The Plymouth church that traces itself back to 1620 has been Unitarian for a century or two. Most of the Puritans’ children also became Unitarian. Now they are largely atheists.
The history of the Pilgrims and the Puritan is completely different from age to age, so everything I say here has a question mark after it. Whether they came here for religious freedom or to impose their religion, the point is they ended up with a doctrine the original immigrants would not have stood for.
No one notices this, but I do. I think about it a lot.
As I understand it, the 1620 Pilgrims were a different lot from the Puritans who came later in vast numbers. Backbaygrouch will be able to fill us in on this. The Pilgrims’ Massachusetts Bay Colony fought long and hard to keep our of the Puritan’s control, but they lost.
I have READ that the Pilgrims were far more genuinely in favor of religious freedom than the Puritans. The Puritans make a bad joke of that “America was founded by people who came here for religious freedom” stuff. Again I defer to backbaygrouch on the actual facts. Why have an expert around if you aren’t going to use his expertise?
Actually I have nothing against the Puritans for imposing their own religion on a place they went to to have their own population on which to impose their own doctrine. We all wish we could do the same sort of thing for an all-white area. It is the HISTORY, the LESSON that needs correcting.
The Puritans came her to impose their own religion in an area four thousand miles away from England. There are TWO lessons here. Most literate people are aware of the first, that they did NOT come here for Religious Freedom. I want to emphasize the SECOND lesson, which is almost unknown.
The second lesson is that the Puritans FAILED to impose their religion. Why?
Naturally I look at this from a BUGS point of view. One of our points here s that when an institution takes over, the PURPOSE of the institution is lost.
Jesus had no lessons about how a group of theologues should justify their absolute rule. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” would have gotten someone hanged as a heretic. So they naturally went to the Old Testament to organize their society under theocratic rule.
As time passed, even before they came to America, Puritanism became more and more about how to impose their will on THIS world. The institution talked more and more about its right to rule. The same thing happened to the Catholic Church as it put whole countries under the Interdict to collect money for the Pope.
They were both institutions USING the name of Christ. I wonder how different history might have been if we had lost at Tours and the ruling institutions called themselves Moslem. It may be that we would have had much the same history and the West would have been just as different and independent, but in the name of schism between the Moslem Branch in Northern Europe and the Moslem Branch that was based in the Middle East.
The Catholic Church was every bit as separate from and hostile to Constantinople. The name Christianity certainly did not unite them. Today Iranian Islam has the same attitude to the Sunnites. My point is that no matter what the NAME institutions appeal to, history itself goes its way and institutions are part of history, not of theology.
China’s version of Marxism versus the old Russian version has little to do with Marx. Marx considered cities to be the natural development of a proletarian society rather than peasants. Pol Pot used Marxism to DESTROY his country’s cities. Before long neither version had anything to do with Marx.
The same thing would have happened if they had all called themselves True Snake Worshippers.
#1 by shari on 02/16/2010 - 9:02 am
The Puritans failed to impose their religion because what is simply true CANNOT be imposed. To do that ALWAYS results in unbelief,in whatever is imposed,whether it’s imposed in the name of religion,or science,or the one true political system. Even parents should only try to GIVE their children what they believe, not IMPOSED it on them. An important reason to reject racial promiscuity, I think. You can’t simply pass down, to children who aren’t really YOUR children.It’s cruel.
#2 by Simmons on 02/16/2010 - 11:37 am
I might change the word “true” in the first sentence to “false”, but maybe I’m adding a time function to Shari’s statement.
I think these “Institutions” posts by Bob are important, and I’m not just kissing butt as some do around here. We are seeing before our very eyes the deconstruction of the Left and the Left/Right governance construct.
Take the issue of Feminism and its institution, which by my accounts is basically down to six figured tenure, public employee vestment and Planned Parenthood subsidies as its purpose. Since 1992 have we seen a politician run on the Feminsist/Marxist like screeds (oppressor/oppressed)? Heck the latest feminist to make the news is a wackjob professor eating her just rewards from a majority non-white tenure community, and then dishing out some lead filled hate. (some village idiot liberal B-board is missing an idiot)
Neverminding the still born institutions of health care and AGW we should look at the Left’s institution that matters most to us, the “Anti-racist” anti-White institution.
My take on it is that it only has encouraged the formation of Racial feelings, quite the opposite of what they originally intended. With the right lawsuit the Left is almost to the point of grabbing the skull calipers to determine who is and who isn’t eligible for government bennies. Thank god for Obama, he puts value on our whiteness.
#3 by backbaygrouch4 on 02/16/2010 - 11:44 am
Seems about right. About the only quibble I can dredge up is, ” The Pilgrims’ Massachusetts Bay Colony fought long and hard to keep ou[r]t of the Puritan’s control, but they lost.,” should read, “The Pilgrims’ Plymouth Colony…”
The question why the triumphant Puritan strain has risen and fallen is beyond my ken. The amoeba like behavior of Protestantism certainly took hold after the Revolution with the mathematically minded going Unitarian, the lovers of the exotic opting for an orientalist Universalism with good old Congregationalism chugging along underneath. Class distinctions likely played a role. That the First Parish of Plymouth went Unitarian two centuries ago possibly reflected it being the oldest [and richest] local gathering.
Your institutional approach sheds a good deal of light. Dr. Paul Gottfried looks at it as a history of ideas intimating that ideas themselves have a natural progression. This seems other worldly and the play thing of a master wordsmith but it is interesting and he lards it with a wealth of detail. Dr. Kevin MacDonald has promised a study on the subject that is eagerly anticipated as it will doubtless add his background in animal biology and anthropology. My suspicion is that on one level he will be seen as adding Gottfried to his own work and ending up close to where you are.
The collapse of the Massachusetts theocracy, which coincides with the loss of will by America’s White majority, and is interrelated to it, is a fascinating topic. Whether understanding it is helpful to our cause is an open question. It parallels similar developments in Europe.
It is important that a White European Christian identity be established. Sometimes it takes a disaster for this to happen. The rage of the era, Holocaustism, certainly revived the flagging, dying cult of Western Jewry. Obama’s election was a wake up call to White America and some green shoots seem to be sprouting but the entire weight of the establishment, all in place institutions, will war relentlessly against them, id est, us, BUGS. .
#4 by backbaygrouch4 on 02/16/2010 - 12:21 pm
Always a post click thought.
Puritans’ Progress
1600 – 1800 Fear of King and Bishops = Cohesion.
1800 – 1950 Victory/Independence = Division
1950 – BUGS Retreat, Rout and Defeat
AGE of BUGS Cohesion
#5 by ioannes on 02/16/2010 - 3:42 pm
After reading this post and previous posts on the Puritans, I too have pondered how in the perfect past tense, the so called religious society from the 1620’s could grow into the monstrous anti-white institution that the original founders would not recognize.
Today, a few of the so called leaders of this industry claim that the bible of America’s founding is the Geneva Bible. I own a copy of the 1599 Geneva. From the onset the document and its highly touted footnotes are very universalist in nature. In my opinion, these very intensive foot notes written by the untouchable Protestant writers detract from the wording that they had originally translated in the text. Even the so called founders of the Protestant doctrine clearly understood how to use wordism, just as well if not better than their papist adversaries. No wonder my ancestor used the pages of this book for gun wadding.
In the elementary school system of the 1960’s, many of us had been indoctrinated with the mantra “America was founded by religious criminals”. With the regimes intended direction at the time, this mantra was very appropriate.
#6 by Dave on 02/16/2010 - 6:55 pm
“The institution talked more and more about its right to rule.”
We are fighting a religion, the religion of Political Correctness.
Never lose sight of that.
Simmons says, “There is no Left and there is no Respectable Opposition without the word racist.”
This is a true as it gets, the truth in a nutshell. We are fighting a religion that uses the word “racist” to impose its theology.
Like Puritanism, that religion is destined to fail to impose its will, it is going to fail to successfully defend its right to rule.
#7 by BGLass on 02/17/2010 - 10:49 am
here’s an article repositioning Puritanism as “radical,” tied to “extremist politics,” authoritarianism, absolutism, fascism, fanaticism, etc: http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=46 As Genocidal White All-Bad. In the age of tolerance nobody can own their own aggression. If you see Protestantisms, not as Caholics (as a different schism from Gnostics), but as gnostic, then all Protestants are Gnostics grappling with theodicy. Salvation by truth and Sacrifice for knowledge won. Odin/Jesus is hung to get Runes. When All-Good won, Bad became a question of error and epistemology. Now any enemies are just hurt and misunderstood—and Norsemen can analyze them as they love to do. Lemmings don’t think all people are equal—they think all Gods are equal. The masks of God idea and All-Good theodicy, where they’re so All-Good they can intake All-Bad, assuming others are undergoing trails that lead to Truth, won’t accommodate tribal village-raid ethics, in which what’s Bad for crypto-Unitarians (rape/pillage/theft by names like affirmative action) is Good if YOUR Jesus steals, rapes and spreads around spoils. Hang for Truth was a good ethnic fit—but raping Jesuses aren’t confused and they never heal. It’s the BIG LIE of Jewish “monotheism.” It is only monotheism—FOR THEM.
#8 by BGLass on 02/17/2010 - 11:08 am
Also: the Creation of new institutions (eg: social sciences) might be best used/ positioned as the Jewish way of grappling with theodicy. Jews kept their primitive God with the village- raid-and-spoils ethic of their patriarchs, but tried to rationalize “aggressive impulses” and “mysterious persecutions,” secularly, through Marx/ Freud. That way they could have cake their God says they deserve, but explain it in a Christian white world where stealing is supposed to be bad for everybody. Whites don’t need social sciences. For Freudian therapy, they have to be made sick first, by his theory, THEN cured. Enrollment in such are declining. Freud’s ousted by rationalist-cognitive “therapies.” Etc. Pre-Christianers remain a few religions behind and we’re onto a new synthesis.