American History Series: Charles G. Finney, William Lloyd Garrison and Northern Perfectionism

After reading the previous two articles, you might be left wondering how America evolved from the White Republic of the Founders to become the country that it is today.

The answer is that the Jim Crow South and its Southern Race Creed was a regional consensus. Segregation was a Southern system of race relations. There was a milder version of it in the American West until the aftermath of the Second World War. The East and the Midwest were the dominant sections of the country in the early 20th century and had their own racial systems. Both had been largely integrated since the 1880s because the cause of equal rights had become identified with the Republican Party during the War Between the States when the Union defined itself against the Confederacy.

In our quest to figure out what went so terribly wrong in the Northern states, which is to say, why are Yankees so unusually attracted to utopian social reform movements like abolitionism, feminism, environmentalism, temperance, civil rights, women’s rights, vegetarianism, gay rights, transgenderism, anti-racism and so on, we have identified what appears to be the root of the problem in the Christian heresies that emerged in North in the antebellum era during the Second Great Awakening.

The following excerpts on Northern perfectionism come from Elizabeth R. Varon’s book Disunion: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859:

“It was through these early influences that Garrison beheld and tried to make sense of the major trends of his day – the concomitant rise, in the North, of economic modernization and of religious revivalism. Everywhere that the hallmarks of modernization were to be found – in proliferating cities and towns, with their “new”middle class of urban professionals and capitalists; in stunningly efficient factories, staffed by working-class wage earners, churning out goods such as textiles; along the networks of canals and railroads that transported such mass-produced goods to distant markets – so too did one find eager audiences for a new kind of evangelicalism. Popularized by itinerants like the charismatic Charles Finney, this religion was calculated to comfort and guide Northerners caught in a whirlwind of change.

Finney’s message was “perfectionism”: Individuals could and should seek to be as perfect as God, and thus seize control of their own destinies and fortunes. Perfectionism found expression in a wide array of charitable (or “benevolent”) causes embraced by antebellum Northerners, including campaigns to eradicate drunkenness and prostitution, to extend aid to impoverished orphans and widows, and to distribute religious tracts to the poor. Garrison and his circle of immediatists he gathered around him were caught up in this spirit of reform and drew out its most radical and egalitarian implications. They sought “moral revolution” not “moral renovation,” James Brewer Stewart explains, and “shattered religious orthodoxies time and again by improvising still more expansive ways of enacting God’s will in everyday life.” If the new “free labor” economy produced such wealth and opportunity, they asked, why shouldn’t its benefits extend to blacks and to the South itself? If reformers could promote moral perfection, why shouldn’t they seek to eradicate America’s worst sin, that of slaveholding? These questions formed the backdrop for the Liberator. …”

“Perfectionism” is the heretical theological core of the entire Northern leftwing enterprise known as “progressivism.” It started out as the idea that Yankees could become godlike saints. It should be stressed here that like Mormonism, which hatched out of the same culture at the same time, that this IS NOT synonymous with Christianity. In fact, it is a modern day revival of the old Pelagian heresy and is a repudiation of both traditional Catholicism and Protestantism which were grounded in St. Augustine’s theology who buried Pelagianism until it was revived in the 17th century.

“Garrison’s view was even more complicated, for he drew a distinction between the false Union – the “hollow mockery” created by the Constitution – and the true Union, a “glorious reality” that had never yet been achieved. The false Union, he repeated again and again, was not divinely ordained but rather “the work of men’s hands”: quoting the Bible, he declared that “it is only those things which are made, that can be shaken down.” As Garrison saw it, slavery depended on the false Union for its survival – Northerners furnished Southern slaveholders with the markets for their slaves’ produce, with the laws and slave-catching mobs that policed the boundaries of the system, with the votes to give slaveholders control of the federal government, and with the moral approbation to embolden slaveholders to spread their pernicious labor system. If this Northern support were withdrawn, slavery would be doomed. The spirit of the true Union, by contrast, was present in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence – it was the spirit of equality. A binding and valid compact between freedom and slavery was, for Garrison, a moral impossibility, and thus, in a sense, disunion already prevailed. With slaveholders campaigning aggressively to extend their domain and to curtail the rights of Northern citizens, it was inevitable and fitting that political disunion would flow from moral disunion. An 1842 antislavery meeting in Boston, presided over by Garrison, resolved that “the time is rapidly approaching when the American Union will be dissolved in form, as it is now in fact.” In this formulation, disunion connoted not failure, shame, and anarchy but the necessary prelude to a national rebirth: the demise of the false, corrupt Union would prepare the way for the establishment of the true, righteous one. From the early 1840s on, then, disunion for Garrison connoted not only a threat and an accusation, but also a process by which Northerners were coming to see that only a total repudiation of the South could purge the nation of sin.”

The South was totally repudiated by the Radical Republicans in the Reconstruction era. The demise of Garrison’s “false, corrupt Union” was replaced by the “true, righteous one” dictated solely by triumphant Yankees in the form of the Reconstruction amendments which are effectively a second Constitution. Eric Foner has a new book coming out about this in September called Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution.

Following William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln and Black Republicanism, True Conservatism interprets the “spirit of the true Union” as “the spirit of equality” which is conjured like a snake out of a single misrepresented passage in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution created by the Founders was the “false Union” – it was a compact with a wicked Southern civilization based on slavery and racial prejudice that had to be overthrown by righteous, godlike Yankees to realize the Glorious Union that had never existed but embodied the spirit of equality found in the Declaration of Independence.

America had to be recreated by Yankees in their own image of a Shining City on a Hill. The Union had to be rebuilt on Northern terms. The terms of the Union would be dictated to the defeated Confederacy which was placed under military occupation in 1867. Those terms were negro citizenship, racial equality and civil rights and the meaning of America would henceforth be “all men are created equal.”

The following excerpt on Northern perfectionism comes from David Brion Davis’ book Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World:

“Like the early Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century, abolitionists were confident they had discovered and uncovered the fatal flaws of the entire social system; they were determined to clarify and reanimate an altogether different approach to self-fulfillment. It is significant that the main targets of radical reformers were precisely those forces that stunted or impeded the full development of an individual’s moral capacities, as defined by the religious revivals: the violence and aggression of dueling and war; capital punishment and retributive punishment in general, which brings out the lowest, most un-Christian and bestial impulses of human nature; alcohol, which dulls or extinguishes a sense of social responsibility while simulating aggression, self-assertion, and “animal passions”; laws and institutions that discriminate against women, depriving them of self-respect and subjecting them to male violence and sexual exploitation and degradation; above all, black slavery, the very epitome of institutionalized violence and debasement of the human spirit, treating humans as objects or animals, subject to unlimited coercion and manipulation.”

The Great National Sin in the eyes of Yankees has been different things at different times. From 1830 to 1860, it ranged from dueling to war to alcohol to the denial of “women’s rights” to Indian Removal before finally zeroing in on slavery, represented by the demonic Southern cotton planter and the “Slave Power” conspiracy which sought to control the federal government.

After the abolition of slavery in 1865, The Great National Sin immediately shifted to the new crusades of civil rights and civil service reform, as well as traditional fixtures of the reform movement such as temperance, world peace and women’s suffrage, which climaxed in Prohibition, the League of Nations and the Nineteenth Amendment. In the 1930s, “racism” was revealed as The Great National Sin. Today, The Great National Sin ranges from climate change to transphobia to White Nationalism.

“A common theme in these related reform movements, which were religious in inspiration but too radical to be accepted by existing churches, was the removal of obstacles to human perfectibility. All the same, as Wendell Phillips suggested, participation allowed the reformer to escape from a purely competitive or acquisitive life as he or she joined an ennobling yet deeply unpopular cause. As the letters of Weld and Stuart suggest, individual abolitionists enjoyed a profound love, conviviality, and fellowship within transatlantic reform groups as they redefined their own identity and faced common persecution, at least in America. Abolitionists acquired a shared a language and outlook as they differentiated themselves from former friends and often even from family members.”

The core theological belief here is that the individual must be liberated from all restraints in order to develop into a morally perfect being. This is the impulse behind both abolitionism and feminism: human beings are basically good, but are degraded by social institutions and traditions, which must be demolished and overthrown for free and equal human beings can develop their full moral capacities. The first state in America to legalize gay marriage was Vermont which was also the first state to abolish slavery.

Davis continues:

“As spectacular religious revivals established enclaves of piety in the midst of a so-called unregenerate society, the question arose how to translate an individual’s momentary repentance and religious commitment into a just and righteous society. While this “Second Great Awakening” was partly a reaction to the dramatic and unsettling economic and social changes of the 1820s, the evangelical churches and revivalists were also addressing fundamental questions about the meaning of human life, justice, and the human ability to rise above sin.

The last issue of overcoming the inclination to sin acquired special urgency by 1830 because of a new American Protestant emphasis on human ability and freedom. For many Congregationalists, Baptists, and Methodists, it was not only within the power of the individual to achieve sanctification, that is, a total transformation of moral character, but it was within the power of the American nation to establish a new golden age, a new Eden or New Jerusalem on earth. Here we see a striking amalgamation of secular and spiritual aspirations – a sacralization of time and of ethical questions like alcohol abuse and slaveholding. The extremely high expectations of superstar revivalists like Charles Grandison Finney generated a new sensitivity to the fatal discrepancies between American ideals and American practice.”

America in 2019 has become this New Eden or New Jerusalem on earth although the Democrats will tell you we still have a long way to go before we can overcome the legacy of white privilege.

Clyde Wilson first turned me on to this years ago:

Since the 2000 presidential election, much attention has been paid to a map showing the sharp geographical division between the two candidates’ support. Gore prevailed in the power- and plunder-seeking Deep North (Northeast, Upper Midwest, Pacific Coast) and Bush in the regions inhabited by productive and decent Americans. There is nothing new about this. Historically speaking, it is just one more manifestation of the Yankee problem.

As indicated by these books (listed at the end), scholars are at last starting to pay some attention to one of the most important and most neglected subjects in United States history – the Yankee problem.

By Yankee I do not mean everybody from north of the Potomac and Ohio. Lots of them have always been good folks. The firemen who died in the World Trade Center on September 11 were Americans. The politicians and TV personalities who stood around telling us what we are to think about it are Yankees. I am using the term historically to designate that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around. Puritans long ago abandoned anything that might be good in their religion but have never given up the notion that they are the chosen saints whose mission is to make America, and the world, into the perfection of their own image.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, raised a Northern Methodist in Chicago, is a museum-quality specimen of the Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing. Northern Methodism and Chicago were both, in their formative periods, hotbeds of abolitionist, high tariff Black Republicanism. The Yankee temperament, it should be noted, makes a neat fit with the Stalinism that was brought into the Deep North by later immigrants.

The ethnic division between Yankees and other Americans goes back to earliest colonial times. Up until the War for Southern Independence, Southerners were considered to be the American mainstream and Yankees were considered to be the “peculiar” people. Because of a long campaign of cultural imperialism and the successful military imperialism engineered by the Yankees, the South, since the war, has been considered the problem, the deviation from the true American norm. Historians have made an industry of explaining why the South is different (and evil, for that which defies the “American” as now established, is by definition evil). Is the South different because of slavery? white supremacy? the climate? pellagra? illiteracy? poverty? guilt? defeat? Celtic wildness rather than Anglo-Saxon sobriety? …

If this were true, then anything that stood in the way of American perfection must be eradicated. The threatening evil at various times was liquor, tobacco, the Catholic Church, the Masonic order, meat-eating, marriage. Within the small area of the Burnt Over District and within the space of a few decades was generated what historians have misnamed the “Jacksonian reform movement:” Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from the Angel Moroni; William Miller began the Seventh Day Adventists by predicting, inaccurately, the end of the world; the free love colony of John Humphrey Noyes flourished at Oneida; the first feminist convention was held at Seneca Falls; and John Brown, who was born in Connecticut, collected accomplices and financial backers for his mass murder expeditions.

It was in this milieu that abolitionism, as opposed to the antislavery sentiment shared by many Americans, including Southerners, had its origins. Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s divine mission to establish Heaven on Earth. It was not the Union that our Southern forefathers seceded from, but the deadly combination of Yankee greed and righteousness.”

America as we know it today could have only been created by millions of people who share this mindset. Jews didn’t create this mindset, but have manipulated it for generations to their advantage.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Perfectionism is not only rejecting the good, it is ultimately the development of evil. To bring about the forced changes progressivism always demands, blood sacrifices must be made on the altars of their holy causes. Their own blood is rarely spilled, of course. Secular saints only ever encourage others to give their lives for the cause.

    • Perfectionism is not the problem. The problem is that they follow a corrupt form of perfectionism. The most striking feature of Leftists, Progressives, Feminists, and Liberals is not their obvious inability to manifest perfect human nature. Rather it is their failure to consider opposing points of view, which is the primary tool to understand truth. As Jesus said, they have been blinded to prevent them from turning to see the light.

      This is a deep thread in the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments. Jesus spoke about it times. He ordered his followers to seek the truth, not to avoid it. That’s the path to perfection.

      Jesus said the father of the Jewish people is the Devil, the father of lies. (John 8:44) That really means their fundamental mode of operation is to hide the truth.

      In fact, Jehovah is the father of lies, and has always operated to hide the truth from people.

      The New Testament has many references to intentional blinding. We read that the ‘god of this age’ blinds people to prevent them from finding Jesus. Blindness refers to lack of understanding, not physical blindness.

      “… the god of this age has blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the brightness of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them.” – II Corinthinans 4:4

      Jesus says Satan is the one who blinds people to the Word. Remember that Jesus is the Word of God.

      “The sower sows the Word… And when they hear, Satan comes at once and takes away the Word having been sown in their hearts.” Mark 4:12

      Who else blinds people? Isaiah blamed Jehovah for blinding people to keep them from being healed by Jesus.

      “Because of this they could not believe, because Isaiah said again “He has blinded their eyes” and “has hardened their heart,” “that they might not see with the eyes” and “understand with the heart,” “and be converted,” “and I should heal them.” Isaiah said these things when he saw His glory, and spoke about Him.” John 12:38

      “And the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled on them, which says, “In hearing you will hear and in no way understand, and seeing you will see yet in no way perceive. For the heart of this people has grown fat, and they heard sluggishly with the ears, and they have closed their eyes, that they not see with the eyes, or hear with the ears, and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I heal them.” Matthew 13:14

      Going to Isaiah 6:10 we discover that Yahweh is indeed the one responsible for ordering Isaiah to perform the blinding.

      “And He said, Go and tell this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him.” Isaiah 6:10


      “For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes; the prophets, and your heads, the seers, hath He covered.” Isaiah 29:9

      Christians believe that Yahweh blinded only Jews, primarily as punishment for faithlessness. But why blind people who might come to Jesus? Yahweh and Satan are BOTH blinding people to prevent them from coming to Jesus. Evidently the Anti-Christ works for Yahweh.

      “For many deceivers went out into the world, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ coming in the flesh; this is the deceiver and the antichrist.” II John 1:7

      There are numerous references to Jehovah as the lord of the earth, such as…

      “… for all the world is mine” – Exodus 19:5

      Similarly, we read that Satan is also the lord of the earth

      “And leading Him up into a high mountain, the Devil showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the Devil said to Him, I will give all this authority and their glory to You, because it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Then if You worship before me, all will be Yours.” Luke 4:8

      Jehovah is Satan. That is the deepest, unacknowledged secret of the Bible. His firstborn, the Jews, killed Jesus, the firstborn of the Heavenly Father. That is the true nature of the struggle we face.

      • I appreciate your comments, Tarrasik, although the assumptions you base your arguments on aren’t correct. The seeking of perfectionism IS a problem. We aren’t capable of it, and a proof is that the pursuit of it through just one method (Marxism) led to hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century alone. Seeking truth won’t necessarily lead us to it, due to our fallible and limited nature. That’s why we follow Christ, who had that perfect understanding, being God. As you have such a flawed view of both human nature and the nature of God, I also can’t agree with your theology. It seems to me highly confused and contradictory.

  2. Rich L,

    Well whatever our differences on the Mexican American War I found your comment above quite good.

    • Thank you for the compliment. For the record, I think we have differences on more than one issue, Christina. But I enjoy the exchange of ideas and opinions.

      • Rich L,

        You are welcome. And yes there are lots of differences. I study and analyze other groups. I take notes. I study your thought processes to see your people’s strengths and weaknesses. How you think etc. To me life is a struggle and a war even though I personally enjoy a privileged existence to use a current phrase.

        Unlike the well off in many societies I care for my people. Their IQ’s, their economic status does not stop me from being loyal to them. Religion and race are more important to me than class status.

        • When I was much younger, I did exactly as you did. I watched groups and individuals of different religions, classes, political affiliations, job categories, races, etc. Learning and observing. I never saw life as a war, just a struggle. After awhile, I saw most struggle as pointless. It was usually done over things not especially worthwhile, in my jaded opinion. I had reduced my observations to the personal level by then, after looking at larger trends in history and anthropology. That led me to become quite the misanthrope, so I needed to look into theology as a break from the constant black-pilling I experienced. I hope your explorations don’t lead to as much darkness as I found.

          • Rich L,

            That was really sweet. I do have lots of friends. In the summer I swim, play badminton, tennis and I am a lousy racket ball player. I play with an experienced girl and those balls bounce off the wall fast. While I hit like a girl.

            You are correct in your advice. These are serious subjects but fighting non-stop internet wars and always calculating who is an enemy and who is not is very exhausting. Does not change anybody’s mind anyway.

            Any way thanks.

    • Christina,

      On a previous thread, you wrote that White Nationalists on this blog “Hate you.” Perhaps a few find your commentary concerning our dispossession grating, especially as you see us as your “enemy.”

      I don’t hate you, but do find it odd that you like to read our materials and engage us in discussion when this isn’t your culture’s battle. My own intuition is that your active participation on OD is one of intelligence collection on your adversaries.

      You also proclaimed that you weren’t “brown.” I’ve had you pegged as one of the Hispanic elite from Mexico. In my mind’s eye, I picture you as a younger version of Mexican actress Laura Elena Martinez Herring of Sinola.

      • November,

        You are very very perceptive. I know you do not hate me.

        In some ways our views overlap. The moral degeneracy of your government and the fairly constant beating of the war drums is a concern to the whole world since the USA exports their culture through movies etc. Of course no country should import offensive materials. I do share my findings with others. People on this website are few in numbers but your enemies monitor and fear you out of proportion to your size. You are the only real resistance to certain goals your enemies have in mind. Anti illegal immigration people are generally a joke since they usually believe in large legal immigration meaning the same result.

        As for paragraph 3, my hair is dark brown not black. My hair is longer than Laura’s and I am thinner by far but then I have not seen a young picture of Laura Harring. I do thank you for the comparison. She seems to have held up quite well.

        My current view is that you are still slightly dangerous. The best way from your enemies’ view is to keep you asleep until just a few years from now. They are now going for the throat and are energizing moderates. Democrats are dumb either deliberately or because they are stupid,

        The following wins the election and destroys the R’s——-pretend not to hate whites, stand for the working class, be against foreign wars, and pretend to be against illegal immigration

        I have some ethnic tension with the anglo but not racial since I am technically one of you on that score.. Also unlike other enemies I wish you kept intact.

        I just want partition for the USA even if my people pick up nothing in the free for all.

        • Christina,

          That is what I figured. I conduct reconnaissance on my/our adversaries as well.

          My folk’s struggle for survival is truly existential. In a surprise twist, Sadly, I’ve found more sympathizers that support the “14 Words ” in non-White foreign nations than in countries that are European in history, heritage, and DNA.

          The comparision to Ms. Laura Elena Martinez Herring was meant to be flattering. Much like yourself, she was educated at elite boarding schools. She was also a Miss Texas that went on to win Miss USA in 1985. Her very brief marriage was to German royalty to which she still retains a title.

          It wouldn’t surprise me, if we’re to discover that your own lineage goes back to Queen Isabella, Cortez, de Leon, and Simon Bolivar.

          • November,

            Now you know how to handle a girl. Paying attention to us, sweetness, kind talk. That is all that was needed. You could now tell me that all of Mexico should have been conquered in the 19th century and I would say—–oh well, you lose some and you win some.

            I have some German blood. Hence my brown hair.

            But not even you can get me to like scorpions.

        • Christina,
          In affairs of the heart, I’ve been able to acquiesce the company of women out of my league. It must be the dimples. Haha.

          You’re smart and can decipher patterns. Then how have you not been able to put November and scorpions together?

        • @DD, Christina is a very impressive young lady. She’ll be even more formidable with time and experience.

          I envy and pity her future spouse. He’s going to have to bring his ‘A game’ 24/7/365, or he’ll find himself her subordinate.

          I wouldn’t suggest a Nicholas Fuentes, but he is too much a mommy’ boy for the future Lady MacBeth.?

          • November,

            That was real good. You are right. A man has to dominate me or I will lose respect for him. The kindness and sweetness of a man to me has to come from a position of strength or after awhile I would consider it weakness. I am not unique in thinking this way.

            None of this liberal nonsense. The man is the head of the household and should rule in society as well. We can however inherit wealth, land, servants, and authority.
            There have been some strong Queens in history. And I really love St. Joan of Arc.

            But in the bedroom the man is always the master.

            Queen Isabella once said that there are only 4 really beautiful sights on earth—–a priest at the altar, soldiers in the field, a criminal hanging on a gibbet, and a beautiful woman in bed.

          • November,

            HA! I looked up Nicolas Fuentes. Remaining charitable and remembering that this website is read by a variety of people, I would say Mr. Fuentes should toughen up, get a job and change many of his views. I think he is a main stream conservative though I may be wrong.

            Either way I would eat him alive.

      • @November

        When I was a freshman in high school, in 1982-3, my English class became pen pals with a freshman class in Mexico City. The pictures we got of that class looked like they were taken in Madrid or Barcelona.

        Interestingly, Mexican Soap Operas on Univision have what appear to be full blood Spaniards/Euros as main characters and a few Mestizos as servants.

        Essentially, in Latin America, the upper and middle classes are Euro. Like the Cubans, they’re sending their undesirable indios and Mestizos to the U.S. Which is why Mexico won’t take them. They’ve already got more than they want. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians who initially opened up South America, didn’t bring their women with them, like the Northern Euros did to North America. Which is a problem for the subsequent waves of settlers who did.

        • James Owen,

          I almost mentioned that fact one time on here. That if you look at our soap operas you think you are in Spain instead of Mexico.

          Our men kept us out of danger more than the anglo did with your women. But then we conquered fast with soldiers while you conquered and developed slower with settlers and soldiers.

          I have met anglos in California and Texas who come to the same private schools as myself and they express some amazement on the way we are.

          We are still more traditional on how we view male/female relationships. Latin men are possessive which I like and jealous fast. Anyway, we are more traditional because of the Spanish, Catholic, and Moslem influences from Spain combined with the Indian influence in Mexico.

          The bars traditionally on houses in Spain, Mexico, and elsewhere are half way jokingly said to be there not so much to keep out burglars but to keep us women inside at night.

        • @James Owen,

          My high school has several Latinas from South America, Cuba, and Mexican. If they had any indigenous blood, it was a teaspoon at most. They ran in the White girl cliques, and were more racist than most native born White Americans.

          My red haired hazel eyed prom date was originally from Cuba. Only someone ridiculously ignorant would consider dating or even mating with a female like her to be race-mixing or miscegenation.

          The infusion of these White Hispanic women was so different from the coarse ‘Spanish Harlem ‘ variety that usually comes to mind when one thinks of a Latina in the USA.

          I recall one Latina classmate who was from Puerto Rican, but she had naturally sandy brown hair and green eyes.

          The actresses on the telenovelas are obvious of Iberian and Mediterranean extraction. Their femininity and curves are quite intoxicating.

          On the other hand, I’ve witnessed what could only be referred to as “pre-contact” males and females from Central and South America that resemble the “Morlochs” from the original film “The Time Machine ” and the statues from Easter Island.

  3. Hunter, while I found this post instructive, I think a true portrait of the Yankee mindset of the time, and even of later times, has to have, as a major focus, the importance of the New England Transcendentalist movement.

  4. “Perfectability of Man” is the highest stupidity to which the educated mind can attain. Stupid is “knowing” data that is false-to-fact.

    We Homines sapientes are predatory omnivores whose prey of choice is our own kind. We live in a modicum of “peace” with one another in virtue of two displacements: Displacing the urge to predation from individual to collective, and displacing the object from our immediate neighbor to him across the river or mountains or line drawn on a map. If we no longer hunt other human beings as meat for the table, normally our individual predatory urges are attenuated down to a quest for pre-eminence and/or local predominance. This is neither “good” nor “bad;” it just is.

    • I don’t have a single predatory cell in my body. At least not one strong enough to incite action. I guess something is severely wrong with me.

    • @robertpinkerton

      Perfecting man requires the removal of certain qualities such that the final product could no longer, rightfully, be called Human.

      • @RobertPinkerton,

        Your scientific explanation is a welcome sight.

        Eugenics is practiced in just about every organism on the planet except humans.

        We are all too aware that the spawn of dysgenic reproduction is retrogressive evolution. Whereas good breeding will lead us to exploring the universe. Irresponsible mating will send us back into the jungles whence we left long ago.

  5. Religious zealotry of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries has been replaced with atheistic egalitarian cultural Marxism as the driving force behind “Right Think.”

    As a northerner, I have witnessed all the “Yankee ” behaviors listed above. Maybe that’s why I’ve always ‘rocked the boat.’ I must be a misplaced “particular person’ that was more Southern in spirit than my fellow Deep North yanks brethren.

  6. > Historians have made an industry of explaining why the South is different (and evil, for that which defies the “American” as now established, is by definition evil). Is the South different because of slavery? white supremacy? the climate? pellagra? illiteracy? poverty? guilt? defeat? Celtic wildness rather than Anglo-Saxon sobriety?

    It would be interesting to do a GWAS (genome-wide association study) and cross-check against geography.

    Does the Yankee “perfectionism” streak come from their DNA? Or from their environment in the lily white North?

  7. Before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Christianity was NOT the doctrinaire Roman Catholic Trinitarian cult that it became. Protestantism was supposed to get back to pre-Roman Catholic Christianity, but, that never happened because the leaders of the Reformation were afraid to challenge Roman Catholic orthodoxy and Roman Catholic Trinitarian Christology. Regardless of what Christ himself said in the New Testament.

    If you look at the Northern attitude in the United States, Trinitarianism is what they preach,

    • I no longer believe religion has as much influence in shaping historical events as economics does.

  8. Keep in mind while reading all this Yankee bashing that the Confederate leaders, in their own words, wanted to resume African mass immigration that the Yankees had cut off and fill up the western states that Yankees had made nearly African free with Africans.

  9. “America as we know it today could have only been created by millions of people who share this mindset. Jews didn’t create this mindset, but have manipulated it for generations to their advantage.”


    • @Roland

      Various folks always hit upon the sayings, proposals and pet projects of certain small groups or individuals that had little, or no real influence in government, in Dixie, anyway.

      The individuals who wanted to reopen the slave trade were one such group that had no influence. Which is why the C.S. Constitution banned the slave trade, against such people’s desires and designs.

Comments are closed.