On ‘Puritanophobia’

I’ve just come across this piece at Counter-Currents, titled ‘Puritanophobia.’ It’s by Robert Hampton, whose writings I haven’t come across before. It’s a well-written piece.

The subject is one that I’ve addressed here, as my readers know, and it is a subject that should be discussed more often. It’s obvious that there is a deep dislike on the part of many Americans (or ‘Americans’) towards Puritans, and their descendants. I find this part odd and illogical, in that many descendants of those Puritans, in this day and age, may not even know of their Puritan ancestry. And they may have little in common with those Puritan forebears as far as their worldview, belief system, and habits. The Puritan way of life is long dead, in my opinion. I say this as a descendant of Puritan separatists who settled the Massachusetts colony.

I may overstate the case in saying Puritanism is ‘dead.’ I don’t say this disrespectfully; I would wish that the best aspects of the Puritan way could be preserved or even revived. I know that in the last couple of decades — maybe longer — books written by the old Puritans have become more popular and read by a certain number of Christians.

The writer of the linked piece lists the various reasons why so many present-day people — and not just Americans — seem to loathe Puritans — or at least their image of Puritans, which is often a caricature of the actual people. We all know that Puritans are imagined to be ‘sexually repressed’ and most of the anti-Puritans think that the Puritans of old forced their rigid sexual morality on other people. This part is a misconception. Further, the Puritans were not ‘repressed’ in the sense of averse to sex; Governor John Winthrop, a staunch Puritan, fathered 13 or 14 children in his marriages. Large families were the norm. I doubt there were many repressed asexuals, as having a family was considered virtuous.

By contrast, the Shaker sect, which came to America later, was a sect that required celibacy for all its members; they had to be asexual for all intents and purposes. That’s also why their cult dwindled away; not enough recruits, while there were some dropouts. The Puritan faith, by contrast, acknowledged healthy sexuality and marriages were fruitful. These were not ‘repressed’ people, though they lived by Biblical teachings on monogamous marriage.

And for those who think their rules were too severe, remember that our society has a heavy bias toward libertinism, promiscuity, casual sex. It’s our present-day views that are warped, and which have caused a lot of suffering (abortions, diseases, unwanted children, fatherless ‘families’). I find it hard to believe that people think we are somehow the moral betters of the old Puritans.

Why do people hate the Puritans, or at least their distorted image of Puritans?

The hatred extends, as the piece notes, to the wider community of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, ‘WASPs’. (I don’t particularly like that acronym, but I suppose it’s here to stay.) Some of that animus is supposedly the result of arrogant or ‘snobbish’ behavior by these WASPs who were here before the waves of immigrants arrived. Of course being here first meant that they possessed some degree of privilege, having been established here for generations when the immigrants began settling in New England. The immigrants saw the WASPs as representing authority, which they felt was not earned, and an authority to which they did not want to subject themselves.

And I think that the immigrants and others who settled in the Puritan strongholds in the Northeast had a lot of insecurity when comparing themselves with the Anglo-Americans, and that led to envy and resentment.

It goes on to this day, though there are fewer identifiable Anglo-Protestant, old stock Americans to account for the degree of resentment and spite that still exists.

Old-stock Puritan descendants are either believed to be extinct (or wished to be, anyway) or they are said to be still in control of the levers of power in the U.S.

Some people claim that the WASP elites collude with a Jewish faction to control everything, particularly the financial system. Some people wrongly believe that these shadowy elites still live in New England. In fact, New England, except for the rural areas, is a very “diverse” place, not at all controlled by WASP elites. Many of the original Puritan stock of New England moved West in the 19th century, and their descendants are in many Western states and parts of the Midwest.

As to why there is apparently so much Jewish resentment of WASPs or Puritans — Moldbug, with his ”Cathedral” idea is shifting blame for what he dislikes to Anglo-Saxons and their innate defects. Paul Gottfried also takes a hypercritical tone when discussing WASPs, and apparently carries grudges and grievances based on perceived slights from WASPs in long-ago college days.

Some of the resentment of WASPs and Puritans is the reflection of the obsessions of a lot of ethnic academics, who pass on the resentful and invidious attitudes to their students, who absorb these attitudes unquestioningly.

Paul Gottfried has said that WASPs are ‘weaklings’ who are too wimpy to defend themselves; so on the one hand, WASPs are implied to be imperious and snobbish, hurting the ‘feelings’ of those of other ethnicities, but yet they are too weak and ineffectual to speak up in their own defense. Gottfried says that more ethnocentric groups like blacks and other ethnics would quickly defend themselves verbally if they were subject to being attacked as WASPs are.

If that’s true — and I’m sure it is — does Gottfried not notice that blacks are given the biggest megaphone to speak up for themselves? Their grievances, no matter how trivial or less-than-credible they seem, are given maximum attention, and always treated as gospel truth, automatically. Blacks are given a platform to air their perpetual grievances, and the widest possible audience. To a lesser extent, other POCs can speak up for ‘their people’, and be given a lot of latitude, like blacks, to make accusations or demands. WASPs, however, have “White privilege”, supposedly, and no attack, whether verbal or physical, is given any credence or attention.

Anyone who thinks that Anglo-Americans are given the same consideration as official ‘victim’ groups like those Gottfried speaks of is deluded.

The Hampton piece mentions the prominent men of the old Puritan stock who were White advocates — men like Lothrop Stoddard, Madison Grant, Henry Cabot Lodge. And on the science (HBD) side of it, men like Carleton Coon and Carleton Putnam. They are kinsmen of mine so I can’t help giving them credit.

Claiming the ‘WASP’ label

It’s so seldom done these days; it caught my eye when I saw the title of a blog post from The Propertarian Institute blog. The post is titled ‘I’m a WASP.‘ How often do we hear anyone just saying it matter-of-factly, like that?

It’s a brief post but makes a point about the attitudes in some quarters towards Anglo-Americans or ‘WASPs.’

I won’t put words in the blogger’s mouth or try to speak for him ; everyone’s experiences differ, but so often WASPs are either disparaged for having been the cause of every ill of our country, or criticized for having “deserted” our American sinking ship and shirked our responsibility.

Some people talk of us in the past tense as if we are all ghosts, or as if we are an extinct species. Somewhat like Dr. Seuss’s ‘Who’ people, who were invisible because they were too small to be seen, we might need to do what the ‘Whoville’ people did to make their presence known by shouting ”We are here!”

We are here, but there are still people who insist that ‘nobody in America is pure English or pure anything, we’re all mixed.’ That makes us irrelevant, I suppose, to those people.

Despite this, we do have a heritage, and we have ancestors in whom we should have a healthy pride. That can’t be taken away.


So our ethnicity is important?

I expect all of you, at least those in the U.S (or what is left of it) have got your Census questionnaires.
I couldn’t help noticing that a prominent question or series of questions centered on our ethnic identity.
Of course race was also a question in itself.

Maybe I’m not remembering correctly but I don’t recall previous census forms asking about our ethnic or national origins. The questionnaire specifically asks about ethnic origins, and I think it added a suggestion thus:
— “For example, English…”

Then they asked for the respondent’s other ethnic ancestry, in specific terms.

For a long time I’ve said that many Americans simply don’t know what their actual ancestry is, except maybe in the vaguest terms. A great many claim (like Elizabeth Warren et al) to have ‘Native American ancestry’, almost always Cherokee, and oftentimes if they get DNA testing they are told that they have little or no Native Indian ancestry.

And how can the people answer the questions if they really don’t know their ancestry? There are also a good few adopted people who may not know their actual ethnic origins.

I suspect that there is more Anglo-Saxon or English ancestry among Americans than they realize, but then again if the Census goes simply by self-reporting or hearsay, the results will not be very accurate.

But then it seems with our total surveillance state, the powers-that-be may know more about us than we ourselves know.

It would be interesting to know how many sons and daughters of Albion are out there in the U.S.A.

Maine targeted for ‘change’

At Occidental Observer, there is a review of a new book by John Q. Publius. The book is titled ‘The Way Life Should Be? The Globalists’ Demographic War on America, With Maine as a Microcosm.‘ I’ve only just read the Occidental Observer piece by Kevin MacDonald; the book is apparently just out or soon to be.

I admit I am not a regular reader of OO,; I’ve seldom had a comment accepted there and there does seem to be a core of regulars who have various anti-Anglo axes to grind. Then there is the anti-Protestant or anti-Christian presence there. However this book interests me because I know that Maine has been very much a target for being “fundamentally transformed”, to use a trendy phrase from the Left. Remember some years ago when a group of Somalis, finding the pickings rather slim in Georgia where they had settled, found that they would be materially rewarded by moving to Maine and drawing state benefits there. Voila: instant colony established in Maine, in Lewiston, to be exact. I understand the population of that colony has increased and they are quite at home there.

I have an interest in Maine because my direct ancestors, having settled Massachusetts, eventually chose, as Massachusetts became overpopulated in places, to go to rural Maine and found new settlements. Among the towns they founded was  Houlton, named after ancestors of mine, and  I understand that Houlton, too, has been “enriched”.

Paradoxically, despite this effort by the meddling NGOs to ‘fundamentally transform’ Maine or any place which is too ‘hideously White’, Maine has somehow remained 95%  (or so) White. I am tempted to question those stats,but they seem to be generally accepted.  However, New England in general has undergone demographic changes along ethnic lines for centuries. Some people who are unfamiliar with the history of New England strangely assume that it is populated by Whites, specifically those New England Yankees or the ‘WASP elite,’ which hardly exists anymore. Ever since the 19th century New England, especially the urbanized areas, has received lots of non-Anglo immigrants. In the earlier times it was Irish immigrants, Italians, Portuguese, and French-Canadians, the latter of whom were actually part of a much earlier migration. Around this time Mormonism lured many Old Stock Yankees westward, where some settled in the Midwest, the Mountain States, and some went to the far-off Pacific coast as pioneers.

The more populated areas of New England have not been ‘Yankee’ or WASP territory for a long time. However the diversity has been of an ethnic nature more than the racial diversity that the powers-that-be are attempting to impose everywhere. But today, urban New England does have the usual congeries of nationalities and tongues and races, including people from every continent.

Still, it’s surprising that Maine has not been erased or demographically obliterated as the social engineers and “do-gooders” go about their dubious mission.

I often ask myself why WASPs or English-Americans are invariably viewed suspiciously and resentfully in certain quarters. Lots of bees-in-bonnets about WASPs conspiring with somebody or other (usually Zionists, according to those who find WASPs at the bottom of everything bad). I tend to believe that anyone who succeeds too well draws dislike. It’s somewhat analogous to the resentment of Americans on the part of other nations. Or the animus directed at European-descended people from certain quarters.

Remember, the English were here earlier than most, and founded the most enduring colonies, no matter how many smaller colonies existed.  Most Americans believe in the falsehood of ‘Equality’ or egalitarianism, and from that comes inevitable feelings of rivalry and envy and resentment, always needing to get in a dig at the evil WASP ”elites” who are lurking behind the scenes, invisibly controlling everything or conspiring with somebody to keep someone down.

Really when you think about it, it lines up pretty closely with the popular leftist belief in so-called “White Privilege” . All that’s needed is to exchange the word ‘White” with ‘WASP’ and the complaints and accusations are much the same.

What’s worse is that many on the right indulge in all this WASP-baiting and insinuating. It seems that nobody likes the one who appears to be at the top of the hierarchy — even when he really isn’t at the top anymore. There is an old Irish expression, ”when a man is down, down with him.” Few people defend WASPs, though I occasionally try, in vain. So now that the WASP is being or has been ethnically cleansed from the places settled by our forebears, he’s down, so down with him. There are no doubt lots of people who will be overjoyed when Maine is finally fully diverse. It ought to be a happy prospect for Trudeau in Canada, with his outspoken loathing for ‘old-stock Whites’ such as those who settled Canada as well.

It is probably too late but this divisiveness, spite and envy must give way to some kind of solidarity as we are all in the same boat.


Jefferson on immigration

From the Identity Dixie blog, a nice piece on the immigration views of one of our English-descended forefathers, Thomas Jefferson.

These days it seems a rare thing to find, on a right-wing or alt-right blog, any favorable mentions of Thomas Jefferson. One blog in particular (which will be nameless) has a few commenters who accuse Jefferson of everything from the old canard about his siring children by a slave, to having ‘thrown open the gates to immigrants‘.

From the Identity Dixie post, we read Jefferson’s own arguments against mass importation of foreigners, and the possible deleterious effects of doing that — which is, of course, just what our derelict rulers are doing right now. Too bad none of them seem to have read Jefferson’s wise words, from Notes on the State of Virginia.

“But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The writer of the blog piece, Lpantera, points out the important fact, often forgotten in this era of the ‘proposition nation’ dogma, that nations (that is, peoples) produce governments, not the other way around, as often implied by the ignorant. The people make the place; a country (including its government) is its people.

And just what kind of people produced our original system of government? Yes, I have repeated it often here, and I will say it as long as other people continue to make opposing claims about who the original American people were, and who the ‘posterity’ of the founders are:

What nation produced the American government, this unique entity in the world? The English nation – the Anglo-Saxon people upheld as the racial basis for the whole of the South by every vocal defender of the South from Calhoun to Davis right up to Governor Wallace and Sam Dickson. What happens if this people is displaced? What is the result of importing en masse a foreign horde from a part of the world in which despotism is the only experienced reality they have? Precisely what history has demonstrated, precisely the result Jefferson predicts: a nation that has been warped, rendered into a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass”.

And yes, it’s good to remember that historically, this was the majority view, taken for granted by most Southron people: the fact of the Anglo-Saxon South.

It matters. Truth always matters.





Who speaks for England?

Robert Henderson at England Calling wrote an informative piece back in 2015, asking the question ‘Who will speak for England?‘ The obvious answer to that question should logically be ‘the English, of course’. But as I’ve written here before, the English identity, versus the inclusive ‘British’ identity, is being discouraged from being expressed.

The piece goes into some detail as to just how England’s interests are being neglected in favor of the interests of the ‘minority’ groups in the UK — and yes, the Scottish people are counted as an ‘ethnic minority’ in the UK.

As Henderson writes, the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh were favored, according to the 2015 formula for treasury disbursements, over the English. There has been a lot of hand-wringing in the media about what would happen to the UK if the Scots, for example, decided to become independent. Of course they have a financial incentive to remain in the UK, and that in part explains their reluctance to opt for independence in the past referendum.

It’s hard to fathom how the English became the red-headed stepchildren in their own country, lacking a Parliament of their own, and financially disadvantaged by the UK treasury.

I can’t help seeing parallels (although not exact) with the status of Anglo-Saxon Americans, who are now made to take a back seat to just about everybody else, though we are the core people of this country. I wonder if our English cousins share our chagrin at what has happened.

The English would do well to begin to assert their primacy in the UK as Anglo-Americans would in this country. But it is an uphill struggle to overcome the prevailing idea that we are ‘non-people’ in our own country.

Teddy Roosevelt’s view of America’s founding stock

Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reality, quotes Teddy Roosevelt on America’s founding stock.

“[O]n the New England Coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly Anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race [more accurately, English amalgam] on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture. The descendant of the German becomes as much an Anglo-American as the descendant of the Strathclyde Celt has already become an Anglo-Briton . . . It must always be kept in mind that the Americans and the British are two substantially similar branches of the great English race, which both before and after their separation have assimilated, and made Englishmen of many other peoples. . .

I agree with much of what Roosevelt says above, but the last sentence is something I have reservations about. I’ve bolded the pertinent part.  Obviously Roosevelt was more of a ‘civic nationalist’ and judging by what he says about the Americans and British ‘making Englishmen of many other  peoples‘ he believed in the melting pot, and in the limitless possibility of assimilating many disparate peoples. He may just have been using a little hyperbole when he says many other peoples were ‘made Englishmen‘ by assimilation. But whether or not he meant that phrase metaphorically, it’s been treated as truth by many people in the years since those words were written.

Oftentimes the civic nationalists in both the United States and in Britain have expressed the belief that if only, say, Moslems ‘assimilated’, learned good English, and ‘moderated’ their religious beliefs and cultures, they will be full members of their host countries. Is everyone assimilable, given the right instructions in how to be a ‘good citizen’ of America or of any Western country? It’s an article of faith in the religion that is civic nationalism, but there seems to be little evidence that it’s true.

One more thing I noticed about the quote from Roosevelt about what makes an ‘Anglo-American’: it seems that his views have become widely accepted in America now; everybody who is of northwestern European stock and who speaks English as their native language is now, for a lot of people, an ‘Anglo’ or ‘Anglo-American.’ Well, that’s very inclusive and all, but doesn’t that deprive those who are actually of English or British descent of their ethnic identity?




‘Don’t say you are English’

The following appears on this website, credited as shown below, apparently anonymously written.

(Found beside company photocopier)

Goodbye to my England – So long my old friend
Your days are now numbered, being brought to an end
To be Scottish, Irish or Welsh, that’s just fine
But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line.

The French and the Germans may call themselves such,
As may Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch,
You can say you are Russian, or maybe a Dane.
But don’t say you’re English, ever again

At Broadcasting House that word is taboo
In Brussels they’ve scrapped it, in Parliament too,
Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told,
They mustn’t teach children about the England of old

Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw
Do the pupils not learn about them anymore?
How about Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem or Mons
When England lost hosts of her very brave sons?

We are not Europeans how can we be?
Europe is miles away, over the sea,
We’re the English from England, let’s all be proud-
Stand up and be counted –  shout it out loud!

Let’s tell our government – and Brussels too –
We’re proud of our heritage and the Red, White and Blue.
Fly the flag of St. George or the Union Jack.
Let the world know – WE WANT OUR ENGLAND BACK!

I have also found this poem somewhere else, credited to Terry Ogelthorpe. Whether the writer is anonymous or Terry Ogelthorpe,  it seems to represent a very real sentiment. We don’t hear or read much about English nationalism on this side of the Atlantic, so apparently the  unspoken rule against identifying as English has been pretty effective. In some cases it’s just ingrained habit, maybe, with most people accepting the common practice of using ‘Britain’ or ‘British’ interchangeably with ‘England’ and ‘English.’ But the terms are not the same, are they.

Here in the United States we have something of this ‘don’t say you are English’ habit, and a similar carelessness with using the terms ‘British’ and ‘English’. But for many Americans of English descent, we’ve got used to thinking of ourselves as ‘just Americans’, or identifying with our regional origin, as Southern people have traditionally done. Yet once upon a time many Southrons, if not most, explicitly spoke of their Anglo-Saxon origins.

Obviously, though, on both sides of the Atlantic, it just isn’t “in” or it simply isn’t “done” to openly say we are of English origin. And that’s more than a shame.




Robert Knox on Anglo-Americans_Races of Man1850

The above is from a book by Robert Knox, Races of Man, from 1850. The ‘Mr. Cooper’ referred to by Knox is author James Fenimore Cooper.

It’s interesting that as of 1850, Knox says that the English who had recently immigrated to America had forgotten their country and race.

On a blog thread I was reading earlier, one commenter said that for English-descended Americans to claim special status as the original colonists was ‘pedantic’; that these days no one cares about that. Sadly it does seem to be true that most people don’t care, even those who have considerable English ancestry. Obviously the people with anti-English sentiments ”care” a lot, or there would not be so much animosity aroused by any mention of the English roots of this country or of the presence of English-Americans.

If any kind of consciousness of our English roots, as individuals or as a nation, is ‘pedantic’ then I suppose this blog is ‘pedantry’,  and of no interest to any but a handful who haven’t ”forgotten”. Time will tell; if that critic is right, then this blog will languish and nothing will be accomplished by it.

However if it’s true, as some have said, that the original colonists are irrelevant, because their few descendants are far outnumbered by German-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc., then the potential Hispanic majority  of the future (the ‘Reconquista’ crowd) can just as fairly say, in another generation or so, that the old European-American majority was irrelevant and ‘no one cares‘ anymore, because they will have been replaced or outnumbered.

It’s fine to cheer on the ‘forgetting’ of the old English America, but wait until the later immigrant descendants are those ‘forgetting’ and being forgotten. What goes around…

Not a matter of blood?

From a thread on an HBD blog:

There have been no genetic Anglo-Saxons for 1000 years. The term is gibberish invoked to express some social and political attitudes.

A useful genetic marker is R1a haplotype on the Y chromosome. This started out south of the Urals and spread east (Uighurs), south to the subcontinent (high fives Razib) and west across Northern Europe and Scandinavia. It entered Albion with the Anglo-Saxon invasion and Scotland and the coasts via Scandinavia. Before those invasions, the population was almost all R1b (original hunter-gatherers plus Celts entering in first millenium BCE). R1a is about 10% of the present population, so even if it was 50% of the Germanic tribes, the gene pool is only 20% “Anglo-Saxon”.

Unfortunately, the content of most of the comments on the thread is similar to the ideas expressed in the above.

It seems terribly important to some people, many people, to deny that Anglo-Saxon or English people exist, even in England or Britain as a whole. Why is that?

The blogger himself denies that Anglo-Saxon identity is a matter of blood.  In support of his belief, he mentions the National Geographic article which I linked to here, and which Patrick Cleburne at VDare linked, and says the information isn’t valid, supposedly being outdated. Supposedly more recent information refutes the content of the article. However there certainly have been other sources which cited that study and added their own information to it. Given the amount of disagreement here, we might get the impression that genetics isn’t a ‘hard science’ at all.

I have seen genetic maps that show that the peoples of the British Isles have more in common with each other than with continental ‘cousins.’ The blogger asserts that Anglo-Saxons and Germans are more closely related than is now believed, though the maps I’ve seen don’t show that to be the case. From a purely subjective point of view, I’ve never thought that English and Germans resemble each other that much. I’ve never mistaken one for the other just by their outward appearance. Having learned something of German and French, I found French easier to learn; the structure and syntax of German are radically different and some German words are not easy to guess as with unfamiliar French words. And yes, I know that is the legacy of the Normans, in part.

The one part of the linked blog piece that I agree with is this:

The number of people who identify as English has crashed since 1980. Why? The winds of cultural change. If you are of German and English heritage, you will usually say you are German American. If Irish and English, again, Irish (not to mention “Americans” who are actually English).”

Yes. I’ve said this as have others, and it’s true. Those who say ‘Germans are the majority White ethnic group in America’ are disingenuous as surely they know that the  ‘pie’ is divided amongst so many White ethnic groups in America that the Germans  will appear to be the most numerous. For that reason, and for the reason that people tend to pick the more recent immigrant group as their ethnicity, if they are a European mix, Germans may appear to be at the top, but if the truth were known it might look very different. Most Americans have not been DNA-tested, and many, like Elizabeth Warren, believe fairy tales about their ancestry because it’s in style to do so.

As for England being multicultural for centuries, having taken in immigrants from various European and later, non-European nations, we could make the same argument about many European countries. The Netherlands, for example, took in many French Huguenots, Sephardic Jews (Baruch Spinoza being one), some English Puritans, and Flemish people. In recent times, many ethnic Dutch whose ancestors had lived in the Dutch East Indies were ‘repatriated’ to Holland — bringing many mixed descendants (called ‘Indos’) back with them. The Dutch, unlike the English, were more willing to intermarry with the native people in their colonies. So can we say there is ‘no Dutch bloodline’, or that Dutch people are just a mixed multitude? I would not say that.

In our day politics and social change have damaged the objectivity of many ‘scientists’ and even more so, non-scientists.