Virtually every stereotype of the Puritans is wrong and sometimes even reversed.

The idea that the Puritans were sexual prudes is wrong. In fact, it was not uncommon for engaged husbands and wives to sleep in the same bed before the official wedding. Of course officially they weren’t supposed to have sex but obviously if a young man and a young woman are sleeping in a bed together they are having sex of one kind or another.

Puritans were no more modest of dress than many North-Western Europeans.

Puritans did have a strain of “egalitarianism” which was simply an expression of the evolved cognition of North Western European hunter-gatherer tribes. As Kevin MacDonald has demonstrated, the relatively weak tribal/family bonds were countered by a “overarching moral framework” where social exclusion, such as banishment, were often an expression of altruistic punishment.

The “egalitarianism” also expressed as temporary kingships. When a war was on, someone would be temporarily made a king to lead in battle. When these kings were no longer useful, or had become counter-productive, they were often executed.

Unfortunately, the neo-right is full of often bizarre European neo-feudalist tendencies, feudalism itself being the social structure of the decaying Roman Empire, which had decayed precisely at the time it adopted Oriental “God-Kings” and a permanent class structure. The Roman Empire, its related Church, and its governmental heirs were always an Orientalizing – not to mention Semitic – influence on Europe.

This awful tendency on the neo-right is precisely because the alt-right has a terror of Ashkenazi power, thus attempts to shift the cause of every single social problem to some time before the Jewish influence. This way, they can blame something else and don’t have to suffer the reprisals of Jewish power.

This is most obvious in the influence of the Jewish NRx movement. Are anti-white “Social Justice Warriors” “Puritans?”

They are certainly “puritanical” in the contemporary sense of the term. Do they have anything in common with the historical Puritans? White Social Justice Warriors can be seen as another expression of North European moralism – defining ingroups and outgroups by an “overarching moral structure.”

But is that what makes SJWs anti-white?

SJW-ism is taught in the Ivy League, which were founded by the progeny of the Puritans. But were the Ivy League teaching anti-whiteness in 1936? No, they were not. When did the anti-whiteness start in the Ivy League?

Precisely at the time Ashkenazis became the dominant power inside the Ivy League, as Ron Unz has demonstrated.

So it ain’t the “Puritans.”

What about the War Between the States? It is pure ret-conning to say the North fought the war to “free the slaves.” This was a temporary bit of propaganda adopted after the War and quickly dropped during Reconstruction. It was revived precisely at that time when the Ivy League was no longer WASP. It has now again been abandoned because it does not demonize the progeny of the WASP.

Most in the North opposed slavery precisely because they opposed blacks living in North America and the Slave Power wanted to populate the West with Africans. Even the Radical Republicans, often influenced by their fundamentalist Christianity, had little experience with actual Africans and dropped their romantic notions at exactly the time they became experienced with Africans.

The neo-right cannot accept the simple fact of ethnic conflict and desperately tries to find some intellectual cause as opposed to the obvious biological cause. Which – ironically – makes them very much like the Puritans they demonize so much – putting universalist ideals above observed reality.

Another neo-right tendency is this absurd hostility against “egalitarianism.” Instead of a natural, meritocratic elite, they long for the days of an inbred aristocracy. These people are longing to recreate the situation that gave us such “elites” as Prince Charles and Prince Andrew.

Ironically, or not, in this the neo-right is in lockstep with the neo-liberal left – and the anti-white neo-Marxist left – is trying to “progress” society towards Eusociality.

As we see with the Jewish NRx movement, Eusociality is perfectly compatible with the techno-tyranny that is being built around us currently. We have already reached the point in Eusociality in which there is a breeding class and a non-breeding class.

It is interesting to see the neo-right, while claiming to support the interests of European peoples and the European diaspora, are nevertheless engaged in justifying the rule of Silicon Valley technocrats and their Zionist cultural enforcers.

In NRx, this is overt. In the larger neo-right, it’s often cryptic. The signaling against “egalitarianism” and the pretensions at “aristocratic values” ironically align the larger neo-right with exactly the people they are supposed to be opposing.