On the Puritan to Progressive Pipeline

an open letter of sorts

This essay was originally written as a response to an associate of mine. As such, some of the specifics may seem off-topic to most readers, but they are relevant to our discussion.

Firstly, I have to explain a few things for both the intended and unintended audience. I am aware of the influence of a small nomadic tribe from Canaan on our politics. This does not discount the things I am about to write. Multiple factors are able to play into a political formula, and there are a great deal involved in ours. I am explaining this one, please do not take this as me being unaware of any others.

Secondly, I have Puritan ancestors, one of whom was on the Mayflower voyage. As such, my distaste for Puritanism, (which no longer exists), is not somehow a dislike of either Protestantism broadly nor somehow anti-white, (I am entirely white).

With that out of the way, allow me to explain the Puritan-Progressive connection

What is a Puritan?

Puritanism was a religious sect in the church of England seeking to remove all Catholic rituals which remained with the English, (Anglican), church. The name Puritan is not a self-appointed title and was likely insulting, originating from the same mentality as “square” or perhaps even “dork”. They were largely Calvinist and wanted the removal of things like profane plays, dancing, gambling, drunkenness and tobacco use and some other practices that I refer to broadly as “Friday Evening”. Their main religious aim was the reformation of the Anglican church to be solely based on scripture rather than any human tradition. Puritans were largely of the English aristocracy and held sway even under later Catholic monarchs, even when their practice was banned. For Puritans, marriage was not a legal agreement but a personal one. The holiday Christmas was not celebrated by Puritans as it was “Pagan” or “Catholic”. Some Puritans would name their children things like “humiliation” or “Praise-God”, (this was the name of a Puritan MP). In the autobiography of Richard Baxter, the author explains that he was often tempted by music and dance, but believed that by withholding he would be holier. Additionally, he advocated to avoid reading nonreligious texts. The term “Puritan” came to be near meaningless by the time they had moved over from England as they had segmented further. The two groups one needs to understand going forward are the Congregationalists and the Quakers of whom I’m sure most of you are familiar. If you are not, I will explain both when necessary.

Puritans believed in running the church, (referring to the congregation not the building, which was called a “meeting house”), democratically through either Congregationalist or Presbyterian structures. Without getting into the weeds of it, Congregationalist churches are more direct and the church members elect their ministers, while Presbyterians have a system with both elected and ordained “elders”. Unless I specify Presbyterian going forward, assume a church is run Congregationally.

As one can probably guess, Puritans were not in favor with the monarchy and sided heavily with the Parliamentarians. In fact, the Parliamentary army was heavily manned by Puritan soldiers during the second and third Civil Wars, but I’m getting ahead.

The Puritan Cultural Icon

Puritanism leaves a bad taste in the mouth of most Americans. There is a cultural stereotype of the scowl-face black-dressed fun-hating people responsible for the Salem Witch Trials. While this stereotype is exaggerated, (black was believed too strong of a color), there is some truth to this.

The Puritans, (a term I will be using to refer broadly to all Puritan-sects in Colonial America), constructed their villages based around their churches. As such, those who were not full members of the church were unable to participate in political affairs. In a society run on a village council, things like the gossip of the local women play a major role, as do neighborly disputes. This contributed greatly to the events in Salem, as I’m sure you know. While modern progressives view the Puritans as heavily patriarchal, you are aware, I hope, of Long-housed nature of tight-knit communities like this, particularly ones which allowed women to participate in the election of ministers. They can often crush the man of spirit.

When Americans think of the Puritan they aren’t just thinking of someone who keeps to themselves, they are thinking of someone who imposes such a lifestyle. This is a large part of early New England culture— the colony charters were all written on Puritan grounds and enforced strictly as we will see further on. Americans, (particularly those of the South and Midwest), do not take kindly to these sorts of attitudes. Outside of New England, most Americans are not very theocratically-minded. This spirit, the one of cultural imposition, is why Americans view “Puritan” as a dirty word to this day. THIS is what people are talking about when they refer to Progressives as Puritan-esq. The history demonstrates a direct path between Puritan governance and the later Progressive movement, which then transitions slowly into our modern one. Progressives of the Progressive era, one must remember, were Christian in more than simply name.

Yes, modern Progressives are not religious in the same way that you and I are religious. Yet ideology is able to provide quit a well-fitting replacement in the minds of many. Therefore, when the Puritan mindset is applied to an ideology, it acts the same. This is why I can feel comfortable calling progressives something like “cultists” for example. The word “Puritan” however, seems to be something you identify with, which I find a bit confusing given the following…

A Brief History

First, an explanation of the two sects I’ll be talking about: Congregationalists and Quakers. Congregationalists cover virtually all Puritan sects, (Presbyterians are slightly different but I’ll include them for now and explain later). I separate Quakers because their beliefs are much different and I don’t think it’s subtle enough to simply call them the same.

Quakers are among the first group to believe in a direct relationship with Christ without any church. The name “Quaker” refers to the practitioners, “quaking” before God. They followed the teachings of George Fox, who, (with the help of self-reported visions a la John Smith), traveled around England, the Netherlands and other locations gathering a following. A few quick fun facts about Quakers: They do not practice baptism by water, they still teach the words of George Fox as gospel, they refer to their churches as “meeting houses” and do not decorate them they, refuse to pledge allegiance to and/or fight for any cause and they refer to themselves as Saints, (something which may remind the readers of another Protestant splinter group). Many Quakers still claim the invention of things like American Democracy, Feminism and the U.S. constitution. As one can probably glean, I am not fond of Quakerism.

Congregationalists are the more in-line with modern Protestantism of the two, but are still not what most readers would think of with the term “Protestant”. Many of their core tenets are shared with the Quakers, but are far less extreme. The movement was founded by Robert Browne, who later rejoined the Anglican church. Congregationalism became the state religion of New England and was a large factor in the origins of the traditions of localized self-government and restrictions on Earthly authority in the region. Massachusetts governed its churches by Presbyterians standards, while all of the other colonies did so congregationally, (the distinction between the two is irrelevant here). Religious and authority conflicts between Massachusetts and the other colonies occurred frequently as New England law required someone to be a full member of their church in order to vote on issues. As a result, associations such as the Cambridge Association developed to debate these matters and solve theological conflicts. Even Harvard University was founded as a religious institution, intending to ensure a literate Puritan clergy.

There is a lot more history I would like to cover in the New England Puritan movement that I do not have the time for in this essay but I would encourage the reader to look into it. What it is important to note is that Puritanism and Protestantism are not synonymous. Puritans discriminated heavily against other Protestant movements including not only the Quakers, but also Baptists and Anglicans. Christmas was banned in New England until the 1680’s. Several Quakers were hanged for entering the Massachusetts colony in which their presence was banned. Massachusetts, (the most stringent among them), also banned the presence of Catholics. Eventually the English crown revoked their colony charter for these and other religious acts, which led to anti-English sentiment which lasted well into the 1700’s. So much for mutual Protestant toleration!

So, on the cusp of the American Revolution we can take a few factors into consideration. Firstly, the Puritans of New England were already unsupportive of the crown, a fact we can gather from the religious affiliations of the sides during all three English Civil Wars. Additionally, the Tory party in England was heavily Anglican while the Whig party was much more Puritan. New Englanders were also beginning to become discontent with Parliament after the revocation of the Massachusetts charter, with other colonies fearing that Parliament may step into their affairs, (religious minority groups had often requested a Parliamentary intervention). Third, Puritan communities were already practitioners of self-governance prior to the introduction of Royal Governors.

I believe that the American Revolution is a frequently-enough discussed topic to mostly avoid covering the exact historical events other than to say that I firmly believe in Fisher’s theory that Sir William Howe allowed the Colonial Army to exist mostly unmolested due to his desire to avoid alienating other Whigs at home. It should be noted here that Howe himself was a member of the Whig party, and many of these Whigs are members of either Congregationalist or Presbyterian churches. Many Tories and American Loyalists believed the Revolution to be one of religion, as well as many of the Patriots themselves. King George himself referred to the rebels as “Whigs and Presbyterians” according to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Hutchinson.

After the American Revolution, and the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, Puritan sects were heavily involved in movements such as abolition, tavern restriction, education and prison reform. Quakers in particular advanced the equality of women during this era. Due to the time period, however, I will focus primarily on abolitionist movements. The reader must remember, however, that this is only one social cause advanced among these groups. Organizations such as the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, the New York Manumission Society, (founded by John Jay), and the Massachusetts Abolition Society were all from the New England or adjacent regions and took inspiration from Congregationalist, Presbyterian or Quaker beliefs. These organizations were able to abolish slavery in the Northern states rather easily as the agrarian nature of them shifted to a more urban-centric one. The Quakers, of course, would be the first to succeed with slavery being banned in Pennsylvania in 1780. Most other states did not get this far until the early-to-mid 19th century. Nearly all abolitionists advocated their stance from a religious view, and nearly all abolitionist movements came from New England. Many were ministerial in origin as well. The father of Harriet Beecher Stowe, (the author of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”), was himself a Presbyterian minister. Directly before and during the Civil War, abolitionists underwent significant efforts to free slaves through illegal means. Congregationalist and Presbyterian sects as well as Quakers were instrumental in the facilitation of the Underground Railroad and lawfare efforts to forcibly end slavery in the South. Regardless of one’s views on the abolitionist movement, to deny that former-Puritan religious sects held great political influence during this time period would be absurd.

However, these groups were not entirely successful either. As I’m sure the reader is aware, the South scored several major legal victories preserving slavery in the leadup the the Civil War. The grasp which New England held on Washington was beginning to slip during this time. As we will see, other methods would be needed. This is not out of some grand conspiracy by Congregationalists to rule the country, rather, it is a very natural evolution of the culture which existed in New England. The Puritan mindset did not die with Puritanism, it simply evolved just like everything else.

As late as 1893 the British still referred to Americans as “Brother Johnathan”, a term coined in the English Civil War to mock Puritans. This term was utilized to refer to the Americans temperament socially alongside “Uncle Sam” which referred to their politics, "When we meet him in politics we call him Uncle Sam; when we meet him in society we call him Brother Jonathan. Here of late Uncle Sam alias Brother Jonathan has been doing a powerful lot of complaining, hardly doing anything else." -The Lutheran Witness, 1893. After the civil war, the South was greatly isolated from political power for some time, leading to the predominance of New England politicians until near the turn of the century.

Moving into the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the progressive movement, (from which modern progressivism evolved), was a Christian movement. You’ll notice that this does not inherently make it a good thing. Now I’m sure you and I will agree that a progressive of this time period would be disgusted by a modern progressive, but this is the way of things. Progressives gave us an end to child labor and the creation of the National Park system. They also gave us prohibition and women’s rights. Cthulu will continue swimming left until morale improves.

Progressivism begins with the American “mugwumps”, aristocrats from New England and the broader Northeast who recognize that a weak central government is not a government system that is beneficial to an aristocracy of intellectual people. Some of these individuals were critical of Democracy in general. Early Progressives came largely from the North, were nearly all college educated and lived in cities. They are direct descendants of the mugwumps. I will quote at length here from Charles Francis Adams Jr., a mugwump:

“Twelve presidential canvasses, and six great national debates have thus been passed in rapid review. It is as if, in the earlier history of the country we had run the gamut from Washington to Van Buren. Taken as a whole, viewed in gross and perspective, the retrospect leaves much to be desired. That the debates held in Ireland and France during the same time have been on a distinctly lower level, I at once concede. Those held in Great Britain and Germany have not been on a higher. Yet ours have at best been only relatively educational; as a rule extremely partizan, they have been personal, often scurrilous, and intentionally deceptive. One fact is, however, salient. With the exception of the first, that of 1856–1860, not one of the debates reviewed has left an utterance which, were it to die from human memory, would by posterity be accounted a loss. This, I am aware, is a sweeping allegation; in itself almost an indictment. Yet with some confidence I challenge a denial. Those here are not as a rule in their first youth, and they have all of them been more or less students of history. Let each pass in rapid mental review the presidential canvasses in which he has in any degree participated, and endeavor to recall a single utterance which has stood the test of time as marking a distinct addition to mankind’s intellectual belongings, the classics of the race. It has been at best a babel of the commonplace. I do not believe one utterance can be named, for which a life of ten years will be predicted. Such a record undeniably admits of improvement. Two questions then naturally suggest themselves: To what has this shortcoming been due? Wherein lies the remedy for it?

The shortcoming, I submit, is in greatest part due to the fact that the work of discussion has been left almost wholly to the journalist and the politician, the professional journalist and the professional politician; and, in the case of both there has in this country during the last forty years, been, so far as grasp of principle is concerned, a marked tendency to deterioration. Nor, I fancy, is the cause of this far to seek. It is found in the growth, increased complexity and irresistible power of organization as opposed to individuality, in the parlance of the day it is the all-potency of the machine over the man, equally noticeable whether by that word “machine” we refer to the political organization or to the newspaper.

The source of trouble being located in the tendency to excessive organization, it would seem natural that the counteracting agency should be looked for in an exactly opposite direction—that is, in the increased efficacy of individualism. Of this, I submit, it is not necessary to go far in search of indications. Take, for instance, the examples already referred to, of Mr. Schurz and President White, in the canvass of 1896, and suppose for a moment efforts such as theirs then were made more effective as resulting from the organized action of an association like this. Our platform at once becomes a rostrum, and a rostrum from which a speaker of reputation and character is insured a wide hearing. His audience too is there to listen, and repeat. From such a rostrum, the observer, the professor, the student, be it of economy, of history, or of philosophy, might readily be brought into immediate contact with the issues of the day. So bringing him is but a step. He would appear, also, in his proper character and place, the scholar having his say in politics; but always as a scholar, not as an office-holder or an aspirant for office. His appeal would be to intelligence and judgment, not to passion or self-interest, or even to patriotism. Congress has all along been but a clumsy recording machine of conclusions worked out in the laboratory and machine-shop; and yet the idea is still deeply seated in the minds of men otherwise intelligent that, to effect political results, it is necessary to hold office, or at least to be a politician and to be heard from the hustings. Is not the exact reverse more truly the case? The situation may not be, indeed it certainly is not, as it should be; it may be, I hold that it is, unfortunate that the scholar and investigator are finding themselves more and more excluded from public life by the professional with an aptitude for the machine, but the result is none the less patent. On all the issues of real moment,—issues affecting anything more than a division of the spoils or the concession of some privilege of exaction from the community, it is the student, the man of affairs and the scientist who to-day, in last resort, closes debate and shapes public policy. His is the last word. How to organize and develop his means of influence is the question.”

As Yarvin himself says, “If the Modern Structure had a manifesto, this might be it.” In other words, this is how we got the rule of the experts. This is how we got here. The “Mugwumps” who began putting this system into power were a maximum of ONE (1) generation removed from the Congregationalist ministers who controlled New England. Many were heavily involved in these churches, British observers still referred to these people as Presbyterians or Unitarians. These men took the New England “City on a Hill” enforced social conformity mindset, combined it with the rule of the “experts”, and exported it to the world. Once again, approximately ZERO (0) of these people were ethnic Jews. We can talk about the influence of ethnic Jews on the pornography industry and banking etc, (and yes these are real problems), but if you can’t look this at face value and see that good Protestant men can have very bad ideas, you are politically retarding yourself.

In a very short summary: The Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th century is predominantly founded by Congregationalists from New England. Many of the organizations and universities involved were still religious ones at the time. The tenets of Progressivism were largely inspired by those originating from these New England sects, for better or worse. The Puritan ideals can very easily be directly traced to interventionist and anti-imperialist ideals even if you only follow organizations rather than the same sort of societal-control mentality.

Why This Matters

If you do not understand the way that we got here, not only are you still politically retarding yourself, but you will never stop being here. If you were, as an example, to expel every Israeli from the United States, ban every Jew and shut down their internet access, you would still wake up in a Progressive country ruled by Progressives. You would have done very little. And worse, even if you then utilized the lack of Jewish voters, (a small but potent block), to elect Republican politicians for every single election after that, they would still be small P progressives! You have to understand where this mindset originates in order to understand how to separate it from power permanently.