentile patterns, whereas their parents/grand-parents had probably been grateful to be in the US. Just a guess.

    There are two factors changing this going forward:

    1) Collapsing Jewish birth rates outside of Orthodox circles, and a high degree of miscegeny among secular Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi culture that defined American intellectual life from 1960-present has about ten years left in it. After that, the demographic math ends it. The most obvious example of this is the current Democratic party which resembles ethno-politics crème brûlée -- a thin crust of geriatrics with world views squarely inside the Ashkenazi-defined box, but not resembling the younger cohort that follows them in any intellectual regard.

    2) The growth of big tech. Someone pointed out on here that the internet has been a disaster for the Jews. True on many levels. First, it has displaced many middle-man industries, where Jews tend to work. Additionally, there is the geographic aspect of it being on the West Coast, where mathematically-inclined Indians and Asians gained a foothold, before Jewish nepotism could become the defacto hiring practice. Zuckerburg and Page are probably the last of the Jewish moguls in tech. Finally, tech has completely disrupted the Jewish control of information. I suspect this is just getting started, but we'll see.

    A few elderly Ashkenazi types are desperately trying to revive Yiddish. A couple times a year the Jewish press publishes articles about this desperate attempt. The baby boomer Ashkenazi women stopped cooking that Yiddish E European food as soon as they got out of their mothers houses.

    All they have left is Ellis Island and Auschwitz

  190. @Old Palo Altan
    You're a bit behind the times. It is the Catholics who have surrendered: not so much to Ulster as to the EU and the modern age.
    I have just returned from a few days in Dublin, a place I knew well in the 1980s. The Church was still reasonably respectable, and most people smiled as they passed the many priests in the streets and crossed themselves as they passed the many churches.
    Today the Church echoes secular thought, and the ill-dressed and international mob which walks the streets of a once dowdy but at least recognisably Irish city now glower at the (very few) clerics who venture fearfully out of their now normally shuttered edifices to go about their increasingly pointless "pastoral activities". Dublin, I learned, has precisely two seminarians for a "Catholic" population of over one million. The average age of the priests is closer to seventy than sixty.

    The "Catholic" part of de Valera's vision is over and done with; the disappearance of the"Irish" part is a matter of mere decades.

    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: “that never would have happened here in the old days”.

    • Replies: @njguy73

    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: “that never would have happened here in the old days”.

     

    Today he'd have garbage thrown at him and be harried off the bus.
  191. @Cagey Beast
    The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann ....

    H. L. Mencken was German-American and Walter Lippmann Jewish-American.

    Many idiots, especially the descendants of Ellis Island Jews consider that WASPs are just any White American who doesn’t have an Italian name . This includes all the Scots, Irish and Scots Irish descendants plus Roosevelt the WASP even Kennedy the WASP.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
  192. @Anonymouse
    If there is a war of the jews against the gentiles, as one of the former, why was I not informed of it? Perhaps I would not have married my tall gentile wife in 1966. The frequent assertion in these pages of the animus of American jews against legacy Americans, seems to come from an inversion of the hatred directed towards jews by the jew hating commenters. Apparently, their hatred of jews is justified in their minds by imputing to the jews a hatred of American gentiles which the jews artfully conceal but can be detected by the jew haters but cannot be perceived by others. Its a clear case of Freudian projection.

    Apparently, their hatred of jews

    You have the persistently dishonest habit of using “hate” or “hatred” when “disagree” or “object to certain aspects of Jew behavior” would be more accurate.

    Using “hate” is a way of labeling the views of others as irrational, and therefore there is nothing you need to do examine in yourself or your (2nd person, not first person your) behavior.

    The use of name-calling, character assassination, and slander in place of actually making an argument is one aspect of Jewish behavior people find objectionable. The fact that you continue to do this when its been pointed out to you may cause you to wonder if some of that “hatred” may be justified.

  193. @syonredux

    Those who control the word “American” control the sense of the possible.
     
    How very true......


    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1900492/images/o-JULIAN-CASTRO-facebook.jpg


    https://www.wnd.com/files/2019/02/Ilhan-Omar-official_portrait_116th_Congress-600.jpg


    https://celebrityinsider.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-Donald-Trump.jpg

    Good grief, AOC looks like a certified psycho.

  194. @anonymous coward
    'Religious liberty' means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for 'spiritual reasons' and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.

    No thanks. Do not want.

    P.S. The Puritans are kissing cousins of these three groups, so it makes sense that they were the ones who pioneered the toxic virus of 'religious liberty'.

    anonymous coward wrote to me:

    ‘Religious liberty’ means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for ‘spiritual reasons’ and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.

    Hmmm…. So, what are you going to do? Outlaw Satanists? And exactly how do you plan on dealing with Jews?

    Perhaps we can deport you to a society where you will feel comfortable — North Korea, perhaps?

    And the rest of us will live with the Jews and the Satanists — better neighbors than you, I fear.

    (One of the funny things about you anti-Semites — you seem to think you are in the majority. You don’t realize that if the majority lashes out at anyone, it’s gonna be you!)

    • Replies: @Logan
    I have no problem with Satanists who worship goats. (Kind of dumb, but go for it, guys.)

    Or Jews, though the Everest size shoulder chip is not an inaccurate description for quite a few of them.

    But if you kill babies, for any reason, we'll lock you up and hopefully execute you.

    This is, you know, punishing actions rather than beliefs.

    The babies have to get ALL the way born first, of course.

    Odd that the commenter lumped goat-worship, baby murder and touchy Jews all together, as if there's no significant difference.
  195. @BB753
    I don't mean to be offensive, but marrying the women of a different ethnic group doesn't necessarily mean you like the other group. In fact, it's usually the opposite. Historically, in tribal and ancient warfare the winners used to take up as wives the women of the defeated tribe or nation. They were war booty.
    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband's ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.
    I know you'll say that Jews follow matrilineal descent, but we all know it's no longer so, because of the high rate of outmarriage.
    For the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with hating other groups and loving your own ethnic group. It's human nature. So is sexual attraction to other races. Myself, I find it increasingly difficult to love my own ethnic group because of its weakness and decadence, while still finding other groups alien and hostile for the most part.

    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband’s ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.

    Well, judging from hwhite perspective- blacks are visually the most different race. Yet, according to Brits, they’re not “conquering” anyone, but are trying to “get bleached”. I don’t know how it all will work, but I don’t think your line of reasoning holds water.

    https://qz.com/1279306/royal-wedding-2018-meghan-markles-mixed-race-marriage-isnt-unusual-in-the-uk/

    Mixed race women (who are black and white), like Markle, are more likely to marry or cohabitate with white men in the UK. According to the 2011 census, 65% of mixed-race women (black and white) are married or cohabitate with white men. Around 16% are in a relationship with mixed race men (black and white), while just 14% are in a relationship with black men.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Soon there won't be enough Whites for Blacks to "bleach" into. So they'll have to settle for mixed race partners.
  196. @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    My husband’s a descendant of Ulstermen in his father’s side. They traced the family direct descent back to 1,300s AD southern Scotland

    The Ulstermen were southern Scotland border bandits for centuries. They made their living from extortion and protection rackets in Scotland and cattle thieving and kidnapping over the border in England. They were uncontrollable in Scotland since there was no effective national or local government in Scotland. Just various warlords and mafias as in Africa

    Only the great Lords of the North, Percy Rutland York and others kept Northern England somewhat safe from the Scots bandits and cattle rustlers.

    Now to the mid and late 1500s AD. Queen Mary of Scotland was the only child of Scots King James 5. As per standard Scottish custom, James mysteriously died when she was a week old. But the mafia warlords were foiled by James’ wife Queen Mary’s Mother, Mary of Guise a very formidable warlord, herself.

    James 5 had another child an older half brother of Mary, James Stewart Earl of Moray. James and his maternal warlord family were of course furious that James 5 had a legitimate daughter who became Queen.

    James Stewart hired an itinerant canting Puritan preacher, John Knox to rant and rave about women and papism. The cheaply printed copies of the sex and violence OT were very popular with the Scots primitives.

    James Stewart’s plan succeeded in that Queen Mary was overthrown largely due to Knox’s rants. But the other warlords defeated his attempt to install himself as King and instead crowned Mary’s 1 year old baby as James 6. James 6 survived 17 assassination attempts before he was safely installed as King of England.

    Which brings us to 1590 1600. Elizabeth of England was getting old with no heir. There were several heirs including James King of Scotland. Both the heirs and lords and politicians of England discussed who the heir to the English throne would be. James 6 claim was a bit weakened in that he was descended from only one of Henry 7 ‘s daughters, Margaret.

    So the movers and shakers of England discussed with the heirs what each heir could do for England when he or she became sovereign.

    James 6, King of Scotland promised he’d solve the centuries long problem of the Scots border bandit kidnappers cattle rustlers robbers and thieves. James kept his promise when he became James 1 of England

    James 1 did solve the problem. James 1 deported all the southern Scots border bandits to Ulster with orders to genocide the Irish Resistants to English rule and enslavement.

    That’s the history of the Ulstermen, a criminal warlord mafia deported to Ireland by James 1 in accordance with his promise to English politicians and Lords to rid N England of the Scots border bandits.

    Now, Elizabeth 1 managed to suppress Catholic dissidents against the Church of England. James 1 was faced with the growing Puritan rebels which ended in Oliver Cromwell’s regicide and installation of a tyrannical dictatorship.

    The Scots border bandits now relocated to Scotland didn’t fulfill their promise to James and the English politicians. They started up a new version of Puritanism and tried to overthrow James official Church of Ireland. Plus they didn’t manage to genocide the Irish. Nor did they settle down, work hard and pay taxes.

    So James came up with another solution. He deported the Ulstermen to the American frontier where they were plopped down to fight off the Indians to keep the coastal merchants and plantation owners safe.

    And there the Scots Irish Ulstermen have stayed ever since in the poorest part of the country. Except for the ones who went west and got out of poverty stricken Appalachia.

    As for your hero King Billy? He was nothing but a tool of the Jewish Amsterdam bankers who established The Bank of England soon after they installed William and Mary on the throne of England.
    That’s the proud history of the Ulstermen insane religious fanatics deported from both Scotland and Ireland and now stuck in the poorest part of America

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    It's time to eat a sandwich, Bobby Sands.
    , @EldnahYm
    The Ulster Scots were neither deported from England or Ulster. There was no order for genocide by James I. Ulster itself was lightly populated, and before the plantation of Ulster there was intense clan fighting already both between and within the O'Neill's and McDonnell's. In Ireland there is also a long history of importing gallowglasses into Ireland, including to fight the English.

    The Irish have themselves migrated to England and Scotland and every part of the British Empire, and can't be said to have never caused any trouble themselves. Somehow we're always supposed to believe that the Irish are always the ones being persecuted wherever they go but all those nasty English and Scots are responsible for everything wrong in Ireland.
  197. @Hail

    the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms
     
    Exactly.

    For every “left-wing” utterance of a prominent Puritan it’s not at all difficult to find an equivalent extremely right-wing statement.

    Same is true on the other side, BTW. The Royalists were actually riding the wave of the future at the time, absolutist monarchy. The Parliamentarians were behind the curve of history, upholding the authority of an assembly of estates, an arm of government that had existed almost everywhere in Europe during the Middle Ages but had been almost completely swept away by the 1600s.

  198. @anonymous coward
    'Religious liberty' means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for 'spiritual reasons' and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.

    No thanks. Do not want.

    P.S. The Puritans are kissing cousins of these three groups, so it makes sense that they were the ones who pioneered the toxic virus of 'religious liberty'.

    Not really. Religious liberty doesn’t cover things that are criminal, such as human sacrifice, prostitutes and pimps claiming g to be Priests and Priests of a religious cult, torture assault and battery.

    I kind of like the European idea of religious liberty only for real, recognized religions, not Scientology or silly cults.

    In pursuit of religious liberty American judges have banned the very word Christmas but allow the thieving con artists of Scientology full freedom.
    Oh well.

  199. @PhysicistDave
    anonymous coward wrote to me:

    ‘Religious liberty’ means letting actual goat-worshiping satanists, people who kill babies for ‘spiritual reasons’ and Jews with Everest-sized chips on their shoulders run hog-wild in your society.
     
    Hmmm.... So, what are you going to do? Outlaw Satanists? And exactly how do you plan on dealing with Jews?

    Perhaps we can deport you to a society where you will feel comfortable -- North Korea, perhaps?

    And the rest of us will live with the Jews and the Satanists -- better neighbors than you, I fear.

    (One of the funny things about you anti-Semites -- you seem to think you are in the majority. You don't realize that if the majority lashes out at anyone, it's gonna be you!)

    I have no problem with Satanists who worship goats. (Kind of dumb, but go for it, guys.)

    Or Jews, though the Everest size shoulder chip is not an inaccurate description for quite a few of them.

    But if you kill babies, for any reason, we’ll lock you up and hopefully execute you.

    This is, you know, punishing actions rather than beliefs.

    The babies have to get ALL the way born first, of course.

    Odd that the commenter lumped goat-worship, baby murder and touchy Jews all together, as if there’s no significant difference.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    It's like sex: you decide to disturb public order, we can intervene, because you are violating the rights of other people. You do it with somebody who cannot or will not give consent, we can intervene, because you are violating the rights of other people. Otherwise, it is your business as a mature adult, and others just have to make their peace with that.

    I'm convinced as a nation, one of the biggest cultural problems we have in the United States is that we care too much about what people think and say, and not enough about what they do. Emotions aren't innately good or evil, actions are.

  200. @Cagey Beast
    The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann ....

    H. L. Mencken was German-American and Walter Lippmann Jewish-American.

    Bourne’s a French name brought to England by the Norman’s who defeated the angles and saxons.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Thanks. Of course, 1066 was a long time ago and an American living in the early 20th century could easily have a Norman name but come from a long line of Roundheads or culturally be running Roundhead software, so to speak.
    , @Philip Owen
    Not so sure. A Bourne is a stream in the former territory of Wessex. It is in village names like Winterbourne. It is a surname common in the area.
    , @Autochthon
    They defeated the Angles and the Saxons.

    They were not victorious over a coalition that also included rays, lines, and points.
  201. @James Braxton
    The Calvinists and the Puritans most certainly did not (and do not, we still exist) deny the divinity of Christ.

    The Calvinists/Puritans were trinitarians. To suggest otherwise is ignorant libel.

    Quite right.

    In fact, Servetus was famously burned atop a pyre of his own books by the Calvin-dominated city-state of Geneva for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.

    • Replies: @Alden
    And Calvin and Knox proclaimed that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. Calvin burned Servetus because Servetus was a rival to Calvin’s tyranny over Geneva; prison and confiscatory fines for wearing wedding rings. Insanity

    The Amish were a Swiss Puritan cult. They fled to America cerca 1550s because Calvin planned to kill them all
  202. @Hibernian
    New England shipowners were heavily involved in the slave trade. The shipyards of Marblehead MA produced ships custom fitted for the slave trade.

    Yes. You can read about the Brown family of Rhode Island for some background.

  203. @James Braxton
    As an American I would not think of undoing the revolution of 1776.

    As a descendant of Orangemen I am pleased to point out that the revolution of 1916 failed to unify Ireland under Papist tyranny. The sons of Ulster stand strong to this very day. No Surrender!

    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They will and they don't. At least not the Protestants.
    , @James Braxton
    Brexit will go a long way to preserving the status quo.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.
     
    As Derb has pointed out, the Republic wouldn't want it now. The subsidies keeping the peace would cost the Irish twelvefold as much per capita what they cost the British now.
  204. @theMann
    "formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown"


    A list likely to cause active revulsion in the mind and heart of any Catholic who ever lived. Amazing how you can drain every drop of actual Christian Piety of any particular Yankee, leaving only limitless self-righteousness, and they remain just as intolerant a collection of Religious Bigots as ever. A motivator for much of the actual history of the USA, properly understood. And anybody who doesn't understand the Secular Loony Left is just as Puritan as the Historical Puritans, does not understand the Left.

    I hate to agree, but I do,

  205. @William Badwhite
    We always hear they came for their religious freedom. Not exactly. They wanted a place that would allow them to deny others their religious freedom.

    Actually, that’s not quite right either.

    They wanted a place where they had freedom to worship in the right way.

    Which, to their minds, also required them to prevent others from worshiping wrongly and especially spreading false doctrine.

    BTW, Cromwell and a great man other Puritans were willing to tolerate a very great variety of religious practice indeed. With, to be sure, the exception of Catholicism, though even at its worst their persecution of Catholics was a great deal less harsh than that of Protestants in many Catholic countries.

    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @Alden
    Cromwell let the English Catholics alone because they were so few left after his great great uncle Thomas Cromwell and Henry 8 wiped them out.
    But what Oliver Cromwell did to the Irish Catholics was one of the greatest war crimes of history. 1/4 of the population enslaved and sold in the Caribbean and American colonies as life long slaves, not indentured servants and about 1/3 massacred, all in the name of his wanna be Jew insane religion. Actually not, just financial imperialism to seize Ireland and confiscate the property of the people.
  206. @SFG
    You've, uh, got the wrong Marilynne...I mean Marianne...I can see how this happened.

    Have a jade egg.

    Whoa. I can’t even blame autocorrect, because I just searched again and came up with a Marilynne Robinson …

    Oh well. The Internet is a wonderful, if somewhat unpredictable place.

  207. @Counterinsurgency

    The Puritans won the high ground of the intellectual class, and that’s what rules our pseudo-democracy. Just look at that string of victories you cite. Sounds like they’re the longterm winners.
     
    They've had their ups and downs. The usual pattern is that they win control, disgust the rest of the country, and lose control.

    So far, 3 ups: Van Buren, CivilWar/Reconstruction, our current "soft reconstruction" and resettlement. Downs: Van Buren's attempt to impose stricter government ("Alien and sedition acts") failed badly, and his party vanished (although its population group later became Republicans). Reconstruction was rejected c.a. 1890s, current rejection of current programs is ongoing.

    Quite a bunch. In the 1950s, American settlement was propagandized as being _only_ by the Pilgrims - nobody else was mentioned as a founding group in the popular media.

    Counterinsurgency

    The Pilgrims kept better records and included everyone even indentured servants. The descendants made an effort to publicize the Plymouth colony and Puritan Boston.
    The Jamestown descendants didn’t keep good records and scorned everyone who worked with their hands. The Jamestown descendants were a small group as they didn’t include ordinary people, just the wealthy. The known Mayflower descendants were just more numerous and active in promoting themselves.

    No First Family of Virginia person would ever admit to an ordinary tradesman or shopkeeper as an ancestor. Their ancestors were all the gentlemen of Jamestown and Cavalier Gentry fleeing from Cromwell yeah right But the Puritans recorded all the ancestors. .

    The Virginians were much more important to the settlement if America than the northerners
    BECAUSE of the cash crop TOBACCO they raised and sold to Europe and the Mid East.

    The 1600’s colonies all depended on English investors and the English government. Had not Raleigh ans the Virginia colony not promoted tobacco, the English colonies could have failed. Tobacco was like oil in the 1600 1700s. So was sugar.

  208. @Mulegino1
    As the Jews tend to be meddlesome rootless cosmopolitans, the so called "Puritans" were meddlesome and churlish louts. The "Puritan legacy" in America is a fusion of a zeal for some kind of tidy minded perfectionism and a compulsive obsession with righting every wrong in the world trivial enough not to matter while ignoring the metaphysical battles being waged for the heart and soul of Euro-Christian civilization, culture and spirituality, or of even siding with the enemy of same.

    The original Puritans and their spiritual brethren were little different than modern day Wahhabi extremists, what with their animosity to the traditions and decidedly Catholic folkways of Merry Old England. There is a spiritual affinity between both movements that manifests itself in the destruction- or the desire for destruction- of great cultural and spiritual landmarks and monuments and an aversion to beauty and joy.

    Very very true says this proud descendant of William Mullins, the man who bought out the Merchant Adventurers and was the primary purchaser of the Mayflower and Speedwell

    It’s strange that Puritanism and OT obsessed fundamentalist Christianity are now confined to the south. Very strange considering that the civil war, reconstruction desegregation affirmative action and school bussing were all Puritan efforts

  209. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    The cracks in the WASP establishment were showing up the 1910's. The people driving these changes were WASPs themselves: H. L. Mencken, Randolph Bourne, Walter Lippmann, and the like. They saw themselves more as modern "men of ideas", as opposed to men hewn primarily by their ancestry and culture. Another prevailing theme was contempt for what we would call "core American" values. For some perspective, this intellectual movement won out completely by the 1940's.

    Enter Jewish intellectuals in the 1950's. Jewish academics took these ideas, combined them with an existing contempt for traditional Gentile culture, and kicked the process into overdrive. The Culture War starting in the 1950's -- basically, Secular Cosmopolitan thinkers going after traditional Protestant culture in the courts and media -- was a disaster, and spearheaded by secular Jewish intellectuals. But, they were enabled by WASP progressives and modernists of the prior 50 years. Another undercurrent to all of this, was 2nd and 3rd generation Jews reverting back to historical, anti-Gentile patterns, whereas their parents/grand-parents had probably been grateful to be in the US. Just a guess.

    There are two factors changing this going forward:

    1) Collapsing Jewish birth rates outside of Orthodox circles, and a high degree of miscegeny among secular Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi culture that defined American intellectual life from 1960-present has about ten years left in it. After that, the demographic math ends it. The most obvious example of this is the current Democratic party which resembles ethno-politics crème brûlée -- a thin crust of geriatrics with world views squarely inside the Ashkenazi-defined box, but not resembling the younger cohort that follows them in any intellectual regard.

    2) The growth of big tech. Someone pointed out on here that the internet has been a disaster for the Jews. True on many levels. First, it has displaced many middle-man industries, where Jews tend to work. Additionally, there is the geographic aspect of it being on the West Coast, where mathematically-inclined Indians and Asians gained a foothold, before Jewish nepotism could become the defacto hiring practice. Zuckerburg and Page are probably the last of the Jewish moguls in tech. Finally, tech has completely disrupted the Jewish control of information. I suspect this is just getting started, but we'll see.

    In addition to Walter Lippman being Jewish, Randolph Bourne was a protege of Horrace Kallen, a Polish Zionist. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Kallen ).

    The historical record is unequivocal: immediately upon disembarking in the US, the European Jewish intelligentsia was pushing for open borders. This was not unnoticed at the time. During the debates for the 1924 Immigration Act, it was discussed. Also see this 1924 clipping from the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

    https://www.jta.org/1924/02/05/archive/you-must-fight-this-nordic-nonsense-says-zangwill

    Kevin MacDonald documents this era of WASP intellectual history extensively, here: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/07/29/macdonald-kaufmann/

    Once the Ivy League professoriate became predominately Jewish (particularly in law), it was a matter of time before a WASP-centric view of the America became an anachronism.

  210. @Logan
    Actually, that's not quite right either.

    They wanted a place where they had freedom to worship in the right way.

    Which, to their minds, also required them to prevent others from worshiping wrongly and especially spreading false doctrine.

    BTW, Cromwell and a great man other Puritans were willing to tolerate a very great variety of religious practice indeed. With, to be sure, the exception of Catholicism, though even at its worst their persecution of Catholics was a great deal less harsh than that of Protestants in many Catholic countries.

    Cromwell let the English Catholics alone because they were so few left after his great great uncle Thomas Cromwell and Henry 8 wiped them out.
    But what Oliver Cromwell did to the Irish Catholics was one of the greatest war crimes of history. 1/4 of the population enslaved and sold in the Caribbean and American colonies as life long slaves, not indentured servants and about 1/3 massacred, all in the name of his wanna be Jew insane religion. Actually not, just financial imperialism to seize Ireland and confiscate the property of the people.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    Thomas Cromwell confiscated monastery lands. He didn't wipe out the Catholics.

    Maybe 3 percent of the Irish population were sent into indentured servitude.

    What you have done is taken some of the higher estimates for casualties of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and divided out how the deaths happened in a farcical way. Most of that one third figure you give(which is probably grossly exaggerated, some figures estimate about 10% of the total population of Ireland perished from all causes) is accounted for by who died of famine, bubonic plague, impacts of guerrilla warfare, infighting between and war deaths carried out after Cromwell had already left Ireland. As for massacres by Cromwell, what you claim is total nonsense.
    , @Hibernian
    Agree with reservations. One third dead doesn't surprise me but I'm skeptical about 1/4 enslaved.
    , @Logan
    As others have noted, your numbers are way off. There had been vicious multi-sided fighting up and down Ireland for almost a decade by the time Cromwell showed up. The actual massacres he has been accused of committing were in two cities, and add up to some thousands total. In fact, since Cromwell ended the fighting, he probably saved lives, though that was not his intent.

    The actual total deported from Ireland in all periods has been estimated at 10,000 to 12,000. The infrastructure of the time would have made it impossible to ship hundreds of thousands of people even had this been intended.

    It is estimated that the total of all emigration from all of the UK to the Carribean over the entire period prior to our Revolution was about 500,000. That's over about 150 years.
  211. @Charles Pewitt

    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in “The New World.” Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

     

    The Virginia Company in the new world in 1607 was after gold, glory and God -- in that order.

    Good use of Wagner by Malick but the guy taking some of the water and putting it to his mouth and spitting it out seems out of place. It didn't seem ceremonial and they were aware of contaminants at that point in history.

    Farrell is a Leprechaun turd with a full head of hair -- why should we watch him -- and Plummer is a pissant who didn't like the way Malick did things.

    Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he's another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.

    As far as Leprechauns go, I like Jeremiah Sullivan, he fought in the American Secessionary War against the British Empire and he was born in North Carolina and he's my blood.

    I get angry with misbehaving Leprechaun slobs such as Jim Comey and John Brennan and any other random Leprechaun drunk I run across because they make the Irish look bad.

    https://youtu.be/lFkyAD9gS6g

    Don’t forget the representative of Satan on earth, supreme scumbag Chief Justice William Brennan who created the doctrine that disproportionate representation is “ in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination “ in Griggs vs Duke Power 1973.

    What a traitor. The best thing the American Irish Catholics ever did was create an alternative private K- University education system that’s proved infinitely superior to the public school system. So what did this Irish Catholic do?

    He completely destroyed the merit system that benefited the well educated. And changed affirmative action from “ do not discriminate against qualified blacks” into
    “ you must discriminate against the best qualified Whites in favor of functionally retarded blacks and never ever fire them for total incompetency embezzlement or any other justifiable cause”

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    Irish Catholics are probably the gentile group who have had the most influence on the movie industry. Also a they are a huge share of our nation's most entertaining writers/novelists. Southerners (Irish, English or otherwise) are also disproportionately good writers. This is even more noticeable when you look at the best-sellers lists and not just critically acclaimed books.
  212. Off topic, some geriatric scumbag anti White Jimmy Carter appointee judge Bertelsman just dismissed the Covington Catholic high school student Sandemann’s lawsuit against the Washington Post for defamation and libel.
    Attorney Wood will appeal of course.

    Any thoughts ? I’m very pessimistic. There are no laws in Kentucky or DC about mentioning the names of minors in newspapers. It’s just policy.

    If we were his parents we’d do a legal name change as soon as he finishes high school. Then move him around different states for the time it took to do several more name changes. Then establish a LLC and buy him an apartment house and have him take business courses at the local community college. Let him just be a landlord and real estate investor.

  213. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Flip
    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.

    They will and they don’t. At least not the Protestants.

  214. @Logan
    Quite right.

    In fact, Servetus was famously burned atop a pyre of his own books by the Calvin-dominated city-state of Geneva for denying the Trinity and infant baptism.

    And Calvin and Knox proclaimed that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. Calvin burned Servetus because Servetus was a rival to Calvin’s tyranny over Geneva; prison and confiscatory fines for wearing wedding rings. Insanity

    The Amish were a Swiss Puritan cult. They fled to America cerca 1550s because Calvin planned to kill them all

    • Replies: @Logan

    The Amish were a Swiss Puritan cult. They fled to America cerca 1550s because Calvin planned to kill them all.


    Wow, so many inaccuracies in such a short paragraph.

    The Amish didn't even split off from the wider Mennonite group until the 1690s. They began moving to America in the mid-1700s, 200 years after you say they did.

    Had they moved here in the 1550s, they would have beaten the English by over half a century.

    Calvin's political power was limited entirely to Geneva. Even there he had influence over the city-state government, but it is simply untrue that he was some kind of dictator.
  215. @Alden
    Bourne’s a French name brought to England by the Norman’s who defeated the angles and saxons.

    Thanks. Of course, 1066 was a long time ago and an American living in the early 20th century could easily have a Norman name but come from a long line of Roundheads or culturally be running Roundhead software, so to speak.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  216. @Paleo Liberal
    There is a PBS series about Jamestown.

    I saw a few minutes of one episode once. Got bored.

    Wait till the Netflix version comes out. All movies and TV shows are made with sex scenes illegal to be shown in theaters and on TV.

    Netflix, Amazon , Hulu all show all the full porn scenes

    Like Gone With The Wind and every movie and TV show set in the south, just too many blacks for me

  217. @syonredux

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.
     
    Did they do anything to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown back in 2007? I certainly can't recall anything....

    I remember some diatribes about evil Whites slaves and genocide of the Indians Some genocide they’ve increased by about 2/3ds since 1600. There was some article that Pocahontas was actually kidnapped by the settlers and John Rolfe. There’s a PBS or history channel show about her death in England

    I was surprised the anti White diatribes weren’t worse. The 500 th anniversary of Columbus discovery of America was horrible Just one anti White article after another.

  218. @Hibernian
    I'm proposing a compromise settlement: Ulster will continue as is and the UK will cede Glasgow and Liverpool, to become exclaves of the Republic of Ireland.

    As long as we get to keep Ibrox Stadium.

  219. This woman has a stupid opinion, I’m not at all interested in it, but I have learned a good deal by reading the comments. Interesting how an article like this brings out the historians.

    • Replies: @BB753
    iSteve, where dilettantes lurk.
  220. @PhysicistDave
    Reg Caesar wrote to me:

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan.
     
    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    The Anabaptists were basically Germans. Roger Williams, not. As Wikipedia warns readers, "Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist." Different roots indeed.

    You are also assuming more uniformity among Puritans than existed. The Pilgrim Fathers, for example, were Separatists. Most of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, not.

    Furthermore, Williams certainly came to the colonies as a Puritan, and, indeed, spent some time at Plymouth, though he decided the Pilgrims were not separatist enough. He was sympathetic to the Baptists at least for a while, but probably the best term for him was "Seeker."

    I think it was the historian George Brown Tindall who quipped that Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife -- and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    A childhood hero of mine, so I do know a lot about him.

    Of course, for those who consider Williams a bit too much on the moderate side, there is the heroic Anne Hutchinson, who rejected not only religious authority but also any human temporal authority of any sort whatsoever -- she compelled her husband to leave a post in Roger Williams' government in Rhode Island because, after all, only God should presume to command adult human beings.

    I think I would have liked to have talked with Anne. I am not sure I would have enjoyed being her husband.

    Was Williams Welsh? A lot of extreme non conformists were so.

  221. @Alden
    Bourne’s a French name brought to England by the Norman’s who defeated the angles and saxons.

    Not so sure. A Bourne is a stream in the former territory of Wessex. It is in village names like Winterbourne. It is a surname common in the area.

  222. @Logan
    The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”

    And slavery. By my lights, kidnapping and enslaving people because you don't want to actually work yourself is not exactly "veracity and honor." In fact, I find it difficult to think of anything more dishonorable.

    It was of course well known that northern women were all lying whores.

    I assumed you’re a southerner.

    The worst thing about the southern slave owners was the way they used the slaves to keep down non slave owning Whites Slavery made most Whites poor and the slave owning Whites despised the other Whites for being poor.

    Very similar to affirmative action’s abolishing the merit system. It keeps the Whites down.

    So you disapprove of enslaving Africans but approve of the war criminal genocidal Oliver Cromwell enslaving 250,000 White Irish Catholics and selling them in the Caritabd American colonies. I wonder how much money he made from that slavery business?

    • Replies: @Logan
    I have southern and northern (actually midwestern) ancestors. They fought on both sides of the war. One of them fought on both sides personally, being captured by the Union, joining the Union Army from the prison camp and being sent west to fight Indians. I grew up in an area often considered southern in the North, and northern in the South.

    I disapprove of enslaving Africans or Irish, or anybody else. Why in the world would disapproval of enslavement of Africans equate to approval of Cromwell's actions?

    Not that he did what you said. In previous research I ran across documentation that the entire emigration from Europe to the English colonies of the Caribbean before 1776 totaled about 500,000 people. It defies belief that 50% of these were transported by Cromwell from 1653 to the end of his rule a few years later.

    Scholars estimate 10,000 to 12,000 deported by Cromwell. 250,000 to 300,000 is sometimes given as an estimate of the total number of indentured servants sent from all of the UK to all British American colonies over a 200 year period. X does not equal Y.
  223. @prime noticer
    longshanks banned jews from england.

    you know who let them back in, 400 years later?

    oliver cromwell.

    how's that working out today?

    self-eliminating leftist WASPs: nature's dodo birds.

    Didn’t a Jewish Naturalization Act fail in the House of Commons during the mid-1750’s and their status as “aliens” not change for another hundred years?

  224. @Flip
    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.

    Brexit will go a long way to preserving the status quo.

    • Replies: @Flip
    Won’t the new EU border between the Republic and NI make things difficult?
  225. @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for posting on this essay, Steve.

    Robinison is a real throwback -- a dinosaur of the first order. It's no wonder she begins her piece by describing the incredulity she encounters among the Woke when she brings up her ideas.

    Robinson is not, however, a throwback to the Puritans with whom she seems to be so enamoured. Rather, she's a kind of still-living-and-breathing Dodo Bird 19th-century 'enlightened' post-Puritan.

    It's no coincidence she name-drops Henry Ward Beecher, a mid-19th century 'celebrity preacher' of the time who was well on his way to heresy, as he discarded the Calvinistic foundations of his faith in order to immantize the eschaton.

    Robinson, similarly, wants to reclaim the Puritans' progressive instincts while downplaying -- or even outright ignoring -- the heart of their faith, i.e. their utter dependence on God's radical grace as expressed in the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of his son.

    See this little passage, for example:


    The old Puritan writers, like the man Jonathan Edwards calls “the holy Mr. Flavel,” elaborated, with all the mentions of Satan and hell and conversion that are universal in Christian preaching of the period, an anthropology that is fresh and joyful.

     

    See how Robinson relegates the whole narrative of human salvation to the snide aside I've highlighted? It's Jonathan Edwards's 'fresh and joyful' anthropology, i.e. his doctrine of man, that interests and delights her, not the heart of his theology and faith.

    Robinson's selective readings of Edwards and the other Puritans empowers her to promote the self-shedding of that awful burden of original sin/total depravity, so that we as a people can progress to our earthly utopia, which for her defines that 'City on a Hill'. To wit:


    Why are we alienated from a history that could help us find a deep root in liberality and shared and mutual happiness?

     

    Robinson is trying to return to a mile marker that's way back up the road on which Puritan Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and the Social Gospel, and then into 20th-century leftism, and now identity politics. But we've been there, done that, and here we are -- nobody wants to turn back, even if they could, to that point 150 years ago when the hot mess of Puritanism had cooled to the temperature Robinson found to be 'just right'.

    In 1834, Lyman Beecher, father of Harriet and Henry Beecher preached such an anti catholic sermon that the fanatics marched from his church and burnt down a convent boarding school full of children and teens. I believe all the nuns and girls escaped death. How brave, not even a Catholic Church or neighborhood with men to defend it. Just a convent full of women and girls

    1834, mind you, 300 years after the reformation, but only about 10-12 years after Massachusetts passed a freedom of religion law. It was Baptist, not Catholic or Quaker lobbying that got that law passed.

  226. @Alden
    You’re the ignorant one. Knox and Calvin both endlessly proclaimed “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel.

    They even seriously discussed not eating pork oysters keeping kosher and holding services on Saturday instead of Sunday For centuries some held to the Jewish custom of not cooking on the Sabbath. They cooked a big meal on Saturday and ate the cold food on Sunday.

    They denied that Jesus was God, laughed at the idea of the Trinity and scorned Mary the mother of Jesus. They didn’t ban Christmas solely because it was an ancient European winter festival. Another and more important reason was that it celebrates the birth of Jesus and the role of his mother in conceiving carrying abd birthing him. One of their biggest quarrels with the Catholics was the catholic glorification of Mother Mary and thus all women.

    Whatever your fundamentalist preacher is telling you 470 years later, he’s wrong. Get yourself to a real respected university theology department library and learn about the puritans

    They were twisted warped weirdo wanna be jews. They were seduced by the sex and violence of the OT.

    Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith? It summarizes the essentials of Reformed theology less than a century after Calvin’s death.

  227. @Alden
    Cromwell let the English Catholics alone because they were so few left after his great great uncle Thomas Cromwell and Henry 8 wiped them out.
    But what Oliver Cromwell did to the Irish Catholics was one of the greatest war crimes of history. 1/4 of the population enslaved and sold in the Caribbean and American colonies as life long slaves, not indentured servants and about 1/3 massacred, all in the name of his wanna be Jew insane religion. Actually not, just financial imperialism to seize Ireland and confiscate the property of the people.

    Thomas Cromwell confiscated monastery lands. He didn’t wipe out the Catholics.

    Maybe 3 percent of the Irish population were sent into indentured servitude.

    What you have done is taken some of the higher estimates for casualties of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and divided out how the deaths happened in a farcical way. Most of that one third figure you give(which is probably grossly exaggerated, some figures estimate about 10% of the total population of Ireland perished from all causes) is accounted for by who died of famine, bubonic plague, impacts of guerrilla warfare, infighting between and war deaths carried out after Cromwell had already left Ireland. As for massacres by Cromwell, what you claim is total nonsense.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  228. @William Badwhite
    We always hear they came for their religious freedom. Not exactly. They wanted a place that would allow them to deny others their religious freedom.

    Despite all the ahistorical nonsense being bandied about, the Puritans were not particularly repressive compared to many other groups around them. Nor were they a unified group with an agreed set of policies. There were some who wanted a Presbyterian church of England and there were others who wanted freedom to practice religion in their own non-conforming churches.

    In the Protestant context, it was the Arminians under William Laud who were most keen on enforcing religious uniformity. There were similar incidents in Scotland and Ireland as well incidentally, Presbyterians(who would be the closest theologically to the Puritans) were often persecuted by high church Anglican types. The same was true years earlier under Henry VIII as well.

    The Catholics were the worst of all of course. Mary I had 280 people burned at the stake for the crime of not being Catholic. In this she was following a long history of Catholic practice.

    It is also worth remembering that Catholics for over 100 years were behind plots to overthrow and kill English monarchs and trying to get English and Spanish to invade, even having the support in these initiatives of Pope Gregory XIII. Roman Catholicism is not just a religion, especially in those days, it was a political system. In other words, many Catholics were traitors. You do not respond to such a state of affairs with tolerance and love. Protestant England persecution of Catholics was justified.

    Stories of Cromwell’s massacres against the Irish are complete fiction by the way. The claims of civilian massacres at Drogheda were all propaganda after the restoration, they were not based upon eyewitness accounts. Previous to this, no sources, including royalist accounts, mentions anything about civilian deaths. We also have surviving Cromwell’s order of August 24, 1649 not to harm any civilians. This all stands in contrast to the undisputed fact that the Irish, of their own volition killed 3-4,000 Protestants in 1641, and likely caused the death of numerous others by driving them out of their homes.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm

    to get English and Spanish to invade
     
    This should say French and Spanish to invade.
    , @S. Anonyia
    I agree that the slaughter figures are exaggerated, but there are definitely a lot of damaged buildings in Ireland that date to the Cromwell era (I've visited them). Wasn't fun and games, his soldiers were restless.
  229. @Neuday
    If, as a jew, you have no animus toward the Gentiles, how do see the dominance of jews in finance, media, jewish control of government, the Federal Reserve, and our universities, the wars fought on behalf of our greatest ally, Emmanuel Cellar, Morganthau, the Balfour Declaration, the jewish schemes that led us into WWI and WWII, the ADL, the jewish roots of feminism, the jewish influence on Vatican II, how do you view the complete control of our institutions that has resulted in their corruption and destruction, the laws passed that ban any criticism of your co-ethny or any questioning of the holohoax, how can you look at all this and conclude, "Meh"?

    If the jews did want to destroy Christendom what would they have done any differently? By their works you will know them, indeed!

    I imagine it's difficult to be born a self-aware jew in America. If I had that fate I suppose I'd either reject the faith of my fathers, reject Satan and all of his works and become a devout Christian in hope of making amends (e.g. Gertrude Stein), or move to Israel where I belonged.

    Edith Stein, not Gertrude.

  230. @Alden
    You’re the ignorant one. Knox and Calvin both endlessly proclaimed “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel.

    They even seriously discussed not eating pork oysters keeping kosher and holding services on Saturday instead of Sunday For centuries some held to the Jewish custom of not cooking on the Sabbath. They cooked a big meal on Saturday and ate the cold food on Sunday.

    They denied that Jesus was God, laughed at the idea of the Trinity and scorned Mary the mother of Jesus. They didn’t ban Christmas solely because it was an ancient European winter festival. Another and more important reason was that it celebrates the birth of Jesus and the role of his mother in conceiving carrying abd birthing him. One of their biggest quarrels with the Catholics was the catholic glorification of Mother Mary and thus all women.

    Whatever your fundamentalist preacher is telling you 470 years later, he’s wrong. Get yourself to a real respected university theology department library and learn about the puritans

    They were twisted warped weirdo wanna be jews. They were seduced by the sex and violence of the OT.

    You keep using that quote. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  231. @Alden
    My husband’s a descendant of Ulstermen in his father’s side. They traced the family direct descent back to 1,300s AD southern Scotland

    The Ulstermen were southern Scotland border bandits for centuries. They made their living from extortion and protection rackets in Scotland and cattle thieving and kidnapping over the border in England. They were uncontrollable in Scotland since there was no effective national or local government in Scotland. Just various warlords and mafias as in Africa

    Only the great Lords of the North, Percy Rutland York and others kept Northern England somewhat safe from the Scots bandits and cattle rustlers.

    Now to the mid and late 1500s AD. Queen Mary of Scotland was the only child of Scots King James 5. As per standard Scottish custom, James mysteriously died when she was a week old. But the mafia warlords were foiled by James’ wife Queen Mary’s Mother, Mary of Guise a very formidable warlord, herself.

    James 5 had another child an older half brother of Mary, James Stewart Earl of Moray. James and his maternal warlord family were of course furious that James 5 had a legitimate daughter who became Queen.

    James Stewart hired an itinerant canting Puritan preacher, John Knox to rant and rave about women and papism. The cheaply printed copies of the sex and violence OT were very popular with the Scots primitives.

    James Stewart's plan succeeded in that Queen Mary was overthrown largely due to Knox’s rants. But the other warlords defeated his attempt to install himself as King and instead crowned Mary’s 1 year old baby as James 6. James 6 survived 17 assassination attempts before he was safely installed as King of England.

    Which brings us to 1590 1600. Elizabeth of England was getting old with no heir. There were several heirs including James King of Scotland. Both the heirs and lords and politicians of England discussed who the heir to the English throne would be. James 6 claim was a bit weakened in that he was descended from only one of Henry 7 ‘s daughters, Margaret.

    So the movers and shakers of England discussed with the heirs what each heir could do for England when he or she became sovereign.

    James 6, King of Scotland promised he’d solve the centuries long problem of the Scots border bandit kidnappers cattle rustlers robbers and thieves. James kept his promise when he became James 1 of England

    James 1 did solve the problem. James 1 deported all the southern Scots border bandits to Ulster with orders to genocide the Irish Resistants to English rule and enslavement.

    That’s the history of the Ulstermen, a criminal warlord mafia deported to Ireland by James 1 in accordance with his promise to English politicians and Lords to rid N England of the Scots border bandits.

    Now, Elizabeth 1 managed to suppress Catholic dissidents against the Church of England. James 1 was faced with the growing Puritan rebels which ended in Oliver Cromwell’s regicide and installation of a tyrannical dictatorship.

    The Scots border bandits now relocated to Scotland didn’t fulfill their promise to James and the English politicians. They started up a new version of Puritanism and tried to overthrow James official Church of Ireland. Plus they didn’t manage to genocide the Irish. Nor did they settle down, work hard and pay taxes.

    So James came up with another solution. He deported the Ulstermen to the American frontier where they were plopped down to fight off the Indians to keep the coastal merchants and plantation owners safe.

    And there the Scots Irish Ulstermen have stayed ever since in the poorest part of the country. Except for the ones who went west and got out of poverty stricken Appalachia.

    As for your hero King Billy? He was nothing but a tool of the Jewish Amsterdam bankers who established The Bank of England soon after they installed William and Mary on the throne of England.
    That’s the proud history of the Ulstermen insane religious fanatics deported from both Scotland and Ireland and now stuck in the poorest part of America

    It’s time to eat a sandwich, Bobby Sands.

  232. @Alden
    My husband’s a descendant of Ulstermen in his father’s side. They traced the family direct descent back to 1,300s AD southern Scotland

    The Ulstermen were southern Scotland border bandits for centuries. They made their living from extortion and protection rackets in Scotland and cattle thieving and kidnapping over the border in England. They were uncontrollable in Scotland since there was no effective national or local government in Scotland. Just various warlords and mafias as in Africa

    Only the great Lords of the North, Percy Rutland York and others kept Northern England somewhat safe from the Scots bandits and cattle rustlers.

    Now to the mid and late 1500s AD. Queen Mary of Scotland was the only child of Scots King James 5. As per standard Scottish custom, James mysteriously died when she was a week old. But the mafia warlords were foiled by James’ wife Queen Mary’s Mother, Mary of Guise a very formidable warlord, herself.

    James 5 had another child an older half brother of Mary, James Stewart Earl of Moray. James and his maternal warlord family were of course furious that James 5 had a legitimate daughter who became Queen.

    James Stewart hired an itinerant canting Puritan preacher, John Knox to rant and rave about women and papism. The cheaply printed copies of the sex and violence OT were very popular with the Scots primitives.

    James Stewart's plan succeeded in that Queen Mary was overthrown largely due to Knox’s rants. But the other warlords defeated his attempt to install himself as King and instead crowned Mary’s 1 year old baby as James 6. James 6 survived 17 assassination attempts before he was safely installed as King of England.

    Which brings us to 1590 1600. Elizabeth of England was getting old with no heir. There were several heirs including James King of Scotland. Both the heirs and lords and politicians of England discussed who the heir to the English throne would be. James 6 claim was a bit weakened in that he was descended from only one of Henry 7 ‘s daughters, Margaret.

    So the movers and shakers of England discussed with the heirs what each heir could do for England when he or she became sovereign.

    James 6, King of Scotland promised he’d solve the centuries long problem of the Scots border bandit kidnappers cattle rustlers robbers and thieves. James kept his promise when he became James 1 of England

    James 1 did solve the problem. James 1 deported all the southern Scots border bandits to Ulster with orders to genocide the Irish Resistants to English rule and enslavement.

    That’s the history of the Ulstermen, a criminal warlord mafia deported to Ireland by James 1 in accordance with his promise to English politicians and Lords to rid N England of the Scots border bandits.

    Now, Elizabeth 1 managed to suppress Catholic dissidents against the Church of England. James 1 was faced with the growing Puritan rebels which ended in Oliver Cromwell’s regicide and installation of a tyrannical dictatorship.

    The Scots border bandits now relocated to Scotland didn’t fulfill their promise to James and the English politicians. They started up a new version of Puritanism and tried to overthrow James official Church of Ireland. Plus they didn’t manage to genocide the Irish. Nor did they settle down, work hard and pay taxes.

    So James came up with another solution. He deported the Ulstermen to the American frontier where they were plopped down to fight off the Indians to keep the coastal merchants and plantation owners safe.

    And there the Scots Irish Ulstermen have stayed ever since in the poorest part of the country. Except for the ones who went west and got out of poverty stricken Appalachia.

    As for your hero King Billy? He was nothing but a tool of the Jewish Amsterdam bankers who established The Bank of England soon after they installed William and Mary on the throne of England.
    That’s the proud history of the Ulstermen insane religious fanatics deported from both Scotland and Ireland and now stuck in the poorest part of America

    The Ulster Scots were neither deported from England or Ulster. There was no order for genocide by James I. Ulster itself was lightly populated, and before the plantation of Ulster there was intense clan fighting already both between and within the O’Neill’s and McDonnell’s. In Ireland there is also a long history of importing gallowglasses into Ireland, including to fight the English.

    The Irish have themselves migrated to England and Scotland and every part of the British Empire, and can’t be said to have never caused any trouble themselves. Somehow we’re always supposed to believe that the Irish are always the ones being persecuted wherever they go but all those nasty English and Scots are responsible for everything wrong in Ireland.

    • Replies: @EldnahYm
    "The Ulster Scots were neither deported from England or Ulster"

    Another error, this should say Scotland or Ulster. I will do better to proofread posts in the future.
  233. anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Colin Farrell played John Smith for Terrence Malick in “The New World.” Christian Bale played John Rolfe.

     

    The Virginia Company in the new world in 1607 was after gold, glory and God -- in that order.

    Good use of Wagner by Malick but the guy taking some of the water and putting it to his mouth and spitting it out seems out of place. It didn't seem ceremonial and they were aware of contaminants at that point in history.

    Farrell is a Leprechaun turd with a full head of hair -- why should we watch him -- and Plummer is a pissant who didn't like the way Malick did things.

    Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he's another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.

    As far as Leprechauns go, I like Jeremiah Sullivan, he fought in the American Secessionary War against the British Empire and he was born in North Carolina and he's my blood.

    I get angry with misbehaving Leprechaun slobs such as Jim Comey and John Brennan and any other random Leprechaun drunk I run across because they make the Irish look bad.

    https://youtu.be/lFkyAD9gS6g

    “Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.”

    What’s with the hair?

    I was very fond of my hair, and would like to have it back.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    “Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.”
     
    What’s with the hair?
     
    https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/842037997491040258/LasWGegN.jpg
  234. @EldnahYm
    Despite all the ahistorical nonsense being bandied about, the Puritans were not particularly repressive compared to many other groups around them. Nor were they a unified group with an agreed set of policies. There were some who wanted a Presbyterian church of England and there were others who wanted freedom to practice religion in their own non-conforming churches.

    In the Protestant context, it was the Arminians under William Laud who were most keen on enforcing religious uniformity. There were similar incidents in Scotland and Ireland as well incidentally, Presbyterians(who would be the closest theologically to the Puritans) were often persecuted by high church Anglican types. The same was true years earlier under Henry VIII as well.

    The Catholics were the worst of all of course. Mary I had 280 people burned at the stake for the crime of not being Catholic. In this she was following a long history of Catholic practice.

    It is also worth remembering that Catholics for over 100 years were behind plots to overthrow and kill English monarchs and trying to get English and Spanish to invade, even having the support in these initiatives of Pope Gregory XIII. Roman Catholicism is not just a religion, especially in those days, it was a political system. In other words, many Catholics were traitors. You do not respond to such a state of affairs with tolerance and love. Protestant England persecution of Catholics was justified.

    Stories of Cromwell's massacres against the Irish are complete fiction by the way. The claims of civilian massacres at Drogheda were all propaganda after the restoration, they were not based upon eyewitness accounts. Previous to this, no sources, including royalist accounts, mentions anything about civilian deaths. We also have surviving Cromwell's order of August 24, 1649 not to harm any civilians. This all stands in contrast to the undisputed fact that the Irish, of their own volition killed 3-4,000 Protestants in 1641, and likely caused the death of numerous others by driving them out of their homes.

    to get English and Spanish to invade

    This should say French and Spanish to invade.

  235. @EldnahYm
    The Ulster Scots were neither deported from England or Ulster. There was no order for genocide by James I. Ulster itself was lightly populated, and before the plantation of Ulster there was intense clan fighting already both between and within the O'Neill's and McDonnell's. In Ireland there is also a long history of importing gallowglasses into Ireland, including to fight the English.

    The Irish have themselves migrated to England and Scotland and every part of the British Empire, and can't be said to have never caused any trouble themselves. Somehow we're always supposed to believe that the Irish are always the ones being persecuted wherever they go but all those nasty English and Scots are responsible for everything wrong in Ireland.

    “The Ulster Scots were neither deported from England or Ulster”

    Another error, this should say Scotland or Ulster. I will do better to proofread posts in the future.

  236. @PhysicistDave
    Reg Caesar wrote to me:

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan.
     
    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    The Anabaptists were basically Germans. Roger Williams, not. As Wikipedia warns readers, "Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist." Different roots indeed.

    You are also assuming more uniformity among Puritans than existed. The Pilgrim Fathers, for example, were Separatists. Most of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, not.

    Furthermore, Williams certainly came to the colonies as a Puritan, and, indeed, spent some time at Plymouth, though he decided the Pilgrims were not separatist enough. He was sympathetic to the Baptists at least for a while, but probably the best term for him was "Seeker."

    I think it was the historian George Brown Tindall who quipped that Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife -- and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    A childhood hero of mine, so I do know a lot about him.

    Of course, for those who consider Williams a bit too much on the moderate side, there is the heroic Anne Hutchinson, who rejected not only religious authority but also any human temporal authority of any sort whatsoever -- she compelled her husband to leave a post in Roger Williams' government in Rhode Island because, after all, only God should presume to command adult human beings.

    I think I would have liked to have talked with Anne. I am not sure I would have enjoyed being her husband.

    Anne Hutchinson grew up in the same village as John Smith. One wonders about the water supply there.

    That everyone has heard of Anne Hutchinson and no one Deborah Moody is good evidence for “Well-behaved women don’t make history.”

    John Winthrop banned Lady Moody from his colony, even though he expressed admiration for her. But rules are rules.

    …Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife — and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    The joke among genealogists is that you went to Rhode Island if you weren’t good enough for Massachusetts. You went to Connecticut if you were too good for Massachusetts.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Reg wrote to me:

    Anne Hutchinson grew up in the same village as John Smith. One wonders about the water supply there.
     
    Interesting. Could we get the members of Conservatism, Inc. to drink some of that water so they will grow a spine (and maybe some other organs)?

    Reg also wrote:

    The joke among genealogists is that you went to Rhode Island if you weren’t good enough for Massachusetts. You went to Connecticut if you were too good for Massachusetts.
     
    Also known as "Rogues' Island," they refused on principle to send delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and only ratified the Constitution when threatened with sanctions by the new Congress.

    Gotta love those guys!
  237. @anonymous
    "Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair."

    What's with the hair?

    I was very fond of my hair, and would like to have it back.

    “Christian Bale is English and interesting to watch, but he’s another Limey bastard with a full head of hair.”

    What’s with the hair?

  238. @Bardon Kaldian
    All points you've enumerated are pure unadulterated trash. Jews & their influence in US society may be an interesting topic- but to discuss something, you have to know the issues discussed. Which is not the case.

    US Jews - I mean Jewy Jews who retained some kind of their tribal consciousness- represent not more than 15-20% of American Jewry (and yes, they're pain in the @ss). And many of them, especially those with Israeli connections, are humorless & boring people no free spirit would bother to associate with, whichever his (non)religious persuasion.

    Your time is coming. God be with you.

  239. @Cagey Beast
    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: "that never would have happened here in the old days".

    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: “that never would have happened here in the old days”.

    Today he’d have garbage thrown at him and be harried off the bus.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    The Church scandals in Ireland seem to be more about sadism than sex.

    As was long the case in the Mediterranean, nobody hates the Church more than someone who has left.
  240. Huge majority of the posts have nothing to do with Robinson & the issues she raised. So, perhaps 80% of this thread is OT.

    And, most of it is wrong.

    Ulster Protestants, descendants of the 17th C English & Scots colonizers, carved out so called Northern Ireland of 6 counties for their supremacy over native Catholic Irish to stay in Britain, rather than to become a part of newly independent Irish Republic. Catholic Irish, 1/3rd of that artificial “state” were intimidated, harassed, expelled, murdered… Historical Ulster is comprised of 9 counties- but Irish Catholics have always been the majority in that entire area. So, British colonizers & their imperial descendants carved out as much as possible to retain a solid voting majority. Had they followed history, the whole Ulster would have been absorbed into Republic of Ireland, Irish Catholic Republicans being over 50%. If, on the other way, ethnic principle was used, perhaps only 2, and not 6 counties, would end up with Britain.

    Just, Ulster Protestants are getting the taste of their own medicine. Now, when Catholics have become the majority even in historically Protestant Belfast- life begins to suck both for Ulster Protestants & other Herrenvolk ideology people.

    Dynamic Irish Protestants who had been first & foremost Irish (Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, Parnell, Thomas Davis, Douglas Hyde, Lady Gregory, W.B. Yeats, Sean O’Casey, …) had done much for their adopted country; Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste which can, at best, retain a small part of an island as their land, perhaps ca. 20% of contemporary Northern Ireland.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    ULSTERMEN: Zaggedy-zippidy ziggedy-zoooo! No surrender!

    FENIANS: No no no -- blibbedy blobbedy mucketty moo! Up the Republic!

    AFRICANS: Hmm, this "Ireland" place looks much nicer than Africa. Plus, lots of White girls. Better tell twelve million of my cousins to come move here. Nobody's stopping us.
    , @Hibernian
    Agree.
    , @Logan
    Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste

    The problem is that most devout Orangemen aren't any kind of a ruling caste. They're much like their Scotch-Irish cousins in America, mostly bitter clinger working class or lower middle class deplorables.

    Anyway, the Catholic-Protestant issue in Ireland has long had a great deal more to do with tribalism than with religion. The Orangemen are a tribe. A tribe that is despised, again like their cousins in America, by just about everybody.

  241. @Logan
    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.

    There are some things we can criticize VB for, but that isn't one of them.

    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.

    Right you are. I’ve been making that mistake for so long that I didn’t check it. Bad move.

    Change the names around and the analysis is correct. The Whigs got a President early on, and it was their last President as Whigs. They later formed the core of the Republican party.

    Counterinsurgency

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Still wrong. There were 3 Whig presidents: In chronological order, Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor. Harrison was elected in 1840, served for one month, died, and was succeeded by his Vice-President Tyler, who served out the term. Taylor was elected in 1848 and served one term. The Whigs were weak and did well only when the people were fed up with the Democrats.
  242. @stillCARealist
    Have you read her novel Gilead? It's highly recommended. You'd find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

    You get the sense that she really wants to thread the needle between grace and works salvation and still get liberals reading the gospel. I didn't read this article, admittedly, so maybe she's more on the works side now, but she seemed like a true Christian author in Gilead.

    Have you read her novel Gilead? It’s highly recommended. You’d find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

    Yes, I’ve read Gilead, and yes, my reaction was much as you’ve suggested.

    Gilead is an unusual work that I at first found compelling (it is very elegantly written), but something started bothering me as I read, and this feeling of unease only increased as I worked through the novel.

    It was this: although its plot is essentially a take on the parable of the prodigal son, and its protagonist is an Iowa pastor, there is little mention of Jesus, the Cross, the Resurrection — really, of the Good News, full stop. There is an odd lack of depth to Revd Ames’s considerations of baptism and especially the eucharist. They are presented more as aesthetic than as spiritual events. And I know the Old Testament stories Robinson references repeatedly are in keeping with the prophetic, fire-and-blood legacy of Revd Ames’s grandfather, but a lifelong pastor who’s the descendant of pastors would simply not talk about sin and redemption without coming before the Cross over and over again.

    If you read the essay, you will see that Robinson’s interests in the Puritans have only tangential connections to the heart of their theology. She likes aspects of their political program.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    You have any favorite books Calvinist?
  243. @Bardon Kaldian

    Nowadays, Blacks marry white women while still holding a grudge against Whitey, etc. Because according to patrineal descent, women who outmarry come to join the husband’s ethnic group, as do their children not the reverse. It would indeed be foolish for a man to marry into a tribe or a family he hates or despises (two different moods), if marriage were matrilineal, which is the exception, not the norm.
     
    Well, judging from hwhite perspective- blacks are visually the most different race. Yet, according to Brits, they're not "conquering" anyone, but are trying to "get bleached". I don't know how it all will work, but I don't think your line of reasoning holds water.

    https://qz.com/1279306/royal-wedding-2018-meghan-markles-mixed-race-marriage-isnt-unusual-in-the-uk/

    Mixed race women (who are black and white), like Markle, are more likely to marry or cohabitate with white men in the UK. According to the 2011 census, 65% of mixed-race women (black and white) are married or cohabitate with white men. Around 16% are in a relationship with mixed race men (black and white), while just 14% are in a relationship with black men.

    Soon there won’t be enough Whites for Blacks to “bleach” into. So they’ll have to settle for mixed race partners.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Genetic engineering?
  244. @James Braxton
    Brexit will go a long way to preserving the status quo.

    Won’t the new EU border between the Republic and NI make things difficult?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Very much so. A hard border will become necessary to prevent smuggling. Unfortunately, such a hard border will affect people as well as goods and may reignite the Troubles.
  245. @dr kill
    This woman has a stupid opinion, I'm not at all interested in it, but I have learned a good deal by reading the comments. Interesting how an article like this brings out the historians.

    iSteve, where dilettantes lurk.

  246. @Reg Cæsar
    Anne Hutchinson grew up in the same village as John Smith. One wonders about the water supply there.

    That everyone has heard of Anne Hutchinson and no one Deborah Moody is good evidence for "Well-behaved women don't make history."

    John Winthrop banned Lady Moody from his colony, even though he expressed admiration for her. But rules are rules.

    ...Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife — and he had a few doubts about the wife!
     
    The joke among genealogists is that you went to Rhode Island if you weren't good enough for Massachusetts. You went to Connecticut if you were too good for Massachusetts.

    Reg wrote to me:

    Anne Hutchinson grew up in the same village as John Smith. One wonders about the water supply there.

    Interesting. Could we get the members of Conservatism, Inc. to drink some of that water so they will grow a spine (and maybe some other organs)?

    Reg also wrote:

    The joke among genealogists is that you went to Rhode Island if you weren’t good enough for Massachusetts. You went to Connecticut if you were too good for Massachusetts.

    Also known as “Rogues’ Island,” they refused on principle to send delegates to the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and only ratified the Constitution when threatened with sanctions by the new Congress.

    Gotta love those guys!

  247. @Bardon Kaldian
    Huge majority of the posts have nothing to do with Robinson & the issues she raised. So, perhaps 80% of this thread is OT.

    And, most of it is wrong.


    Ulster Protestants, descendants of the 17th C English & Scots colonizers, carved out so called Northern Ireland of 6 counties for their supremacy over native Catholic Irish to stay in Britain, rather than to become a part of newly independent Irish Republic. Catholic Irish, 1/3rd of that artificial "state" were intimidated, harassed, expelled, murdered... Historical Ulster is comprised of 9 counties- but Irish Catholics have always been the majority in that entire area. So, British colonizers & their imperial descendants carved out as much as possible to retain a solid voting majority. Had they followed history, the whole Ulster would have been absorbed into Republic of Ireland, Irish Catholic Republicans being over 50%. If, on the other way, ethnic principle was used, perhaps only 2, and not 6 counties, would end up with Britain.

    Just, Ulster Protestants are getting the taste of their own medicine. Now, when Catholics have become the majority even in historically Protestant Belfast- life begins to suck both for Ulster Protestants & other Herrenvolk ideology people.

    Dynamic Irish Protestants who had been first & foremost Irish (Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, Parnell, Thomas Davis, Douglas Hyde, Lady Gregory, W.B. Yeats, Sean O'Casey, ...) had done much for their adopted country; Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste which can, at best, retain a small part of an island as their land, perhaps ca. 20% of contemporary Northern Ireland.

    ULSTERMEN: Zaggedy-zippidy ziggedy-zoooo! No surrender!

    FENIANS: No no no — blibbedy blobbedy mucketty moo! Up the Republic!

    AFRICANS: Hmm, this “Ireland” place looks much nicer than Africa. Plus, lots of White girls. Better tell twelve million of my cousins to come move here. Nobody’s stopping us.

  248. Same open borders speech as today, they share our values, they will enrich us, sorry oppressed people, other guilt trip stuff. God talk today would use economics as a proxy for God.

    Comwell’s Puritan chaplain says things like this:

    Let no difference bee made between Iews, or Gentiles, bond or free, stranger or Natives, in either Criminal, or Civil things: for so hath God commanded, and by this means shall the Governors bee true fathers of humanitie; And it will mightily populate, and inrich the Common-wealth, when the oppressed in anie other Countrie know where to go dwell, under so just Government, with freedom from oppression. Deut. 1. 16, 17. Prov. 24. 23. Prov. 20. 8.

    Peter is by no means congratulating existing practice. At the time he wrote this, it was illegal for Jews to live in England, as it had been since their expulsion in 1290. Cromwell had begun negotiating an end to their exclusion when he died. (It should be noted that, in his sermon on the duty of charity, Jonathan Edwards stipulates at the outset that this duty is owed to anyone: “It is explained in Levit. xxv. 35 to mean not only those of their own nation, but even strangers and sojourners.”

  249. @BB753
    Soon there won't be enough Whites for Blacks to "bleach" into. So they'll have to settle for mixed race partners.

    Genetic engineering?

    • Replies: @BB753
    If it's genetic engineering, then they're not doing it right. It's dysgenic.
  250. @Alden
    I assumed you’re a southerner.

    The worst thing about the southern slave owners was the way they used the slaves to keep down non slave owning Whites Slavery made most Whites poor and the slave owning Whites despised the other Whites for being poor.

    Very similar to affirmative action’s abolishing the merit system. It keeps the Whites down.

    So you disapprove of enslaving Africans but approve of the war criminal genocidal Oliver Cromwell enslaving 250,000 White Irish Catholics and selling them in the Caritabd American colonies. I wonder how much money he made from that slavery business?

    I have southern and northern (actually midwestern) ancestors. They fought on both sides of the war. One of them fought on both sides personally, being captured by the Union, joining the Union Army from the prison camp and being sent west to fight Indians. I grew up in an area often considered southern in the North, and northern in the South.

    I disapprove of enslaving Africans or Irish, or anybody else. Why in the world would disapproval of enslavement of Africans equate to approval of Cromwell’s actions?

    Not that he did what you said. In previous research I ran across documentation that the entire emigration from Europe to the English colonies of the Caribbean before 1776 totaled about 500,000 people. It defies belief that 50% of these were transported by Cromwell from 1653 to the end of his rule a few years later.

    Scholars estimate 10,000 to 12,000 deported by Cromwell. 250,000 to 300,000 is sometimes given as an estimate of the total number of indentured servants sent from all of the UK to all British American colonies over a 200 year period. X does not equal Y.

  251. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Have you read her novel Gilead? It’s highly recommended. You’d find it challenging and inspiring and perhaps a little irritating.

     

    Yes, I've read Gilead, and yes, my reaction was much as you've suggested.

    Gilead is an unusual work that I at first found compelling (it is very elegantly written), but something started bothering me as I read, and this feeling of unease only increased as I worked through the novel.

    It was this: although its plot is essentially a take on the parable of the prodigal son, and its protagonist is an Iowa pastor, there is little mention of Jesus, the Cross, the Resurrection -- really, of the Good News, full stop. There is an odd lack of depth to Revd Ames's considerations of baptism and especially the eucharist. They are presented more as aesthetic than as spiritual events. And I know the Old Testament stories Robinson references repeatedly are in keeping with the prophetic, fire-and-blood legacy of Revd Ames's grandfather, but a lifelong pastor who's the descendant of pastors would simply not talk about sin and redemption without coming before the Cross over and over again.

    If you read the essay, you will see that Robinson's interests in the Puritans have only tangential connections to the heart of their theology. She likes aspects of their political program.

    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

     

    My fiction tastes are pretty conventional.

    For Brits, give me Austen, Waugh, and Tolkien. I think Joyce was the biggest literary genius since Shakespeare, but man, he knew it. Having said that, just last week I reread his short story 'The Dead' for the first time in many years because Daughter C was giving it a try, and I concede it's top-shelf stuff.

    For Americans, Chandler, Tom Wolfe (I've likely read Bonfire 6-8 times), and Flannery O'Connor. I like some Faulkner, but his books wear me out as I get older. Still, getting through -- and just 'getting' -- The Sound and the Fury was probably the signature reading experience I've had.

    For miscellaneous, Dostoyevsky and Eco (I've read Foucault's Pendulum several times; it jibes with my intellectual preferences and proclivities more than I care to admit sometimes).

    I also have a soft spot for murder mysteries; I'm a big P D James fan, and I also really like Reginald Hill.

    For essayists, I like Orwell, C S Lewis (I admire not only his theology, but especially his stylistic fusion of clarity with a warm, conversational tone), and David Foster Wallace (I have read a good part, but not all, of his fiction, which has flashes of brilliance, but speaking of getting worn out -- I find his essays more accessible and memorable).

    For more recent stuff, I've read and enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson's works, although I think he peaked some years back with Cryptonomicon, which I've also enjoyed through several re-reads.

    How about you?

  252. Let me be clear.
    If you like your dreams from your father, you can pick and choose whether you are white (like my mother who dragged me to Indonesia for Pete’s sake) and like my Grandmother who was a typical white person except she was a wealthy banker in Hawaii so I got to live the life of the idle rich while growing up and my rich leftist and communist connections handed me everything, (take a breath) or, you can identify with your Kenyan father who left random families everywhere he stopped as the Kenyan government paid for him to travel and play college student before bringing him home to his cushy job as a member of Kenya’s post-colonial rising ruling class.
    So I chose black, since white is out of style.
    Leadership is watching where the herd is going and getting out front. Just need to game the system . . .

  253. @Anon
    I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired. Lord Protector my ass.

    I never understood how Oliver Cromwell could still be admired

    Well, Cromwell

    – brought to an end a catastrophic civil war, one for which the king had been responsible.

    – had the strength to hold all three kingdoms together in the aftermath of that terrible war, and to suppress a series of royalist attempts to reignite it.

    – had the moral courage to lead in the regicide; Charles was an utterly incompetent king, who had shown repeatedly that he could not be trusted at all and was incapable of learning any significant lessons from his (many) failures. Any course other than execution would inevitably have led to betrayal.

    Nobody has to “like” Cromwell, but sneering at what he achieved and the strength of character and intellect that allowed him to achieve it is absurd.*

    * – accusing Cromwell of being a genocidalist is even more absurd: anachronistic and credulous.

  254. @Kronos
    In terms of crop profitability, cotton was king! (Tobacco was a relatively distant second.) Both grew much better in the South than North. Those two crops created wealth akin to contemporary marijuana. Think how much potatoes you’d need to grow today to match one ounce of marijuana. Even the wine was better in the South. Industry and shipyards were the best niche for us.

    In terms of climate, malaria wasn’t so much of a problem. New England had fewer disease related deaths than any other region of colonial America. But we had more witch burnings per capita for a LONG time.

    Yeah, but who allowed the Irish and Italians in? Sure, they were smarter and less violent (than blacks) but that creates its own problems. We also invited Eastern European Jews in, which proved our downfall.

    There were no witch burnings in this era inNew England or Olde England. Burnings went out of fashion a century earlier. A noose was the way to go.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    The NAMES and MEANS changed but not the actions. Within every fat SJW WASP cousin, there’s a Puritan who wishes to “purify” the human race. I’m not kidding, the struggle is real.
  255. @Anonymous
    The flawed reformation of the Church of England is what created the Puritans in the first place. The English Reformation was less principled than the reformations of Luther and Calvin. That's why the religious landscape in England is confused between non-conformist Protestants, Evangelical Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and Roman Catholics. Anglo-Catholicism is a really strange pick-and-choose form of pseudo-Catholicism and there's different degrees of it. Some Anglo-Catholics are basically Protestants, while others are hardly any different from Roman Catholics. And you have everything in between.

    Some people seem to think the Puritans were a distinct ethnic group, but they were just a subset of the English nation. Religion doesn't change blood. A Puritan and a Catholic Englishman are of the same ethnic group.

    I like the Puritans because of common blood, but I do dislike their leaders who destroyed the Anglo-Saxon South and tried to impose the mixing of the races, which was only beaten back by paramilitaries such as the Red Shirts, White League, rifle clubs, etc. Slavery was something we inherited from colonial times so we didn't deserve the demonization or destruction. But I do think that Southern civilization was superior:

    A major theme of the Cult of the Lost Cause was the clash of two civilizations, one inferior to the other. The North, “invigorated by constant struggle with nature, had become materialistic, grasping for wealth and power.” The South had a “more generous climate” which had led to a finer society based upon “veracity and honor in man, chastity and fidelity in women.”
     
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-i-learned-about-cult-lost-cause-180968426/

    The Southerners didn’t think of themselves as Anglo Saxon. The elites consider themselves if Norman origin and the plebes were Scots Irish. Though no shortage of Anglos in both categories. The KKK symbols and clothing were purely Scottish . The Confederate flag was based in the St. Andrews cross rather St. George.
    Its real funny how both leftists and white nationalists both discount the vital ,visceral role of religion in forming identity. Just think of the Trump/ anti Trump factions on steroids and you can get idea if religion divisions in 17th century Europe and Britain.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The Southerners didn’t think of themselves as Anglo Saxon.
     
    Wrong. See Thomas Jefferson.
  256. Anonymous[390] • Disclaimer says:
    @Huisache
    Read her article several times a few weeks ago. The nice folks at the NYRB put what should have been their lead article at the back of that issue next to the personal ads

    Really is worth the read

    Really is worth the read

    What about it is worthwhile?

  257. Anonymous[390] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cagey Beast
    As someone from a Tory background, it seems ironic to see her lamenting the lack of reverence for iconoclasts and regicides. "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

    I want to sympathize with her tribe but they're a big part of how the West got into this mess.

    I want to sympathize with her tribe but they’re a big part of how the West got into this mess.

    No they aren’t.

  258. Anonymous[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey

    In the New York Review of Books, she laments that nobody in America appreciates anymore the vast Puritan contributions — as embodied in formidable figures like John Wycliffe, Oliver Cromwell, John “Shining City on a Hill” Winthrop, John Milton, Jonathan Edwards, William Blake, Henry Ward Beecher, and John Brown — to modern American liberalism.
     
    I saw "Wicked" a decade or so ago, back when it was all the rage. Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    The show features a wizard who rose to power after a war in Oz (like Hitler), and talking animals who are initially treated like humans but are starting to be treated like animals again (i.e., Jews), and in Act 2 one of the characters, Fiyero, comes out in a costume not so subtly resembling a Nazi uniform, with armband and all. When I remarked about the allusions to Nazi Germany to my then girlfriend, an intelligent girl who had already seen the show a few times, she was taken aback. She had never noticed the references nor, according to a few Google searches, had anyone else much noticed, either.

    So I concluded that I was either crazy (probably a little) or that people just don't notice that much, especially when it comes to hit Broadway musicals with what really are truly awful scores.

    But as I was saying...early in the show there's a scene where Glinda (the good witch) and Elpheba (the wicked witch) arrive at school together. It's almost like an allusion to Jews vs WASPs at Harvard. Glinda is the ditzy blonde who is only concerned about being "Popular" (yes, she sings a song about it), while Elpheba arrives in a get-up looking not at all unlike a Hasidic Jew. And of course Elpheba is truly the smart one (just like Jews are the only ones who truly deserve to be at WASP-founded Harvard!). Glinda is only a good witch because she's a conformist, whereas Elpheba is only bad because the Ozzians have chosen to demonize her.

    Well anyway...so I had a point here somewhere...but that is that there's a huge war between Jews and WASPs (at least in the minds of Jews, even if most WASPs no longer realize it) and anything that acknowledges the WASP contribution to anything good is strictly verboten - though there will of course be several thousand productions of "The Crucible" every single year - in fact your child is probably rehearsing for one as you read this.

    Just today, in fact, I was wondering if there would be any movie, even just a television miniseries, coming out next year to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the Plymouth Colony. Probably not.

    Halfway through the show, if not far sooner, I realized that it was a show, in part, about the 150-year(ish)-old conflict of Jews vs. WASPs, doubling as an allegory about Nazi Germany.

    What “show” isn’t a war of Jews against people of European descent?

    Please desist from using the term “WASP”. Not only is it inaccurate but it is an attempted racial slur.

  259. @Alden
    Don’t forget the representative of Satan on earth, supreme scumbag Chief Justice William Brennan who created the doctrine that disproportionate representation is “ in and of itself clear and present evidence of discrimination “ in Griggs vs Duke Power 1973.

    What a traitor. The best thing the American Irish Catholics ever did was create an alternative private K- University education system that’s proved infinitely superior to the public school system. So what did this Irish Catholic do?

    He completely destroyed the merit system that benefited the well educated. And changed affirmative action from “ do not discriminate against qualified blacks” into
    “ you must discriminate against the best qualified Whites in favor of functionally retarded blacks and never ever fire them for total incompetency embezzlement or any other justifiable cause”

    Irish Catholics are probably the gentile group who have had the most influence on the movie industry. Also a they are a huge share of our nation’s most entertaining writers/novelists. Southerners (Irish, English or otherwise) are also disproportionately good writers. This is even more noticeable when you look at the best-sellers lists and not just critically acclaimed books.

  260. Anonymous[212] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Presumably you're talking just about Jews, but the original "coalition of the fringes" that displaced WASP hegemony was not exclusively Jewish (and couldn't be, given their small numbers). It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.

    It included Catholics, white ethnics, Southerners, etc., many of whom were just as hostile or even more so towards the WASP ascendency.

    Irish Catholics perhaps merit mention for their hostility, but not other ethnics and Southerners.

  261. @EldnahYm
    Despite all the ahistorical nonsense being bandied about, the Puritans were not particularly repressive compared to many other groups around them. Nor were they a unified group with an agreed set of policies. There were some who wanted a Presbyterian church of England and there were others who wanted freedom to practice religion in their own non-conforming churches.

    In the Protestant context, it was the Arminians under William Laud who were most keen on enforcing religious uniformity. There were similar incidents in Scotland and Ireland as well incidentally, Presbyterians(who would be the closest theologically to the Puritans) were often persecuted by high church Anglican types. The same was true years earlier under Henry VIII as well.

    The Catholics were the worst of all of course. Mary I had 280 people burned at the stake for the crime of not being Catholic. In this she was following a long history of Catholic practice.

    It is also worth remembering that Catholics for over 100 years were behind plots to overthrow and kill English monarchs and trying to get English and Spanish to invade, even having the support in these initiatives of Pope Gregory XIII. Roman Catholicism is not just a religion, especially in those days, it was a political system. In other words, many Catholics were traitors. You do not respond to such a state of affairs with tolerance and love. Protestant England persecution of Catholics was justified.

    Stories of Cromwell's massacres against the Irish are complete fiction by the way. The claims of civilian massacres at Drogheda were all propaganda after the restoration, they were not based upon eyewitness accounts. Previous to this, no sources, including royalist accounts, mentions anything about civilian deaths. We also have surviving Cromwell's order of August 24, 1649 not to harm any civilians. This all stands in contrast to the undisputed fact that the Irish, of their own volition killed 3-4,000 Protestants in 1641, and likely caused the death of numerous others by driving them out of their homes.

    I agree that the slaughter figures are exaggerated, but there are definitely a lot of damaged buildings in Ireland that date to the Cromwell era (I’ve visited them). Wasn’t fun and games, his soldiers were restless.

  262. @The Wild Geese Howard
    I thought Malick did a great job with the locations and cinematography.

    I felt like I was looking into a window on the past rather than watching a film.

    I’ve been meaning to see that for some time, but I slept through the middle 9/10ths of The Thin Red Lone.

  263. @Logan
    I have no problem with Satanists who worship goats. (Kind of dumb, but go for it, guys.)

    Or Jews, though the Everest size shoulder chip is not an inaccurate description for quite a few of them.

    But if you kill babies, for any reason, we'll lock you up and hopefully execute you.

    This is, you know, punishing actions rather than beliefs.

    The babies have to get ALL the way born first, of course.

    Odd that the commenter lumped goat-worship, baby murder and touchy Jews all together, as if there's no significant difference.

    It’s like sex: you decide to disturb public order, we can intervene, because you are violating the rights of other people. You do it with somebody who cannot or will not give consent, we can intervene, because you are violating the rights of other people. Otherwise, it is your business as a mature adult, and others just have to make their peace with that.

    I’m convinced as a nation, one of the biggest cultural problems we have in the United States is that we care too much about what people think and say, and not enough about what they do. Emotions aren’t innately good or evil, actions are.

  264. White Leftists frequently Euromorphize their non-white political allies. Even their cleverest allies (Jews? Hindus? Phoenicians?) would only interest themselves in Robinson’s spiritual genealogy if this were of use in their pursuit of power. But, having quietly relinquished their power over the Progressive movement, why would any of their ever growing list of “allies” bother with this work? A few decades ago the Jews may have had cause enough to reinterpret such politico-religious development–in order to place their stamp on it and twist its meaning for their present purposes. But, now this musty meandering through the relics of a impotent dying tribe appears pointless pedantry. Robinson and her ilk are merely the necessary glue, a boring functional component of the movement. What could be more tedious than the history of glue?

  265. @Alden
    Cromwell let the English Catholics alone because they were so few left after his great great uncle Thomas Cromwell and Henry 8 wiped them out.
    But what Oliver Cromwell did to the Irish Catholics was one of the greatest war crimes of history. 1/4 of the population enslaved and sold in the Caribbean and American colonies as life long slaves, not indentured servants and about 1/3 massacred, all in the name of his wanna be Jew insane religion. Actually not, just financial imperialism to seize Ireland and confiscate the property of the people.

    Agree with reservations. One third dead doesn’t surprise me but I’m skeptical about 1/4 enslaved.

  266. @Bardon Kaldian
    Huge majority of the posts have nothing to do with Robinson & the issues she raised. So, perhaps 80% of this thread is OT.

    And, most of it is wrong.


    Ulster Protestants, descendants of the 17th C English & Scots colonizers, carved out so called Northern Ireland of 6 counties for their supremacy over native Catholic Irish to stay in Britain, rather than to become a part of newly independent Irish Republic. Catholic Irish, 1/3rd of that artificial "state" were intimidated, harassed, expelled, murdered... Historical Ulster is comprised of 9 counties- but Irish Catholics have always been the majority in that entire area. So, British colonizers & their imperial descendants carved out as much as possible to retain a solid voting majority. Had they followed history, the whole Ulster would have been absorbed into Republic of Ireland, Irish Catholic Republicans being over 50%. If, on the other way, ethnic principle was used, perhaps only 2, and not 6 counties, would end up with Britain.

    Just, Ulster Protestants are getting the taste of their own medicine. Now, when Catholics have become the majority even in historically Protestant Belfast- life begins to suck both for Ulster Protestants & other Herrenvolk ideology people.

    Dynamic Irish Protestants who had been first & foremost Irish (Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, Parnell, Thomas Davis, Douglas Hyde, Lady Gregory, W.B. Yeats, Sean O'Casey, ...) had done much for their adopted country; Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste which can, at best, retain a small part of an island as their land, perhaps ca. 20% of contemporary Northern Ireland.

    Agree.

  267. @Counterinsurgency

    Dude, the Alien and Sedition Acts were under Adams in 1798, not Van Buren in 1838.
     
    Right you are. I've been making that mistake for so long that I didn't check it. Bad move.

    Change the names around and the analysis is correct. The Whigs got a President early on, and it was their last President as Whigs. They later formed the core of the Republican party.

    Counterinsurgency

    Still wrong. There were 3 Whig presidents: In chronological order, Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor. Harrison was elected in 1840, served for one month, died, and was succeeded by his Vice-President Tyler, who served out the term. Taylor was elected in 1848 and served one term. The Whigs were weak and did well only when the people were fed up with the Democrats.

    • Replies: @Counterinsurgency
    Very bad. I'll have to read up on that section of history. It will take awhile, no more from me about Whigs until then. My apologies.

    Counterinsurgency
  268. @Flip
    Won’t the new EU border between the Republic and NI make things difficult?

    Very much so. A hard border will become necessary to prevent smuggling. Unfortunately, such a hard border will affect people as well as goods and may reignite the Troubles.

  269. @Hibernian
    Still wrong. There were 3 Whig presidents: In chronological order, Harrison, Tyler, and Taylor. Harrison was elected in 1840, served for one month, died, and was succeeded by his Vice-President Tyler, who served out the term. Taylor was elected in 1848 and served one term. The Whigs were weak and did well only when the people were fed up with the Democrats.

    Very bad. I’ll have to read up on that section of history. It will take awhile, no more from me about Whigs until then. My apologies.

    Counterinsurgency

  270. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US's most economically prosperous region. New England wasn't anywhere close.

    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US’s most economically prosperous region. New England wasn’t anywhere close.

    So you’re saying wealth is in direct proportion to African percentage in the population? That’s counterintuitive, to say the least.

    Panama has a higher per capita income than Costa Rica, so it could happen. But which country would you rather live in?

    Puerto Rico’s per capita GDP is higher than that of Costa Rica’s and Panama’s combined. How do they all rank on Trump’s cloaca index?

    Even if true, was that wealth worth the eventual price? If George Soros could show that you’d be better off economically with open borders, would you go along?

    Panama is richer than Costa Rica because that’s where the Canal was cut. Was cotton the Canal of the 19th century?

  271. @PhysicistDave
    Reg Caesar wrote to me:

    Williams was a Baptist, i.e., Anabaptist, not a Puritan.
     
    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    The Anabaptists were basically Germans. Roger Williams, not. As Wikipedia warns readers, "Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist." Different roots indeed.

    You are also assuming more uniformity among Puritans than existed. The Pilgrim Fathers, for example, were Separatists. Most of the Massachusetts Bay Puritans, not.

    Furthermore, Williams certainly came to the colonies as a Puritan, and, indeed, spent some time at Plymouth, though he decided the Pilgrims were not separatist enough. He was sympathetic to the Baptists at least for a while, but probably the best term for him was "Seeker."

    I think it was the historian George Brown Tindall who quipped that Williams supported religious freedom because he doubted anyone could make it into Heaven save himself and his wife -- and he had a few doubts about the wife!

    A childhood hero of mine, so I do know a lot about him.

    Of course, for those who consider Williams a bit too much on the moderate side, there is the heroic Anne Hutchinson, who rejected not only religious authority but also any human temporal authority of any sort whatsoever -- she compelled her husband to leave a post in Roger Williams' government in Rhode Island because, after all, only God should presume to command adult human beings.

    I think I would have liked to have talked with Anne. I am not sure I would have enjoyed being her husband.

    The Baptists were really, really, really not Anabaptists!

    I shouldn’t have capitalized the latter. There is a difference between fascists and Fascists, after all, and communists and Communists, and conservatives and Conservatives for that matter.

    The Baptists rebaptized the baptized, so they’d have been anabaptist in the generic sense.

    (Jeez, the Kindle just “corrected” generic to genetic. Let’s not even get into that.)

  272. @Anonymous
    Yet your commenting in English from the nation they founded just a short time ago.

    The worlds your oyster tiny duck, poc land awaits your genius.

    Yet your commenting in English

    English?

  273. @njguy73

    I remember arriving about a dozen years ago on a flight to Dublin with my father. At the airport we had to take a short ride on a shuttle bus. An elderly priest got on late and had to stand for the trip because no one gave up a seat to him. My father was amazed to see this: “that never would have happened here in the old days”.

     

    Today he'd have garbage thrown at him and be harried off the bus.

    The Church scandals in Ireland seem to be more about sadism than sex.

    As was long the case in the Mediterranean, nobody hates the Church more than someone who has left.

  274. @Flip
    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.

    I predict that eventually Northern Ireland will be forced into the Republic whether they like it or not.

    As Derb has pointed out, the Republic wouldn’t want it now. The subsidies keeping the peace would cost the Irish twelvefold as much per capita what they cost the British now.

  275. @Dr Van Nostrand
    There were no witch burnings in this era inNew England or Olde England. Burnings went out of fashion a century earlier. A noose was the way to go.

    The NAMES and MEANS changed but not the actions. Within every fat SJW WASP cousin, there’s a Puritan who wishes to “purify” the human race. I’m not kidding, the struggle is real.

  276. @Kronos
    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

    My fiction tastes are pretty conventional.

    For Brits, give me Austen, Waugh, and Tolkien. I think Joyce was the biggest literary genius since Shakespeare, but man, he knew it. Having said that, just last week I reread his short story ‘The Dead’ for the first time in many years because Daughter C was giving it a try, and I concede it’s top-shelf stuff.

    For Americans, Chandler, Tom Wolfe (I’ve likely read Bonfire 6-8 times), and Flannery O’Connor. I like some Faulkner, but his books wear me out as I get older. Still, getting through — and just ‘getting’ — The Sound and the Fury was probably the signature reading experience I’ve had.

    For miscellaneous, Dostoyevsky and Eco (I’ve read Foucault’s Pendulum several times; it jibes with my intellectual preferences and proclivities more than I care to admit sometimes).

    I also have a soft spot for murder mysteries; I’m a big P D James fan, and I also really like Reginald Hill.

    For essayists, I like Orwell, C S Lewis (I admire not only his theology, but especially his stylistic fusion of clarity with a warm, conversational tone), and David Foster Wallace (I have read a good part, but not all, of his fiction, which has flashes of brilliance, but speaking of getting worn out — I find his essays more accessible and memorable).

    For more recent stuff, I’ve read and enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson’s works, although I think he peaked some years back with Cryptonomicon, which I’ve also enjoyed through several re-reads.

    How about you?

    • Replies: @Kronos
    I’m essentially a non-fiction junky. I live on History (Political and Economic) and Biographies. Though I do enjoy historical fiction, the “Harry Flashman” series is amazing! My grandfather also possessed an amazing library. It contained the works of Michener, Clavell, and many others. (I didn’t read the Tom Wolfe or Philip Roth books until reading Sailer’s blog.)

    Currently, I’m reading H.L. Mencken’s “Prejudices.” The guy’s an asshole, but a very entertaining one. It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage. It’s amazing how many religious affiliates were leading intellectual thought back then. Debates on religious dogma amongst the mainstream churches were very active and presented in newspapers.

    I did read David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest” (and finished it.) I enjoyed it but found going back and forth to the endnotes a tad annoying. Regardless, I beat the crap out of legless/wheelchair bound people whenever possible. Just to make sure they’re not Quebec Separatists.
    , @Anonymous

    Tom Wolfe (I’ve likely read Bonfire 6-8 times)
     
    Why? What do you get out of it?
  277. @Hibernian
    I'm proposing a compromise settlement: Ulster will continue as is and the UK will cede Glasgow and Liverpool, to become exclaves of the Republic of Ireland.

    Liverpool and Everton FC were both formed by prods and there is a parade to mark the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne through Liverpool every year, so you may be biting off more than you can chew there..

  278. On the border, I suspect Bojo would far rather do without having to rely on the DUP headbangers.

    Despite its official name as the Conservative and Unionist Party, the Tory membership would be entirely willing to lose both Scotland and Norn Iron to achieve Brexit. The tragedy of Unionism has always been that most ‘mainlanders’ don’t really believe an Irishman, even in Northern Ireland can be British either.

    The current policy is likely to do nothing substantive to negotiate a new deal (as this will inevitably look like begging, and unsuccessful begging at that) and respond to the inevitable vote of no confidence proposal by calling an election, in the hope of bringing in as many grateful new Tory Brexiteer MPs as possible (note the many recent policy announcements intended to detach Labour Brexiteers from that party as it begins to coagulate finally around Remain.)

    If this pays off, which seems more likely that not, then hard Brexit and an invigorated Tory party anxious to shed any Irish responsibilities is likely. They will want to effect semi-permanent joint direct rule of NI with the Republic ( thus giving themselves someone to blame when everything inevitably goes tits up) and an ‘electronic’ solution to the border which will in effect be cover for turning a blind eye to widespread smuggling.. Whether the Republic is willing to go along with this is likely – in typical OE style – not even to have occurred to Tory high command as a question needing answered..

  279. @Alden
    And Calvin and Knox proclaimed that “ there is but one God and that is the God of Israel”. Calvin burned Servetus because Servetus was a rival to Calvin’s tyranny over Geneva; prison and confiscatory fines for wearing wedding rings. Insanity

    The Amish were a Swiss Puritan cult. They fled to America cerca 1550s because Calvin planned to kill them all


    The Amish were a Swiss Puritan cult. They fled to America cerca 1550s because Calvin planned to kill them all.

    Wow, so many inaccuracies in such a short paragraph.

    The Amish didn’t even split off from the wider Mennonite group until the 1690s. They began moving to America in the mid-1700s, 200 years after you say they did.

    Had they moved here in the 1550s, they would have beaten the English by over half a century.

    Calvin’s political power was limited entirely to Geneva. Even there he had influence over the city-state government, but it is simply untrue that he was some kind of dictator.

  280. @Logan
    The Beechers, John Brown, and many other Abolitionists were descendants of the Pilgrims or Puritans. This is not especially remarkable, since after the great migration that followed the fall of the Commonwealth there was a long period without significant immigration.

    Sorry, sweetie. Your history is off.

    The Great Migration occurred before the civil wars started, not during the Restoration. It ended in 1840. It did not start in 1860.

    In fact, something like 10% of the people of New England went back to join in the fighting.

    Also, the Puritans are not at all easy to categorize as Left or Right in our present terms.

    That should of course read 1640 and 1680.

    Sorry.

  281. Marylinne Robinson v. Marianne Williamson:

  282. @Alden
    Bourne’s a French name brought to England by the Norman’s who defeated the angles and saxons.

    They defeated the Angles and the Saxons.

    They were not victorious over a coalition that also included rays, lines, and points.

  283. @Bardon Kaldian
    Genetic engineering?

    If it’s genetic engineering, then they’re not doing it right. It’s dysgenic.

  284. @Alden
    Cromwell let the English Catholics alone because they were so few left after his great great uncle Thomas Cromwell and Henry 8 wiped them out.
    But what Oliver Cromwell did to the Irish Catholics was one of the greatest war crimes of history. 1/4 of the population enslaved and sold in the Caribbean and American colonies as life long slaves, not indentured servants and about 1/3 massacred, all in the name of his wanna be Jew insane religion. Actually not, just financial imperialism to seize Ireland and confiscate the property of the people.

    As others have noted, your numbers are way off. There had been vicious multi-sided fighting up and down Ireland for almost a decade by the time Cromwell showed up. The actual massacres he has been accused of committing were in two cities, and add up to some thousands total. In fact, since Cromwell ended the fighting, he probably saved lives, though that was not his intent.

    The actual total deported from Ireland in all periods has been estimated at 10,000 to 12,000. The infrastructure of the time would have made it impossible to ship hundreds of thousands of people even had this been intended.

    It is estimated that the total of all emigration from all of the UK to the Carribean over the entire period prior to our Revolution was about 500,000. That’s over about 150 years.

  285. @The Last Real Calvinist

    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

     

    My fiction tastes are pretty conventional.

    For Brits, give me Austen, Waugh, and Tolkien. I think Joyce was the biggest literary genius since Shakespeare, but man, he knew it. Having said that, just last week I reread his short story 'The Dead' for the first time in many years because Daughter C was giving it a try, and I concede it's top-shelf stuff.

    For Americans, Chandler, Tom Wolfe (I've likely read Bonfire 6-8 times), and Flannery O'Connor. I like some Faulkner, but his books wear me out as I get older. Still, getting through -- and just 'getting' -- The Sound and the Fury was probably the signature reading experience I've had.

    For miscellaneous, Dostoyevsky and Eco (I've read Foucault's Pendulum several times; it jibes with my intellectual preferences and proclivities more than I care to admit sometimes).

    I also have a soft spot for murder mysteries; I'm a big P D James fan, and I also really like Reginald Hill.

    For essayists, I like Orwell, C S Lewis (I admire not only his theology, but especially his stylistic fusion of clarity with a warm, conversational tone), and David Foster Wallace (I have read a good part, but not all, of his fiction, which has flashes of brilliance, but speaking of getting worn out -- I find his essays more accessible and memorable).

    For more recent stuff, I've read and enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson's works, although I think he peaked some years back with Cryptonomicon, which I've also enjoyed through several re-reads.

    How about you?

    I’m essentially a non-fiction junky. I live on History (Political and Economic) and Biographies. Though I do enjoy historical fiction, the “Harry Flashman” series is amazing! My grandfather also possessed an amazing library. It contained the works of Michener, Clavell, and many others. (I didn’t read the Tom Wolfe or Philip Roth books until reading Sailer’s blog.)

    Currently, I’m reading H.L. Mencken’s “Prejudices.” The guy’s an asshole, but a very entertaining one. It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage. It’s amazing how many religious affiliates were leading intellectual thought back then. Debates on religious dogma amongst the mainstream churches were very active and presented in newspapers.

    I did read David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest” (and finished it.) I enjoyed it but found going back and forth to the endnotes a tad annoying. Regardless, I beat the crap out of legless/wheelchair bound people whenever possible. Just to make sure they’re not Quebec Separatists.

    • Replies: @Logan
    It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage.

    Given your interests, you've probably already run across this. It's one of my very favorite history books.

    https://www.amazon.com/Only-Yesterday-Informal-Perennial-Classics/dp/0060956658/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LHCH6AVHQWVL&keywords=only+yesterday+book&qid=1564741762&s=gateway&sprefix=only+yesterday%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1

    Allen wrote his history of the 1920s in 1931, so he's fully aware of the crash that ends the decade, but he's not looking back on it from a perspective of 50 or 75 years, so WWII and the Cold War, etc. aren't factored in. I've read it multiple times and always find something new.

    It is, of course, very much popular history, not the scholarly version.
  286. @Old Palo Altan
    The Puritans were not all of a piece; even less their heirs and descendants.
    Henry Adams was no liberal; neither were Lathrop Stoddard or Madison Grant. Nor, I am certain, were some 90% of the graduating classes of Harvard, Yale, and the minor Ivies, from their various foundations until after the second world war.

    Power was taken from us: weakened by internal traitors like Ward Beecher and the Abolitionists, we were disarmed by the time the immigrants from one country in particular (and I mean neither Ireland or Italy) were ready to make the decisive moves, both financial and cultural, which have indeed granted them a victory which is now, I fear, irreversible.

    It’s reversible if we can raise enough awareness. But I wouldn’t bet on it, sadly.

  287. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr Van Nostrand
    The Southerners didn't think of themselves as Anglo Saxon. The elites consider themselves if Norman origin and the plebes were Scots Irish. Though no shortage of Anglos in both categories. The KKK symbols and clothing were purely Scottish . The Confederate flag was based in the St. Andrews cross rather St. George.
    Its real funny how both leftists and white nationalists both discount the vital ,visceral role of religion in forming identity. Just think of the Trump/ anti Trump factions on steroids and you can get idea if religion divisions in 17th century Europe and Britain.

    The Southerners didn’t think of themselves as Anglo Saxon.

    Wrong. See Thomas Jefferson.

    • Replies: @Logan
    There were as everywhere and always, multiple currents of thought in the South. Jefferson was into the whole Anglo-Saxon yeoman farmer schtick, which is pretty funny for a guy with 200 slaves.

    As time went by the planter aristocracy started thinking of themselves as descended from the Cavaliers, who were (they thought) descended from Normans. This of course meant they were better than the plebs around them, descended from Saxons and Celts.

    But then at the same time Ivanhoe and other Scott novels with their glorification of Saxons and Scots were extremely popular in the South.
  288. Anonymous[327] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    You have any favorite books Calvinist?

     

    My fiction tastes are pretty conventional.

    For Brits, give me Austen, Waugh, and Tolkien. I think Joyce was the biggest literary genius since Shakespeare, but man, he knew it. Having said that, just last week I reread his short story 'The Dead' for the first time in many years because Daughter C was giving it a try, and I concede it's top-shelf stuff.

    For Americans, Chandler, Tom Wolfe (I've likely read Bonfire 6-8 times), and Flannery O'Connor. I like some Faulkner, but his books wear me out as I get older. Still, getting through -- and just 'getting' -- The Sound and the Fury was probably the signature reading experience I've had.

    For miscellaneous, Dostoyevsky and Eco (I've read Foucault's Pendulum several times; it jibes with my intellectual preferences and proclivities more than I care to admit sometimes).

    I also have a soft spot for murder mysteries; I'm a big P D James fan, and I also really like Reginald Hill.

    For essayists, I like Orwell, C S Lewis (I admire not only his theology, but especially his stylistic fusion of clarity with a warm, conversational tone), and David Foster Wallace (I have read a good part, but not all, of his fiction, which has flashes of brilliance, but speaking of getting worn out -- I find his essays more accessible and memorable).

    For more recent stuff, I've read and enjoyed all of Neal Stephenson's works, although I think he peaked some years back with Cryptonomicon, which I've also enjoyed through several re-reads.

    How about you?

    Tom Wolfe (I’ve likely read Bonfire 6-8 times)

    Why? What do you get out of it?

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Why? What do you get out of it?

     

    It's hilarious because it's true.
  289. @Anonymous

    Tom Wolfe (I’ve likely read Bonfire 6-8 times)
     
    Why? What do you get out of it?

    Why? What do you get out of it?

    It’s hilarious because it’s true.

  290. @Bardon Kaldian
    Huge majority of the posts have nothing to do with Robinson & the issues she raised. So, perhaps 80% of this thread is OT.

    And, most of it is wrong.


    Ulster Protestants, descendants of the 17th C English & Scots colonizers, carved out so called Northern Ireland of 6 counties for their supremacy over native Catholic Irish to stay in Britain, rather than to become a part of newly independent Irish Republic. Catholic Irish, 1/3rd of that artificial "state" were intimidated, harassed, expelled, murdered... Historical Ulster is comprised of 9 counties- but Irish Catholics have always been the majority in that entire area. So, British colonizers & their imperial descendants carved out as much as possible to retain a solid voting majority. Had they followed history, the whole Ulster would have been absorbed into Republic of Ireland, Irish Catholic Republicans being over 50%. If, on the other way, ethnic principle was used, perhaps only 2, and not 6 counties, would end up with Britain.

    Just, Ulster Protestants are getting the taste of their own medicine. Now, when Catholics have become the majority even in historically Protestant Belfast- life begins to suck both for Ulster Protestants & other Herrenvolk ideology people.

    Dynamic Irish Protestants who had been first & foremost Irish (Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmett, Parnell, Thomas Davis, Douglas Hyde, Lady Gregory, W.B. Yeats, Sean O'Casey, ...) had done much for their adopted country; Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste which can, at best, retain a small part of an island as their land, perhaps ca. 20% of contemporary Northern Ireland.

    Orangemen & other British colonizers are just a foreign colonial ruling caste

    The problem is that most devout Orangemen aren’t any kind of a ruling caste. They’re much like their Scotch-Irish cousins in America, mostly bitter clinger working class or lower middle class deplorables.

    Anyway, the Catholic-Protestant issue in Ireland has long had a great deal more to do with tribalism than with religion. The Orangemen are a tribe. A tribe that is despised, again like their cousins in America, by just about everybody.

  291. @Kronos
    I’m essentially a non-fiction junky. I live on History (Political and Economic) and Biographies. Though I do enjoy historical fiction, the “Harry Flashman” series is amazing! My grandfather also possessed an amazing library. It contained the works of Michener, Clavell, and many others. (I didn’t read the Tom Wolfe or Philip Roth books until reading Sailer’s blog.)

    Currently, I’m reading H.L. Mencken’s “Prejudices.” The guy’s an asshole, but a very entertaining one. It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage. It’s amazing how many religious affiliates were leading intellectual thought back then. Debates on religious dogma amongst the mainstream churches were very active and presented in newspapers.

    I did read David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest” (and finished it.) I enjoyed it but found going back and forth to the endnotes a tad annoying. Regardless, I beat the crap out of legless/wheelchair bound people whenever possible. Just to make sure they’re not Quebec Separatists.

    It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage.

    Given your interests, you’ve probably already run across this. It’s one of my very favorite history books.

    Allen wrote his history of the 1920s in 1931, so he’s fully aware of the crash that ends the decade, but he’s not looking back on it from a perspective of 50 or 75 years, so WWII and the Cold War, etc. aren’t factored in. I’ve read it multiple times and always find something new.

    It is, of course, very much popular history, not the scholarly version.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    Thanks!
  292. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US's most economically prosperous region. New England wasn't anywhere close.

    Up to Antebelllum times, it was the South that was the US’s most economically prosperous region. New England wasn’t anywhere close.

    However, it was also the region with the highest inequality. Obviously between whites and blacks, but also even among whites. A pretty small number of extremely wealthy planters dominated society and the economy.

    That wealth was built largely by the theft of most of the value of the labor performed by the slaves.

  293. @Anonymous

    The Southerners didn’t think of themselves as Anglo Saxon.
     
    Wrong. See Thomas Jefferson.

    There were as everywhere and always, multiple currents of thought in the South. Jefferson was into the whole Anglo-Saxon yeoman farmer schtick, which is pretty funny for a guy with 200 slaves.

    As time went by the planter aristocracy started thinking of themselves as descended from the Cavaliers, who were (they thought) descended from Normans. This of course meant they were better than the plebs around them, descended from Saxons and Celts.

    But then at the same time Ivanhoe and other Scott novels with their glorification of Saxons and Scots were extremely popular in the South.

  294. @Logan
    It’s mainly from my historical curiosity on the ideas going around during the 1920s. Primary sources are a lot more interesting to read than processed AP History garbage.

    Given your interests, you've probably already run across this. It's one of my very favorite history books.

    https://www.amazon.com/Only-Yesterday-Informal-Perennial-Classics/dp/0060956658/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1LHCH6AVHQWVL&keywords=only+yesterday+book&qid=1564741762&s=gateway&sprefix=only+yesterday%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1

    Allen wrote his history of the 1920s in 1931, so he's fully aware of the crash that ends the decade, but he's not looking back on it from a perspective of 50 or 75 years, so WWII and the Cold War, etc. aren't factored in. I've read it multiple times and always find something new.

    It is, of course, very much popular history, not the scholarly version.

    Thanks!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?