1/ Letters of Marque Abroad, Posse Comitatus with Territorial Control at Home

America faces a dual-front crisis: cartels destabilizing our border and illegal immigration overwhelming our nation. Senator Mike Lee started the conversation; let’s push it forward!🧵👇 2/ What is Posse Comitatus?

Posse comitatus, meaning "power of the county," is a principle rooted in English common law. Historically, it allowed sheriffs to call upon ordinary citizens to assist in tasks like apprehending fugitives or suppressing riots, making it a key mechanism for maintaining public order in times of crisis.

It allows local law enforcement, such as sheriffs, to deputize ordinary citizens to assist in maintaining law and order. This authority remains a vital yet underutilized resource for addressing crises that exceed the capacity of professional law enforcement.

1/ "A people who no longer think about waging war are finished, drained of their substance and worn out from the inside."

Let us discuss why you should read "Prelude to War." 🧵👇 2/ I have frequently discussed the works of Guillaume Faye on X and hold immense respect for him and his contributions to the intellectual and ethnocultural defense of Europeans. His writings are unapologetic, incisive, and relentless in addressing the defining existential crises of our time.

Among his many works, "Prelude to War" stands as an often underappreciated yet exceptional text. It is a direct confrontation with the forces undermining our civilization and a prophetic vision of the struggles we must face to secure our future.

Despite being overshadowed by Faye’s better-known writings, such as "Archeofuturism" or "Why We Fight," this volume deserves recognition as one of his finest. It distills his core ideas with precision and force, emphasizing the martial spirit as essential to the survival of our people. Faye frequently stresses the need for Europeans to reclaim their will to fight, both in thought and action, as the only means of overcoming the myriad of threats that confront us.

More than anything, "Prelude to War" urges us to cast off the complacency of our age and rekindle the ancestral strength and determination that once defined our civilization and its people, preparing ourselves for the inevitable trials of the twenty-first century.

1/ With Trump’s inauguration behind us, people are discussing America and its future—and that’s important. But let’s focus on what made America great: its founding, legacy, and principles. America was founded by Whites, for Whites. 2/ When I say Whites, I am, of course, referring to Europeans. This isn’t an invention of modern identity politics or, more recently, some talking point attributed to the so-called "Woke Right," but a historical reality. Since time immemorial, people have defined part of their identity through what we today call race. While the ancients lacked the modern taxonomical categorizations we use, that doesn’t negate the reality of such distinctions.

Herodotus, the "Father of History," identified a shared "ancestry" as the foundation of what it meant to be a Hellene (i.e., a Greek). He emphasized common blood, language, and worship as the pillars of Greek identity.

The Founding Fathers of America were no different. They understood themselves as part of a shared European lineage, drawing upon the classical traditions of Greece and Rome, the legal frameworks of English common law, and the moral foundation of Christianity. For them, these values, rooted in a specifically European worldview, were the cornerstone of the republic.

Thomas Jefferson famously described the U.S. as an "empire of liberty," but it was an empire designed with a particular population in mind: those descended from Europe.

*For an interesting dive, the image below is of the Jefferson Memorial. Take a moment to search out and read the text inscribed on the monument.

1/ Let’s explore Pat Buchanan’s most controversial book! It challenges the conventional historical narratives surrounding WWII while offering a cautionary tale for U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. 🧵👇 2/ An Introduction

Patrick J. Buchanan’s "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War" challenges conventional narratives about the origins and consequences of World War II. Written in the shadow of the Iraq War, Buchanan’s book serves as both a provocative reassessment of history and a cautionary tale for contemporary foreign policy. The work explores how a series of missteps and miscalculations by Britain, the world’s dominant power in 1914, culminated in the devastation of Europe, the rise of communism in half the continent, and the collapse of the great Western empires by 1945.

Buchanan himself has described the book as an effort to uncover the "historic blunders" that led to this catastrophic outcome. He identifies eight critical errors that, in his view, transformed local disputes into global conflagrations. Beyond analyzing the past, Buchanan warns against the arrogance and hubris that characterized European leaders before the First World War—traits he sees echoed in post-Cold War American policy. His aim is to urge prudence and restraint, lest the United States follow Britain’s path and overextend itself into decline.

By reevaluating figures like Winston Churchill and events like the Munich Agreement, Buchanan invites readers to question the traditional narrative of World War II as a purely necessary and moral crusade. Instead, he argues that better decisions, rooted in realism rather than moral posturing, might have spared Europe and the world untold suffering.

1/ Gregory Clark’s "The Son Also Rises" dismantles myths about social mobility, showing how generational wealth and status persist across centuries. Yet government policies, like mass immigration, disrupt this fragile continuity. What does this mean for the American Dream? 🧵👇 2/ The Decline of the American Dream

America was built on the promise that each generation would surpass the last, inheriting a brighter future shaped by the sacrifices of their parents. This vision, once central to the nation’s identity, has faded. For many, the quality of life has declined, opportunities have shrunk, and even the hope of securing a basic living, let alone owning a home, has become a distant dream.

Gregory Clark’s "The Son Also Rises" examines social mobility, the ability to move between social classes over generations, and highlights the enduring factors that sustain or limit it. At the heart of social mobility is generational capital: the wealth, education, and cultural inheritance passed through families. This continuity provides the foundation for a stable and prosperous society.

Immigration policies are accelerating this unraveling. The influx of foreign workers displaces the hard-earned progress of native families, replacing their sacrifices with a transient workforce that has no connection to the nation’s legacy. These newcomers, whose descendants will shape the electorate of tomorrow, alter the country’s demographic character and redirect the rewards of past generations’ efforts to those who played no part in creating them.

The American Dream, once defined by surpassing the achievements of past generations and preserving the promise of America for future Heritage Americans, has been abandoned. Policies driven by short-term profits and mass labor importation undermine not just the prosperity but the very survival of the nation’s people.

Why does the first post show an illegal driving recklessly and striking another person? Because it reflects the deeper rot within America, a nation sacrificing its future and the well-being of its citizens for fleeting economic gain. It's symbolic.

1/ In 2017, a laughable "scientific study" was published claiming the bones of a "female Viking warrior" were "confirmed" by genomics. A few bones, some weapons, and a wishful narrative passed off as a historical breakthrough. 🧵👇NO... 2/ The study, dubiously titled "A female Viking warrior Confirmed by Genomics," has been paraded around ever since, claiming to prove Viking women warriors existed. The initial buzz was fueled by the dramatic headline, "Viking warrior confirmed by genomics," but how does genetic testing prove warrior status?

The real problem, however, lies in the ideological motives behind the study. It fits perfectly into the modern obsession with rewriting history to fit today’s ideological narratives that contort the past to align with whatever the "current thing" is.

To be deemed respectable in mainstream academia, particularly in the Western world, one must conform to these distortions, unwilling to entertain anything that challenges their rigid, narrow view of reality. A single set of bones is twisted into proof of female warriors being the norm in the Viking world, a textbook case of hasty generalization, turning one instance into an entire historical trend.

But this also assumes that the remains belonged to a female warrior and that this was, in fact, her grave...

1/ The Confederacy stands as a unique chapter in history, a bold attempt to preserve a way of life through revolution. This essay explores its origins, ambitions, and the tensions between tradition and transformation.🧵👇 2/The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Movement

Often outright dismissed or misunderstood by mainstream academia—and by extension, much of the public outside the American South—the Confederate rebellion stands as a singular episode in revolutionary history. At its core, it was an audacious effort to achieve regional secession and assert self-determination, with the ultimate goal of establishing an independent state. While some characterize this endeavor as the creation of a "White ethnostate," such a reduction fails to capture its complexity. The Confederate cause was, fundamentally, a conservative revolution rooted in the defense of an inherited social and political order.

Curiously, the Confederate States of America has been largely overlooked in studies of revolutionary nationalism. This neglect stems from several factors: its short-lived existence, its failure as a state-building project, and the widespread reluctance among modern scholars to view a society built on slavery as worthy of serious revolutionary analysis.

Central to the legal debate surrounding the Confederacy is the question of secession's constitutionality. If secession was legally valid, then the Confederate cause could be framed as the exercise of legitimate rights rather than a revolutionary act. However, when viewed through the lens of historical events, the secession must be understood as revolutionary in ambition, execution, and consequence.

Historian Emory M. Thomas explored this duality in his seminal work, "The Confederacy as a Revolutionary Experience." He argued that Southern leaders, seeking to preserve their antebellum way of life, inadvertently unleashed forces of transformation. The demands of total war reshaped the South’s institutions, creating an internal revolution that transcended their original aims.

To fully grasp the Confederate experiment, one must examine the cultural, political, and ideological foundations that defined the South. This analysis offers valuable insights into the dynamics of revolution and the interplay between tradition and upheaval.

1/ The myth of "Black Cleopatra" is finally destroyed!

For decades, Afrocentrists, court historians, and liberal talking heads have pushed the obviously fake narrative that Cleopatra was Black. The so-called "evidence" backing this claim has finally been DESTROYED. 🧵👇 2/ For anyone with a half a brain not clouded by the absurd ideological fantasies of the "current thing," it’s been clear for a long time that Cleopatra VII—simply Cleopatra to history—was never a "strong, powerful Black woman" of Sub-Saharan African descent.

I’ve covered this extensively on X and elsewhere, pointing out the obvious flaws in the claim, as have many others. Yet, this outright absurdity continues, and despite evidence to the contrary, it will likely persist.

Why? Because of one piece of so-called "scientific evidence"—skeletal fragments found in a tomb in Ephesus, Turkey (ancient Asia Minor).

In 1926, German archaeologists uncovered a burial chamber in Ephesus, containing remains that were initially believed to belong to a young woman.

Much later, in the 1980s, Austrian archaeologist Hilke Thür, in what can only be described as a desperate leap of logic, claimed that this could be the final resting place of Cleopatra’s alleged half-sibling, Arsinoë IV, and that this person had African ancestry. Thür went so far as to argue that the skull exhibited "African qualities," and, by extension, that Cleopatra, being her sister, must have had African heritage as well.

Thür's claim—dubbed the "Tomb of Arsinoë Theory"—has been the "scientific" cornerstone for claims that Cleopatra must’ve had African ancestry; which, of course, contemporaries transformed into the idea that not only did she have African ancestry, but that she was of Sub-Saharan African descent. But it’s all ideological drivel, discredited from the start and now completely debunked.

I previously wrote the following in another thread, based on what we know from history, to explain why this claim is incorrect (with scientific evidence to be presented in post #3).

-The tomb has no inscriptions to identify the occupant.

-The octagonal shape of the tomb doesn’t match Ptolemaic burial traditions.

-The age of the remains contradicts the historical age of Arsinoë IV, who was likely in her mid-to-late 20s when she died.

-The connection between Cleopatra and Arsinoë IV remains unclear, with no definitive proof that they were even related by blood.

In other words, everything Thür presented as "proof" is built on shaky foundations. Despite this, her flawed narrative has been parroted endlessly.

But now, science has finally laid this ideological drivel to rest.

The images below are two very different depictions of Cleopatra. The one on the left is from the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, which was preserved by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. The one on the right is a more recent AI reconstruction.

1/ We could spend all day debating the nature of Western decline. It’s complex, multifaceted, and undeniable. But at its core lies a chilling truth: falling intelligence, collapsing values, and self-destructive ideologies are accelerating the unraveling of our civilization. 🧵👇 2/ The modern West has reached a tipping point. In its zealous pursuit of an ever-distant and never-achieved equality, masquerading under the guise of progress, a darker truth comes to light: the forces shaping the trajectory of Western civilization are not merely misguided but actively maladaptive. This means that what is heralded as advancement—ideological zeal, technological innovation, and a "moral" reordering—has instead sown the seeds of decay. Beneath the glittering facade of "progress" lies a civilization in crisis, where intellectual decline converges with the rise of ideologies that undermine the very foundations of cultural and biological survival.

Few thinkers have dared to dissect this unraveling as unflinchingly as Edward Dutton. An evolutionary psychologist with a penchant for challenging taboos, Dutton has made a career of addressing uncomfortable realities. In "At Our Wit's End," written with Michael Woodley of Menie, Dutton explores the inversion of evolutionary pressures that once fostered intelligence, a defining trait of Western success, now favoring mediocrity. In "Woke Eugenics," co-authored with J. O. A. Rayner-Hilles, Dutton examines the self-destructive tendencies of progressive ideologies, which, under the guise of "justice," promote sterility and fragility, unintentionally removing their acolytes from the gene pool. Together, these works offer a sobering diagnosis of the West’s decline: a genetic and cultural unraveling that few dare to acknowledge.

This essay examines these intertwined crises, using Dutton’s works as a framework to confront the forces shaping our age—and to explore the potential for Western renewal.

1/ Let's dive into Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance"—a book deemed controversial yet rooted in straightforward observations about why people and civilizations differ. 2/ Nicholas Wade is no stranger to controversy. A Cambridge-educated journalist and former science writer for "The New York Times," Wade has long specialized in making complex scientific ideas accessible to a general audience. His 2014 book, "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History," addresses one of the most contentious and taboo topics of our era: the biological reality of race and its impact on the development of human civilizations.

Building on the foundations laid in his earlier works, "Before the Dawn" and "The Faith Instinct," Wade’s third book challenges the dominant liberal-humanist narrative that race is merely a social construct born from "European racism." While Wade doesn’t dwell on this point explicitly, it is implicit in the broader claims he dismantles.

Wade argues that race is the product of ongoing human evolution—"recent, copious, and regional"—with measurable effects on social behaviors, cultures, and the trajectories of civilizations. This thesis is provocative to some, especially the pearl-clutchers, as it challenges what Wade refers to as the "Social Science Creed," a dogma that insists evolution halted in the Paleolithic and that all differences between populations are solely the result of sociocultural factors.

Unsurprisingly, the book faced immediate backlash upon publication, with critics accusing Wade of resurrecting outdated and "dangerous" ideas. For all the outrage, however, "A Troublesome Inheritance" stands as a bold attempt to bring cutting-edge genetic research into the public conversation about history, society, and human biodiversity. For some, Wade’s work asks questions that are uncomfortable but ultimately necessary, positioning itself as a critical entry point for understanding the intersection of nature, culture, and the forces that shape civilizations.

This essay explores Wade’s arguments, not as an endorsement of every conclusion he draws but as a framework for critically examining the interplay between genetics, history, and the future of human society. I will also weave in my own commentary and analysis. Whether one agrees with Wade or not, his willingness to confront forbidden topics makes his work an essential starting point for grappling with the realities of our time.

1/ Let’s talk about collapse. Fires rage in Los Angeles, and no one can put them out—a clear symbol of a civilization unable to solve even its most basic problems. Joseph A. Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" provides a framework to understand why this happens. 2/ Civilizational collapse is no relic of the past or mere curiosity for court historians, whose interests often veer into the irrelevant and removed from the pressing realities of today. Collapse is a recurring phenomenon, an inevitable stage in the life cycle of societies. As the West faces internal fractures and accelerating decline, it is imperative to understand the forces that have undone great civilizations before us.

In "The Collapse of Complex Societies," Joseph A. Tainter provides a framework for analyzing this decline. As an anthropologist, his approach stands apart from the abstractions of historians. Tainter reveals that complexity—vital for societal advancement, particularly in an increasingly globalized and technologized world—carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. Societies that grow increasingly complex invest more in solving problems through administrative, technological, and bureaucratic means, yet these solutions yield diminishing returns. Over time, the cost of maintaining the system outweighs its benefits, creating a tipping point where collapse becomes not just possible but the rational culmination of a managed decline.

The West today is approaching this threshold. Institutions designed to safeguard stability and progress have become engines of inefficiency, consuming resources to sustain themselves while delivering little value. More troubling, however, is the ideological rot at their core.

1/ Jared Taylor once said of his friend Guillaume Faye that his life was "an intellectual history of the New Right and the far bolder Dissident Right." Faye’s works, banned by Amazon, are essential for understanding the future of the West and our people. Let’s discuss 🧵👇 2/ Few figures have had as significant an influence on the European right, or on the rapidly emerging Dissident Right (for lack of a better term), as Guillaume Faye. Jared Taylor, in his foreword to Faye’s "Ethnic Apocalypse" (originally titled "Racial Civil War"), notes that Faye’s life and work encapsulate the intellectual history of both the New Right and the more radical Dissident Right. Despite the name change to avoid censorship, "Ethnic Apocalypse" became the catalyst for the removal of Faye's works from Amazon—like many of his books, it has come to be recognized as a legitimately banned work.

Faye’s work, especially in "Archeofuturism," offers a bold and provocative vision for Europe’s future. Unlike many in our circles, Faye was not preoccupied with the petty and largely ineffective party politics of the day, but with formulating a strategy for the complete transformation of Europe—and by extension, Western civilization.

His scathing, yet accurate, critique of modernity, and his call for the fusion of Europe’s traditional ancestral values—those that made us great—with technological ingenuity, stands as a testament to his far-reaching vision of a reborn Europe. Far from being a mere theoretical exercise, Faye’s ideas present a clear path for those who wish to see Europe thrive—not as a relic of the past, like ancient Greece became under Roman imperial dominance, but as a forward-looking civilization, projecting the time-tested measures of our success into the future. "Archeofuturism" articulates this vision, arguing that Europe must reclaim its destiny by embracing innovation while fiercely defending its cultural and racial heritage against the forces of globalism and demographic transformation.

This essay will explore the life, ideas, and indelible legacy of Guillaume Faye, with particular emphasis on "Archeofuturism." We will examine his critique of modernity, his vision for a united and strong Europe, and his clarion call for the preservation and flourishing of European civilization in the face of the "convergence of catastrophes" he foresaw.

Faye’s work remains a guiding force for those who recognize the urgency of his message amid rapid demographic transformation and the decline of our civilization, and who are dedicated to preserving Europe’s unique identity in an ever-changing world.

D. H. Lawrence famously wrote, "My great religion is a belief in the blood, as the flesh being wiser than the intellect." With this declaration, Lawrence set himself against the cold rationalism of modernity. For him, the intellect had become a tyrant, severing mankind from the vital instincts of the blood, the source of life and meaning. His works sought to restore this connection, not as nostalgic relics of a lost past, but as living forces that could renew the vitality of life itself.

To Lawrence, blood consciousness was the foundation of existence. It was not merely a biological reality but an instinctive, primal awareness that grounded man in the rhythms of the natural world. "We can go wrong in our minds," he wrote, "but what our blood feels and believes and says is always true." The intellect, by contrast, was a secondary force—useful but dangerous when unmoored from the deeper truths of the flesh. For Lawrence, the blood had a wisdom of its own, untarnished by the distortions of abstract thought, and it was this wisdom that modern man had lost in his pursuit of progress.

Lawrence viewed modernity as a betrayal of life itself. He saw the industrial age, with its machines and its insistence on equality, as fundamentally hostile to the instincts and passions that give life its richness. In Studies in Classic American Literature, he argued that America, in its quest to destroy kings, lords, and masters, had "pushed a pin right through its own body" with the ideal of equality. For Lawrence, such egalitarianism flattened the natural hierarchy that sustains life, replacing excellence with mediocrity and vitality with a lifeless uniformity. Political equality was tolerable, but social and intellectual equality, he believed, were grotesque distortions that stifled human potential.

Lawrence’s disdain for equality was matched by his rejection of isolation. In Studies in Classic American Literature, he described the paradox of life as being both individual and communal. "The central law of all organic life," he wrote, "is that each organism is intrinsically isolate and single in itself." Yet isolation, if absolute, leads to death. Life thrives on contact, on the breaking down of barriers between individuals—but only to a point. Too much contact, too much breakdown, results in disintegration. This tension between isolation and communion was, for Lawrence, the essence of life itself, and modern society, with its overreach into both atomization and forced connection, had failed to maintain the balance. Art, for Lawrence, was the medium through which this balance could be restored. He believed that the function of art was moral—not in a didactic sense, but in a visceral one. "The essential function of art is moral," he wrote, "but a passionate, implicit morality, not didactic. A morality which changes the blood, rather than the mind." For Lawrence, great art did not instruct; it transformed. It stirred the blood, awakening the instincts and reconnecting man to the primal forces that modern life sought to suppress. His own works, from Lady Chatterley’s Lover to The Plumed Serpent, were written not to entertain or educate but to provoke, to challenge, and to ignite.

This belief in the transformative power of art extended to his critique of American literature. Lawrence saw in figures like Hawthorne, Poe, and Melville a deep unease with the morality they had inherited. They attacked this old morality sensuously, passionately, but clung to it intellectually, creating a duplicity that Lawrence viewed as the fatal flaw of American art. Yet he admired their struggle, recognizing in it the same tension between isolation and communion, blood and intellect, that defined life itself.

At the heart of Lawrence’s philosophy was a rejection of the mechanization of man. He saw the industrial age as stripping man of his soul, reducing him to a cog in the machine of progress. Modern man, he argued, had become a creature without a soul, driven only by ego and will. This loss of soul did not incapacitate him; it made him dangerous. A soulless man could think and act with terrifying efficiency, but his thoughts and actions were divorced from the instincts and values that ground life in meaning. This, for Lawrence, was the true horror of modernity: a civilization capable of progressing and regressing at the same time.

Lawrence’s belief in the blood was not a rejection of the spirit but a critique of its distortion. He understood the human longing for spiritual gratification but saw in modern society a warped expression of this desire. "The root of all evil," he wrote, "is that we want this spiritual gratification… continually." For Lawrence, this unceasing demand for satisfaction, divorced from resistance and struggle, led not to fulfillment but to corruption. True spiritual connection, like life itself, required balance—a harmony between isolation and communion, blood and spirit, struggle and surrender.

D. H. Lawrence’s works remain a challenge to the sterile abstractions of the modern world. His belief in blood consciousness, in the wisdom of the flesh, and in the moral power of art offers a counterpoint to the lifeless systems of equality, industrialism, and mechanization. For Lawrence, the path forward lay not in the intellect alone but in the instincts, the passions, and the eternal rhythms of life. His vision is not a retreat into the past but a reclamation of what has always been essential—the blood, the spirit, and the balance that sustains them both.

1/ We are living through an interregnum—a moment of collapse and rebirth, where old orders crumble and the possibility of renewal emerges. In this chaos, metapolitics becomes the battlefield, for culture must be won before territory can be reclaimed.

Metapolitics 🧵👇 2/ Guillaume Faye describes metapolitics as:

"An effort of propaganda – not necessarily that of a specific party – that diffuses an ideological body of ideas representing a global political project. Metapolitics is the indispensable complement to every direct form of political action, though in no case can it or should it replace such action."

This definition captures the essence of metapolitics: a battle fought not in the streets but in the realm of ideas, a strategy for shaping the soul of a civilization. It is neither the fleeting appeal of propaganda nor the detached contemplation of political philosophy, but a profound and deliberate effort to influence the culture, values, and principles that form the foundation of society. Metapolitics does not merely respond to the present; it prepares the future, reshaping the intellectual and spiritual currents that define what is possible.

At its core, metapolitics informs politics. It establishes the cultural framework within which politics unfolds, shaping what people consider possible, desirable, or even thinkable. The much-cited Overton Window—the shifting boundaries of acceptable discourse—moves only through metapolitical work. By embedding principles and assumptions into the culture, metapolitics redefines the boundaries of public thought, laying the groundwork for profound political change.

For the Right, this task is especially daunting. While the Left has long mastered the art of metapolitical struggle, advancing society toward ever greater egalitarianism and conformity with modernity’s trajectory, the Right must move against this current. It must restore hierarchy, affirm natural distinctions, and resist the dissolution of order and tradition. This is not merely a cultural struggle but a civilizational one, demanding clarity of purpose and unwavering resolve.

1/ For decades, we’ve treated symptoms, not the disease. The issue isn’t just the latest horrors—it’s the total collapse of Western leadership. Those in power lack virtue and allegiance to us. This is the decay of a world adrift, where true aristocracy has been abandoned. 🧵👇 2/ The decline of the Western world has many causes: anti-White animus, the short-sighted myopia of electoral cycles, inter-ethnic rivalries, and more. This essay addresses a more far-reaching issue—the failure of leadership, how much of today’s absurdities and dysfunction stem from this fundamental collapse, and the outright betrayal it represents.

Why are those who rule us neither the "best" nor, in many cases, even of us? To understand this failure, we must look beyond the modern era and revisit an older, deeper conception of leadership: the idea that those who govern should be the best among us, chosen not by wealth or popularity but by virtue and excellence.

Friedrich Nietzsche offers a powerful critique of leadership and governance in the modern world, contrasting it with the ideal captured by the term "Aristocratic Radicalism." In his correspondence with the 19th-century Danish scholar Georg Brandes, Nietzsche praised the phrase, which Brandes had coined to describe Nietzsche’s uniquely aristocratic outlook on life. Nietzsche, with his background in classical philology, called it "the cleverest thing I have yet read about myself."

Unlike modern notions of aristocracy, Nietzsche’s conception of the "aristocratic," and his worldview on most things, was firmly rooted in the world of ancient Greece. It represented the rule of the best—men of action who did what needed to be done for the good of those they governed.

Originally, the term aristocracy came from the Greek words ἄριστος ("aristos" – excellent) and κράτος ("kratos" – power), forming the idea of rule by the excellent. It stands in polar opposition to rule by the masses. The literal translation is "rule by the excellent," as opposed to "rule by the masses," commonly associated with democracy. This opposition presents a clear dichotomy, which Nietzsche expounds upon in "The Will to Power."

1/ Jared Taylor is no stranger to controversy, having faced it for years. With his return to X, it’s more important than ever to explore what exactly makes him so "controversial" and why his ideas provoke such intense reactions. 🧵👇 2/ The Philosophy of American Renaissance

For decades, Jared Taylor has led American Renaissance, an organization founded on three key principles:

-Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity.

-Racial differences and conflicts lie at the core of many challenges facing the West.

-Understanding race, particularly its role in these conflicts, is essential to solving the deeper issues facing Western nations.

Given the current demographic shifts in the Western world—particularly in the United States, transitioning from a majority-European, White nation to a multicultural, multiracial society—Taylor’s beliefs have become increasingly contentious.

This, coupled with America’s ideological commitment to radical "equality" and "egalitarianism"—that is, ideology over reality—makes the discussion of race fraught with tension.

1/ In Oswald Spengler's final work, "The Hour of Decision," he warns of the "Colored Revolution," a global uprising fueled by hatred of the White race. Let's discuss! 🧵👇
2/ As Western Civilization staggers under the weight of its own pacifism and decadence, rising non-White populations move with intent—to shatter its dominance and claim power.

Spengler names this upheaval "hatred of the White race and an unconditional determination to destroy it," a force boundless in its reach, transcending nations and ideologies. It is no mere rebellion against colonialism or economics but a deeper, existential assault on the survival of the West itself.

Spengler observes how the Colored Revolution assumes varied forms: "national, economic, social." Revolts against White colonial governments, attacks on aristocratic elites, and opposition to economic systems like "the power of the pound or the dollar" all serve as masks for a deeper purpose. At its core, Spengler asserts, lies a shared goal: the overthrow of White dominance. "The great historical question," he writes, "is whether the fall of the White powers will be brought about or not."

This insight is prophetic in today’s world. The forms Spengler identified—nationalist uprisings, economic warfare, and social agitation—are alive in movements aimed at dismantling Western influence. Anti-colonial narratives dominate global institutions, while economic redistribution, veiled as "justice," disproportionately targets Western wealth. Socially, Western history and culture are demonized as oppressive, fueling calls to "decolonize" everything from education to public spaces.

The unifying factor, as Spengler foresaw, is not the grievances themselves but the target: Western civilization. These movements are driven by resentment, not reform—a hatred that sees the West not as a flawed power but as one that must be eradicated. Spengler’s "great historical question" remains urgent: Will the West rise to confront this challenge, or descend further into submission?

1/ Let's dive into the fantastic book, "White Identity."

A Thread 🧵👇 2/ Now that Jared Taylor (@RealJarTaylor) is back on X, it’s a perfect time to revisit the essential themes of his groundbreaking 2011 work, "White Identity."

Written over a decade ago, this book remains highly relevant and cuts through the modern delusions surrounding race and identity, offering a sobering and much-needed corrective to the prevailing narrative that casts White identity as a threat rather than a natural and vital part of human existence.

Taylor’s analysis is a clear rebuttal to the multiculturalist fantasies of a harmonious society devoid of racial awareness. He makes a compelling case for the fact that racial consciousness is not only inevitable but an essential part of human nature, especially for Whites, who have been systematically stripped of their cultural identity in the name of progressive values.

Since time immemorial, identity, and thus identity politics, have always been the norm, not the exception. As we face a future increasingly divided along racial lines, it is more important than ever to understand the issues Taylor raises. His work isn't just a critique of liberal policies—it’s a demand for the preservation of White identity, which, if ignored, will inevitably lead to its destruction. It’s time to take these lessons seriously and push back against the forces seeking to erase our heritage.

1/ The Uniqueness of American Ethnogenesis

American identity arose as European settlers set aside Old World divisions, united by the realization that their shared bonds outweighed those of the "others" around them. Let’s discuss. 🧵👇 2/ A Very Brief Introduction

Every nation is a story, and the story of America’s ethnogenesis is unlike that of any other. In Europe, national identities were formed over centuries, rooted in tribal bonds, medieval statecraft, and the organic evolution of ethnic cores. America, by contrast, was born on a blank slate—a crucible of colonial life and racial conflict. While European nations were defined by their ancient ethnic particularities, America’s identity coalesced around a shared racial consciousness.

This racial consciousness, forged in the presence of non-Whites and under the shadow of the frontier, transcended the ethnic distinctions of Europe. It elevated a diverse mix of European settlers into a single people: White Americans. Yet, this process of ethnogenesis, which gave birth to a unique national identity, now faces an existential threat. The modern liberal-managerial state, driven by universalist ideologies, seeks to erase the organic bonds of kinship and culture that define a nation, replacing them with the sterile abstraction of a "propositional" identity.

The history of America’s ethnogenesis is not merely an academic curiosity—it is the key to understanding what it means to be American. To defend this legacy is to defend the very existence of the American people.

1/ For nearly 175 years, America was an explicitly ethnonationalist project, forged by Anglo-Saxons and northern Europeans, and inhabited almost exclusively by Europeans.

https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1873776085546254481

2/ The notion that America was conceived as a raceless experiment is a modern distortion, one that disregards the explicit intentions of its founders. From the beginning, America was the product of a specific people, bound by shared history, culture, and heritage.

Early laws, policies, and practices reflected the reality that the American nation was built by and for Europeans. The Naturalization Act of 1790, one of the first major pieces of legislation, explicitly reserved citizenship for “free white persons.” This was not a one-off measure but a reflection of a broader political consensus that saw the United States as a homeland for Europeans. It wasn’t until the 20th century that America began to deviate from this foundation, fundamentally altering the character of the country.

The Immigration Act of 1924, for example, favored Northern European immigrants and sharply restricted those from Southern and Eastern Europe, while completely barring immigration from Asia. These policies were not just about immigration control—they were meant to preserve the ethnic and cultural identity of the United States. The very fabric of the nation was understood to be European, and these policies reinforced the idea that America was a home for the descendants of the European settlers.

The founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence, framed ideals of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, these ideals were never intended to apply universally to all races or peoples. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal,” he was not establishing an egalitarian framework for all humanity, but asserting the rights of American colonists—Englishmen, by descent—to the same liberties as those in Britain. The Declaration was grounded in the cultural and racial context of the European settlers, asserting their entitlement to self-governance and liberty, not a universal doctrine of racial equality.

The phrase “for our posterity,” used in the Constitution further reinforces this point. It was meant to refer specifically to the descendants of those European settlers, people bound by shared values, culture, and heritage. To reinterpret this as a call for universal equality is not only a distortion of the founders’ intent, but also an erasure of the ethnonational roots upon which America was built.

As the decades passed, America began to stray from these foundational principles. The policies that once preserved the nation’s ethnic identity were replaced by a misguided devotion to "diversity" and "inclusion"—values that ignore the historical truths of America’s creation. Rejecting America’s ethnic foundations is to deny what once made the nation strong and cohesive.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, marked the decisive shift in America’s identity—from an ethnonationalist state to a multicultural one. The Act abolished the National Origins Formula, which had prioritized European immigration, and opened the floodgates to mass immigration from Asia, Latin America, and Africa. This shift drastically altered the nation’s demographic composition, setting the stage for the mass immigration policies that continue to transform the country today.

America was never meant to be a blank slate for the world’s peoples to come and create a new society without regard to cultural continuity. Its exceptionalism was always based on the preservation of a distinct national identity—a product of its European origins. The founders knew that liberty and self-governance could only thrive within a society grounded in a specific cultural and racial foundation. To deny this is to erase the very essence of what made America exceptional.

The belief in universal rights and freedoms, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, was never intended to apply to all of humanity. It was meant for the descendants of those who created the United States—people of European descent, who shared a common history, culture, and identity. To ignore this is to overlook the core of what made America great.

The modern reinterpretation of America’s founding as a raceless, abstract experiment in universal ideals is a distortion of history that undermines the true nature of the country’s identity. As the nation continues to move further away from its original purpose, the consequences of abandoning its ethnonational roots become clearer to anyone with eyes to see. Only by acknowledging this truth can we begin to understand America’s exceptionalism and reclaim its rightful place in the world today. Long live the glorious Republic!

1/ Given the absurdity of the term "woke right," let's move past the modern mislabeling and examine the true vision of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson’s beliefs on governance and society reflect a worldview that sharply contrasts with the political confusion of today. 🧵👇 2/ Jefferson's Vision: Hierarchy, Virtue, and Natural Distinctions

To understand Jefferson’s vision of America, we must reject the contemporary distortion of his beliefs and look at his writings with historical clarity. Jefferson was not a champion of the universal, colorblind equality that modern ideologies espouse, nor was he an advocate for an all-encompassing social justice. His ideas were rooted in the belief that society should be organized around natural distinctions—whether based on virtue, intellect, or race. His concept of equality was not the flattening of society into indistinguishable individuals but a recognition of the inherent differences among men, both in capability and character.

The phrase “all men are created equal,” often misinterpreted and weaponized in modern discourse, was not Jefferson’s call for universal egalitarianism but a statement about the natural rights of individuals. Jefferson was drawing on the long-established concept of the natural rights of Englishmen—the belief that all individuals are entitled to certain freedoms, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was a direct challenge to the hereditary aristocracies and monarchies of Europe, which denied these basic rights to many people. Jefferson’s assertion was that all men were equally entitled to these natural rights and should not be subjected to arbitrary rule, not that all men were equal in terms of their abilities, intellect, or social position.

Jefferson believed that every man possessed an innate moral sense, an ability to reason and govern oneself. However, he did not believe this applied to all men in the same way, nor did he think that all races could cohabit in a single society on equal footing. For Jefferson, the natural order was one that recognized differences in intellectual, moral, and physical capacities between people. His idea of equality was not one that removed these distinctions but acknowledged them within a framework that would enable a society to function harmoniously.

This understanding of equality led Jefferson to his belief in the “natural aristocracy”—a concept that sharply contrasted with both the Old World’s hereditary aristocracy and modern, mass democratic ideals. Jefferson argued that society must have leaders who rose not from birthright, but from merit, virtue, and intellect. The “natural aristocracy” would govern society in a way that respected the interests of the people, with those selected for leadership being those best equipped to make decisions in the public’s interest. This was a deeply hierarchical vision of society, where leadership was based on ability, not on the whims of democracy or the false equality of all people.

The image on the left is a neoclassical rendering of Jefferson, reflecting his admiration for classical civilization. On the right is an image of Jefferson, littered with pejoratives, part of an activist project aimed at having his monument removed from the University of Missouri.

Relatedly, in the first post, we have Thomas Jefferson on the left, and on the right, his alleged, but not actual descendant, Shannon Lanier. The claim that Lanier is a descendant of Jefferson and his enslaved woman Sally Hemings has been widely disputed and disproven through genetic testing and historical analysis. Despite long-standing speculation, modern DNA evidence has shown no direct descent from Jefferson, debunking the persistent narrative.