The Plymouth 400 Symposium Shining Some Light on the Invisible RaceAndrew Hamilton
The defining characteristic of WASPs is that they are much less ethnocentric than other peoples; indeed for all practical purposes Anglo-Saxon Protestants appear to be all but completely bereft of in-group solidarity. They are therefore open to exploitation by free-riders from other, more ethnocentric, groups. 
There is a woeful lack of ethnic consciousness and cohesion among Anglo-Saxons worldwide.
In a groundbreaking essay published in 1980, John Tyndall, former head of the British National Party, defined the Anglo-Saxon ethnos as consisting of the English, Scots, Welsh, Anglo- and Scots-Irish communities and their counterparts in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Canada.  To the foregoing, I would add Anglo-Saxons in Rhodesia and South Africa.
Descendants of New England’s Puritan settlers constitute a subset of this worldwide group. Racial invisibility and the absence of ethnic pride or self-awareness characterize this group as much as the wider Anglo-Saxon ethnos of which it is a part.
I will try to shed some light on the Yankee component of the “invisible race.” Because this symposium is devoted to the Puritans, their influence, and “everything New England,” my focus is on New England Yankees wherever they may live.
The ethnic group has a limited number of ethnicons, all less than satisfactory: WASPs, Brahmins, New Englanders, Old Stock Americans, Northerners, Yankees. The slippery, imprecise term “WASP” is especially objectionable. Prior to the mid-1960s “WASPs” never referred to nor conceived of themselves as “White” “Anglo-Saxon” “Protestants.”
Robert C. Christopher, a journalist and academic with murky intelligence ties, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations who regularly rubbed shoulders with the post-WWII elite. Of mixed ethnicity, but part-Yankee on his mother’s side, Christopher wrote an anti-Yankee polemic called Crashing the Gates: The De-WASPing of America’s Power Elite (Simon and Schuster, 1989). In Chapter Two he said, “I can still recall, in fact, how puzzled one of my mother’s Yankee aunts was when sometime in the late 1950s I applied the term [WASP] to her.”
As secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Board, Christopher administered the Prizes. He refused to revoke New York Times journalist Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer for dishonest reporting from the Soviet Union in the 1930s. Duranty (“Stalin’s apologist”) and the Times deliberately concealed the Soviet-induced Ukrainian famine from the world.
“WASP” was first formulated and applied privately in the 1950s by academics to describe the American social element Jewry hated and envied the most. Jews coveted its status and possessions (including its women) from the beginning of the 20th century.
Conveniently, the acronym excludes the wealthy, powerful, ultra-privileged, overbearing Jews themselves. Tellingly, though, it describes them to a T. If you’ve ever been attacked by a swarm of wasps you’ll know what I mean.
Before WWII, Jews savagely assailed WASPs as “Nordics” in their multipronged campaign against the 1924 Immigration Act, their oily, underhanded censorship of Madison Grant’s stirring book The Conquest of a Continent (Scribner’s, 1933), and their suppression of American identity, racial consciousness, and pride. Jews enlisted the services of corrupt, envious, gullible, resentful, status-seeking Gentiles in their successful effort to split the ranks of the majority.
An obvious purpose of the clumsy new epithet was to isolate their intended prey, America’s founding stock (strictly speaking, “WASP” applies to Southern whites as much as it does to New Englanders), by ostentatiously excluding newly-arrived white ethnics (“You’re not to blame! You’re fellow victims!”) so they would assist the Jews in their dirty work. Now, with non-whites from everywhere on the planet available to perform the task, white ethnics are being discarded too.
“Brahmin” and “WASP” carry strong connotations of undeserved wealth, power, and privilege — despite the fact that America was their country! Anybody seriously claiming in 2020 that the handful of pathetic, numerically, economically, and socially diminished “WASPs” are anything more than superannuated relics, diverting social baubles, or glorified errand boys (the Bush family) is an intellectual joke.
There are a handful of ruthless, ambitious individuals remaining, but without exception, they identify with and advance the interests of a controlling Jewish-globalist caste in a way that benefits its members and themselves, but is fatal to their race and ethnos.
“WASP” is also an acronym. Acronyms first inundated America during the Jewish Administration of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s with its countless alphabet soup agencies. Often they are patently absurd constructions: “USA PATRIOT” Act.
From a racial standpoint nameless farmers, laborers, or anybody else of old New England stock are as much part of the ethnos as any (today, imaginary) elite group, so WASP really does not serve. Consequently, I do not use “WASP” as an analytical term the way Andrew Fraser and so many others do.
On the other hand, E. Digby Baltzell’s popularization of the term in The Protestant Establishment (1964) made sense because he was a glorified multiracialist propagandist, well-remunerated socially and economically for his mercenary services. He advocated a world government ruled by a small, “meritocratic” caste of upper-class Jews, whites, and non-whites who would, he claimed, exhibit Puritan virtues. But mostly he cared about Jews.
“Puritan” is likewise a dirty word. As an Establishment writer noted back when America was still white: “Of the groups composing our ancestry, the Puritans have not been one of the more admired. Writers have habitually referred to them as vindictive and cruel; and to most people “Puritanism” evokes little more than an image of something gloomy and repressive.”
Perhaps the least-bad ethnicon is “Yankee.”
The Puritans in America
The following paragraph provides a useful summary of Puritans and their Yankee descendants as an ethnos rather than a religious group.
Puritanism originated in East Anglia in England, spread to New England, and became the most important cultural influence in the United States beginning in the 18th century down to the mid-20th century. East Anglian Puritans “became the breeding stock for America’s Yankee population” and “multiplied at a rapid rate, doubling every generation for two centuries. Their numbers increased to 100,000 by 1700, to at least one million by 1800, six million by 1900, and more than sixteen million by 1988 — all descended from 21,000 English emigrants who came to Massachusetts in the period from 1629 to 1640” (Fischer 1989, 17).
Actually, subsequent Anglo-Saxon immigrants were also incorporated into the Yankee ethnos.
The quotation is from a monograph entitled Diaspora Peoples by Kevin MacDonald. It was published as a preface to the 2002 paperback reprint of his book A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1994). Puritans are one of the diaspora peoples discussed. The paragraph relies upon David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), a secondary source.
Plymouth Plantation (the Pilgrims) was founded in 1620, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. The Puritan Great Migration to New England occurred during the decades 1620-1640, consisting of a few hundred Pilgrims (though they were not called Pilgrims at the time) who went to Plymouth Colony in the 1620s, and c. 20,000 English men, women, and children who settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony between 1630 and 1640. It is important to keep the asymmetry between these two communities in mind.
Without access to Fischer’s book, I can’t evaluate the sources and reasoning behind his population math, but such confident precision seems unlikely. As early as 1700 the former commonwealths no longer existed, and the region’s strict religious orthodoxy had seriously eroded.
As for the figures presented for each century, worthwhile approximations might be formulated, but they would become more problematic the farther away from 1700 you move. Hard data would be necessary to support them, and “Yankee population” would need to be precisely defined. What percentage Yankee ethnicity are we talking about? To understand their significance you would have to compare the numbers against the overall size of the American population on each date given. By 1988 you are really at sea ethnically (assuming you mean race, which Fischer, a culturalist, probably did not) and also mathematically.
Despite this, I sense that the Yankee ethnos remained demographically robust until the 1920s-1940s. This impression is reinforced by Yale geographer Ellsworth Huntington, a descendant of a large New England family that originated in 17th-century Massachusetts, who made a detailed statistical survey of living Americans bearing his family surname, the majority of whom were not famous. He concluded that Huntington descendants were still relatively ethnically unmixed at the time he wrote. 
The original Puritans had severe theological disagreements with the Church of England, a state entity formed less than a century earlier (1534) when King Henry VIII split from the Roman Catholic Church. So-called Separatist Puritans insisted on establishing independent congregations of their own outside the state church. A group of Separatists settled in Holland for 12 years but feared losing their Englishness. This was one reason they left for America in 1620.
The Mayflower with 102 passengers departed Plymouth, England late in the year, meaning the ship arrived in America in November and the Pilgrims made landfall in late December — 400 years ago today, December 18, 2020. Their intended destination had been the warmer Colony of Virginia, where their land grant was, but the ship was blown off course. The story of the Pilgrims’ troubled sea voyage and first winter is truly harrowing.
A 1960 book randomly listed among Mayflower descendants Boston’s Adams family, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s wife, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ulysses S. Grant, the first Mrs. Jefferson Davis, William Howard Taft, J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s first wife Abby Aldrich (they did not divorce, she died) and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
By 1897, when mass non-Anglo-Saxon immigration to the country was completely out of control, the Mayflower Society was founded in New England. At the time membership doubtless tilted heavily to old stock Americans of wholly or primarily Puritan descent. Today membership requires proof of descent from at least one Mayflower passenger in 1620. This doubtless encompasses many non-white, mixed race, and ethnically conglomerate people.
The Society now has over 150,000 members with such proven descent. A 2018 news article claims “There are an estimated 10 million living Americans and as many as 35 million people worldwide who descended from the Pilgrims, according to the General Society of Mayflower Descendants.” Quite a feat, considering that 45 of the ship’s 102 passengers died during the first winter.
The members of any of the groups (150,000, 10 million, or 35 million) that can legitimately be classified as Yankee today, or even more broadly, Anglo-Saxon, must be rather small, though they would numerically concentrate more in the first and second categories.
A larger, higher-status, and more economically prosperous Puritan group did not break with the Church of England but tried to reform it from within. These were the settlers who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony headquartered at Boston.
They were called Non-conformists, but under the influence of Plymouth Colony community leader Samuel Fuller, an original Mayflower passenger, the new Bay Colony residents soon adopted the organizational structure of the Plymouth Church. Every town became an independent Congregational community with its own church, pastor, teacher, and covenant, thus making Bay Colony Non-conformists de facto Separatists.
I’ve previously outlined the sharp demographic, social, and economic differences between Plymouth Colony and the Massachusetts Bay Colony, so there is no need to rehash them here. Despite the superstar status of the Mayflower and Plymouth Colony in American lore, the Bay Colony was the more historically and demographically important of the two.
The longevity of the two Puritan commonwealths in America can be illustrated by way of analogy. Plymouth Colony was formally absorbed into the Province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691, after an independent existence of 71 years. Substituting 2020 for the 1691 end date is equivalent to 1949-2020 for us; for Massachusetts Bay Colony the figures are 1959-2020 (61 years).
Robust Population Growth
Returning to Kevin MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples and David Hackett Fischer, it is said the leading Puritan families of East Anglia (i.e., before they left England) intermarried with great frequency.
In America, New England Puritans
engaged in a much lower incidence of exogamy [here meaning miscegenation] with the native Amerindian population (as was the case in the Spanish and especially the Portuguese colonies in the Americas), or with Black slaves (as in the Southern states), or even other European ethnic and religious groups [emphasis added] (as in the Mid-Atlantic states).
The great majority of the Puritan founders of Massachusetts arrived with their families (Fischer 1989, 25). . . . “Households throughout Massachusetts and Connecticut included large numbers of children, small numbers of servants and high proportions of intact marital unions. In Waltham, Massachusetts, for example, completed marriages formed in the 1730s produced 9.7 children on the average. . .” (Fischer 1989, 71).
This is consistent with historian John Demos’ findings for Plymouth Colony:
The popular impression today that colonial families were extremely large finds the strongest possible confirmation in the case of Plymouth. A sample of some ninety families about whom there is fairly reliable information, suggests that there was an average of seven to eight children per family who actually grew to adulthood. The number of live births was undoubtedly higher, although exactly how much higher we cannot be sure. . . .
The rate of infant mortality in Plymouth seems to have been relatively low. In the case of a few families for which there are unusually complete records, only about one in five children seems to have died before the age of twenty-one. Furthermore, births in the sample come for the most part at roughly two-year intervals with relatively few “gaps” which might indicate a baby who did not survive. All things considered, it appears that the rate of infant and child mortality in Plymouth was no more than 25 per cent — less than half the rate in many parts of the world today.
These figures seem to indicate a surprising standard of health and physical vigor among Plymouth residents, and a study of their longevity — the average life expectancy in the colony — confirms this impression. . . .
The figures are really astonishingly high. Indeed, in the case of the men, they compare quite favorably with what obtains in this country today. (The life expectancy of an American male of twenty-one is now a fraction over seventy, and for a female of the same age, is approximately seventy-six. . . .)
The difference in the results for men and women is mainly due to the dangers attendant in childbirth. A young woman’s life expectancy was seven years less than a man’s, whereas today, with childbirth hazards virtually eliminated by modern medicine, it is six years longer. . . . If a woman survived [her childbearing middle] years, her prospects for long life became at least as good as a man’s, and indeed a little better. A majority of those who lived to a really old age (ninety or more) seem to have been women. 
Note that the figures in the table are averages, meaning many families had more children than the number shown.
Demos expanded his paper into a book, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970; thirtieth-anniversary edition with a new foreword by the author, 2000) that has been called “a classic in early American history.”
The author, who became a professor at Yale, is himself emblematic of the persistence — and demise — of the Yankee ethnos. His Greek father was born and raised in Turkey (then part of the Ottoman Empire), while his Yankee mother was a member of the Putnam family that traced its lineage to Salem in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Consistent with Yankee naming customs, Demos’ middle name is his maternal family name: Putnam.
Pushing first along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, then inland, Puritans, later Yankees, ultimately spread across the entire northern tier of the U.S. as far as California and Hawaii. Stewart H. Holbrook called this mass migration, coinciding with the settlement of the continental United States, “the Yankee exodus.” 
A self-described “low-brow” popular historian who spent his adult life in the Pacific Northwest, Holbrook noted the invisibility of his ethnic group in the Foreword.
My interest in migration from New England began some forty years ago , when I first became conscious of the many deserted hill farms in my native Vermont, and in New Hampshire where I also lived. . . . The fact that they had been abandoned seemed to me a great tragedy. It still does. . . .
I sought to inform myself on the matter. But although I found several hundred works dealing with the migrations to America of all the many different peoples of Europe, and some from Asia, and although these books told exactly where the Irish, the Germans, the so-called Scotch-Irish, the Scandinavians, and on to include Poles and Russians and Italians and many another group had settled, and of their valuable contributions to America, I could discover in all that welter of books only one dealing with the movements of Yankees. This was a master’s thesis by Lois Kimball Mathews, published as long ago as 1909, which, though able, brought the story down only to 1860 and only as far as the east bank of the Mississippi. . . . [Mathews intended to write a follow-up volume extending her account westward and down to her own time, but never completed it.]
It seemed to me that the lack of a detailed work on the migration of Yankees and their influence constituted a sizable void in the American story. . . .
I started in earnest to set down an account of what by then seemed to me the most influential migration in all our history. The strange race of Yankees not only permeated every last reach of the Republic; but almost always they made their impact felt. Their inventions, at home and elsewhere, changed the whole pattern of settlement in the West and South. Their fanatical respect for education led them to perform prodigies for learning in every state. Their shrewdness and great industry in business and commerce made them both welcome and feared. Only too many of the emigrating Yankees also felt a powerful urge to make others like themselves, especially in the matter of so-called morals — including Temperance — and this was the cause of making them, properly enough, loathed or hated.
Despite the lapse of 70 years, nobody has explored the story further. The fate that befell Mathews’ book in 1909 also befell Holbrook’s in 1950. An Amazon purchaser said of the latter book in 2015: “I think this is the ur-source for the topic. It could benefit from some updating in the light of new discoveries, but its shelf-life expired fifty years ago, so I’m not holding my breath.”
Daniel Chauncey Brewer (1862-1932) wrote,
The New England of the early nineteenth century was fairly bursting with repressed vigor, capacity for constructive upbuilding, and vital power.
This was to find immediate outlet in two directions — first, in the occupation of new fields of activity in the West, and second, through intensive developments. [Emphases in original.]
Curiously enough the effort directed toward each end supplemented the other in hastening the close of Anglo-Saxon domination in New England. One by withdrawing from all of the six States with which we are concerned, the most adventurous of the homogeneous population. The other by bringing foreign labor of all sorts and conditions into the” section. 
English travel writer Frances Trollope, the mother of novelist Anthony Trollope (Barchester Towers, The Way We Live Now), who journeyed up the Mississippi from New Orleans and lived for a time on the Ohio frontier, vividly described the mass westward movement of Yankees she witnessed in its incipient stage in 1830:
[A] vast continent, by far the greater part of which is still in the state in which nature left it, and a busy, bustling, industrious population, hacking and hewing their way through it. . . . The wonderful facility for internal commerce, furnished by the rivers, lakes, and canals, which thread the country in every direction, producing a rapidity of progress in all commercial and agricultural speculation altogether unequalled. This remarkable feature is perceptible in every part of the Union into which the fast spreading population has hitherto found its way, and forms, I think, the most remarkable and interesting peculiarity of the country. I hardly remember a single town where vessels of some description or other may not constantly be seen in full activity. . . . 
Lois Kimball Mathews said in the book Holbrook cited, “Wherever Puritan blood has gone, Puritan traditions have been carried,” imprinting “the influence these transplanted Englishmen have exerted, the institutions they have wrought, the character ingrained by inheritance and altered by environment which differentiates them from any other element in the United States.” 
The exodus from New England between 1830 and 1840 produced a sharp decline in the Yankee population in its geographic cradle. Unable to successfully compete with Midwestern agriculture, many of those who remained turned to commerce and manufacturing, creating demand for foreign labor to run the new factories.
“By the call of the frontier,” Mathews wrote, “the character of New England was changed. When one notes how many of the cities and towns of New England are to-day  controlled politically by those who have neither Puritan traditions, Puritan background of ancestry, nor Puritan ideals, one feels dismayed . . .” But “The history of New England is not confined to six states; it is contained in a greater and broader New England wherever the children of the Puritans are found.” 
The Conquest of New England by the Immigrant
Two decades later, greatly disturbed by the mass influx of foreigners, attorney Daniel Chauncey Brewer propounded a much more pessimistic view.
The swamping of classic New England by immigration is a matter of the utmost consequence to every inhabitant of this section, and to the Nation. [Brewer’s book chronicled the process.] Yesterday Yankees were a compelling factor in the Republic. As a people they are now of the past. Hundreds of thousands of them remain in their old stamping grounds. Millions as individuals are scattered through the United States. As a community they no longer exist. Hardly had their sun risen than it colored the skies at setting. Today [foreign] men and women of recent European birth physically possess New England, and probably control its vote. 
Note Brewer’s use of “Yankee” as an ethnicon instead of anything resembling “WASP,” which had not been coined yet. His focus was not on some elite, “Brahmin” subset of people as the Jews’ is, but rather on the entire ethnic group.
Daniel Chauncey Brewer’s forebears arrived in the Bay Colony in 1634. He was born into a prominent Boston family that originally hailed from Springfield, Massachusetts, where a Daniel Brewer was pastor of the First Congregational Church in 1694.
The given names “Daniel” and “Chauncey” reappeared constantly over the generations. To cite one example, Brewer’s father, a prominent nurseryman, and the author’s own son who died in infancy, were both named Daniel Chauncey Brewer too, though without a “Sr.,” “Jr.,” or Roman numeral to distinguish them. Such suffixes, which are common among New Englanders, are another identitarian clue. (“Senior, Junior & Name Suffixes in General.”)
Comparing the U.S. Census tabulations of 1850 to those of 1920 demonstrates “the pitiless suddenness with which a civilization may be blotted out.”
The author harshly criticized his people’s irresponsibility:
It has remained for the descendants of a vigorous British stock to win an unenviable record, without precedent for pusillanimity in the vital matter of race integrity. . . . (p. 7)
For a period which begins with the birth of a middle-aged New Englander now living, to the present moment not only the Eastern States but all industrial America have been joyously and idiotically naturalizing every alien whom they could cram into the body politic. (p. 121)
Because it was “too late to do much for the Yankees as a people,” Brewer hoped a numerically diminished younger generation would impart Yankee values to the newcomers, thereby “perpetuating the culture [emphasis added] that originated” with the Yankee, whose days were numbered.
Citizens concerned with replacement migration and ethnic cleansing today should be aware that mass immigration a century ago closely paralleled our own in many ways.
This truism is forcefully driven home by Lothrop Stoddard’s neglected chronicle of the first inundation, Re-forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927). Due to the recent passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, he was overly optimistic about the future, but his analysis is still educational and timely. (Another little-known Stoddard work, Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today [New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1940], remains one of the best accounts of NS Germany in English.)
Stoddard’s background was classically Yankee. His ancestry extended back to Solomon Stoddard, an influential Congregationalist minister in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Solomon’s wife (Lothrop’s several times great-grandmother) was the sister of Sir George Downing, after whom Downing Street in London is named.
Theologian Jonathan Edwards was Solomon’s grandson, hence Lothrop Stoddard’s kin, as were numerous other prominent men bearing the family surname of whom Solomon was the progenitor: soldier Amos Stoddard, travelers and authors Charles Stoddard and John Lawson Stoddard (Lothrop’s father), educator John Fair Stoddard, and chemist John Tappan Stoddard.
Multigenerational family configurations like this are a Yankee hallmark that you come instinctively to recognize. Combined with unique family naming patterns they help draw the Yankee ethnos into the light in surprising and unexpected ways.
It helps you “see” them.
Are Puritans-Yankees-“WASPs” Uniquely Evil or Misguided? Are They Responsible for All Our Ills?
The Establishment answers these questions with resounding condescension: “Yes!” An endless stream of sewage attacking WASPs in books, articles, movies, TV shows, and academia has poured forth for a century now. I pay no heed to that. Honest sentiments never issue from forked tongues. They are liars and haters, and that will never change.
It’s so-called “conservatives” I’m focusing on.
In 1991, Richard Brookhiser, a William Buckley employee at National Review, wrote a book called The Way of the WASP. The Conservative Book Club Bulletin devoted a two-page spread to it, breathlessly declaring: “Richard Brookhiser is a brave one. Doesn’t he realize that if you’re pro-WASP you’re likely to be called racist, sexist, elitist, or you-name-it? Yes, he knows all this, yet he plunges in.”
Brookhiser favored open immigration and cited anti-white Jew Norman Mailer as authority for his assertion that “the Negro” ought to emerge as “a dominating force in American life.” WASPdom is merely a set of values, a state of mind, a way of thinking and behaving that anybody can “internally assimilate” — and we’d all be better off if they did. Any alleged racial component is “ethnic humbug.”
Instauration magazine’s review, “A Convoluted Defense of WASPs” (April 1991), called Brookhiser a “miscegenator”: “A German Catholic on his paternal side, English on his maternal, he is married to a Jewess. [He still is. They live in Manhattan, with a second house in the Catskills.] It is not known if he has any children but, if he has, they will not be WASPs and will quite likely be anti-WASPs.”
The good news: the couple had no children.
The bad news: using her credentials as a psychotherapist with access to elite mass media and book publishers, his wife proselytizes white women: Beyond Motherhood: Choosing a Life without Children (1996); Selfish, Shallow and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Kids (2015); The Golden Condom and Other Essays (2016).
“Conservative” part-Jew and 100% philo-Semite Michael Lind is a Yankee-hater of the first water. He’s made a lucrative living peddling crack-brained narratives designed to destroy white America and advance Jewish and other non-white racial interests.
Old miscegenator and Mexico expatriate Fred Reed, who is married to a Mexican and sired Mestizo children, hates Yankees — and Nordics — with a passion. While lauding Mestizos and Mexico, he chortles about the racial destruction of his homeland, gleefully rubbing his hands over the comeuppance of “nativists” and white nationalists. But like Lind, he loves Jews.
Reed’s philo-Semitism is so extreme that Jew Paul Gottfried, another conservative pundit who blames Puritans, Yankees, and Protestants for the world’s problems (accompanied by the refrain, Jews aren’t responsible, it’s ridiculous to think so!) patted Reed on the head for rebuking “anti-Semites,” but gently chided him for his excessive pro-Jewish ardor. Gentiles who exhibit too much zeal for Jews make them uncomfortable.
Simultaneously with all this rot, Reed with a straight face struts out his aristocratic Southern ancestry:
My people are the pure Cavalier stock of the Virginia Tidewater. I am Frederick Venable Reed Jr. The Cavalier society of Tidewater was perhaps the high point of American civilization. They bore little resemblance — I might almost say “no resemblance” — to the wild and barbaric Scots-Irish of Appalachia or the communal-minded, meddlesome, and brutally intolerant Puritans of New England.
A “conservative” group of neo-Southerners also hates Yankees. Its members sponsor an institute where Jews, black women, and white men lecture about the meaning of “Southern tradition.” Or, rather, “what is true and valuable” in it. Needless to say, white — and only white — “racism” is not “true and valuable.” Nor is “anti-Semitism.”
An Italian American faculty member from the urban Northeast incessantly castigates Lincoln as a white racist. A Southern academic fulminates about The Yankee Problem. He would never entertain the thought of a Jewish Problem, so could never write a book about it.
In a glowing review, his Italian colleague noted approvingly that it describes a problem that “has plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.” A review on the institute’s website says the author assails “the devilish nature of that New Englander, Anglo-Saxon type known as the Yankee.”
E. Michael Jones, a conservative Irish-German Catholic who, unlike the other Yankee-haters mentioned, can’t be faulted for deifying Jews, nevertheless upbraids Yankees. He’s a Catholic chauvinist, but not a racist (that would be a sin). White genocide is not happening, and can’t happen, because there is no such thing as a white race. There are only Irish, German, and (evil) WASP races.
I think it’s fair to say that Andrew Fraser (Anglo-Saxon), quoted at the outset of this article, and Kevin MacDonald (three-quarters German, one-quarter Scottish), fundamentally agree that “the devilish nature of that New Englander, Anglo-Saxon type known as the Yankee” has “plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.” They sure sound that way anyway. By comparison, they extol the philo-Semitic “Southern Cavaliers” who blessed America with slavery and a massive, rapidly expanding black population they partially miscegenated with.
As far as I’m concerned, none of the people named have successfully made their anti-Yankee case.
After so much clichéd tedium it’s a relief to find a solitary positive depiction of Yankees in the works of Southern-born journalist Tom Wolfe.
The theme is manifest in his bestselling account of the Mercury Seven astronauts, The Right Stuff (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1979). As Michael Lewis wrote,
Then, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong stepped out of Apollo 11 onto the moon.
Like everyone else, Wolfe took an interest in the moon landing, but less in the mission than in the men. The early astronauts had some traits in common, he noticed. They tended to be born oldest sons, in the mid-1920s, named after their fathers, and raised in small towns, in intact Anglo-Saxon Protestant families. More than half of them had “Jr.” after their names. . . .
The astronauts were all drawn from the officer ranks in the U.S. military. They were indeed invariably Wasps. . . . 
The message is equally pronounced in Wolfe’s outstanding essay “The Tinkerings of Robert Noyce: How the Sun Rose on Silicon Valley” (Esquire, December 1983), a short history of the Valley and its white founders. It was reprinted in his anthology Hooking Up (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2000) as “Two Young Men Who Went West.”
A Final Word from Stewart Holbrook
Libel the Yankee if you will. He is today the most set-upon, the most abused, the most caricatured American of all. He is, in fact, almost the only American who pays no heed to libels about him. Who is the favorite villain of the stage, of the movies, of novels? He is a Yankee banker, name of Peabody or something similar, and not Cohen and Guggenheim. The favorite spiritual mountebank of the stage and movies and novels is not good Father O’Houlihan, but the Reverend Dr. Sears, or something similar, patently a Congregational minister. The simple clown is not Rufus Rastus Johnson Brown, but a clod from Pumpkin Center, Maine. The desire that results in dreadful adulteries is compounded under New England elms. The mourning that so becomes Electra stems from murder and incest, committed on a pretty New England farm. Uncle Tom’s Cabin is not to be shown on the screen because it reminds that Negroes once were slaves — and not because of its cruel Simon Legree, born a Yankee. Oliver Twist is banned because of Fagin, a Jew; and the clever magicians of Hollywood have at last produced The Three Musketeers without the unfrocking of a Cardinal Richelieu [poorly worded: the Jewish filmmakers in 1948 intentionally concealed the fact that villain Richelieu was Catholic, and a prelate, depicting him solely as King Louis XIII’s chief minister — a political position; in effect, they “removed his frock”]. . . .
Aye, the Puritan, the Yankee, the New Englander has indeed been the butt of much sport and ridicule. He has been attacked and demolished for his narrowness, for his calm assurance that he alone was right. But, sir, you must either admit that somehow or other he accomplished prodigies; or you must cite some other group of people who accomplished more, or even as much, in the New World. Such a people does not come readily to mind.
— Stewart H. Holbrook (1950)
Readers interested in exploring their New England roots, or the history of the Puritan migration generally, might examine the work of genealogist Robert Charles Anderson, starting with his posts on the New England Historic Genealogical Society blog, then his books. He has written extensively about both the Bay Colony and Plymouth migrations, as well as the English roots of “the ordinary laymen who formed a complex genealogical and intellectual network, extending temporally back to the beginning of the English Reformation and geographically across all of England and even to parts of Wales.”
If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
 Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos, 2011), pp. 29-30.
 John Tyndall, “In the Cause of Anglo-Saxondom,” Spearhead magazine; republished by Instauration magazine, February 1980.
 Ellsworth Huntington & Martha Ragsdale, After Three Centuries: A Typical New England Family (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins), 1935.
 John P. Demos, “Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony,” William and Mary Quarterly (April 1965), pp. 270-272.
 Stewart H. Holbrook, The Yankee Exodus: An Account of Migration from New England, New York: Macmillan, 1950.
 Daniel Chauncey Brewer, The Conquest of New England by the Immigrant, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926, p. 58.
 Frances Trollope, Domestic Manners of the Americans, 1832.
 Lois Kimball Mathews, The Expansion of New England to the Mississippi, 1620-1865 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), 1909, p. 250.
 Ibid., 272.
 Brewer, 4.
 Michael Lewis, “How Tom Wolfe Became . . . Tom Wolfe,” Vanity Fair, October 8, 2015.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Football’s Race War
The Worst Week Yet: May 21-27, 2023
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
The Dakota Territory’s Indian Wars During the Civil War, Part 2
No Brexit This Way
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
When Henry Adams saw his first Jew walking down Beacon Street with his black clothes, his hat, his long curls, and speaking a snarling Yiddish, he wrote that he now felt a new sympathy with the Indian and the American Buffalo, as one who has been cast out of his home.
“A 1960 book randomly listed among Mayflower descendants Boston’s Adams family, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s wife, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Ulysses S. Grant, the first Mrs. Jefferson Davis, William Howard Taft, J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Jr.’s first wife Abby Aldrich (they did not divorce, she died) and Franklin D. Roosevelt.”
Here is a 2020 anonymous online commentary on that:
“What have you Americans done? I mean, apart of creating a disgusting and vulgar “culture” based on making money and rabid consumerism; the so-called “American Dream”.”
“You gave away the control of your country to the Jews well over a hundred years ago; after all, spiritually you are cousins if not brothers. Your disgusting ancestors, the so-called “Pilgrim Fathers” were the product of the most pro-Jewish of all Protestant sects, the Puritans. Their greed and materialism, together with the idea of belonging to “a chosen people” made them sympathize with their mentors and future associates.
That is why the Jews conquered so quickly such a considerable position within the American “high society”. Your degenerate WASP upper class never saw anything wrong in associating herself with the Jews, that is why by the end of the XIX century together with the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Morgans, and the Carnegies, were the Belmonts, the Kahns, the Lehmanns, the Schiffs, etc., etc., etc. The only thing that mattered to the average American was (and is) “the almighty dollar”.”
The ‘dollar’ you so deprecate, means nothing other than safety and security, and if a many cannot provide safety and security to a woman and her forthcoming children, then he will be shunned. The entire feminist nonsense is based on this — if men won’t earn enough money — and save it and invest it in stability instead of buying wine, women and song –then the woman decides to have a career for herself where she is not dependent on anyone. And by age 40, she has her safety, but no kids. This is the big dilemma in America and Europe today. Stop ranting against money and capitalism, it just drives women away. And forget about Jews — they have their ‘thing’, we have ours. Arrange your life to earn money and create a family. This has nothing to do with Jews or hyper-rich anglos either one. You run your life, and ignore them and their life.
As always (well, most of the time) a voice of reason and true womanhood.
Merry Christmas !
Ever been entwined with one via family? Intermarriage isn’t a joy and all that nonsense about Judeo-Christian values and ethics. Nope totally different. A woman whose clock is ticking will sell out her family, religion, ethics and principles of her own heritage to get what she wants.
Wasps are a people of the past, when there was such a thing as white and white ethnics, etc. When America was still forming as a nation and identity.
That past is no more. 50% of children in America are not even white, let alone wasp. Billions more around the world want to come in, and the Jewish led establishment puppets want them to come in. Blacks are now celebrated, enriched, and protected, instead of policed and segregated. Trump, though strictly not wasp, but representing a last gasp of the racially aware wasps, was ousted in favor of Biden, who, not strictly speaking wasp, represents the liberal white establishment which always sides with Jews, blacks, and immigrants, because, well…America!!!.
It’s pretty much game over at this point. Now commited to multiracial democracy and debt empire, America will just sort of go bankrupt somewhere down the line. Nobody knows when, but it will happen.
I would say the WASP lack of group solidarity was borne of overconfidence. WASPS were so successful that there was a sense among them other groups could not possibly pose any threat. How wrong they were!
To begin with, this is a very good essay with a lot of useful information that is important for helping us to re-grasp our true history and understand who we are. Thank you for the time you put into this.
But please don’t throw the majority of us Southerners in the company of that Reed character.
I’ll be the first to tell you that slavery was a horrible horrible mistake on our ancestors part. I don’t know that they could imagine the repercussions of it so far down the line. I also don’t think it’s remotely fair to term us as being more “philo-semitic” than our Yankee cousins.
Also with regards to the miscegenation of Southerners with the slaves. Yes it happened, I don’t know the exact extent to which it did happen. Studies have shown the average African American has something like 20% European DNA. But its possible that much of it comes not from us Southerners but from the sailors during the Atlantic passages.
Yankee greed and short sightedness flooded the Eastern seaboard with immigrants and helped pave the way for the Jewish take over of our institutions. And Southern greed and short sightedness flooded the country with Sub-Saharan Africans and helped pave the way for the modern Liberal-Marxist coalition. We are all to blame for this present situation. But we must not forget that at the end of the day, though we have held our disagreements, we are still kin. And that’s what this is ultimately about. We are the children of Britannia and it has been our destiny to settle this continent. If we are going to survive and prosper we must cast aside these petty historical grievances and re-unite as one people. Our enemies are many and they are powerful and they hate us all just the same. They care not if our forebears were Yankees, Tidewaters or Ulster Scots. We’re all on this cutting block together and together is how we’ll have to get off of it.
Thanks for your intelligent and well-informed comment.
The admixture figure for American blacks I’ve seen is also around 20%. That is, historically, prior to the arrival of the sub-Saharans they’ve dumped on us lately. I’ve never heard the hypothesis about the sailors, but to be honest think it was almost entirely due to the aristocratic element, mostly planters. One of the Associate Supreme Court justices who ruled in the Dred Scott case fostered a mulatto child, as did segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond many years later.
One thing even miscegenating Southerners DID do was create a strong color line so such offspring were not accepted as white. This is all-important. Gene flow in such cases must be directionally away from the white gene pool. It’s not fair to dump such mulatto offspring onto blacks, but we’re not talking about fairness anymore, we’re talking about collective survival.
The Southern philo-Semitism I alluded to referred especially to the antebellum, war, and Reconstruction periods, until the turn of the 20th century. At that time the bulk of American Jews lived in the South and were associated with the Democratic (conservative) Party. The first two volumes of The Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews are extremely informative, indeed eye-opening, on this point. After that Jews turned against white Southerners.
Although it apparently wasn’t clear from the article, I am not anti-Southern. I was writing about anti-Yankee hatred, and Reed and the neo-Southerners I mentioned are part of this, as is the entire New South, which of course has its counterpart in the North. But neither of the latter pose as conservative, except for a few fake Republicans.
The Civil War was a disaster that should never have been fought the way it was. Slavery should have been eliminated gradually, and blacks removed from the country. Radical Reconstruction was inexcusable. The 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are unconstitutional and were never legally ratified. Since the 1950s the illegitimate 14th Amendment has been consistently used, unconstitutionally (see Jew Raoul Berger’s book Government by Judiciary), to destroy American liberty and undermine the survival of the white race.
There are pro-White Southerners who oppose Jewish power. If I had to guess, I would say there are as many as there are pro-white Northerners. Which in both cases is to say hardly any. (Must be realistic.)
In addition to Jews, I view our problem as primarily the result of illegitimate structures of power, which unfortunately white racialists pay little attention to. Given anything like a level playing field in the realms of freedom of speech and association, the mass media, and surveillance and secret police agencies, the Jewish-Communist power structure would collapse like a house of cards.
And that’s from a man who has not an ounce of starry-eyed idealism remaining.
I just received my DNA results from Ancestry.com yesterday — 62% Irish, 33%Scotch (and it mentioned something about being from the Ulster area), 3% Swedish (I call that ‘Wandering Viking’) and 2% Welsh. So, now I have to research what ‘Ulster Scotch’ consists of. I was, however, born an orphan back in 1943, when who knows what was happening due to the war, so I have no connection with any ‘family’. Well, now I have you all — those of us fighting to keep ourselves and our race alive. I didn’t have kids, but now that I’m here, I’ll do what I can to keep the ‘generic Whites’ alive and thriving. Counter Currents so far seems to be the best platform for that. Who knows — I could be a real “Yankee” after all!
Mr. Hamilton suggests that “it’s fair to say that Andrew Fraser (Anglo-Saxon)” believes that “the devilish nature of that New Englander, Anglo-Saxon type known as the Yankee” has “plagued America (and the world) ever since the Pilgrims landed.”
In fact, such a suggestion is most unfair. Much of my work displays a deep admiration for the exemplary contribution of businessmen and lawyers in post-revolutionary New England to the creation of a republican model of the business corporation as a civil body politic. See, e.g. The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990).
As I put it in The WASP Question, the American business corporation was born in New England “as a little republic”. As such, it was “indistinguishable in principle from the ancient polis defined by Aristotle as ‘an association of persons formed with a view to some good purpose.”
This rather surprising phenomenon was made possible by the fact that the New England colonies of the 17th and 18th centuries created healthy ethnoreligious communities. Those “covenant communities” naturally produced public-spirited property-owning elites well into the 19th century.
Steeped in such an ethos, New England elites took it for granted that any enterprise endowed with a corporate charter was thereby lifted above the worldly pursuit of merely private interests. Corporate charters vested the shareholders joined in a common enterprise (e.g., banks, insurance companies, turnpikes, and canals) with the powers necessary to promote some design of general utility and public benefit.
The later transformation of the early American business corporation from a civil body politic into a mere legal device to maximize profits was not driven by New England Yankees. Rather, it was businessmen in New York and Pennsylvania who replaced the republican ideal of “one person, one vote” in corporate governance with the plutocratic principle of “one share, one vote”.
Contrary to Mr. Hamilton’s suggestion, therefore, I look to the Yankee patriciate of post-revolutionary New England as a model that could and should be emulated by WASPs everywhere.
I wrote a lengthy response refuting, with quotations (the quotations are what made it lengthy), the contention that I was “most unfair” in my characterization of Professor Fraser’s views on this topic. But then I thought, “Let it go, you’ve learned from him, the gist of what he says here is informative, interesting, and not hostile to Yankees.”
Even so, I stand by my original characterization of Fraser and MacDonald on this topic.
I almost wish you’d chosen to present the lengthy refutation.
As things stand, I’m simply puzzled. I don’t recall how, when, or where I have expressed anything like inveterate hostility aimed at “Yankees” in particular. Certainly, I’ve never been a fan of those involved in the abolitionist crusade against slavery. But, judging from your comment above, we seem to share similar views re the Civil War and Reconstruction.
As I suggested earlier, I am confident that a reading of The Spirit of the Laws would convince you that I greatly admire the “Yankee” elite of the early national period in American history-even though I dislike that ethnicon.
Funny, WASPs seemed to have plenty of in-group consciousness when it came to invading their neighbors in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, as well as meddling in the continent. God’s Other Chosen People, don’t cha know?
>Funny, WASPs seemed to have plenty of in-group consciousness when it came to invading their neighbors in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, as well as meddling in the continent.
There’s no WASP tanks occupying Welsh, Irish or Scottish soil. They’re free to leave the “oppressive” Anglo Yoke whenever they choose to do so. Further, your spelling denudes you non-British location. So kindly keep your nose out of our business, mutt.
Actually, when Scotland had a referendum on leaving the UK, the majority of ethnic Scots voted to leave. The vote was swung in the other direction by English citizens of Scotland.
And I think the past 40-60 years of war has made it clear that Northern Ireland is not free to leave the UK anytime they wish.
There’s no Anglo tanks occupying Welsh/Scottish/Irish soil. They’re free to leave the “oppressive” Anglo yoke anytime they choose to do so. But oddly, they don’t. Further, your spelling de-nudes your location – so kindly keep your nose out of our British business.
To be honest, I was thinking the same thing and about all of the groups you mentioned that so called WASPS warred against. lol
Excited to see a new Friday column from Andrew Hamilton, who is my opinion is the best writer ever on this great site. I found this article very interesting, as I’m a lifelong Massachusetts resident and of Irish background. This sheds some light on how our people became so predominant in the state. The Yankees seem to foreshadow the future for all white Americans, with economic success and ambition undermining long term racial interests.
Does the Puritan population explosion taken until 1988 take into account the westward migrations of Puritans–as in ? I’m assuming so. I have a Puritan ancestor who came to America in the mid-17th century. Within a couple generations some of the forefather’s descendents moved westward into Iowa and other mid-western states. The published version of the genealogy goes up until the early 20th century and there must be at least a thousand names listed in there.
As for Jews not liking philo-Semitism. I was talking with a typical liberal Jewish person, liberal when it comes to other countries but a nationalist when it comes to Israel, the guy even lives in a settlement; anyway, I was mentioning all the good things Trump was doing for Israel and he quotes from Psalms about being wary of people being too nice to you.
Yes, the population growth to 1988 would include the expansion westward. As stated in the text, my only problem is with Fischer’s specific number. Demos’ hard numbers regarding Plymouth Colony are much more reliable, because he was a very careful scholar regarding such matters. You can tell that just from reading his Plymouth paper. However, his discussion is limited to Plymouth during the early colonial period.
I am sure the expansion you see in your family tree is fairly typical. It is instructive to observe family size even on a case by case basis when reading about the past. You can learn a lot inductively. After the early period, farm families were probably larger as a rule than urban families. But, most of America was rural until well into the 20th century.
While writing this the name of Lincoln’s Attorney General Edward Bates popped into my head because he was a prominent “upper class” urbanite, yet still had a very large family in the 19th century–he and his wife had 17 children.
I mentioned him in a previous article because he opposed Lincoln’s Negro repatriation scheme, saying it would not work because Lincoln insisted that it be voluntary. Repatriation would have to be mandatory, Bates said. Bates was certainly right, no question about that.
I called him a Southerner in that article because he was born on a Virginia plantation.
Double-checking now to recall exactly how many children he had, lo and behold I discover that he was a product of the Puritan Yankees I’ve just been writing about, with their typical large family formations extending back to early Massachusetts—something I completely missed the first time around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_family#Members
Once you become aware of the pattern you see it everywhere.
The anecdote about the Jew is quite funny. They really are a piece of work.
Thanks for your reply. I’m not sure what to make of the thesis that modern SJW culture has its roots with the Puritans. I think that’s what people like Paul Gottfried and Kevin MacDonald attest. I can see the philo-Semitism originating from the Puritans as they saw themselves as the Hebrews to create a new Jerusalem. In a way it’s sort of a tragic irony how liberal Jews wish to cancel the whites who founded the country who for the most part had nothing but respect for Jews and also drew on their history for inspiration.
Fascinating account of the history of the real Yankees. I, like most, was taught about their religious narrow mindedness but little of their industry and myriad accomplishments. Their pluck and self-reliance combined with their community-enhancing morality is, I think, beautifully documented by the Little House books (whether written by now-banned Laura Ingalls Wilder or her daughter Rose).
And let me add my commendation of J. Ogletree’s excellent comment about the need for unity among the unfortunately dwindling numbers of Yankees, Tidewaters, and Ulster Scotts
Also considering people on the celtic fringe to be ‘Anglo-saxon’ is lunacy and obviously a matter of convenience which rather undermines the author’s point.
Petty nationalism for me but not for thee!
I heartily second Mr. Ogletree’s insightful comment about the need for unity amongst Old stock Americans, and really as others have mentioned White Americans in general.
I have ancestry from all four seeds of Albion, that being said my family surname traces back to these intelligent, idealistic, and hardy folk known as Puritans. I’m very proud of their accomplishments as a group, many individuals in my family, and men such as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard who saw reality all too clearly, and worked diligently for a different outcome.
Thank you Mr. Hamilton for an enjoyable read to celebrate this 400 year anniversary.
Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, for an excellent piece from a perspective far too rarely seen on the Dissident Right. It is a sad contradiction to witness even racially conscious whites condemn so admirable an example of their own race as those brave souls who arrived here 400 years ago, and then went on to tame a continent from a savage-infested wilderness, establish a republic after a revolution (that unlike its contemporary counterpart in Catholic France instituted the rule of law rather than a reign of terror), and build a nation that would one day send their own to the moon.
I also appreciated your comment on Kevin MacDonald. I initially had much admiration for him, but it cooled considerably when his anti-Anglo-Protestant views became clear and obvious. And I certainly agree that he has not successfully made his anti-Yankee case. I recall an occasion in one of his articles, for example, where he wrote that, “In the UK, where the Puritans originated, people are being arrested for Facebook and Twitter posts critical of migration and multiculturalism” (Part 3 of his “The Puritan Intellectual Tradition in America,” Occidental Observer, June 30, 2018). I thought it amusing, to say the least, that he would try to make a connection between a Puritanism that vanished centuries ago and present-day arrests in Britain for Facebook and Twitter posts, as if the same thing wasn’t happening in the rest of Western Europe where Catholicism originated, remained dominate for centuries, and still exists. (I’m not trying to be anti-Catholic, but if someone else starts this game, then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.)
Furthermore, many of those Puritans came to America where their “intellectual descendants,” as MacDonald likes to call them (to disparage, not to praise), established a republic with a Constitution that expressly forbid its government from abridging the freedom of speech or press. Perhaps, therefore, quite contrary to MacDonald’s ridiculous leap, if there had been a little more influence in Western Europe from Puritans and their intellectual descendants, those countries also would now be unable to arrest their citizens for Facebook and Twitter posts.
Hamilton has not read my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition which has a long chapter on the Puritans. They gave in too easily to the rising Jewish elite and their idealism and millenarianism has been a problem throughout American history.
MacDonald writes that the Puritans “gave in too easily to the rising Jewish elite.” And who was so much tougher against that Jewish elite? Catholic immigrants? Did they prove to be a great bulwark against the Jewish elite? How about MacDonald’s precious philo-Semitic “Southern Cavaliers” who saddled us with a massive population of a race that could not be further from our own, and could never hope to function adequately in white society, and who for decades now have served as the original and perfect pawns of that Jewish elite in their ever more successful attempt at the Cultural Marxist overthrow of white European civilization?
MacDonald’s denigrating fixation on Puritans and Anglo-Protestants in general denies them the credit they deserve. And he does so dripping with hostility. He viciously compares Puritans to the way he was treated by the left-wing academic inquisitions that tormented him as a professor, then promptly proceeds to treat Puritans in precisely the same “moralistically aggressive” manner.
He writes, “[T]heir idealism and millenarianism has been a problem throughout American history.” I would remind him: They ARE American history. And obviously, therefore, since they were not perfect, whatever their weaknesses are would naturally become a part of THEIR history. They were the settlers, the builders, those who came here with nothing and carved it out of nothing, and gave it, as Samuel Huntington has demonstrated, its Anglo-Protestant identity, not those who came later after someone else has done all the heavy lifting and then lecture them about how they could have and should have done it better. But he doesn’t even do that because none ever did do it better, and he knows it. So he can only condemn and abuse these great white men who built this country and gave it its identity.
As Hamilton’s quote from Stewart H. Holbrook so well puts it, “But, sir, you must either admit that somehow or other [the Puritan] accomplished prodigies; or you must cite some other group of people who accomplished more, or even as much, in the New World.”
As far as I’m aware, Holbrook’s challenge has been ignored by MacDonald, although it’s an obvious one that no scholar who is not nursing a private prejudice would ignore. In MacDonald’s case, he just goes back to beating up on this great people, and at the end of the day all his abuse amounts to is inevitably nothing more than what could be said of any people, no matter how great; that they weren’t perfect and they had their weaknesses.
I would add one more thing. It is one thing point out a people’s weaknesses and do it with compassion and understanding, especially if the group we’re talking about is one of fellow whites, especially when they were men of courage, fortitude, and honor. It is quite another to point them out with hostility and malice.
To illustrate the way MacDonald maintains and embellishes his “Puritan Man Bad” thesis, and to present this picture that, presumably, there was something uniquely sinister or pernicious about Puritans and their influence on Western culture, I was intrigued by a comment he posted for Hamilton’s essay the other day at The Unz Review, and would like to point out a few things about it.
MacDonald writes, “Heretics were whipped, burned, and exiled; all the while Puritans believed themselves to be the beleaguered defenders of liberty. Both New England and East Anglia (the center of Puritanism in England) had the lowest relative rates of private crime (murder, theft, mayhem) in their respective societies, but the highest rates of public violence—’the burning of rebellious servants, the maiming of political dissenters, the hanging of Quakers, the execution of witches’ (Fischer, 1989, 189). …The moral fervor that had inspired Puritan preachers and magistrates to rigidly enforce laws on fornication, adultery, sleeping in church, or criticizing preachers was universalized and aimed at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism and slavery.”
Leaving aside how MacDonald accomplishes his leap that takes 17th century Puritanism and lays all the blame on it for “universalizing” itself into a 19th century aim at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism and slavery, and also leaving aside the fact that capitalism and slavery had indeed plenty of ills about them that needing correcting(!), notice how he avoids putting the Puritans and their behavior within the broader context of the times, and instead keeps the field of his historical view deliberately narrowed. Bear in mind, also, that he’s presumably still talking, as his book title implies, about the “Western Tradition,” and not about the history of England per se, for example.
Now, he doesn’t say, but I’m guessing the “highest rates” of public violence means compared to the rest of England in the case of East Anglia, and rest of the American colonies in the case of New England, because if he were to include the continent of Europe, I can guarantee you there was plenty of public violence to go around at this time. The various Catholic Inquisitions remained quite busy with their own burning of heretics at the stake, including the 2,000 Protestants estimated to have been burned at the stake during Torquemada’s reign alone as the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition in the 16th century. Furthermore, these Catholics Inquisitions did not just exist in Spain and they lasted well into the 19th century.
These people were burned to death by the Spanish Inquisition in an “act of faith” to the “greater glory of God,” according to the Roman Catholic Church at the time. These “acts of faith,” as they were formally known, were also actually conducted as festive occasions. The Inquisition also tortured suspects not only for the crimes of heresy and apostasy, but also sorcery, sodomy, polygamy, blasphemy, and usury. Let that sink in while you contemplate MacDonald’s laundry list of Puritan offenses and his snide implication of Puritan hypocrisy with his crack about them believing themselves to be “beleaguered defenders of liberty.” I guess he means like the public violence that would be seen in Catholic France in the following century where an estimated 17,000 would be publicly beheaded in less than a year, not just by beleaguered defenders of liberty, but brotherhood and equality too.
That is the briefest of sketches of what was a gargantuan amount of “moral fervor” and “public violence” that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Puritans, but which certainly deserves to be counted as as much or more a part of the “Western Tradition” as anything the Puritans did in their relatively brief walk upon this earth. Furthermore, no fair scholarly treatment of the Puritans can deny them the right to be judged and understood within that historical context, and not by its dishonest omission that would isolate them historically in the hopes that the 21st century reader will see this “moral fervor” and “public violence” as unique to them and then judge them according to a contemporary standard of outrage.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment