As I have said before, the Imperialists were the original anticolonialists, starting out as the British antislavery movement, but, going back further, following the brilliant research of Moldbug, the Puritans were the original leftists. Today’s leftists are connected in an unbroken chain of ideology, organizations, and personnel all the way back to the seventeenth century Puritans, with the nineteenth century anti slavery movement and the early twentieth century Christian left connecting them.
This includes the non Anglosphere leftists, in particular the French left. The original French left were descended from Gallicanism, and thus from the Avignon papacy, not puritanism, but outside the Anglosphere, the left repeatedly self destructed in left singularities and was recreated by English speaking leftists backed by English speaking armies, so Gallican descended leftism was replaced by Puritan descended leftism.
(Digressing, the anglosphere left singularity approaches. This will not necessarily be a good thing, since unlike all previous left singularities there is no one outside it and above it to pick up the pieces)
The most infamous characteristics of the Puritans were and are war on Christmas, war on marriage, and war on low status men getting any sex.
Supposedly, now that the left has disowned its Puritan heritage during the mid twentieth century, they have theoretically dropped the third factor, but ever stricter and ever more unreasonable standards of “consent” show they are still at it. When the high school football star bangs the hot high school teacher, supposedly he did not consent, even though he is big enough and strong enough to break her like a twig. The rationalizations shifted swiftly from nominally Christian to nominally anti Christian with no actual change in application.
The Puritans wanted to practice pure Christianity, modeled on the practices of the the early disciples of the new testament. Unfortunately for them, the early disciples tell us in no uncertain terms that such purity is unchristian, for it excludes people from the faith for pleasant, customary, and trivial practices.
Romans 14 verse 10 “why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?”
According to Paul, Romans 14, any unobjectionable ritual, practice, or rule is Christian if done outwardly and inwardly “unto God”, and its direct opposite is also equally Christian if done outwardly and inwardly unto God, which directive has been widely and reasonably interpreted as a directive to apply a thin spray of Christian symbolism over any existing practice that promotes family, good conduct, and community (such as the celebration of the unconquered sun, which is to say Christmas) and to welcome all people in such thinly Christian practices (which is to say, promote Christmas to non Christians and celebrate it with them). According to Paul a Christian should never tell someone else that he is unchristian for doing or failing to do some harmless practice, and similarly Jesus said of the obscure, arbitrary, and complicated dietary rules of the Old Testament, that it is not what goes into your mouth that makes you impure, but what comes out of it. Jesus dismissed Jewish purity, and Paul proceeded to dismiss Christian purity. Jesus and Paul were the original latitudinarians.
The Puritans rejected all “invented” ceremonies, such as Christmas, which seems a harmless enough proscription, but becomes dangerously harmful when it becomes grounds for looking down on those that practice invented ceremonies as insufficiently Christian and disrupting their public practice of those ceremonies, becomes harmful when they set at nought their brothers.
The Puritan proscription immediately became a bid for political power, a bid for power in this world. Unsurprisingly, Puritan doctrine immediately started to rapidly mutate into whatever most facilitated the pursuit of power, and continues to mutate to this day. Among most of their successors and ideological descendents, the movement has lost any Christian characteristics. There is no unchanging core of leftism, except power, though force of inertia means that some campaigns, such as war on Christmas, have continued unchanged the whole time since the sixteenth century, even though the rationale for the campaign has changed completely from time to time.
It also became extremely harmful when they rejected the “invented” sacrament of marriage.
The Puritans correctly pointed out that marriage in the time of the early Church was not a christian ceremony, not a sacrament. They therefore proceeded to make marriage not a sacrament, which is to say, proceeded to desecrate it.
Marriage in the time of the early Church was not a sacrament but was a public ceremonial contract between a man, a woman, and the father of the bride, organized and conducted not by the Church, nor by the state, but by the patriarchs of the bride and groom. Paul’s prescriptions for marriage (love, honor, cherish, engage in lots of sex, and the wife obeys) correspond to the contract agreed to between the bride and groom in that type of patriarchal marriage that was most honorable and respected in back in the time of the Roman Republic, marriage that was in Paul’s time (Early empire, nominally the late Republic) already somewhat old fashioned, conservative, and going out of style among the truly hip high status people.
When the Puritans made marriage not a sacrament, they did not restore the patriarchal marriage of the Old Roman Republic, still less the similar patriarchal marriage of the Jews of the time of Jesus. Instead they had state marriage by a justice of the peace, the hip marriage of hip high status people. No longer did the bride and the groom publicly agree to a contract laying out the duties of marriage, the husband to cherish the bride, worship her with his body, till death do them part, and the wife to cherish, worship, and obey, till death do them part.
Instead, under Puritan rule, the justice of the peace simply announced couple married, without any statement as to what they had agreed to, with neither God nor man informing them of the rights and duties of the contract. The Puritans, in making marriage no longer a sacrament, did not restore it to its original form as it was at the time of the early Church of the New Testament, did not restore the patriarchal marriage ceremonies of the old Roman Republic, conducted by patriarchs of the original families establishing a new patriarchal family and the bride and groom making an irrevocable contract. Instead, they made it state marriage, made it no longer a sacred contract, enforced by community, family, and God, which is to say they desecrated marriage.
That which is enforced merely by the state is not much enforced, and no contract is a contract if one is not informed of what one has agreed to. Seeking state power, the Puritans abandoned the social support and enforcement of marriage, and within a few years after abandoning the sacrament of marriage in the middle of the seventeenth century, legalized divorce (more sex for high status men, less sex for low status men), though that divorce was still very restrictive by today’s standards.
The high status man needs no contract and wants no contract because he can get away with stuff. The Puritans obliged, retaining the form of marriage, while emptying out the status of marriage.
And their ideological descendents, having abandoned every doctrine that made them Christian, having changed their stands on just about everything that was supposedly important, have not changed their stands on sex, marriage, and Christmas except to double down even further.
Early Christian Marriage:
The early christian prescriptions on marriage have the effect of maximizing reproductive and sexual activity and maximizing male investment in posterity, thus maximizing the Church’s internal biological growth under the conditions prevailing at the time.
Chastity, female subordination, and that there was no divorce except for female sexual misconduct maximized male paternal certainty, thus male investment in posterity.
Monogamy and near universal marriage meant that all males invested in posterity, rather than merely the usual third or so of males, and that sexual consent was once and forever maximized sexual activity:.
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time,
One more factor was needed to make this prescription work for maximum male investment. Genetic analysis shows that we have less than half as many distant male ancestor as distant female ancestors, indicating that throughout most of history, a rather small proportion of the males have fathered most of the children, that less than half as many males have been fathers as women have been mothers.
The Victorian take on this problem was that this was caused by evil lustful males oppressing naturally chaste and virtuous females, cruelly ravishing them in spite of their heartfelt desire to be good wives and mothers, but the current state of our campuses and our underclass reveals that the problem is the women, not the men. Women only want to have sex with higher status men. If you doubt what I see, if you say you do not see what I see, download a romance at random.
Hence the low reproduction rate of our smartest and most heavily accredited females. They just don’t find males with similar or lower levels of accreditation sexy. They just are not turned on. Eighteenth century patriarchs were worried that their daughters would crawl a hundred miles over broken glass to get impregnated by some bad boy. Female PhD students really are not that interested, finding sex somewhat boring and unhygienic, at least really not that interested in their fellow students.
Monogamy requires higher status for males relative to females, if most females are going to feel motivated to get married in a timely manner.
So, to ensure that every man could have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. Paul proceeded to artificially make all men high status relative to all women. He forbade women to speak in church, and required them to cover their heads, which meant that all the girls in the congregation found all the boys in the congregation sexy, and all wanted to sign up for the Pauline marriage contract as fast as possible, and, the number of males being equal to the number of females, were usually able to do so, and did so, thereby maximizing male investment in posterity and Christian biological expansion.
Puritan and leftist marriage:
The Puritans found it difficult to get away with not making women cover their heads, since they were supposedly being pure and faithful to the bible, but could change the symbolic meaning of the head covering from submission, and they also just plain allowed women to speak in Church, cheerfully violating their pretended purity and supposed fidelity to the practices of the early church. This is not a recent change associated with the left’s open abandonment of Christianity. They had female preachers such as Anne Hutchinson early in the seventeenth century, presaging today’s university campuses and the hookup culture.
Raising the status of ordinary females to be equal to ordinary males means that the ordinary females will only find high status males attractive. Bingo, more sex for elite males, less reproductive sex, less total sex, less sex for regular males, less male investment in posterity, less total fertility, more deviant sexual activity.
Observe that supermarket checkout girls are undeterred by the risk of gravel rash. They have markedly more enthusiasm than female PhDs. So we still have halfway decent reproduction rates for supermarket checkout girls, but terrible rates of reproduction for high IQ females.
Leftism is, like most human activity, a male plot to get laid. But as the left becomes ever more unequal, as we approach the left singularity of infinite leftism in finite time, the number of leftists for whom it is working diminishes. In the nature of things, Puritanism was bad for most Puritans’ chances of having sex, and is worse for most leftists’ chances of having sex.
Puritan expansion focused on capture of the organs of state to impose their doctrine on all, rather than on biological expansion.
Tags: the puritan hypothesis