Great discussion. 👍 I’m currently reading a biography of Samuel Adams and wanted to know your thoughts on the man. Just going by his beliefs such as Anti-Federalism and being one of the more religious-oriented founding fathers makes him a man I can respect and admire. Peace ✌🏻
Hey, this is Kaiser. I absolutely love Samuel Adams. He was strongly Christian and understood independence as a necessity early on, and was very much a man of the people who had little wealth or personal gain but worked tirelessly to make America. He wrote under dozens of anonymous personas too, creating a small army of writers on his own to inculcate these ideas in the populace. Easily one of the best founders.
On an unrelated topic, it would be nice to see work done on examples of GOOD aristocracies, like the British example you gave, well-researched and such. A lot of the push-back against the idea of aristocracies as an institution is the lack of good models. It's always degenerate aristocracies portrayed in media, ignoring the duties and responsibilities that came with nobility.
This is a good idea, I might do more deep dives into specific families. My current two favorite examples are Coke of Norfolk and the Fitzwilliams, both of which really embodied noblesse oblige
I enjoyed the discussion. A piece not explicitly mentioned is the Normans ability/willingness to adapt. That's how they became Anglo-Normans, or Italian Normans, etc. When you add in their top tier civilizational energy.. unstoppable. The Anglo-Saxons were more settlers but it also must be noted, not as adaptable... which means the writing is on the wall.
Oftentimes when people opine about the Anglo-Saxons, it sounds to be very similar to how hippies talk about indigenous American tribes. "They used every part of the animal..." or "They had these incredible habits in the teepees..." or "Their life and diet were seasonal..." Yeah okay that's cool but we aren't going back to that. A lot of it feels like "beautiful loser" cope rather than useful inspiration to move forward with.
In my opinion, it was the merging of the Anglo Saxon and Norman spirit and cultures that really led to the great success of the British nobility and empire
Something often missing from this story is the minimal genetic contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to the overall British population. The Normans numbered in the thousands, but the Anglo-Saxons were still only in the tens of thousands. Similarly, the 'Celtic' contribution was also minimal--this was, again, a linguistic and cultural takeover via elite displacement. The millions of native Britons into which these waves of invaders assimilated remained (and remain) the descendants of the steppe-derived Bell Beaker culture--who almost completely annihilated Neolithic farmers (unusually, destroying both the male and female lineages).
This makes the British one of the world's oldest and most discrete ethne.
They were culturally Celtic, then English, ultimately Anglo-French-speaking Britons. Not Anglo-Saxons.
Great discussion. 👍 I’m currently reading a biography of Samuel Adams and wanted to know your thoughts on the man. Just going by his beliefs such as Anti-Federalism and being one of the more religious-oriented founding fathers makes him a man I can respect and admire. Peace ✌🏻
He’s certainly an interesting guy, and did much to help start the Revolution, but I don’t know enough about him to have a strong opinion
My opinion of John is that he was generally right, but too unpleasant to be effective, and makes Washington the better model
That’s fair.
Hey, this is Kaiser. I absolutely love Samuel Adams. He was strongly Christian and understood independence as a necessity early on, and was very much a man of the people who had little wealth or personal gain but worked tirelessly to make America. He wrote under dozens of anonymous personas too, creating a small army of writers on his own to inculcate these ideas in the populace. Easily one of the best founders.
I like both Adams, but Samuel speaks to me more. I also like Jefferson and Charles Carroll.
Nice.
On an unrelated topic, it would be nice to see work done on examples of GOOD aristocracies, like the British example you gave, well-researched and such. A lot of the push-back against the idea of aristocracies as an institution is the lack of good models. It's always degenerate aristocracies portrayed in media, ignoring the duties and responsibilities that came with nobility.
This is a good idea, I might do more deep dives into specific families. My current two favorite examples are Coke of Norfolk and the Fitzwilliams, both of which really embodied noblesse oblige
I enjoyed the discussion. A piece not explicitly mentioned is the Normans ability/willingness to adapt. That's how they became Anglo-Normans, or Italian Normans, etc. When you add in their top tier civilizational energy.. unstoppable. The Anglo-Saxons were more settlers but it also must be noted, not as adaptable... which means the writing is on the wall.
Oftentimes when people opine about the Anglo-Saxons, it sounds to be very similar to how hippies talk about indigenous American tribes. "They used every part of the animal..." or "They had these incredible habits in the teepees..." or "Their life and diet were seasonal..." Yeah okay that's cool but we aren't going back to that. A lot of it feels like "beautiful loser" cope rather than useful inspiration to move forward with.
The future is Norman!
Yes this is a very good point
In my opinion, it was the merging of the Anglo Saxon and Norman spirit and cultures that really led to the great success of the British nobility and empire
Something often missing from this story is the minimal genetic contribution of the Anglo-Saxons to the overall British population. The Normans numbered in the thousands, but the Anglo-Saxons were still only in the tens of thousands. Similarly, the 'Celtic' contribution was also minimal--this was, again, a linguistic and cultural takeover via elite displacement. The millions of native Britons into which these waves of invaders assimilated remained (and remain) the descendants of the steppe-derived Bell Beaker culture--who almost completely annihilated Neolithic farmers (unusually, destroying both the male and female lineages).
This makes the British one of the world's oldest and most discrete ethne.
They were culturally Celtic, then English, ultimately Anglo-French-speaking Britons. Not Anglo-Saxons.