JayMan chips in (succinctly and lucidly) to a familiar topic (or, perhaps, two):

“New England was not swamped with immigrants because these people were particularly simpatico with the original Puritan settlers.”

Post Civil War New England, no. But assortative migration has been powerful (see previous link) and continues on to this day.

You know, your general trope of modern SWPLs not being the descendents of the Puritans doesn’t actually hold water. A simple comparison of both genetic and self-reported ancestry (again aforementioned link, partially supplied by you) shows that Democratic voting Whites are only found in areas Puritans settled. British ancestry backs it up. See also The Myth of the Expanding Circle or You Can’t Learn How to Be an English Vegetarian | Staffan’s Personality Blog.

Now, in New England, some of that genetic British ancestry is Scottish, as opposed to English ancestry. I think we can be fairly certain the Scots aren’t the ones pushing things Left.

Sure, today’s SWPLs are heavily admixed with other groups in addition to their Puritan roots. And sure, small numbers of liberals are found everywhere. And sure, not all Puritan descendants vote Left (e.g., Mormons – but they have been specially selected). But today, the consistent Blue states are found only in areas which have Puritan (as well as Scandinavian, and possibly Quaker) descendants. It does limited (some, but limited) good to compare their attitudes 200-400 years ago with current ones – all groups have undergone considerable change during that time (the moral circle expanded to fill its genetic potential). You also can’t blame it on the Jews because A) there’s not that many of them B) their putative influence resonates with some and not others, putting us back to the original problem.

March 3, 2015admin 19 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , ,

19 Responses to this entry

  • Hat Says:

    An Internet forum with the initials M P C has been disputing the Moldbug claim that modern American left politics are descended from the Puritans, arguing with an nrx-related imageboard. I’m sure some people here have been watching that argument unfold, I’m wondering if anybody has anything to add to that, since this topic is related. Sorry for being oblique.


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    The Eye of Search is merciless, and the Rangers of Trackback find a stray link, You are wise to approach the matter from the side, as it were


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 1:45 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    No disagreement on Swipples. Why bother.

    It’s the over-staffing that’s going to get people into trouble.

    In particular when you move away from voting into Finance, Law, Media, Pron. All of which are extremely toxic to the nation.


    I can venture some educated guesses. It’s a bit deeper than The Left, which begins with the French Revolution.

    In any case not being a racist means you don’t have to go after entire groups. If that seems dishonest intellectually it’s irrelevant in policy [as is intellectual honesty]. It’s dangerous to put intellectual honesty into policy as we can see from the last century and present day.

    The process has begun anyway and tomorrow night I think we’re going to hit Peak Influence before a Joint Session of Congress, after which influence will then begin to decline. As it does it’s quite likely the influence of Finance, Media, Law will fade as those institutions are presently constituted. Those institutions are going to be stricken in vigor as the general decline of a particular Thede recedes.

    The Historically recursive over-playing of the Hand happens in about 24 hours, we’ll see.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 2:04 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    I see suddenly voting means something …hmm.

    You know if one doesn’t actually target groups as being to blame one doesn’t have to worry about innocents being swept up in what is coming, or could worry less.

    If one does target groups then it’s specious and wishful thinking that this group escapes. Because it never does…and if you believe in group guilt at all …well then…


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 2:06 am Reply | Quote
  • George Says:

    That doesn’t jibe at all with the maps of British ancestry from 23andMe’s latest paper:


    Whites with the most British ancestry are in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Mississippi. And we know how those states vote. Even if you argue that they’re not Puritan but Scots-Irish descendents, what do you say about the fact that most Northern states are dominated by non-British ancestry? Could Puritans really be a driving force in Wisconsin if the vast majority of Whites in the state are Eastern European and Scandinavian immigrants?


    vxxc2014 Reply:

    It depends George on whether you think voting decides anything in America, I don’t think at present it decides anything but which individuals and elite factions are dividing up and indeed squabbling over the spoils this willingly surrendered nation has become.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 3:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Ultra-Calvinism | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 6:03 am Reply | Quote
  • GC Says:

    “I think we can be fairly certain the Scots aren’t the ones pushing things Left.”

    The Scots have been pushing British politics to the left for the past forty years.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 12:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    ‘Moving our attention back to the Iron Range: here we have a region which was at no point dominated by Yankees, and whose mines were populated by politically radical stoop laborers from Eastern and Southern Europe. But JayMan’s razor informs us we should look to the descendants of Puritans to explain voting returns in this area.’

    ‘Maybe Catholics and Jews just happen to have a heightened susceptibility to “mutated Puritanism” — or maybe people like [Nick Land] should start to strongly consider the possibility they have been pwned by Moldbug.’


    admin Reply:

    (If so “pwned”, not by Moldbug, but — first of all — by Walter Russell Mead.)


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 8:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • CMB Says:

    Jews is to Ultra-Calvinism, as Astrology is to Meyers-Briggs. Yay, I figured it out! Do I win a prize?


    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    Remember, if you don’t like your birth sign you can choose another.


    Posted on March 3rd, 2015 at 11:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/03/03 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] American are the biological descendants of the puritans. Related: Puritan […]

    Posted on March 4th, 2015 at 6:47 am Reply | Quote
  • anonas Says:

    The descendents of the 1700-1750 Ulsterman settlers are all that keep this country from completely flipping culturally.


    Posted on March 4th, 2015 at 11:59 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Let’s be honest, Nick. Fixation on Puritans is not something you stumbled on independently or picked up from Mead, and the retarded “cladistic” conceptualization of leftisim, central to your post-moldbug worldview, certainly is not. Walter Russell Mead’s stream of pseudohistory at most provided fodder for confirmation bias.


    admin Reply:

    It makes sense to me. (The debate is a good thing to have, and — at this level of biorealist rigor — long overdue.)

    We all have our confirmation biases to deal with.


    Posted on March 4th, 2015 at 3:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Butler Says:

    I concur, although maybe the Scots that emigrated are less fixated on establishing a petrodollar’ed rainbow Nordic-socialist wonderland than the ones who stayed behind in the metropole.


    admin Reply:

    My speculations would follow a similar course.


    Posted on March 5th, 2015 at 1:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Says:

    1. There are plenty of Jews.
    2. Elite influence and rulership under our class system has always disfavored majority representation, by definition. Additionally, Puritans are also a minority. Or are you making a logically curious point about the relative size of two minorities?
    3. That many Jews, shabbos goys, low information citizens, Christian Zionists, and others don’t find “resonance” with Jewish influence does not conclude that an outsized and malicious influence or control does not exist. Evidence of a contrary view is never proof of validity of that view.

    Hence, I can still blame it on the Jews despite your disagreeing proclamation and in light of your supporting points.

    Try this: you can’t blame it on the protestants.

    Does this illustrate how silly your phrasing and perspective is? Yes or no, we can agree that no actual argument has been made for either perspective for any group.


    Posted on December 4th, 2015 at 6:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment