If WE LOSE America, this is a GOOD BOOK to read and understand WHAT TO DO.

WE ARE THE WOLVES... Also, a real banned book

Say what you will about J.D. Vance, but the fact that he's read Carl Schmitt and understands that politics is about power and its ruthless pursuit is a good thing.

More often than not, Conservatism, Inc. shoots itself in the foot by taking "principled stances" that ultimately fail to conserve anything. They cling to antiquated ideals and refuse to engage in the realpolitik necessary to effect tangible change, leaving them perpetually on the defensive and on the losing side of history.

Instead of wielding power to manifest their political will, they end up ceding ground to political adversaries who are unencumbered by such scruples.

This cowardice and naivety in recognizing and adapting to the actual reality of the political struggle is why they continue to lose ground on all sides. They'd rather lose honorably than win with grit, making them the perfect doormats for those who actually understand how to play the game.

If we want to win, and I'm not just talking about the next election, we need to start doing what's necessary to emerge victorious.
As Guillaume Faye wrote: "Today it is not a matter of 'conserving' the present or returning to a recent past that has failed, but rather of regaining possession of our most archaic roots, which is to say those most suited to the victorious life."

No political candidate is perfect, and our focus shouldn't be on ideals but on what can be achieved. To paraphrase Bismarck, politics is the art of the possible. The real question is: Can Vance be instrumentalized to help us reclaim our "victorious" roots and serve OUR interests?

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."


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.

This was and is very controversial The excerpt is from the book, "The Children of Ra: Artistic, Historical and Genetic Evidence for Ancient White Egypt" by Arthur Kemp.

A Description of the Book:

A comprehensive overview of the long-debated question of what race were the Ancient Egyptians—finally answered through a thorough study of the historical record, Egyptian art, images of mummies, and new dramatic DNA evidence.

Ra was the sun god of ancient Egypt, and part of the religion of that culture was a belief that the pharaohs were descended from him. The sun god was depicted with an eagle’s head and a human body, with the sun sitting on its head—thus the association of red and blond hair with royalty among the ancient Egyptians.

Lavishly illustrated with over 106 full color pictures, DNA evidence and a complete historical overview, this book proves that white people created the initial Egyptian civilization—and that ancient Egypt culture came to an end once those people had been bred out of existence.

Contains the dramatic DNA evidence which shows that Tutankhamun was of the same racial stock as present-day western Europeans, and the astonishing results of the largest-ever DNA testing of Egyptian mummies by scientists at the University of Tuebingen—which revealed that the Ancient Egyptians were closely related to present-day Europeans.

A vital work for all those fascinated by Ancient Egypt and the origins of that civilization.

Also contains a detailed Egyptian history timeline to explain how this white-founded society was overrun, and how this process led to the extinction of this greatest of the ancient civilisations—a somber warning to today’s West.

Roman Collapse - A Brief Essay

As Auguste Comte wrote, "Demography is destiny."

Culture flows down the proverbial stream from race. Replace the people, and you replace the culture they produce. A people's culture reflects their collective selves, a product of their unique evolutionary and historical pasts.

Returning to your comments on Christianity, and as stated in the initial brief post, collapse is multifactorial in terms of causation, with many factors contributing to collapse as a phenomenon. Joseph Tainter discusses the collapse of complex societies in his excellent and aptly titled book, "The Collapse of Complex Societies." Tainter's main assertion is that once a complex society is unable to solve simple problems, it disintegrates. Like Rome, we are witnessing this type of collapse in America and throughout Western civilization more broadly. Multiracial societies struggle to form a consensus because different and competing groups seek different objectives. When a consensus cannot be reached, societal problems remain unsolved, leading to an increasing plurality of issues. This lack of consensus breeds inertia, which propagates collapse.

Your "educated friend" is referring to the rise of intolerance toward paganism from a Christianity ascendant, which was a long and grueling process. Constantine, who may or may not have been a genuine Christian, was presumably baptized by an Arian bishop (a type of Christianity later deemed heretical). He began what some modern-day academics call the "Constantinian Shift," not just a move toward freedom from persecution for Christians, but an alliance between the State and the Church, leading to a kind of Caesaropapism. Constantine died in 337 AD, but paganism was effectively outlawed in the Roman Empire by a series of edicts issued by later emperors. The pivotal moment came with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, issued by Emperor Theodosius I, which declared Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Theodosius went further in 391-392 AD with the "Theodosian Decrees," which explicitly banned pagan rituals and practices, leading to the illegality of paganism.

Christianity was initially a slave religion of the underclass, with its earliest adherents being of Levantine origin. This is not to say that Christianity was not transformed by European peoples. James C. Russell dubbed this transformation the "Germanization of Christianity." Russell's theory posits that as Christianity spread into the Roman Empire's Germanic territories, it was significantly influenced by Germanic culture and values. This ethnocultural exchange led to a unique form of Christianity that integrated aspects of Germanic traditions, reshaping the religion into a force compatible with the social, political, and biological structures of medieval Europe.

I would point out that the Roman collapse began in earnest in the late Republic, during the transition from the Republic to the Empire. It was the territorial expansion of Rome that ushered in vast hordes of material wealth and diverse peoples, initially largely as slaves, which planted the seeds of collapse. The dissolution of the Roman yeoman class via the destruction of small-scale farms for the giant slave-backed latifundia farming system, followed by the widespread manumission of non-Roman/non-European peoples, led to a monumental transformation in demography. From this, a series of interrelated issues arose: from a decreasing loyalty to the State, to currency devaluation, and beyond.

Recent genomic evidence suggests that the Roman Republic was built by native Italians and Europeans, but that Imperial Rome underwent a dramatic demographic transformation due to an influx of peoples from Anatolia and the Levant. This shift began during the Principate (Early Roman Empire): 27 BC – 284 AD, but it was during the Dominate (Late Roman Empire): 284 AD – 476 AD that this process kicked into high gear.

It bears repeating: Demography is destiny. This was a reply, slightly reformatted, to a statement made by someone in this post:

https://x.com/CCrowley100/status/1806900677748355105?t=DNWoelerify3yRDVhIr0-Q&s=19

1/ Guillaume Faye on Nietzsche:

Faye is asked, "How important is Nietzsche for you?":

"Reading Nietzsche has been the departure point for all values and ideas I developed later. In 1967, when I was a pupil of the Jesuits in Paris, something incredible happened in philosophy class. In that citadel of Catholicism, the philosophy teacher decided to do a year-long course on Nietzsche! Exeunt Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and others. The good fathers did not dare say anything, despite the upheaval in the program.

It marked me, believe me. Nietzsche, or the hermeneutics of suspicion. . . . Thus, very young, I distanced myself from the Christian, or rather “Christianomorphic,” view of the world. And of course, at the same time, from egalitarianism and humanism. All the analyses that I developed later were inspired by the insights of Nietzsche. But it was also in my nature.

Later, much later, just recently, I understood the need to complete the principles of Nietzsche with those of Aristotle, the good old Apollonian Greek, a pupil of Plato, whom he respected as well as criticized. There is for me an obvious philosophical affinity between Aristotle and Nietzsche: the refusal of metaphysics and idealism, and, crucially, the challenge to the idea of divinity. Nietzsche’s “God is dead” is the counterpoint to Aristotle’s motionless and unconscious god, which is akin to a mathematical principle governing the universe.

Only Aristotle and Nietzsche, separated by many centuries, denied the presence of a self-conscious god without rejecting the sacred, but the latter is akin to a purely human exaltation based on politics or art.

Nevertheless, Christian theologians have never been bothered by Aristotle, but were very much so by Nietzsche. Why? Because Aristotle was pre-Christian and could not know Revelation. While Nietzsche, by attacking Christianity, knew exactly what he was doing.

Nevertheless, the Christian response to this atheism is irrefutable and deserves a good philosophical debate: faith is a different domain than the reflections of philosophers and remains a mystery. I remember, when I was with the Jesuits, passionate debates between my Nietzschean atheist philosophy teacher and the good fathers (his employers) sly and tolerant, sure of themselves." 2/ Faye is asked, "What book by Nietzsche would you recommend?":

"The first one I read was 'The Gay Science.' It was a shock. Then 'Beyond Good and Evil,' where Nietzsche overturns the Manichean moral rules that come from Socrates and Christianity. 'The Antichrist,' it must be said, inspired the whole anti-Christian discourse of the neo-pagan Right, in which I was obviously heavily involved.

But it should be noted that Nietzsche, who was raised Lutheran, had rebelled against Christian morality in its purest form represented by German Protestantism, but he never really understood the religiosity and the faith of traditional Catholics and Orthodox Christians, which is quite unconnected to secularized Christian morality.

Oddly, I was never excited by 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra.' For me, it is a rather confused work, in which Nietzsche tried to be a prophet and a poet but failed. A bit like Voltaire, who believed himself clever in imitating the tragedies of Corneille. Voltaire, an author who, moreover, has spawned ideas quite contrary to this 'philosophy of the Enlightenment' that Nietzsche (alone) had pulverized."

1/ The popular assertion that ancient Greek society openly embraced homosexuality, especially pederasty as it is scandalously defined today, is a gross misrepresentation peddled by a sundry of characters for a multitude of insidious reasons.

The conventional understanding is that in ancient Greece, homosexual behavior was both more accepted and prevalent than in the Christian West, with pederasty, in particular, being a common practice among the elites.

I find the above notions utterly disturbing and illogical.

The underlying assumption seems to be that homosexuality is natural, and thus the ancient Greeks did not repress these so-called "natural" urges.

However, there is another more disquieting and insidious aspect to this propaganda:

Ancient Greece is the cradle, the literal birthplace of Western civilization; thus, the repeated assertion that the sexual norms of Greece were fundamentally different from those of the traditional West is weaponized to sever our continuity with this heritage in the present.

Additionally, there's the implication that Greek society's openness to sexual deviancy prevented repression, enabling gifted men to reach their maximum potential—a reflection of our tendency to psychoanalyze historical behaviors.

This subtly implies that in the contemporary West, if we allow and encourage our youth to be "who they were born to be," i.e., promoting sexual deviance, then the West will once again be great.

In a familiar manner, this line of thinking aims to psychologize and thus pathologize the traditional morality of the Christian West. But the fact is that, even in the contemporary, post-Christian-West, in which traditional morality is everywhere under assault and "perversity" on the verge of wholesale institutional approval, homosexuality remains uncommon.

The crux of this brief essay will be to examine and refute the purported widespread prevalence of homosexuality in the ancient Greek world, with special emphasis on discussing the institution of the paiderastía (commonly referred to as pederasty today).

We will delve into both topics in the threads below.
2/ Most modern definitions of pederasty describe it as "sexual activity between a man and a boy or youth."

The ubiquity of this historical-etymological distortion is so widespread that we are led to believe many of the greatest figures of ancient Greece—whether real or mythical—were all either pederasts or homosexuals of some kind, or both. Allegedly, this includes towering figures such as Solon, Socrates, Sophocles, Alexander the Great, Aeschylus, Alcibiades, Achilles, and the Theban Sacred Band (which may not have even existed). Many of the Olympian gods are also said to have exhibited similar homosexual traits or characteristics.

In reality, the much-maligned ancient institution of pederasty is misrepresented for a number of reasons, as outlined in the first part of this essay. Contrary to the prevalent modern view, pederasty in Classical Greece was not characterized by homosexual sex but was an educational mentorship where young men were guided and taught by older citizens. A number of ancient commentators, like Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plato, among others, wrote disdainfully of instances where pederasty was exploited by the elite for homosexual relations, which was considered akin to paedophilia.

However, this has not stopped modern academics, such as K.J. Dover (see my previous essay) and more recently Emily Wilson (and her awful, woefully inaccurate translation of the Homeric dyad), from inaccurately framing pederasty as a type of lecherously exploitative homosexual relationship, or from promoting the idea that homosexuality as a whole was normalized in the ancient world.

Certainly, some may argue that homosexuality was primarily an elite phenomenon in the ancient world, akin to the audience for the written word. When evaluating the social acceptability or lack thereof of homosexuality and pederasty as it is currently defined and distorted, it is important to distinguish among the attitudes of the law, the lower classes, and the upper classes.

It is conceivable, for example, that the law may have penalized the practice even as artists and philosophers—those who aspire to metapolitically shape and transform society, like Plato—may have seemingly sought to idealize it, even for the purpose of serving as a literary or metaphorical device.

However, this WOULD NOT appear to be the case.

There is more than ample evidence to suggest that homosexuality was widely deemed unacceptable: it was penalized by law and condemned by all social strata, including philosophers such as Plato in his final work, "Laws."

Interrelatedly, if the paiderastía and similar institutions were indeed timeless traditions stretching back into prehistory, as they were, practiced by a host of interrelated peoples including many of the Indo-European groups (such as the ancient Persians, Greeks, and Romans), then it should also be reasoned that the institution was not overly sexualized, let alone homosexual in nature or practice.

In the discussions below, we will explore a variety of ancient sources and examine how homosexuality was not socially acceptable and that the paiderastía was not a perverse institution of "man-boy" love.

The Greeks and Romans were not gay.

1/ The grossly misguided notion that Classical Greece, along with the broader Classical world, was some kind of homosexual utopia, burst into cultural consciousness in the 1970s, chiefly propelled by K.J. Dover's poorly researched work, "Greek Homosexuality."

The book, along with the preposterous notion that homosexuality was pervasive throughout the Greco-Roman world, has been discredited by discerning scholars still capable of critical thinking and objectivity. They have extensively critiqued this particular book for its baseless assertions about the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Greece, purportedly supported by an analysis of 80,000 shards of ancient pottery. Out of these, only 30 pieces — a mere 0.0375% — display imagery that could be interpreted as homosexual in nature.

Furthermore, the majority of these "homosexual" pieces feature satyrs, creatures known for their hedonistic behavior, which renders such depictions contextually appropriate; thus, they were metaphorical or religious rather than literal in nature.

The Classical Greeks did not have a word for homosexuality as we do today because the modern concept of "homosexual love" did not exist until the modern era.

They did, however, use the word "kinaidos" to describe homosexual acts or cross-dressing.

Etymologically, "kinaidos" (κίναιδος) directly translates to "effeminate," but was also used to denote "one who causes shame" or a "catamite," and was associated with invoking the disfavor of Aidos, the goddess of shame, modesty, and respect. It was also an intentionally offensive and religiously impious word for an "effeminate love" that upset the gods and the natural order. The Roman Latin equivalent was "cinaedus." 2/ In fourth-century BC Athens, the orator Demosthenes was labeled a kinaidos in the courtroom by his opponent Aeschines in an attempt to besmirch his masculinity and accuse him of shameless conduct. Aeschines also ascribed to Demosthenes the nickname "Batalos" ("arse"), attributing it to his "unmanliness and kinaidia," and frequently derided his "unmanly and womanish temper," even going so far as to criticize his effeminate style of dress. 

In Plato's "Gorgias," the "life of the kinaidoi" is presented as the quintessential example of hedonistic and degenerate living. 

Roman writers provide more details about what they considered wretched about the cinaedus' behavior: Catullus, Martial, and Juvenal all portray cinaedi as desiring sexual penetration by other men and often displaying extreme effeminacy.

Of course, many modern "academics" will bring up the much-maligned ancient institution of pederasty, but current conceptualizations of this age-old practice reflect contemporary perversions rather than historical realities. Contrary to popular modern belief, pederasty in Classical Greece did not entail sexual relations. It was an educational relationship where young men were mentored by older citizens.

Historians like Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plato, among others, wrote disdainfully of instances where pederasty was exploited by the elite for homosexual relations, which was considered akin to paedophilia. In his "Symposium," Plato mentioned that some parents would hire bodyguards to prevent such abuses.

For instance, Xenophon, a contemporary of Plato and fellow student of Socrates, condemned pederastic relationships that were tainted by homosexual activities as unacceptable and an "unnatural lust," a view shared by Plato, who believed such relationships were shameful.

The ancient Roman historian Claudius Aelianus noted that lewdness and sexual activity between men were not accepted in Sparta, as they were thought to bring shame. The penalties for such acts were severe, including death or exile.

Of course, this is not to say that homosexuality or pedophilia did not exist, but rather that they were not as widespread or deemed acceptable as current scholarly discourse would have us believe. Projecting contemporary moralities and worldviews onto the past, what historians call historical anachronism, says more about the degeneracy of the present rather than the reality of the past.

The German Conservative
Revolution - Part VI - Radicalism and Nationalism: Jünger and Niekisch:

Ernst Jünger:

Ernst Jünger is well-known for his work on what he saw as the positive effects of warfare and battle, with himself having experienced these in World War I. Jünger rejected the bourgeois civilization of comfort and security, which he saw as weak and dying, in favor of the hardening and “magnificent” experience of action and adventure in war, which would transform a man of the bourgeois world into a “warrior.” The warrior type battled “against the eternal Utopia of peace, the pursuit of happiness, and perfection.”

Jünger believed that the crisis and restlessness of Germans after the World War was essentially a good thing.

In his book, "Der Arbeiter" ("The Worker"), the "warrior” was followed by the “worker,” a new type which would become dominant after the end of the bourgeois order. Jünger had realized that modern technology was changing the world; the individual man was losing his individuality and freedom in a mechanized world. Thus, he anticipated a society in which people would accept anonymity in the masses and obedient service to the state; the population would undergo “total mobilization.”

To quote Jünger:

"Total Mobilization is far less consummated than it consummates itself; in war and peace, it expresses the secret and inexorable claim to which our life in the age of masses and machines subjects us. It thus turns out that each individual life becomes, ever more unambiguously, the life of a worker; and that, following the wars of knights, kings, and citizens, we now have wars of workers. The first great twentieth-century conflict has offered us a presentiment of both their rational structure and their mercilessness."

Ernst Jünger’s acceptance of technology in the “worker” stage stands somewhat in contrast to the position taken by his brother, Friedrich Georg Jünger, who wrote critiques of modern technological civilization (although Ernst would later in life agree with this view).

Ernst Jünger later changed in his attitudes during World War II, and afterwards nearly inverted his entire worldview, praising peace and individualism; a change which had not come without criticism from the Right.

Ernst Niekisch:

Another notable radical nationalist in the Conservative Revolution was Ernst Niekisch, who began as a Communist but eventually turned to a seemingly paradoxical mixture of German nationalism and Russian communism: National Bolshevism. In accordance with this new doctrine, Niekisch advocated an alliance between Soviet Russia and Germany in order to overcome the Versailles Treaty as well as to counter the power of the capitalist and anti-nationalist Western nations. However, this deviant faction, in competition with both Communists and anti-Communist nationalists, remained an unsuccessful minority.
The German Conservative
Revolution - Part VII - The True State:

Othmar Spann & the Unified State:

Othmar Spann was, from 1919 to 1938, a professor at the University of Vienna in Austria who was influential but who, despite his enthusiastic support for National Socialism, was removed by the Third Reich government due to a few ideological disagreements.

He was the exponent of a theory known as “Universalism” (which is entirely different from universalism in the normal sense of the term). His Universalist view of economics, politics, society, and science was expounded in numerous books, the most important of which was his most memorable work, "Der wahre Staat" (“The True State”).

Spann’s Universalism was a corporatist theory which rejected individualism. To understand Spann’s rejection of individualism it is necessary to understand what “individualism” is because different and even contradictory definitions are given to that term; individualism here refers to the concept that the individual is absolute and no supra-individual reality exists (and therefore, society is nothing more than a collection of atoms). The reader must be aware that Spann did not make a complete denial of the individual, but rather a complete denial of individualist ideology.

According to Universalist theory, the individual exists only within a particular community or society; the whole (the totality of society) precedes the parts (individuals) because the parts do not truly exist independent from the whole.

Spann wrote, “It is the fundamental truth of all social science . . . that it is not the individuals that are the truly real, but the whole, and that the individuals have reality and existence only so far as they are members of the whole.”

Furthermore, society and the State were not entirely separable, because from the State comes the rights of the individual, family, and other groups. Liberalism, capitalism, democracy, and Marxian socialism were all rejected by Spann as individualist or materialist and corrupt products of French Revolutionary ideas. Whereas in past societies the individual was integrated into community, modern life with its liberalism had atomized society. According to Spann, “Mankind can reconcile itself to poverty because it will be and remain poor forever. But to the loss of estate, existential insecurity, uprootedness, and nothingness, the masses of affected people can never reconcile themselves.”

As a solution to modern decay, Spann envisioned the formation of a religious Christian, corporatist, hierarchical, and authoritarian state similar to the First Reich (the Holy Roman Empire).

A lesser-known Revolutionary Conservative academic, Hans Freyer, also held similar views to Spann and challenged the ideas and results of the “Enlightenment,” particularly secularism, the idea of universal reason, the concept of a universal humanity, urbanization, and democratization. Against modern society corrupted by these things, Freyer posed the idea of a “totally integrated society” which would be completed by a powerful, non-democratic state. Culture, Volk, race, and religion would form the basis of society and state in order to restore a sense of community and common values. Freyer also joined the National Socialists believing that the movement would realize his aims but later became disappointed with it because of what he saw as its repressive nature during the Third Reich.

The German Conservative
Revolution - Part I:

During the years between World War I and the establishment of the Third Reich, the political, economic, and social crises which Germany suddenly experienced as a result of its defeat in the First World War gave rise to a movement known as the “Conservative Revolution,” which is also commonly referred to as the “Conservative Revolutionary Movement,” with its members sometimes called “Revolutionary Conservatives” or even “Neoconservatives.”

The phrase “Conservative Revolution” itself was popularized as a result of a speech in 1927 by the famous poet Hugo von Hofmannsthal, who was a Catholic cultural conservative and monarchist. Here, Hofmannsthal declared, “The process of which I am speaking is nothing less than a conservative revolution on such a scale as the history of Europe has never known. Its object is form, a new German reality, in which the whole nation will share.”

Although these phrases give the impression that the Conservative Revolution was composed of people who shared the same worldview, this was, in fact, not the case because the thinkers and leaders of the Conservative Revolution often had major disagreements. Furthermore, despite the fact that the philosophical ideas produced by this “new conservatism” influenced German National Socialism and also had links to Fascism, it is incorrect to assume that the people belonging to it are either Fascist or “proto-Nazi.” Although some Revolutionary Conservatives praised Italian Fascism and some also eventually joined the National Socialist Movement (although many did not), overall, their worldviews were distinct from both of these political groups.

It is difficult to adequately summarize the views held by the Revolutionary Conservatives due to the fact that many of them held views that stood in contradistinction to certain views held by others in the same movement. What they generally had in common was an awareness of the importance of Volk (this term may be translated as “folk,” “nation,” “ethnicity,” or “people”) and culture, the idea of Volksgemeinschaft (“folk-community”), and a rejection of Marxism, liberalism, and democracy (particularly parliamentary democracy). Ideas that also were common among them was a rejection of the linear concept of history in favor of the cyclical concept, a conservative and non-Marxist form of socialism, and the establishment of an authoritarian elite.

In brief, the movement was made of Germans who had conservative tendencies of some sort but who were disappointed with the state into which Germany had been put by its loss of World War I and sought to advance ideas that were both conservative and revolutionary in nature.

In order to obtain an adequate idea as to the nature of the Conservative Revolution and its outlook, it is best to examine the major intellectuals and their thought. The following sections will provide a brief overview of the most important Revolutionary Conservative intellectuals and their key philosophical contributions. The German Conservative
Revolution - Part II - The Visionaries of a New Reich:

The most noteworthy Germans who had an optimistic vision of the establishment of a “Third Reich” were Stefan George, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, and Edgar Julius Jung. Stefan George, unlike the other two, was not a typical intellectual but a poet. George expressed his Revolutionary Conservative vision of the “new Reich” largely in poetry, and this poetry did in fact reach and affect many young German nationalists and even intellectuals; and for this he is historically notable.

But on the intellectual level, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (who popularized the term “Third Reich”) and Edgar Julius Jung had a deeper philosophical impact.

Arthur Moeller van den Bruck:

Moeller van den Bruck was a cultural historian who became politically active at the end of the First World War. He was a founding member of the conservative “June Club,” of which he became the ideological leader.

In "Der preussische Stil" (“The Prussian Style”) he described what he believed to be the Prussian character, whose key characteristic was the “will to the state,” and in "Das Recht der jungen Volker" (“The Right of Young Peoples”) he presented the idea of “young peoples” (including Germany, Russia, and America) and “old peoples” (including England and France), advocating an alliance between the “younger” nations with more vitality to defeat the hegemony of Britain and France.

In 1922, he contributed, along with Heinrich von Gleichen and Max Hildebert Boehm, to the book "Die neue Front" (“The New Front”), a manifesto of the 'Jungkonservativen' (“Young-conservatives”). A year later, Moeller van den Bruck produced his most famous work which contained a comprehensive exposition of his worldview, "Das Dritte Reich," translated into English as "Germany’s Third Empire."

In "Germany’s Third Empire," Moeller made a division between four political stances: Revolutionary, Liberal, Reactionary, and Conservative. Revolutionaries, which especially included Communists, were unrealistic in the sense that they believed they could totally brush aside all past values and traditions. Liberalism was criticized for its radical individualism, which essentially amounts to egotism and disintegrates nations and traditions. Reactionaries, on the other hand, were criticized for having the unrealistic position of desiring a complete revival of past forms, believing that everything in past society was positive. The Conservative, Moeller argued, was superior to the former three because “Conservatism seeks to preserve a nation’s values, both by conserving traditional values, as far as these still possess the power of growth, and by assimilating all new values which increase a nation’s vitality.” Moeller’s “Conservative” was essentially a Revolutionary Conservative.

Moeller rejected Marxism because of its rationalism and materialism, which he argued were flawed ideologies that failed to understand the better side of human societies and life. “Socialism begins where Marxism ends,” he declared. Moeller advocated a corporatist German socialism which recognized the importance of nationality and refused class warfare.

In terms of politics, Moeller rejected republicanism and asserted that true democracy was about the people taking a share in determining its destiny. He rejected monarchy as outdated and anticipated a new form of government in which a strong leader who was connected to the people would emerge. “We need leaders who feel themselves at one with the nation, who identify the nation’s fate with their own.” This leader would establish a “Third Empire, a new and final Empire,” which would solve Germany’s political problems (especially its population problem).

"I desire my death now.
The disir call me home,
whom Herjan hastens onward
from his hall, to take me.
On the high bench, boldly,
beer I'll drink with the Gods;
hope of life is lost now—
laughing shall I die!"

The last words of Ragnar Loðbrok from the Krákumál

1/ "Laughing Shall I Die: Lives and Deaths of the Great Vikings" is an outstanding 2018 book written by Tom Shippey. Shippey is a Professor Emeritus at Saint Louis University and an expert in Old and Middle English literature and all things J.R.R. Tolkien.

Among his notable works is a critically acclaimed, newly translated edition of "Beowulf," which stands out for its articulate and engaging prose. This is further enhanced by its extensive notes and a comprehensively robust bibliography. From my perspective, this version of "Beowulf" is arguably the finest translation available to date.

"Laughing Shall I Die" is, however, my favorite of Shippey's works. It is not a traditional "narrative history," a fact Shippey emphasizes in the opening of the book, but rather a blend of history and insightful, and oftentimes humorous analysis.

The book delves into the "collective psychology" that distinguished the Vikings from other peoples, emphasizing their heroic warrior ethos, and their deep fascination with, inclination towards, and admiration for heroic death.

Shippey paints a picture of their attitude as ranging from "psychopathic" to a cult-like veneration of death. He explores the depth of "the Viking mindset," a fervent zeal that propelled these sea-warriors to dominate and instill fear across vast areas of Europe, reaching as far as the borders of the Caliphate.

Now, let's explore some of the main themes of the book.
2/ "Laughing Shall I Die" tackles recent academic distortions that paint the Vikings in a light diametrically opposed to historical evidence, depicting them primarily as peaceful, agrarian, and trade-focused, thereby subtly eroding their warrior essence. In reality, the Vikings were not peaceful explorers and traders, but bloodthirsty warriors and marauders.

In response to these postmodern historical distortions, Shippey offers a witty and forceful rebuttal. He acknowledges that while Vikings did evolve into skilled traders and eventually settlers, the sagas and archaeological evidence paint a vivid picture of their inherent savagery and warrior spirit – aspects that cannot be overlooked or simplified. Shippey critiques the academic approach of rebranding Vikings into a more respectable image, arguing that their true nature and mindset deserve to be understood and respected on their own merits.

Shippey begins by debunking the fallacy that all Scandinavians were Vikings and addresses the current academic trend that portrays Vikings as mere groups of farmers, settlers, and traders who occasionally engaged in conflict.

Not all Scandinavians were Vikings, but most Vikings were Scandinavians. In Old Norse, "vikingr" signifies a pirate or marauder. Shippey notes, “It wasn’t an ethnic label; it was a job description.” If people weren’t engaging in raiding, looting, land-grabbing, or collecting protection money, they ceased to be Vikings and were simply Scandinavians.

Modern studies often focus on the less violent aspects of Scandinavian life, avoiding the harsher realities of Viking existence. However, Shippey argues, aspects like shield-walls, slave-taking, trading, and even human sacrifice were integral to Viking culture.

"Academics have labored to create a comfort zone in which Vikings can be massaged into respectability," Shippey writes.

"But the Vikings and the Viking mindset deserve respect and understanding on their own terms—while no one benefits from staying inside their comfort zone, not even academics. This book accordingly offers a guiding hand into a somewhat, but in the end not-so-very, alien world. Disturbing though it may be."

Shippey notes, "Most scholarly books with 'Viking' in the title turn out not to be about Vikings, because Vikings aren't popular among scholars."

Shippey's book stands out: "This book is different: it really is about Vikings." Shippey believes that modern academia, with its delicate sensibilities, is offended by the less culturally refined aspects of the marauding Vikings, and has worked to ignore, bowdlerize, explain away, and generally discount what it sees as a caricatured version of the Viking ethos.

"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."

"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.

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."

"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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

1/ The Greek stoic philosopher Epictetus said, "Difficulties are things that show a person what they are" and investing the necessary time & effort to the understand & familiarize yourself with the Classical world, is a difficult, but tremendously rewarding task. 2/ With the above in mind, I present to you, a brief, but what I believe to be a solid primer on some of the essential readings of the Classical Greek world. This primer isn’t exhaustive, nor authoritative, and no doubt some will take issue with the order presented below.