Tweet

More from @CCrowley100

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Dec 2

"What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction."

— Sir Francis Galton

1/ The term "eugenics" derives from the ancient Greek word for "well-born," and refers to the attempt to qualitatively improve human heredity, i.e., the genetic quality of populations, through the social control of human breeding.

The concept of eugenics is quite ancient, harking back to pre-history. In Plato's Republic, the great philosopher quite astutely asks, "why do we breed cattle but not humans?"

Eugenics can be broadly divided into two categories: positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics aims to encourage reproduction among people with desirable traits, such as intelligence, strength, and beauty. Conversely, negative eugenics seeks to reduce the perpetuation of less desirable traits, like low intelligence and the propensity for hereditary diseases.

2/ The term "eugenics" itself was formally coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, a brilliant Victorian Era polymath and cousin of the more famous Charles Darwin.

Interestingly, Galton actually outlined the three main premises of any eugenic program in 1865, in his work Hereditary Talent and Character, nearly two decades before he formalized the term.

The first premise was that differences in intelligence, character, and temperament were largely due to heredity. Secondly, human heredity could, and should be, qualitatively improved. And thirdly, that the qualitative improvement of mankind should not be left to chance.

Given these three premises, Galton later concluded that any eugenics program must be both equal parts positive and negative, and be based upon science, the regulation of marriage, reproduction, immigration, and labor.

In short, eugenics, as proposed by Galton, and all later eugenicists, sought to replace random natural selection with a purposeful, deliberate, and qualitative process of biological social selection. In this vein, in Galton's work Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims, he writes, "What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction."

3/ The modern conceptualization of eugenics may have been birthed in England from ancient antecedents, but it was in America that eugenics gained significant traction and was widely implemented.

In 1907, Indiana became the first place in the world to enact an enforceable sterilization law, setting a precedent throughout the Western world. This groundbreaking legislation led to more than 30 other U.S. states adopting similar laws. Following this example, several other countries around the world also implemented their own eugenics-based policies.

In the Western world, eugenics remained a prominent and influential idea during the first three decades of the 20th century. It was championed by many scientists, politicians, and social activists. In point of fact, in the United States, it was notable Progressives, including President Theodore Roosevelt and Margaret Sanger, who were among the most fervent proponents of eugenics.

It was only after the disastrous Second World War that it became unfashionable because of its engineered association with National Socialism.

Read 5 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Dec 1

"What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty."

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe

1/ Let's take a brief look at Hans-Hermann Hoppe's fantastic work, "Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order."

Although I am not a libertarian, I believe Hoppe's work is critical for understanding the decline and degeneration that is currently devastating Western civilization and its people.

According to Hoppe, the state is an evil in all its forms; however, monarchy is, in many ways, far less pernicious than democracy.

Hoppe explores the evolution of government from aristocracy, through monarchy, to the corruption and irresponsibility of contemporary liberal democracy—a progression of decline that has led to today's monstrous leviathan state.

"Democracy: The God That Failed" makes two cases: first, that government is an unnecessary evil that should cease existing, and second, that monarchism is superior to democracy because monarchism tends to keep government's most unpleasant features in check, whereas democracy exacerbates these features.

Hence, the transition from monarchy to democracy is a state of civilizational decline and not "progress."

2/ Hoppe's main argument against the institution of government is that it is "a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making and property rights violations."

He argues that all governments, by their nature, violate property rights in an institutionalized and legal manner. This results in the exploitation of private owners and contributes to a process he terms "decivilization."

Delving into this assertion, Hoppe outlines several critical viewpoints:

-The foundational belief in morally justified private property rights is essential for any successful free society. Hoppe argues that all governmental actions inherently violate these rights, thus deeming the government an abomination.

-He contends that the government, being the ultimate decision-maker, strips its citizens of true freedom, sovereignty, and control over their destiny.

-From an economic standpoint, Hoppe highlights the disadvantages of a governmental monopoly in sectors like defense and justice. He suggests that such a monopoly leads to higher costs and lower quality than would be present in a competitive, free-market environment.

-Additionally, Hoppe points out the involuntary nature of government rule, where citizens are compelled to follow its mandates rather than choosing to do so.

-Lastly, he notes the government's inherent tendency to grow and expand its influence, a process he argues inexorably leads towards tyranny.

3/ As previously discussed, Hoppe argues that monarchy, despite the inherent flaws of all government forms, is less harmful to society than democracy.

His primary argument centers on the concept of time preference: monarchs, who typically rule for life and pass down their rule hereditarily, exhibit a lower time preference (i.e., engage in more long-term, strategic thinking) compared to leaders in democratic states, who are elected for fixed terms.

A monarch, with the potential of ruling for a lifetime and the possibility of passing on power to a successor, is more inclined to weigh the long-term consequences of their actions. This approach aims to secure long-term benefits, which, according to Hoppe, aligns with enhancing the prosperity of people in their domain.

Consequently, he suggests that a monarch is less prone to exploit subjects, engage in excessive borrowing, fund wars, or violate property rights, as these actions would threaten their own wealth.

Conversely, democratic leaders, whom Hoppe sees as temporary stewards rather than true proprietors of government, exhibit a higher time preference, thereby prioritizing short-term objectives.

He asserts that this mindset leads to greater tendencies for expropriation, tax hikes (both directly and through inflation), and reckless borrowing, leaving the burden of repayment to future leaders and generations of citizens.

Hoppe also believes that these leaders are more likely to grant privileges to specific groups and implement extensive redistribution policies via taxes or regulations on private property and markets.

Additionally, he theorizes that they are more inclined to initiate wars.

Read 5 tweets

Chad Crowley

@CCrowley100

Nov 26

A Brief Primer on the Indo-Europeans

"Every 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."

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Part 1: Who Were the Indo-Europeans?:

First emerging from the Pontic-Caspian steppes between 4000 and 3500 BC, the Indo-Europeans quickly carved out a formidable presence on the world stage, distinguishing themselves from other militarily expansionist Eurasian steppe peoples, like the Turks and the Huns.

Their unique heroically oriented and aristocratic social structure, characterized by egalitarian war-bands led by charismatic leaders, combined with advanced technological innovations in areas such as metallurgy and transportation, endowed them with a distinct competitive advantage over their opponents. Moreover, it was their unique fusion of innovative aristocratic social organization, heroic-warrior ethos, and technological prowess that formed the cornerstone of their success and led to their domination over large swathes of the world.

In the thread below, I will briefly outline the "uniqueness" of the Indo-Europeans, drawing primarily on insights from Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, most notably from his exceptional work, "The Uniqueness of Western Civilization."

Part 2: Heroic-Aristocratic Social Structure and the Birth of the West:

Contrasting with other peoples from the Eurasian steppe, the Indo-Europeans were governed by a martially oriented, heroic elite of "free aristocrats." Rather than forming hierarchical structures centered upon hereditary rights or wealth, the Indo-Europeans established egalitarian war-bands. Channeling Nietzsche, Dr. Duchesne writes: "It is the aristocratic character, especially, who welcomes and values the 'proud, exalted states of the soul,' which are experienced firsthand through 'combat, adventure, the chase, the dance, war games,' and, in general, all that presupposes 'a strong physique, blooming, even exuberant health...free, joyful activity,'" which formed the basis of the Indo-European warrior spirit.

Duchesne asserts, "These [war] bands were contractual associations of peers operating outside strictly kin ties, initiated by any powerful individual on the merits of his martial abilities." He further argues that their relentless pursuit of glory and renown, their quest for prestige through deeds and actions in warfare, rather than material wealth, fueled their martial and territorial triumphs.

According to Duchesne, in contrast to traditional Western historiography as presented by historians like Victor Davis Hanson, the beginnings of the West, its rise, and global hegemony began as a product of the aristocratic ethos of the Indo-Europeans, rather than in ancient "democratic" Greece. Hanson argues that the West started with the rise of Greece during the eighth century BC, following the "Dark Age" after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. He emphasizes an agricultural revolution that led to the emergence of autonomous yeoman farmers, who formed the backbone of the Greek "democratic" city-states. However, Duchesne contends that the West, particularly in terms of the rise of the individual and thus Western excellence, derived primarily from the aristocratic and warlike Indo-Europeans.

Regarding the rise of the individual and the ascendancy of the West, Duchesne writes, "But were citizen soldiers the first Western individuals? Why do we find in Homer's Iliad, before the birth of the polis, an aristocratic class made up of identifiable characters living according to an ethic of individual glory and achievement? Why do we find in the Iliad brief biographical accounts of aristocrats and their families, in contrast to the anonymity we tend to encounter in Near Eastern societies (and other Eastern societies)—except for the Great King or Ruler who appears as the sole 'Master' before whom, as Thornton otherwise likes to stress, 'even the wealthiest and noblest must grovel in obeisance.'"

I want to argue that individuals first come to light in aristocratic societies, and that Mycenae, the society evoked in Homer's Iliad, was truly aristocratic. It is in aristocratic societies that we first discover characters zealously preoccupied with their honor and future name, with the judgment of other "masters" regarding their courage, skill in war, and in the hunt—as embodied with intense passion in the figure of Homer's Achilles, a character fundamentally at odds with any form of servility to a ruler."

Part 3: The Conquests:

By the end of the second millennium BC, the heroic Indo-European peoples had "Indo-Europeanized" much of Europe, what we now broadly refer to as the West. On the conquest of the West, Duchesne writes, "The arrival of the Indo-Europeans cannot be described as a 'massive invasion' or wholesale colonization of non-Indo-European cultures and peoples. The arrival took the form of a sequence of migrations and conflicts spread over a long period, stretching from about 4000 BC to about 1000 BC. This movement was not strictly warlike, but included a series of processes equally significant in their economic and demographic origins and consequences. Moreover, in the course of their migrations and dispersals, the original 'proto-Indo-Europeans' differentiated into many ethnic groups, some of which had long-standing cultural and ethnic interactions with the peoples of the advanced centers of civilization in the Near East."

Duchesne continues, "The Mycenaeans who came into Greece, on the other hand, did manage to Indo-Europeanize Greece. While the Mycenaeans were also a minority, they were not just 'a tiny fraction' of the population. Moreover, while the 'coming of the Greeks' cannot be characterized as a 'massive invasion of nomads,' it was still a military takeover by fierce warriors who arrived on horse-drawn chariots against a population which had no centralized political organization (certainly not as advanced as those already found in the Near East) and which showed fewer signs of military prowess.

The coming of Indo-Europeans into the rest of Europe was a more gradual, drawn-out movement, but in the end, it was an intrusive movement which resulted in the replacement, though not complete disappearance, of indigenous languages by Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, and Balkan languages. There was no population replacement occasioned by the arrival of a minority of Indo-Europeans, and in this sense, the Indo-Europeanization of Europe cannot be seen as a racial displacement."

Relatedly, the formation of "individualizing chiefdoms," was a pivotal development in the "Indo-Europeanization" of Europe. These chiefdoms, established first by the Indo-Europeans in the West, marked a stark departure from the group-oriented chiefdoms more common in the East. In these Western societies, the stature and authority of a chief were intimately linked to their personal achievements in warfare and their capability to manage the trade of prestige goods.

Such a structure nurtured an environment of fierce competition and dynamism, where individual combat prowess and battlefield accomplishments were highly valued. This emphasis on personal valor and heroism not only solidified the internal unity and identity of these groups but also fueled their expansion and ascendancy. The focus on martial expertise and individual distinction played a key role in their dominance of Neolithic Europe.

Furthermore, the ability of these chiefs to control networks for the exchange of prestigious goods extended beyond mere economic influence. It was instrumental in reinforcing their social and political standing. Through the management of these networks, chiefs could dispense wealth and rewards, securing the allegiance and support of their followers. This reciprocal system of loyalty and compensation bolstered the internal hierarchy of these chiefdoms, while also ensuring the readiness and enthusiasm of their warriors for both conquest and defense.

Read 4 tweets

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

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!