I've been thinking more about the constant refrain which Yarvin undercuts and has for months now since he stumbled across my Saxon posting, saying "we wuz Saxons." It has confused me more than anything, because I cannot grasp what resemblance he sees to me saying "we were Saxons" and blacks saying "we wuz kangs."
First, we were Saxons is a factual statement, while "we wuz kangs" is not. Those of the Anglo-Sphere are in fact the descendants of and have lineage which traces back to the original Anglo-Saxons, and are themselves Anglo Saxons. "We wuz kangs" is most commonly applied to Ancient Egypt, and Egyptians were not black. Ancient pharaohs like King tut have their haplogroup most commonly found now in Ireland, and the late pharaohs like the Ptolemies were Greek, but none were SubSaharan African.
So it isn't the same on that note.
Second, we were Saxons is a humbling statement whereas we wuz Kangs is all self aggrandizement. I find the Saxons cool, but they're cool because they belong to my heritage and lineage. The Saxons were around at the same time as Charlemagne was building the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire was still quite powerful. They spent most of their history in petty kingdoms split into their own little realms across Albion, struggled with the Vikings, and were ultimately conquered by the Normans. The only things that were notable about them are that they had a rich body of literature to their name, unique political organization and government, and that they birthed England. Compare that to Egypt, which captures far more of the mind particularly during the Bronze Age, with so many incredible monuments that stand to this day. Saxons are impressive insofar as what they laid the building blocks for, and far less what they themselves built.
What this then leads into is the actual motivations behind both, and how these two differ entirely. I say we were Saxons that we might better understand who we actually are today, to point back to a far earlier age we directly descend from and to say "you can see where America originated from here." I do this to countervail the mainstream conservative history which will tell you that America was born out of the aether in 1776. I do it to help better explain and illuminate things today, and to say that this is the origin of our ideas and systems which all belong to us. "We wuz kangs" is the exact opposite. It is done to actually completely obfuscate where they are today, that blacks are impoverished often by their own hand, and to be able to pretend that they actually once founded great civilizations and that everything about them today can in fact be blamed on the White man.
So, there is absolutely no respect in which "we wuz kangs" and "we were Saxons, indeed" bear any similarity. Except one. Both are positive attempts at constructing myth and heritage in an era of deracination. And that is why Yarvin compares the two, because Yarvin mistakes his own cynicism for realism.
Myth making and narrative construction, what he derides as "capeshit" is completely and utterly obvious as being integral to civilizations, in particular great ones and those most dynamic. Rome had its story of Aeneas and the fall of Troy, being born of their refugees, as just one example. But they can be found with many, many others, and everyone will have their own version of these. The one that I work with is very much based in reality, but it also is simply just me resurrecting what was once well known and understood by the American people till about midway through the last century.
But that is why Yarvin and I clash so much over this. Yarvin too has his myth, which is that the evils of today somehow traceback to the American Revolution. Its a narrative of cynicism and iconoclasm, whereas mine is one of hope and inspiration. And that really is why he doesn't like mine at all and doesn't care for it.
However, mine is the one that will prevail, because the American Right is disproportionately patriots who hold heritage in the Founding Stock, and what I tell them is that their identity is great, storied, worth fighting for. He tells you that its fake and terrible from the start and not worth saving. If you understand that politics is simply war by other means, you'll quickly understand too why mine, which gives a reason for you to fight and something to build as your identity, and his which just further strips a deracinated population of anything they might cling to, is also politically suicidal.
So yes, not only were we Saxons, but we ARE Saxons right now.
I wish Amazon would make it easy to sort your saved for later stuff into wishlists. Is there a way to get an AI agent to do that? My saved for later stretches into infinity.
@ShaneFrakes So what we perceive to be supernatural is natural and also technological in a way we can’t understand, and instead we see what looks miraculous or impossible.
@ShaneFrakes Maybe far in the future organic “machines” and technology will be impossible to differentiate? Perhaps this supercomputer isn’t made of any kind of components we imagine today.
JUST IN: Scientists propose gradually reducing the global population to 4 billion by 2200, arguing it would “ease pressure" on natural resources & improve quality of life.
@earthboundbob For many evidence of their need to be permanently incapacitated is pretty solid. For those who harm children, serial killers, arsonists, bombers and those who orchestrate actions that cause mass casualties or harm to entire populations, kill them. Not warehouse them.
When a loved one passes away staying in the home they lived in reminds you of them and makes it more difficult to heal. You see their unfinished projects, the things they enjoyed, and you feel their absence