Please laugh with me at the following ridiculous comment posted by "Jeff Williams" at UR:
In my view the W force can be adequately explained by looking through the lens of tribal or ethnic history. The New England Calvinists are a triumphant, confident tribe. This was due to a good work ethic, a large free trade area, access to great natural resources, and a good legal/tax structure producing a favorable business climate. They knew how to set up business corporations. They were the first people to get the atomic bomb.

This tribe views itself as progressive. Historically they were the Whigs. Thus in any internal struggle for leadership, a leader will tend to be favored who fits in with that tradition (?) of progressiveness. A person who believes in stasis and order does not fit in with the folkways of this tribe. The tribe views Taft and Coolidge with contempt because of their lack of progressiveness. Every tribe needs a coherent explanation of what it’s all about: the tribe of the Northeast is all about progressiveness. In tribal lore, their model leader is FDR.

From the bit I could force myself to read, the trash being pushed by "Mencius Moldbug" himself is no less ridiculous, just wordier, slightly more subtle, and usually at least fact-checked with Wikipedia.

Never mind that Taft and Coolidge solidly won New England and FDR lost while carrying almost the entire rest of the country. Never mind William Howard Taft and (John) Calvin Coolidge had ancestors all of whom were actually born in New England. In UR-land, there's no need to let facts interfere with too-clever-by-orders-of-magnitude abstraction (or obfuscation, as the case may be--if I have this straight: libeling New England Puritans with elaborate, blatantly counterfactual theories = good; less-than-reverent, factual discussion of "Joos" = crazy Nazi talk).


desmond jones said...

Elliott (And Border Reivers)DNA Project

It appears the Scots-Irish are fundamentally Anglo (or Scoto) Norman, however, your insight would be greatly appreciated, if you have a moment.

Robert the Bruce (Robert de Bruys) genetically, appears little distant from Edward, his English adversary.

n/a said...

I essentially agree with you. Lowland Scots are probably not all that different genetically from their northern English neighbors, nationalism and relatively recent "Celtic" affectations notwithstanding. I'll probably post more on this later.

Hail said...

This is an old thread, but I'll toss this in:

Why would someone like Jeff Williams [quoted in the OP] (whoever he is -- I assume with that name he is a white-protestant himself) buy into this insanity? It's easy to write such people off as dopes, too easy in fact:

I have tried to offer some honest speculation as to the reasons why people accept (or claim to) a "Protestant Conspiracy" concept.

Later I posted a
follow-up to that. Others posted a number of pro and con arguments in that thread, which may be of interest to anyone reading this.

(Thank you n/a for these old threads on MM, from which I have shamelessly intellectually-"stolen").