One good thing about Kevin MacDonald is that he keeps thinking and evolving. In his latest note he sings a paean to the Jew Gottfried and blasts his fellow White Americans, like the “conservative” Heritage Foundation, that recently advocated a massive increase in H1B visas in the middle of a recession. He says:
Sometimes it seems as if "conservatives" and liberals are competing see which group can speed up the displacement of Whites the fastest.What, have we (the Jews) lost our original and exclusive control of the flooding of the lands of the White Man? MacDonald may be putting in danger his membership in the ABC (Antisemite Boys Club). A few more articles like that and he will be thrown out of the Bruderband and may have to apply for membership in the Southern Poverty outfit.
MacDonald has started to study America's own original homegrown Israelites, the Puritans of New England, and finds them more (Yes, more!) abominable than the Jews themselves. While Jews use moralistic arguments to advance their own ethnic agenda, MacDonald finds that Puritans impose their aggressive morality not only on their own or on their own interest, but they extend it on all America (killing by the way hundred of thousands of fellow White Americans - "cousins" - for the cause of slaves from Africa) and eventually they go on imposing Puritan morals and democracy on the whole world. Puritan fanaticism and violence is the root, MacDonald dixit, of the suffocating Political Correctness terrorizing the White Man in America.
The academic world has become a Puritan congregation of stifling thought control, enforced by moralistic condemnations that a seventeenth-century Puritan minister could scarcely surpass. In my experience, this thought control is far worse in the East coast colleges and universities founded by the Puritans than elsewhere in academia—a fitting reminder of the continuing influence of Puritanism in American life.Do Puritans deserve MacDonald's attack? As an European Jew, I find New England Puritan writings stultifying, their moralistic tiranny similar to my family's, but I have no doubt they must have been a virtuous people. Having many of them died of hunger during the first winter in the new land, they soon became the wealthiest people on Earth. They said no to the taxman and won. Admirable. They were among the very finest people in history.
19 comments:
But Jaim, you certainly know that traitors are more execrable than enemies.
The undoing of the Puritans was the Transcendentalist movement. At the time Massachusetts was one of the last states (circa 1820) that had a state church. The merry wreckers following the state minister Emerson were the ones who worked to destroy Puritan/Yankee morality. As an example of their corruption Emerson wrote a poem to one of the Hindu gods, despite being a nominal minister of God. A group of people who once swore off the government of England and its state church went on to have their descendants ruined by a state church that should have been abolished.
Once their faith died they no longer had the unity to stop the flood of Catholic immigrants that came in the aftermath of the Civil War. As for the Blacks, they are extremely ungrateful for having been freed.
Our sages said: "There is no salvation for the collaborator (with the enemy)".
But Dear Anonymous, what is Prof. MacDonald meaning when he writes that conservatives have lost their cotton-picking minds?
A Yale paper explains that cotton picking was done mostly by slaves “who toiled in the gangs and were on average 70 per cent more productive than free farmers". These gang laborers, who in 1860 constituted about half of the adult slave population, worked so intensely that they produced as much output in roughly thirty-five minutes as did free farmers in a full hour.” Slavery Debates, p.c36.
The cotton-picking mind - is it smart or dumb? what is it?
Dear Ronduck,
I tried to read Cotton Mather and other Puritan writers, but never understood what they were debating. My mind is blocked, I dont seem to be able to comprehend what the Transcendentalist movement was. This is how far I can go, probably I shall die without ever having understood Puritan doctrinal disputes.
"Having many of them died of hunger during the first winter in the new land, they soon became the wealthiest people on Earth. They said no to the taxman and won. Admirable. They were among the very finest people in history."I met a Brazilian once, who had similar sentiments about the Puritans. I mentioned this on my site in another context a few months ago:
"A Brazilian once actually made a similar point to me a few years ago. During a vacation to Brazil I had scheduled a couple of business meetings, the second of which was at the Rio de Janeiro branch of a U.S.-based brokerage. In conversation with the office manager, it came up that a friend and I had visited the old colonial port city of Paraty on our way up from São Paulo. The manager explained the history of the town to me, that it had been the port from which the minerals mined from the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais ("General Mining") were shipped back to Portugal. Then he went on to contrast the difference between the original settlers of what became the U.S. with the original settlers of Brazil: "You had a higher quality of settlers," he said. "Yours -- Puritans -- came to build. Ours came to take". Of course in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Brazil attracted some of the same sort of immigrants that the U.S. did, including Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews, and Japanese (Brazil today has the largest ethnic Japanese population outside of Japan)."
1. The Puritan movement in England was formed by Protestants who wanted the established state church to be purified of any remaining Catholic elements. Eventually the Puritans moved to the Low Countries and then later set out for Virginia, missing it by several hundred miles. In the New World these Calvinists intended to set up a colony based on the Bible, where they could practice their religion in peace. The colony itself however did not have freedom of religion and all residents were required to be members of the official Congregationalist church. Heretics, convicted witches and others were often executed, and thieves were treated harshly. A good surviving relic of this era is the name of the city of New Canaan, Connecticut.
The Salem Witch Trials were the beginning of the end of the theocratic government. Afterwards the colony went from being a group of religious men who engaged in business, to a group of businessmen who were also religious. This was the time when the Puritans began to make the transition from being Puritans to being the first Yankees. Remember that within the US Yankees are northeasterners, especially New Englanders.
The second social transition in New England began when the Yankees essentially left Christianity. This transition was led by the "Transcendentalists" who were themselves led by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a former Congregationalist minister who became a Unitarian.
Unitarianism is church without God, and therefore without any vitality or purpose. After giving up their first love (God) they move on to "improve" society, the most notable efforts being prohibition and abolition. The New England abolitionist were so rabid that Abraham Lincoln refused to be associated with them during the first half of the Civil War, calling only for the repair of the Union. During his campaign speeches Lincoln stated that he was not for the abolition of slavery or for making Negroes equals in society. After his assasination the the radical Republicans rammed through an agenda of equality, instead of Lincoln's dream of repatriation.
As I noted above, having given up their faith the Yankees ended up losing their communal spirit, their drive. They continued to prosper individually, but they lacked the cohesion to carry out group efforts, like ending Catholic immigration. One of the great ironies of American history is that a region intended to be free of Roman depravity is now 50% Romanist and these Catholics are led by a reprobate, Ted Kennedy.
2. Both transitions had opponents who believed that society was going downhill (it was). Yale was founded by dissenters who believed that Harvard was getting too liberal and wanted a conservative seminary for area ministers. After the disestablishment of the congregationalist church conservative members formed independent churches that worked to preserve orthodox Calvinism.
3. The White Evangelical Protestants are the last religious heirs to the Puritans, and are the only group to consistently give a majority of their vote to the Republican party. The most religious Evangelicals often vote almost 9 to 1 for the Republican party, and are often the most radical free marketeers in the party. The best example I can give you is Gary North, Calvinist and firm believer in the Free Market.
4. I have taken up too much space here. Thanks for reading.
Thanks Ronduck. What I meant that I dont understand their doctrinal differences.
Dave,
It is a general opinion in Latin America that Spanish and Portuguese colonization was a disaster and the root of all their problems. Brasil got a better kind of immigrants because the Portuguese throne moved to Brasil, becoming the center of a worldwide empire. The main difference is, in my opinion, that Latin America was densely populated by natives while the North was almost empty. The number of Europeans settling in South America was too small to change the Aztec, Quechwa, etc. aboriginal population's cultures. Moreover, pre-columbian populations have restored their dominance and are ruling Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and so on. The Phillipines, which was a Spanish speaking colony, has completely erased its Spanish heritage.
Do you not understand the differences the Puritans had among themselves?
Or do you not understand the differences between the Puritans and the later Transcedentalists?
I have zero basis in early American history and in Protestant theology, so lets leave it for another day. Thanks for trying to help.
Ok.
J,
The Portuguese throne moved to Brazil after Napoleon invaded Portugal, and returned back to Portugal 14 years later. I don't think this had much of an impact on Brazil's development. Also, unlike some of the other Latin American countries you've mentioned, Brazil has a negligible Indian population; Indians probably make up a similar percentage of Brazil's population as they do America's. It does have a much larger black and mixed-race (black and white) population though.
The large black and mixed-race population is the main demographic difference between Brazil and Argentina. Both countries had heavy European immigration, particularly in the 19th Century. Aboriginals are rare in both countries. Brazil actively recruited European immigrants in the 19th Century, including many Germans who were priced out of local farmland and settled in Brazil's southern (more temperate) states. They still live there today, in cities with names such as Blumenau. It's worth remembering, too, that a hundred years ago, Argentina was essentially a first world country. It was rich from that era's commodity boom, and money poured into impressive European-style architecture and cultural monuments: office buildings, statues, opera houses, train stations, etc.
"Cotton picking" is just a turn of speech, used in a minorly expletive fashion, along the lines of "they've lost their bloody minds".
No need to waste the second half of your life learning anything about Protestantism. More crackpot balderdash from the eternally crackpotted goy.
Maybe in the next gilgul, if there is such.
Maybe in the next gilgul, if there is such.
Maybe in the next gilgul, if there is such.
"Maybe in the next gilgul, if there is such."
There's not. Immortality is to be found only in my great grandchildren.
You know this, of course.
And in ours. Hence our demographic concerns, which will soon match yours.
Anon. (Protestant heritage).
It is a general opinion in Latin America that Spanish and Portuguese colonization was a disaster and the root of all their problems.x
That is unfair to Spain. Most of those countries have been independent of Spain for around 150 years now and have to face up their own problems. The Indian republics such as Ecuador may not be able to change, but countries such as Argentina have no excuse.
The Phillipines, which was a Spanish speaking colony, has completely erased its Spanish heritage.x
No it hasn't. The Phillipines is still Catholic. You can't separate Catholicism from the culture of Spain anymore than you can separate the Hebrews from Judaism. The Phillipines still exports large amounts of impoverished people who cannot find a means of supporting themselves in their home country. Second, The Phillipines has had a series of goverments, including one led by dictator, just like Latin America.
Post a Comment