Tweet

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Nov 17 • 3 tweets • 6 min read Twitter logo

1 of 3/ The ongoing assault against Western history, epitomized by the decades-long systematic denigration of the Crusades and the Crusaders, is a key component of the greater war being waged against Western civilization and identity, with the ultimate goal being White erasure.

The first step towards ethnocultural erasure is the destruction of the past. Rewrite the past, control the future. A people without a past have no future.

With the above in mind, let's briefly examine the Crusades, their true origins, and the men who participated in this noble endeavor. I will be drawing extensively from Rodney Stark's excellent book, "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades."

2 of 3/ Contrary to popular Western historiography (how we write and portray history), the Crusades were not the imperialistic undertakings of "White aggressors," nor were they an early form of European colonialism.

In fact, they were largely defensive wars, precipitated by Islamic provocations, and centuries of bloody attempts to expand into the West, coupled by merciless attacks on Christian pilgrims and holy sites.

Rodney Stark, in his book "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades," sums up the reality of the dire geopolitical situation faced by Europe quite succinctly, writing:

"The Crusades were not unprovoked. They were not the first round of European colonialism. They were not conducted for land, loot, or converts. The crusaders were not barbarians who victimized the cultivated Muslims."

In short, the Crusades only began after more than 300 years of non-stop Muslim aggression against the Christian world.

It's important to note that while the most well-known Crusades to the Holy Land occurred from 1095 to 1291 AD, the broader Crusading period extended from 1095 to 1492 AD. This period encompasses the entirety of the Reconquista and various other related military campaigns, illustrating that the Crusades were part of a larger series of defensive wars waged to halt Islamic expansion.

The Reconquista, culminating in 1492 AD with the fall of Granada, marked the end of a 700-year struggle for the liberation of the Iberian Peninsula, which began with the Muslim Moors' conquest of the Visigothic Christian kingdoms in 711 AD.

Additionally, Islamic expansion into Europe did not cease in 1492 AD; it continued until the failed Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683 AD.

Two maps are presented below, one from 1095 AD, the year the First Crusade was launched, and one from circa 1500 AD, showing the massive expansion of Islam from Europe to Asia.

3 of 3/ As previously mentioned, most liberal historical narratives often inaccurately depict the Crusades as unprovoked acts of aggression and a precursor to European colonialism. They commonly assert that these campaigns were led by the so-called "surplus sons" of avaricious European nobles, motivated by a combination of bloodlust and the desire for material wealth.

Contrary to the typical depiction of "surplus sons" seeking the spoils of war, Stark describes the Crusaders as "the heads of great families who were fully aware that the costs of crusading would far exceed the very modest material rewards that could be expected; most went at immense personal cost, some of them knowingly bankrupting themselves to go."

For instance, in contrast to the Second (1147-1149 AD) and Third Crusades (1189–1192 AD), the First Crusade (1096-1099 AD) was chiefly led by European noble families, rather than royalty, and was undertaken more for piety than greed.

As the eldest son of Pons, Count of Toulouse, and Almodis de La Marche, Raymond IV inherited not only his father's title but also the weighty responsibilities that came with his noble lineage. He was a pivotal figure in the First Crusade, renowned for his exceptional bravery as a knight and his deep religious devotion. This profound spiritual commitment was so fervent that he expressed a desire to be buried in the Holy Land, which ultimately motivated his participation in the Crusade.

Furthermore, Stark emphasizes a crucial, often overlooked aspect of the Crusades, stating, "Crusading was dominated by a few closely related families! It appears that it was not so much that individuals decided to accept the Pope’s summons, but that entire families did."

This highlights that the decision to participate in the Crusades was often a communal response deeply rooted in faith. Unlike the common portrayal of these endeavors as driven by a thirst for blood and greed, Stark's observation suggests that for many, the motivation was a collective spiritual calling, with families uniting in their commitment to what in essence was a holy cause.

Stark provides a compelling example to illustrate this faith-driven family commitment to the Crusades. He uses the case of Count William Tête-Hardi of Burgundy and writes: "He had five sons. Of these, three went on the First Crusade, and the fourth became a priest who, as Pope Calixtus II (1119-1124), inaugurated an extension of the Crusade to attack Damascus in 1122. Count William also had four daughters. Three were married to men who joined their brothers-in-law and went on the First Crusade, and the fourth was the mother of a First Crusader. As for the Second Crusade, this family sent ten crusaders in 1147."

In short, Crusading was essentially a family endeavor, where entire households committed themselves to this noble cause, frequently at great personal sacrifice.

Far from being a profitable venture, Crusading was a tremendously costly undertaking. The commanders of the Crusader armies shouldered the bulk of these expenses, covering everything from provisioning the soldiers, outfitting them with armor and weapons, to handling logistics and arranging transportation, whether by sea or overland.

Meeting the financial demands of the Crusades often led many leaders to the brink of financial ruin. It wasn't just the heads of great noble houses who bore the costs; individual knights also faced significant expenses.

Stark elaborates: "Crusading was a very expensive undertaking. A knight needed armor, arms, at least one warhorse (preferably two or three), a palfrey (a riding horse), and packhorses or mules, all of them being very costly items. For example, Guy of Thiers paid ten pounds for a warhorse, which was equal to more than two years of salary for a ship's captain. A knight also needed servants (one or two to take care of the horses), clothing, tenting, an array of supplies such as horseshoes, and a substantial amount of cash to buy supplies along the way, in addition to those supplies that could be looted or were contributed, and he needed to pay various members of his entourage."

In essence, the Crusaders were not driven by greed, but were often deeply pious men. As Stark wrote, they "...truly believed that they served in God’s battalions." This reflects their profound commitment to religious duty in service to greater Christendom, rather than the satiation of base materialistic desires.

Stark highlights the severe economic challenges faced by the Crusader states, collectively known as the Outremer (French for "Overseas"). These included the County of Edessa (1098–1150), the Principality of Antioch (1098–1268), the County of Tripoli (1102–1289), and the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099–1291).

Stark emphasizes that "the Crusader kingdoms established in the Holy Land, which endured for nearly two centuries, were not self-sustaining colonies reliant on local exactions. Instead, they necessitated substantial subsidies from Europe."

This indicates that the survival of these kingdoms relied heavily on support from various European populations, the Catholic Church, European nobility, and royal generosity. This support was driven not only by Europe's deep faith but also as a response to the very real threat of a militarily expansive Islam. Therefore, Crusading was not a financially profitable venture, but rather one primarily motivated by a desire to serve God, protect Christendom, and preserve European religious and cultural integrity against Islamic aggression.

In sum, the Crusades were not wars of aggression foreshadowing later European colonial endeavors; instead, they were fundamentally defensive campaigns against an advancing militaristic Islam. The Crusaders, far from being mere seekers of wealth or driven by bloodlust, were primarily motivated by deep religious convictions and a collective commitment to the defense and preservation of Christendom.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @CCrowley100

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Nov 13

"He who cannot obey himself will be commanded."

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

1 of 5/ Embracing the Übermensch: Nietzsche’s Vision of Radical Aristocratism

Friedrich Nietzsche stands as one of the most awe-inspiring, influential, and enigmatic thinkers of our time. His thinking is deeply complex, and for most, difficult to understand. Making matters worse, the profundity of this thought has been confounded further by less-than-scrupulous bad-faith actors, who have grossly misinterpreted and oftentimes manipulated his writings. However, Nietzsche’s obfuscation by means of intellectual complexity was deliberate, an engineered design to ward off lesser men. Nietzschean philosophy is that of potential, of the profound reverence of all things great, noble, heroic and the loathing of all things small, cowardly, and mediocre. As such, Nietzsche’s philosophical corpus is not meant for everyone, nor was it intended to be.

More to the point, his body of works calls for the elite of mankind to aspire to new heights of excellence and greatness, boldly daring us to “… not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!” He despises artificial equality, denies that freedom is anything but a superiority in power, and, like the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, sees the desire for perpetual peace not only as being at odds with true nobility but also contrary to mankind’s nature. The totality of the Nietzschean worldview can be conceptualized thusly: “What is good?—All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad?—All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that a resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war; not virtue, but proficiency (virtue in the Renaissance style, virtù, virtue free of moralic acid).” In essence, Nietzsche’s philosophy was the embodiment of aristocratism par excellence, and all other interpretations of him and his work are either puerile interpretations or intentional efforts to subvert and co-opt his transformative vision for a mankind reborn.

In an effort all too prevalent amidst the distortions of postmodernity and contemporary liberalism, a cadre of scholars, led most notably by the popular translator of Nietzsche’s work, Walter Kaufmann, has vigorously sought to undermine the quintessential nature of Nietzschean thought. Kaufmann himself was a philosopher of the humanistic school, and though his translatory prose was excellent, it is more often than not overly infused with his own liberal-humanistic worldview. With cunningly deceptive rhetoric and intricate yet ultimately facile postmodern reasoning, many of these so-called “scholars’” main aim is to willfully discard Nietzsche’s majestic aristocratic vision of a regenerated Europe, opting instead for a reinterpretation that aligns more closely with the ideological dogma of liberal humanism. In their pursuit, they seek to cast aside the disquieting elements of Nietzsche’s philosophical oeuvre that challenge the very foundations of liberal-humanistic beliefs, thereby presenting a diluted rendition of Nietzsche’s philosophy that conveniently conforms to their preferred metaphysical framework.

Most of these “scholars” assert that Nietzsche’s aristocratism, his inegalitarianism, and his deep-seated reverence for the competitive struggle of life, are literary devices, plain and simple. Moreover, they suggest that his many references to war, the Will to Power (German: Der Wille zur Macht), and the Overman (German: Übermensch) are but mere metaphors embodying a broader and more nuanced philosophical discourse, rather than an overt call for revolutionary civilizational transformation. Indeed, Nietzsche’s all-encompassing, aristocratic worldview, extending from the palpable realm of the literal to the profound depths of the metaphysical, is remarkably explicit throughout the entirety of his works. In fact, the phrase “aristocratic radicalism” was coined by the erudite 19th-century Danish scholar Georg Brandes to formally designate Nietzsche’s uniquely aristocratic outlook on life. During the course of Nietzsche’s correspondence with Brandes, the great philosopher himself expressed admiration for the term, proclaiming, “The expression Aristocratic Radicalism, which you employ, is very good. It is, permit me to say, the cleverest thing I have yet read about myself.”

2/

In The Will to Power, Nietzsche writes, “Aristocracy represents the belief in an elite humanity and higher caste. Democracy represents the disbelief in great human beings and an elite society.” For Nietzsche, this distinctly aristocratic ethos was no more readily apparent than in the gloriously vitalistic world of ancient Classical Greece, as he writes, “Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: for that purpose, it is necessary to keep bravely to the surface, the fold and the skin; to worship appearance, to believe in forms, tones, and words, in the whole Olympus of appearance!” For Nietzsche, it was the Greeks and their love of life, and the pursuit of excellence in the service to living a life of the highest quality, that earned his highest acclaim.

It is in the writings of Homer, especially his Iliad, from which a new vision of human greatness and aristocratic excellence was born—a vision that was brought to life and made manifest within the flesh and blood of the warrior aristocracy of ancient Greece. In the ancient Greek tongue, the term “aristocracy” (aristokratíā) denotes the “rule of the best.” It originates from the combination of two Greek words: áristos, meaning the “best,” and krátos, meaning “strength” or “power.” In the Classical world, the áristos was one who excelled in excellence (arête). For the ancient áristos, arête was not merely an abstract ideal, but a way of life and a modality of becoming that defined his existence. For Nietzsche, it was the ancient Greeks who first formally conceptualized the áristos as the higher type of man—noble and supreme—which deeply influenced his philosophical works and earned the highest levels of admiration. Moreover, it was the ancient Greeks’ profound conceptualization of the aristocracy, the rule of the best, that played a central role in forming the metaphysical foundation of Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch.

In continuation of the ancient Hellenic worldview that strove for perfection, Nietzsche extolls us to reach for greatness, like our ancestral Greek brethren, proclaiming, “I teach you the Superman; man is something that must be overcome.” According to Nietzsche, the radical aristocrat, the Übermensch, holds the key to overcoming the frailty of a contemporary mankind enthralled by the derangements of modernity. The Übermensch is the epitome of human perfection and symbolizes a higher species of man. In Nietzsche’s words, the Übermensch is “the Roman Caesar with Christ’s soul,” epitomizing a supreme higher type of man who encompasses a seemingly contradictory yet complementary set of harmonious qualities. Nietzsche envisions the Übermensch as the living and breathing paragon of perfection who seamlessly embodies the ideal elements of the Apollonian (i.e., rationality, order, and harmony) and the Dionysian (i.e., irrationality, chaos, and instinct). The Übermensch, through the embrace of life’s struggles, represents the harmonious merging of artistic and philosophical qualities, embodying purity, strength, and greatness, representing the sublime convergence of mankind’s potential and greatness.

The concept of the Übermensch, deeply rooted in the Indo-European and later the European aristocratic worldview, directly challenges the prevailing egalitarian values of contemporary Western society and the herd mentality perpetuated by the dominant ideology of liberal humanism. Nietzsche’s vision of a radically aristocratic world is fiercely elitist, intended for the select few, “a herd of blonde beasts of prey, a race of conquerors and masters,” who possess the capacity for self-overcoming and the self-mastery intrinsic to it—to embark on the path toward realizing the Übermensch. This path of elevation is by its very nature inaccessible to the majority as it is the template for the formulation of a new ruling elite.

Additionally, and relatedly, Nietzsche bestowed profound significance upon the concept of arête, an embodiment of the unwavering pursuit of self-mastery and self-creation. Arête materializes as a tangible expression of Nietzsche’s Will to Power, the central pillar of his philosophical framework and the primordial force that courses through all human endeavor and creative expression. The Will to Power illustrates the innate yearning and impetus within all life to assert personal dominance and authority, so as to actualize aspirations and unleash the creative potential within. Thus, arête becomes the transformative medium through which the transcendence of being manifests as the act of becoming. Nietzsche eloquently expresses this notion of perpetual distinction by writing, “Creating a higher state of being for ourselves is our state of being.”

Thus, while the Übermensch represents Nietzsche’s aristocratic ideal, the pursuit of arête serves as the path towards its earthly realization. The Übermensch, with his tenacious dedication to self-overcoming, combines the conflicting yet complementary forces of the Apollonian and the Dionysian within the totality of his being. Through the ontological synthesis of discipline, passion, reason, strength, and creative expression, the Übermensch transcends all conventional limitations, transforming himself into the highest expression of mankind’s potential.

3/

In the quest for personal metamorphosis, the arduous ascent from man to Übermensch, a resolute imperative emerges—a profound transfiguration of Western civilization becomes an undeniable necessity. The West teeters at the precipice of a vast abyss, confronted by an array of existential threats and civilization-threatening challenges, expressively termed by the brilliant French thinker Guillaume Faye as the Convergence of Catastrophes. Multiple perils loom large—global economic collapse, epidemics, resource depletion, mass immigration, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, strained relations between the Global South and the West, and a declining population—all simultaneously converging into a catastrophic crescendo that threatens the very survival of the West and its people. Nietzschean philosophy posits that the problems of Europe can and must be solved by the creation and “the cultivation of a new caste that will rule Europe.” In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche delves deeper into the characteristics of this emerging elite, emphasizing that throughout history, “[e]very elevation of the type man has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society—and so it will always be—a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other” is the only way to move forward and thwart the trajectory of our current state of decline. Nietzsche’s philosophical doctrine is one of total metaphysical transformation, and the vanguards of this revolution are the radically aristocratic Übermenschen. The Übermensch emerges as the herald of a new age, standing in vehement opposition to the twin serpents of the reigning liberal-humanistic paradigm and mass democracy that have held hypnotic sway over the Western world since the Age of Enlightenment. This transformative revolution, spearheaded by an audacious aristocratic elite, challenges the very metaphysical bedrock of postmodern Western civilization, representing the potentiality for a profound and irrevocable rupture from the prevailing order.

In Nietzsche’s view, the Enlightenment’s rationalism, and the resulting contemporary liberal-humanistic paradigm, with its quasi-religious worship of all things baseless and material, made manifest by the totalizing apotheosis of empirical knowledge, fostered the emergence of a world defined by shallow abstractions and fragmented realities. This degradation of the Western world and its people stands in direct opposition to the Nietzschean call for the pursuit of excellence and greatness. The Enlightenment, with its tyrannical promotion of egalitarianism, its myopic focus on reason as the sole source of ultimate authority, its narcissistic obsession with individual rights, and the unyielding pursuit of progress as an end unto itself, gave form and shape to a civilization defined by mediocrity, populated and ruled by Nietzsche’s Last Man.

As envisioned by Nietzsche, the Last Man emerges as civilizational decline reaches its apex, a consequence of the proliferation of egalitarian ideologies and the hegemonic metapolitical dominance of the liberal-humanist worldview engendered by the Enlightenment. The decline of the West and the elevation to prominence of the Last Man was intensified and rendered all the more insidious by the “democratizing” forces unleashed by the French Revolution, which further degenerated an already debased mankind with its impassioned and plebeian-like slogan of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, in its war of annihilation against all that is good, strong, and noble. The Last Man personifies a future where mediocrity reigns supreme, as mankind succumbs to complacency and forfeits all lofty aspirations. The Last Man represents the culmination of a decadent civilization that has forsaken all higher values and abandoned the pursuit of excellence and greatness achieved through the noble enterprise. Content in his comfortable and banally uneventful bourgeois existence, the Last Man is devoid of the fire of passion, the spark of creativity, and the noble yearnings that once propelled mankind forward towards the heavens. The Last Man is the antithesis of the higher type, a living embodiment of a civilization that has relinquished its potential for sublime elevation and has instead been transformed into mediocrity incarnate.

Read 7 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Nov 11

https://twitter.com/worldofreel/status/1722685997396238839

1 of 6/ The "Cleopatra Controversy"

The absurd notion that Cleopatra VII was of Sub-Saharan African, or African descent first emerged as a fringe theory in the 19th century. It gained traction in the 1940s with J.A. Rogers' book, "World's Great Men of Color." A Jamaican-American author, historian, and activist, Rogers helped popularize this view, which has since persisted in various forms, from questionable academic research to pop culture, up to the present day.

To be definitive, Cleopatra VII, known simply as Cleopatra to posterity, was of mixed Greek, Macedonian, and Persian heritage. This lineage was a product of the intermarriages between the Hellenistic Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasties.

Below, you'll find an image of the "Berlin Cleopatra" bust, believed to have been created in the 1st century BC during her actual lifetime. Additionally, portraiture from the Roman city of Herculaneum, dating back to the 1st century AD, depicts her with red hair.

While I have reservations about the accuracy of the nose, eyes, and skin color in many contemporary reconstructions, they don't seem entirely implausible.

Two very different modern reconstructions are presented below for comparison.

In the following thread, I'll explore what we actually know about Cleopatra and her ethnicity, and methodically debunk the "Afrocentrist theory."

https://twitter.com/worldofreel/status/1722685997396238839

2 of 6/ Who were the Ptolemies?

Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator (Greek: "Father-Loving") was born in either 70 or 69 BC and died on August 10, 30 BC. Her death occurred approximately 11 months after a tumultuous historical period marked by the defeat of her lover, Roman general Marc Antony, in the Roman civil war, culminating in the Battle of Actium in September of 31 BC. The precise details surrounding Cleopatra's death are still shrouded in mystery, with theories ranging from suicide to murder: was she killed by the venomous bite of an Egyptian Asp, by poison injection, ingestion, etc. The actual details will probably never be known.

Cleopatra was a member of the Greco-Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled Egypt from 305 BC to 30 BC. The eponymously named Ptolemies, founded by the Macedonian Ptolemy I Soter (Greek: "Savior"), a general and companion of Alexander the Great, were a "mixed" dynasty of both Greek and Macedonian heritage, later infused with Persian blood.

To preempt any intra-ethnic debate, I deliberately use the term "Greco-Macedonian" to reflect this heritage. The Ptolemies, like the Seleucids, the Antigonids, and every other "Macedonian" Successor state, intermarried with "ethnic Greeks," thus my use of the term "Greco-Macedonian." Alexander the Great's mother, Olympias, for instance, was of a Greek Epirote lineage, meaning that Alexander was of Greco-Macedonian descent.

In contradistinction to a great deal of contemporary, liberal historiography on the Hellenistic Age (323 - 30 BC, depending on the dating), the Ptolemies, the aforementioned Greco-Macedonian dynasty ruling Egypt for nearly 275 years, were for the most part ethnically exclusivist, in that they generally only married other Greeks and Macedonians, and even practiced consanguineous marriage (incestuous marriage), beginning with the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Greek: "Sibling" or "Brother-Lover"), though no offspring resulted from this first incestuous union.

The bust provided below is an image of Ptolemy II, paired with a modern-day reconstruction.

3 of 6/ On Ptolemaic Ethnocultural Homogeneity

Population demographics, the relationship between ruler versus ruled and the accompanying ethnocultural dimension that undergirded it, along with the symbolic and propagandistic presentation of ancient Pharaonic power, all factored into the Ptolemaic penchant for endogamous, consanguineous marriage and preference for ethnocultural homogeneity.

The Ptolemies' practice of consanguineous marriage was a continuation of ancient Egyptian Pharaonic traditions. This practice, rooted in the belief that marrying within the family would ensure undivided loyalty, was crucial for maintaining continuity with Egypt's past rulers. It also helped solidify the Ptolemies' relationship with the native Egyptians, particularly the influential priestly class. Recognizing that past foreign conquerors, like the Persians, often faced rebellion for disregarding Egypt's revered traditions, the Ptolemies shrewdly adopted this unique marriage practice, which was anathema in the wider Greek world, to avoid similar unrest and to better rule Egypt.

The Ptolemies, like all the Greco-Macedonian Successor dynasties in the Near East and beyond, believed that the people they ruled over, by and large, were "barbarians." The ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (bárbaros) or "barbarian" was an antonym for πολίτης (politēs) or "citizen" (from πόλις – polis, "city"). The term "barbarian" first originated in the early days of the Mycenaean Greeks and was later used to describe non-Greeks, who were perceived as being foreign and thus uncivilized.

As such, ethnic exclusivity and thus ethnocultural homogeneity, especially among the ruling Hellenistic elites, was the norm (as it was in the entire Greek world) throughout the majority of the Hellenistic historical period.

The image presented below is a Ptolemaic genealogy chart, detailing the marriage unions within the dynasty.

Read 7 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Sep 15

This revisionist "blackwashing" of White history has been going on for over a decade.

It serves a dual purpose.

Firstly, it functions as an assault on White identity, aiming to demoralize and subdue White populations worldwide. A broken people are a people more easily controlled.

Secondly, this campaign of demoralization serves to rationalize the ongoing demographic shifts in the Western world. It is a war of attrition.

So, if suddenly everyone, from Julius Caesar to Joan of Arc, are depicted as Black, I guess it's just not a big deal that the Western world is conspicuously becoming less White, right? Because race is a social construct that means nothing...

This is what Globohomo wants you to think.

This is a classical example of the Left's doublethink: attempting to persuade themselves of being race-blind while simultaneously fixating on race. Ironically, to deny the existence of race, one must obsess over it.

@CashChris15: This is too much.

The Black Nobility you are referencing is a symbolic title, like The Black Douglas, i.e., James Douglas of Scotland, and it is not a reference to race.

Furthermore, the Black Nobility you are referencing has been copied from another Black Supremacist Twitter account that, in turn, copied and pasted the information from this essay on Wikipedia, deliberately misrepresenting it:().

The Black Nobility is referring to the "...Roman aristocratic families who sided with the Papacy under Pope Pius IX after the Savoy family-led army of the Kingdom of Italy entered Rome on 20 September 1870, overthrew the Pope and the Papal States, and took over the Quirinal Palace, and any nobles subsequently ennobled by the Pope prior to the 1929 Lateran Treaty."

They were White-Italians...

Furthermore, the busts you are showcasing are largely of enslaved Africans, such as the Ethiopian Man bust, which came from the collection of Queen Christiania of Sweden...

I'm typing from my phone, but was so enraged that I had to respond to this nonsense.

The above should read: Queen Christina.

Read 4 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Apr 18

1/ "Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one must do what must be done."

― Julius Evola, "Ride the Tiger"

2/ Very broadly speaking, pain refers to the experience of suffering. The West is currently experiencing a state of pain that extends beyond the mere physical or mental experience of suffering. Rather it is a reflection of the degenerated condition of our world and its people.

3/ Western civilization is currently in the midst of an epoch defined by an all-encompassing sense of agonizing pain. This pain has arisen from the loss of our fundamental civilizational essence, imbuing our people within a malaise of meaninglessness and despair.

Read 12 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Apr 17

1/ The West and its people stand at the precipice, facing a multitude of imminent existential threats. From the devastating effects of globalization, to demographic replacement ushered in by mass migration, to the careless rule of an incompetent and feckless ruling "elite."

2/ The brilliant French thinker, Guillaume Faye aptly dubbed this perfect storm of chaos and decline as the "Convergence of Catastrophes." The foundations of Western civilization tremble under the weight of these impending disasters, and our very way of life teeters on the brink.

3/ The proud achievements of our ancestors, their virtues and values, are under assault from all sides. The future of the West, its people, and its culture, lies in the balance, and it is up to us, the few who still possess an iron force of will, to face these challenges head-on.

Read 8 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Apr 1

1/ In "Twilight of the Idols," the Great Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche, writes: "The Greeks...created the concept of the aristocrat, and they produced a type that is incomparable and supreme: the noble human being, the aristos." 🧵

2/ The Greek concept of ἀρετή, arête ("excellence"), was not merely an abstract ideal, but a way of life and a mode of Being; it was the earthly representation of the pinnacle of human achievement.

3/ The writings of Homer gave birth, and external form, to a new vision of human greatness — a vision that was brought to life and made manifest within the flesh and blood of the ἄριστος, the Aristos ("the best; noblest"), the aristocratic warrior of ancient Hellas."

Read 31 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Chad Crowley

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @CCrowley100

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Chad Crowley

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!