Glad to be here

[Giant_Hunter]

Thanks for the welcome, everyone.

I don't necessarily reject my heritage. Having stumbled upon it by accident, I'm strangely proud of it considering that it is officially unimportant to me. lol. But there's a reason it's unimportant to me, and it's because I aimed since a young age to break the cycle of abuse. Had I been caught up in identarianism, I'd have embraced the narcissistic family cult. My heritage is socially unimportant to me, because I have no desire to join the exploits of the ruling class, which I reject as immoral and unethical.

What's strange is that I have come to embrace philosophies that nonetheless are Saxon in origin, unbeknownst to me at the time of adoption. Having been deplatformed, I came to see that the people I am inspired by were of the same stock, and this has revived an interest in my genetic and cultural heritage. As it turns out, my family is paternally Saxon, but we've not behaved Saxon, we've behaved Jutish, Norman, or Frankish, and that is the problem. Mutualism is the native Saxon social structure, as witnessed in the Saxon and Frisian Stedinger and assembly of free men into Things.

While my heritage does not influence my aspirations for the future in any way, I have come to appreciate the sense of pride as a valid motive of defense against the encroachments of cultural Marxism, which sees not only my heritage as a problem, but including my resolution to the abuse cycle. In "anarchist" circles, for instance, our cultural detractors have ensured that there is anything but genuine working class anarchism made the focus of. "Straight, white, men" of an Anglo-Saxon ethnic background or Saxonist ideology built anarchism: William Godwin, Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, etc. Yet, "straight, white, men" are made the focus of contempt by adulterous college "anarchists" who equate anarchy with communism. Straight, white, men of an Anglo-Saxon orientation are natural leaders, especially in anarchy, and only artificial restrictions can keep them from naturally leading-- not to be confused with ruling-- society.

So, while my heritage is not of personal value to me, it has become quite important in recognizing what is going on in the world, and having the courage to start addressing it, giving it much "political" value.

As for the question of how I know about my heritage, it comes down to coherence in the various different fields of inquiry surrounding my family names, physical anthropology of the family, Coat-of-Arms, fraternities, migration patterns, professions, and etc. I compare how this lines up with archaeology, taxonomy, toponomy, etymology, etc. Family secrets are passed down through the women, so my aunt, who doesn't know I know this, has hinted at bringing me up to speed. But my grandfather died from what I believe to be kuru, officially dimentia, and I have no interest in joining a cult of cannibals or the liability of officially knowing.

I'm not personally convinced of genetics, because it is beyond the realm of common sense observation and relies on a priestly managerial class for interpretation. I recognize no mediumship between myself and Nature, which I understand to be God. And, in the case there is some legitimacy in it, I don't expect it would be used for my benefit or truthfully conveyed to me by the interpreters, whose Out-of-Africa model I reject wholeheartedly.

Since I have no desire to join pedigree clubs or ruling class fraternities, I'm okay if you completely reject my story. It's of no interpersonal or social relevance to me and I would oppose any attempt to make such things relevant as they were before the Enlightenment. As far as I am concerned, we are equals until you demonstrate otherwise. And if you spend enough time around me you'll come to respect my level of reasoning.

[Etelfrido]

but we've not behaved Saxon, we've behaved Jutish, Norman, or Frankish, and that is the problem.

Could you explain the differences? I'm interested.

"Straight, white, men" of an Anglo-Saxon ethnic background or Saxonist ideology built anarchism: William Godwin, Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, etc.

But Proudhon was French. Wouldn't that make him a Frank?

[Giant_Hunter]

AEdelfrip,

Proudhon was indeed French by nationality, even being a French nationalist. His mother was a peasant woman, probably of Celtic origin, considering French ethnic stratigraphy, while his father was an artisan, perhaps Anglo-Saxon but perhaps French. His reddish brown hair and round head suggest an Alpine Celtic phenotype, but some of his facial features appear Anglo-Saxon. I tend to associate Franks with Radhanite Jewish admixture or origins, accompanied by thick dark hair. I likely have some of this admixture myself, on the maternal side. But regardless of Proudhon's race or ethnicity, he was ideologically a Saxonist, who referred to his program as "federalism" and to the Saxons as "the federalist race."

I consider the Saxons to be deeply connected to common law interpretations of natural law, while Jutes, Normans, and Franks are more culturally friendly toward canonical and statutory law. Saxons organized into Things, while the Jutes and Normans came from the Goths and their Hofs. Franks, as mentioned, were tied up with Babylonian Jewry. Christianity, the Trojan Horse religion for gentiles, emanated from out of Jutland and France into Anglo-Saxon territory, alongside feudalism.

Somehow I have a Norman Christian name and a Saxon chieftain surname, telling of a time when Saxon war chiefs sold out to Norman (Jutish, Frankish, Roman) interests, probably in league with advancing Mongols.

[Anglo-Celtic]

That reminds me. Is James Bond doing okay?