Aristotle on Immigration, Diversity, and Democracy

Guillaume Durocher


Aristotle (trans. Ernest Barker and R. F. Stalley), Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)

One measure of the intellectual and moral degeneration of the West over the last decades is the now near-total ignorance of the founding Classics of Western civilization, even among the so-called educated class. Those who remain in ignorance of what superior minds have thought before them are condemned to remain as children, at best reinventing the wheel, rather than standing upon the shoulders of giants.

While the Classics were clearly written for a time and place very different from our own, their concerns often speak to us very directly. Aristotle’s Politics, his main political treatise, is replete with comments concerning the dangers of diversity and egalitarianism. Aristotle’s political thought does not soar to the eugenic and spiritual heights of Plato’s utopia. However, Aristotle’s moderate and pragmatic brand of politics is much more palatable to someone raised in modern liberalism, while at the same time being a better introduction to the communitarian and aristocratic political ethics of the ancient Greeks.

Aristotle is greatly concerned with the preservation of civil peace in the city-state. One of the most common causes of “faction” and civil war, he says, was the unhappy consequences of unassimilated immigration and the consequent diversity. Aristotle’s prose is perfectly clear:

Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted. (1303A13)

Thus, immigration of different peoples was a common source of conflict, often leading to civil war and concluding with the ethnic cleansing of either the native peoples or the invaders.

Aristotle’s ideal of citizenship, entailing civic duties and group solidarity, necessarily requires a strong common identity and a sharp differentiation between citizens and foreigners. Conversely, foreign mercenaries had no solidarity with the people, and were thus frequently used by tyrants to enforce their unjust rule:

The guard of a [legitimate] king is composed of citizens: that of a tyrant is composed of foreigners. (1310B31)

It is a habit of tyrants never to like anyone who has a spirit of dignity and independence. The tyrant claims a monopoly of such qualities for himself; he feels that anybody who asserts a rival dignity, or acts with independence, is threatening his own superiority and the despotic power of his tyranny; he hates him accordingly as a subverter of his own authority. It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.” (1313B29)

This passage brings to mind the Bolshevik tyranny in the early decades of the Soviet Union, when the government, and especially the secret police, was dominated by people from non-Russian ethnic groups. As Aristotle notes, under such a system any assertion of independence was ruthlessly crushed.

Aristotle also clearly expresses a related idea, that ethnic homogeneity enables the group solidarity that is needed to throw off tyrannical rule, while a diverse population with a no common identity is easier to rule. Aristotle, in order to enable leisure in the premodern era, argues for having a population of ethnically diverse slaves (something I, for reasons of civil peace and genetic integrity, would not endorse and especially not in the age of automation):

The class which farms it should, ideally, if we can choose at will, be slaves – but slaves not drawn from a single stock, or from stocks of a spirited temperament. This will at once secure the advantage of a good supply of labor and eliminate any danger of revolutionary designs. (1330A23)

Thus, a mass of mongrels without identity is easier to rule than a self-conscious people, a truth which the hostile elites who rule the West seem to instinctively understand.

Aristotle observes that foreigners were also a favorite political weapon not only of tyrants but also of egalitarian extremists. He writes: “At Amphipolis someone by the name of Cleotimus introduced Chalcidian settlers, and incited them after their settlement to make an attack on the rich” (1305B39). Aristotle says that naturalization of foreigners played a key role in founding the more extreme form of democracy found in Athens. He writes of Cleisthenes, who was said to have founded the democracy of that city: “after the expulsion of the tyrants he enrolled in the tribes a number of resident aliens, both foreigners and slaves” (1275B34).[1] Aristotle says elsewhere that democrats consolidate their regime by efforts to mix the citizenry (breaking down old identities) and stoking individualism:

Other measures which are also useful in constructing this last and most extreme type of democracy are measures like those introduced by Cleisthenes at Athens, when he sought to advance the cause of democracy, or those which were taken by the founders of popular government at Cyrene. A number of new tribes and clans should be instituted by the side of the old; private cults should be reduced in number and conducted at common centers; and every contrivance should be employed to make all the citizens mix, as much as they possibly can, and to break down their old loyalties. All the measures adopted by tyrants may equally be regarded as congenial to democracy. We may cite as examples the license allowed to slaves (which, up to a point, may be advantageous as well as congenial), the license permitted to women and children, and the policy of conniving at the practice of “living as you like.” There is much to assist a constitution of this sort, for most people find more pleasure in living without discipline than they find in a life of temperance. (1319B19)

These measures appear in line with what Samuel Francis has called “anarcho-tyranny”: by weakening traditional group identities and the authority of family fathers, the population of “liberated individuals” is paradoxically reduced to an impotent mass, which can then be ably manipulated by demagogues. Aristotle considers extreme democracy to be undesirable because it leads to lawlessness and individualism.

*    *    *

Aristotle is rare among ancient thinkers in that his political theory advocates at least a kind of moderate democracy or constitutional government. He generally believes a large number of people should have citizenship, limited by service in the army and a moderate property qualification — a description that fits the Roman Republic remarkably well. He argues for a “mixed regime” featuring democratic, oligarchic, and aristocratic elements, subject to a largely unchanging basic law, the latter embodying and stipulating a way of life.

The American Founding Fathers’ (or indeed the Confederates’) vision of government strikes me as having significant overlap with Aristotle’s political thought. The greatest difference is perhaps that Aristotle argued for a moderately democratic constitutional regime, not on grounds of individual “rights” or “equality,” but because these served the interests of the community. A moderately democratic regime gave as many people as possible an interest in the preservation of that regime (“buy-in”) and allowed all citizens to include their share of wisdom, however small, in government.

Aristotle forcefully argues in favor of a community-centered notion of justice: “The good in the sphere of politics is justice; and justice consists in what tends to promote the common interest” (1282B14). How many political discussions today — whether about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, economic policy, or whatever — refer to the common good rather than to solipsistic and childish arguments about “rights” and “fairness”?

While Aristotle is decidedly more “bourgeois” than Plato, he too is contemptuous of egalitarian excesses, which manifest themselves in democratic extremism and selfish individualism. Aristotle notes that some democracies are so extreme that they actually undermine the existence of the state, and hence do not survive as long as a moderate democracy. He writes with great eloquence on that “false conception of liberty” which has so often seduced our people:

In democracies of the type which is regarded as being peculiarly democratic the policy followed is the very reverse of their real interest. The reason for this is a false conception of liberty. There are two features which are generally held to define democracy. One of them is the sovereignty of the majority; the other is the liberty of individuals. Justice is assumed to consist in equality and equality in regarding the will of the masses as sovereign; liberty is assumed to consist in “doing what one likes.” The result of such a view is that, in these extreme democracies, each individual lives as he likes — or as Euripides says,

For any end he chances to desire.

This is a mean conception [of liberty]. To live by the rule of the constitution ought not to be regarded as slavery, but rather as salvation. (1310A12)

Is this not a very neat summation of the ills of modern liberalism? I would argue that the West was already severely infected by the 1930s, before metastasizing to an absurd degree from the 1960s onwards. Thus today, liberals express only desire only for “equality” and “solidarity,” all the while destroying the very foundations for these ends through multiculturalism and open-borders, these being fanatically imposed with the most short-sighted bigotry.

Aristotle provides a powerful rationale for a moderate constitutional regime of responsible citizen-soldiers constrained by an enlightened basic law. In the coming ethnostate, the basic law will necessarily prescribe the preservation of the identity and ethnic-genetic interests of the European peoples as an inviolable imperative, to be enforced by judges and perhaps a military-spiritual order (or one of soldier-scientists) dedicated to that end.

In any event, Aristotle clearly articulates how homogeneity, a common identity, and a sense of peoplehood are social goods necessary to citizenship, solidarity, and freedom from tyrannical government. He argues for good government oriented towards the common interest as opposed to towards individual “rights,” caprice, and equality as ends in themselves. Ancient Greek politics can only seem “authoritarian” or even “totalitarian” to modern liberals. In fact, the politics of the Greek city-state is nothing more than that of the assembled paterfamilias, come together to fulfill their sacred responsibility to protect, discipline, and educate their kinsfolk towards the good.

Aristotle’s grim observations on diversity are worth repeating: unassimilable immigration can only lead to conflict, conflict which can only end through separation, separation which can only occur through the expulsion either of the invaders or the natives from their ancestral lands.

[1] This was before the reforms of Pericles, who democratized Athens further, while actually tightening citizenship qualifications to those born of two native Athenian parents.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

34 Comments to "Aristotle on Immigration, Diversity, and Democracy"

  1. Sheila's Gravatar Sheila
    February 24, 2017 - 9:31 am | Permalink

    Loved this…Thank you.

    “The American Founding Fathers’ (or indeed the Confederates’) vision of government strikes me as having significant overlap with Aristotle’s political thought. The greatest difference is perhaps that Aristotle believed in a moderately democratic constitutional regime, not on grounds of individual “rights” or “equality,” but because these served the interests of the community.”

    Sometimes that is a difficult…society always changes…and whose *community* is always in question. As you know, the Old South’s cultural center before the Civil War was Charleston SC and its insistance upon the Classics as a firm foundation of learning and culture. The northeast rejected this approach entirely. Thus we are left with the left-overs of JD’ pragmatism (if we are lucky)…indeed, I am woefully wrong…we are left… stuck with Europe’s radical system brought here by certain intellectual forces and certainly those at this site are familiar with what that is. It is not something we can survive in, even in small numbers. We have now at hand, for the first time since the end of WWI…esp WWII…a chance to escape obliteration.

    • Sheila's Gravatar Sheila
      February 24, 2017 - 9:38 am | Permalink

      My comments are always awaiting moderation…does moderated mean they might be changed? I don’t know, just wondering…I try to remember to go back to see if they ever appear. I am assuming they do…I don’t know if I have ever gotten a reply…I wonder?
      ———
      (Mod. Note: Sheila, nothing in your comments is edited or changed. While I’ve suggested that some commenters use the term “[redacted]” to refer to certain supposed “historical events”, due to site policy, comments aren’t edited. This mod. does, however, change obvious typos in order to keep TOO “looking good” as well as not embarrassing a commenter who made a slip of the keyboard. NOTHING substantial is edited. As for “awaiting moderation” … my “remuneration” for keeping trolls at bay is such that I check 4-5 times a day, and not always hourly. This “job” isn’t about remuneration, it’s about “Keeping TOO Great (still)”)

    • Sheila's Gravatar Sheila
      February 24, 2017 - 9:58 am | Permalink

      I think this must be a quite literal and most quiet mobilization of forces…now.

  2. Sheila's Gravatar Sheila
    February 24, 2017 - 9:54 am | Permalink

    Please forgive me…you did post a comment…and I think I have gotten replies…damn…must have had a paranoid moment; if so I am over it…lol

  3. m's Gravatar m
    February 24, 2017 - 11:10 am | Permalink

    Of course the classical idea of a citizen had little in common with today’s notion that citizenship can be bought and sold at will. For his part, Plato understood that foreigners were a necessary fact of economic life, and therefore should be admitted into the community, but only temporarily. In Book 9 of Laws Plato suggests how in the ideal state a foreigner could stay for up to twenty years, but only if he was productive and obeyed the laws. After that time he had to pack up and leave. An extension was provided for, but it was admitted that such a thing would be quite rare.

    • m's Gravatar m
      February 25, 2017 - 4:26 am | Permalink

      I’d like to offer a modification, one made necessary due to my typing before adequately thinking: In the my comment I wrote: “In Book 9 of Laws Plato suggests how in the ideal state…”

      It would be better to substitute the word “practical” for “ideal” since Republic is usually considered Plato’s fantasy in speech or dialectic about the ideal state. Laws, on the other hand, was written as a practical exposition to guide a new colony, starting out fresh.

      In many respects it is unfortunate that the former gets more play than the latter, but I believe that is because Republic has been twisted by some to support strictly modern notions, something that it does not do, and something that would shock Plato were he alive today. It is what commenter PdC discusses in his comment about reading the Classics anachronistically. For instance, I recently came across an on-line curriculum handout for (I guess) HS students, which claimed that Plato could be interpreted as a proto feminist.

      • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
        February 26, 2017 - 1:07 am | Permalink

        @ m:
        The living document!

  4. Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
    February 24, 2017 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    First off, I second the views expressed below by the commenter m. I’d go further, however, to suggest that here yet again Mr. Durocher misses the true value and importance of Greek thought. As in his earlier voyages of (belated) discovery to the “lost” classical past, he has largely used the thinking of the ancients to proof-text contemporary ideas. Yet this approach is so intrinsic a facet of the contemporary scene that it has served to reduce education to the state of an infectious disease. I sincerely believe Mr. Durocher does TOO readers no favors by implicitly guiding them to embrace it.

    Even were one to recall nothing save that the celebrated phrase that man is a political animal, when it is understood as modern “thinkers” have come to understand it, is precisely a generalization Aristotle does not make, one would have made more progress toward grasping what Aristotle has to teach us than the proof-text approach. In writing zoon politikon, Aristotle primarily meant that man was that animal native to (or perhaps “living in”) the polis. Any and all extrapolations of his thought that fail to proceed from a correct apprehension of that fundamental premise are fated to mislead both expounder and auditor.*

    The suggestion that Roman Republican theorizing bears true kinship with Aristotelian theorizing is, I believe, another false passageway in the maze. Nor does the generalization that America’s Founding Fathers were Roman-influenced Aristotelians hold water. Yes, for the Framers of the Constitution, no political systematizer wielded influence comparable to Cicero’s, but the earlier generation—the Revolutionaries, especially those with no interest in continent-wide expansion, and the adherents to the idea that the Articles of Confederation constituted the maximum tolerable degree of consolidation—saw Roman Republicanism as the necessary precursor of empire. And who now can say they were wrong?

    We moderns might do far worse than look to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church for an attitude worth emulating. Their esteem for Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero was almost boundless—aside, that is, from their utterly nontrivial and indeed radically differing understanding of man’s nature and destiny and his place in a divinely framed universe. Put otherwise, there is no royal road to an easy grasp of the true teaching and significance of the Western classical thinkers, warts and all. Even hinting that there might be—and I believe Mr. Durocher does rather more than hint—does much more harm than good.
    ___________________
    *On the bright side, one of the things that gladdens me about the present article is that it contains nothing even approaching the amount and degree of the dreadfully muddled thinking and analysis that characterizes much “informed” commentary at sites, such as this one, where people who think as we do might go for reliable information, only to be misinformed or deceived. That the author at the linked site can write such a trashy analysis of Aristotle almost beggars belief. Its culmination in a 100 percent misreading of the famous punch line from Frost’s “The Road Not Taken” is worthy of a Podhoretz, a Kristol, or a Kagan.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      February 25, 2017 - 11:59 am | Permalink

      The Portable Library of Liberty’s misrepresentation of Aristotle’s comment on polis/politics, like Frost’s intention in The Road Not Taken, hides a wolf in sheeps clothing. Podhoretz or one of his ilk could very well have written it.

  5. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    February 24, 2017 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Aristotle’s idea that “diversity is weakness” is of course entirely right. And to think that in his time “diversity” only meant origin from different parts of Greece, without racial or serious cultural differences.

    In our time we are supposed to accept the immigration of hostile, violent Muslims or Mexicans as an enduring source of strength, even if those groups consistently show criminal and seditious behavior. Besides raping girls (and boys) and burning cars, Muslims want to establish their “Caliphate” in Europe, while in the US, the Mexicans want to establish their mythical “Aztlan”.

    Our hostile elites tried to enforce this dystopia upon us, but since Trump things are beginning to change. The major hurdle of course is to overcome the accusation of “racism”, the elite’s most effective weapon.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 25, 2017 - 11:29 am | Permalink

      By “elites” I presume you mean jews.

      Their most effective weapons are the information and monetary hegemons.

    • Jacob Stewart's Gravatar Jacob Stewart
      February 25, 2017 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

      How is what thou art saying not bigoted racism and hatred of others?
      Canst thou prove that a greater proportion of Muslims and Mexicans in the US commit crimes than people of European descent?

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        February 25, 2017 - 11:14 pm | Permalink

        Did your uncle Moshe tell you that the bigoted racists at TOO would be rendered speechless by the [ahem] brilliance of your questions, Jacob? They aren’t—nor is anyone, I daresay, even momentarily discommoded by your clumsily pretentious resort to archaic second-person-singular forms.

        But I’m forgetting my manners! Please show me your cards, then I’ll show you mine; OK? Specifically, please respond to the charge that your puzzling desire—puzzling in that you are clearly a devout social justice warrior—to shift blame for criminal conduct away from those whom the government’s own crime statistics name as perps on to those who are more often than not their preferred victims marks you as a virulent racist. After all, every Jewish organ of [mis]information in this country, from the New York Times and all the TV networks on down, and every peer-reviewed social science and behavioral science publication declare that racial “differences” are nonexistent and that even noticing racial differences marks the noticer as a diseased and criminal personality.

        Put otherwise, where dost thou come off, O pot, calling any kettle black—especially when the kettle is lined with porcelain?

        Once this introductory matter is settled to my satisfaction, you’ll then have to answer why your questions implicitly deny the vast majority of US citizens the right to decide who gets to live in this country by any right other than birth to parents of “legacy” stock. You SJWs never seem to grasp that this question merits an answer.

        And get down from your high horse before the horse loses patience with you, its clumsy rider, and bucks you onto the ground.

  6. February 24, 2017 - 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Guillaume – Do you have an opinion on Grote’s History of Greece, which perhaps fixed the image of Greece for Victorians?

  7. John's Gravatar John
    February 24, 2017 - 7:03 pm | Permalink

    I just saw the funniest thing on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Tucker was interviewing an actor named Robert Davi who was calling out Hollywood’s hypocrisy and Davi asked Carlson what the parent company of CNN is and Carlson looked like he was having a heart attack as he lowered his chin and held out his hand in front of him and just said “I can’t get into that”. I had to laugh out loud.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 25, 2017 - 11:26 am | Permalink

      So Mr. Davi said Time-Warner.

      And Mr. Carlson asked: “So (((who))) owns Time-Warner?” [not really]

  8. Joe's Gravatar Joe
    February 24, 2017 - 9:28 pm | Permalink

    You know… I hate to sound snobby or uppity… but you don’t need ancient philosophers and great thinkers to understand the simple truth of societal realism. Look at ant colonies… What happens when the red ants get too close to the black ants? Hmmm. This one’s really hard to figure out, isn’t it? They battle with each other until one or the other wins the territory. That’s it… pure and simple. Mankind is no different. You can’t mix races and have a peaceful outcome… let alone a scenario which fosters upward evolution.
    We need a return to absolutism… to a trust in the indomitable laws of nature. If we follow them, we rise. If we thwart them, we fall… period.

    • Patrick's Gravatar Patrick
      February 25, 2017 - 11:01 am | Permalink

      Joe you have a point about the red and black ants, but this knowledge is only enough to help a person realize potential problems that come from mixing races together. But Aristotle here is talking about something more fine tuned. He was talking about problems from mixing different white ethnic groups who have not assimilated together. Aristotle also brings up a point about tyrants not liking independent thinkers, this is an observation I doubt many would make on their own. And it’s an important piece of information.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 25, 2017 - 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Apropos to above:

      I was reading early this morning from Our Enemy the State by Alfred J. Nock:

      “But passing on from the special view of the question, and regarding it in a more general way, we see that what it amounts to is a plea for arbitrary interference with the order of nature, and arbitrary cutting-in to avert the penalty which nature lays on any and every form of error, whether willful or ignorant, voluntary or involuntary;and no attempt at this has ever yet failed to cost more than it came to. Any contravention of natural law, any tampering with the natural order of things, must have its consequences, and the only recourse for escaping them is such that entails worse consequences. Nature recks nothing of intentions, good or bad; the one thing she will not tolerate is disorder, and she is very particular about getting her full pay for any attempt to create disorder. She gets it sometimes by very indirect methods, often by
      roundabout and unforeseen ways, but she always gets it. “Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be; why,
      then, should we desire to be deceived?” It would seem that our civilization is greatly given to this infantile addiction- greatly given to presuading itself
      that it can find some means which nature will tolerate, whereby we may eat our cake and have it; and it strongly resents the fact that there is no such means.

      In the sixties having cake and eating it was called guns and butter- the Great Society- brought to humanity by the world’s finest human being- Lyndon Baines Johnson.

      https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4498971/lbj-great-society-speech-1964

  9. February 25, 2017 - 11:28 am | Permalink

    White Greek philosopher: “Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction.”

    Oriental (Jew) priest: “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”

    These thoughts were presented millennia ago. Same message, differing viewpoints. The first is intended to prevent the destruction of advanced civilization, the other is to promote that destruction. The Tower of Babel is a typically insane Jewish answer to rational thoughts of self preservation.

    Today when one must press one for English or two for Spanish, it’s obvious who won that ancient debate. The Jews’ psychopathic religious insanity has finally trumped white rationality. Could this be the reason academia scrupulously avoids the classics these days? Should one start reading the rationale of Greek philosophers, they might quit believing in the Jew’s god and who knows where that might lead?

    The other day I was again amazed by Christian programmed “thinking” when I brought up the subject of Genesis 19’s story of Sodom and Gomorrah in comparison to the grizzly story in Judges 19, where, after submitting his concubine to the most horrendous degradation, a Jew butchers her like some queer, sacrificial animal to send the pieces to the various other Jewish tribes.

    Sodom: “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” – Genesis 19

    Bethlehemjudah: Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. – Judges 19

    More on that twisted Jewish history history here.

    “Belial” is actually a pejorative that means “worthless.” The term was later construed to personify the devil. The question is why don’t modern Christians call homosexuals “Sons of Belial” as readily as they refer to them as “sodomites”? “Sons of bitches” has long been a popular phrase and “Sons of Anarchy” is a popular theme these days, so “Sons of Belial” would perfectly fit the need for a nasty pejorative aimed at homosexuals.

    This question is especially pertinent considering the fact that unlike the story in Judges, the story of Sodom goes to some length in describing all the people from every quarter as demanding that the angels/men visiting Lot be handed over. That would mean men, women and children. How can one possibly believe all the people, from every quarter of Sodom were homosexuals? (I have elaborated at length elsewhere for the real reason behind this story, so I won’t go into it again here.)

    Like some latter day Torquemada, this is the question I put to the Christian: “why have Sodomites become synonymous with, in fact the very definition of, homosexuality when the very same story is replayed in Judges 19 without similar comment?”

    He replied that the murder in Judges was fully justified as the concubine had sinned!

    I replied, “We’re not talking about the murder in Judges, we’re talking about the same queer relationships as narrated in the two stories.”

    To this question he offered no reply, instead switching the topic to the second Kings story of Elisha and the two bears. To wit: “Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!” When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.”

    Don’t you love these Jewish stories about their god’s loving, compassionate character? In any event, the Christian went on to elaborate how at first glance this might seem unjust. Yet if one considers the truly sinful nature of these young ruffians’, it becomes instantly obvious why Elisha is fully justified in bringing god’s wrath upon them to be torn apart by bears. Oh Yeah, a bunch of kids taunting “Go up, you baldhead” is obvious reason to murder forty two children. Here is the source of the Christian’s mental disconnect.

    Is it any wonder starry-eyed Christians march lockstep without question to this kind of Jewish thinking? After all the Jew’s god COMMANDS it! This is the essence of the bizarre Christian thought process that easily justifies massacre and mayhem because of the belief in the infallibility of a hateful, judgmental, murderous god.

    Think about the horror the Judaic religion and its two ugly daughters have wrought upon this world since the day an ancient Jewish priest began concocting stories about his personal god. Nothing will change until the light of philosophical thought replaces the darkness of Judaic religious beliefs and that won’t happen as long as Jews and their adjunctive religious believers walk this earth.

    • bearee's Gravatar bearee
      February 26, 2017 - 9:41 am | Permalink

      The real Israelites are not the Jews… The White People are the Descendants of the Israelites… the Word Celtic is derived from Chaldean. The jews are impostors who have stolen our Identity. Its time for the white man to wake up & Take back what the )ews have stolen from us.

    • david garner's Gravatar david garner
      March 5, 2017 - 3:07 pm | Permalink

      you seem to have a real issue with the queers???sure you,re not making secret visits to the local gay bars???!!!

  10. Santoculto's Gravatar Santoculto
    February 25, 2017 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Entire human story is based on the premise about humans supposed to be, universally speaking: Rational.

    The fundamental reason why immigrants tend to cause problems to the natives is that they tend to be enthusiastic conservative extroverts. Muslims and Hispanics or any other human group, usually overwhelm conservative in some or other important psycho political facet, just apply their exclusivist, supremacist, expansionist and hard-self honest to their own defects when they immigrate to their respective and popular destination. And upper classes, overwhelm conservative in some important psycho economic facet, also no help to attenuate or to solve this problems because they tend to see this poorer new citizens as new opportunities to increase their own wealth.

    In other words irrationality and conservative/expansionist mindset, often very close, explain most of intergroup conflicts.

    And whites has been prevented to act like that….as usually they did in other lands.

  11. Cato the Youngest's Gravatar Cato the Youngest
    February 25, 2017 - 3:28 pm | Permalink

    In regards to the comparison between the founders and Aristotle, it is worth noting get that ancient city-states like Athens and Sparta had what are called “positive laws”, which told people how to behave (treating parents some way, community service…) whereas we only have “negative laws,” which prohibit people from acting like total garbage. Positive laws go a long away towards preserving a culture and a way of life, and they are totally absent in the modern West.

  12. MS's Gravatar MS
    February 26, 2017 - 1:46 am | Permalink

    Diversity has never worked anywhere despite Jews and fag elites pushing hard for it.

    Look at Rhodesia. Under white management it had a high living standard despite Harold Wilson’s sanctions but today is a total mess under corrupt incompetent blacks. Sadly Rhodesia was also betrayed by South African Prime Minister BJ Vorster to please Nixon’s Jew Kissinger despite the fact that many Rhodesians were Afrikaners like Vorster. Despite this many Rhodies helped South Africa’s war effort including my great uncle who served with the SAAF as a pilot in Angola but now lives in Australia that is also becoming Third World.

    Mongrels also tend to be more violent e.g. the drug infested favelas of Brazil and South Africa’s Cape home to Coloureds or mixed race spawn.

  13. Ritual's Gravatar Ritual
    February 26, 2017 - 6:40 am | Permalink

    Thanks, great article. I’m thinking things started going wrong in America around the mid 1800’s symptomatic with the Know-Nothings.

    • Henry baxley's Gravatar Henry baxley
      February 26, 2017 - 9:09 am | Permalink

      We (Whites) were doomed from the time the first black African landed in Virginia, due to the dominant black gene

      • Seraphim's Gravatar Seraphim
        February 26, 2017 - 9:05 pm | Permalink

        You mean from the time the first black African was brought to Virginia.

  14. Rick's Gravatar Rick
    February 26, 2017 - 9:52 am | Permalink

    Things started to go wrong in 1965 when Jews opened the borders through Ted Kennedy.

    Kennedy’s apt student Tomas Edwardo Perez a Dominican is now leading the anti-American Jewish funded Democrackpots. The gameplan is multiculturalism max like Britain’s Labor Party that now survives off mostly Muslim votes in areas where natives have been ethnically cleansed like London.

    Speaking of Rhodesia I have lots of respect for that tough bunch. Their special forces rival our own. Vorster was a wimp unlike PW Botha. Vorster only bought time. Washington didn’t help much South Africa whose ancient equipment of mostly upgraded British and French origin like the Olifant tank (Centurion), Canberra and Mirage jets were no much for T-55s and MIGs supplied by Ruskies to Cubans.

    http://www.rhodesia.nl

  15. Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
    February 27, 2017 - 9:33 am | Permalink

    The first leader of the Know Nothing party was Lewis Charles Levin who was also the first Jewish congressman. Jews were heavily involved in the slave trade and the majority of slave ships were Jewish owned.

  16. Lynda's Gravatar Lynda
    February 28, 2017 - 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Aristotle was certainly exercised on the subject of the ‘un-natural’.

    His consideration of he economy of the polis also did not escape treatment of “The most hated sort [of wealth] and with good reason is usury, and with greatest reason, which makes gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term: interest [tokos-offspring] which means the birth of money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural. ” “Politics”

    Professor E Michael Jones, “Libido Dominandi” develops the theme of the intrinsic relationship between sodomy and usury, which Biblically is stylized as ‘the iniquity of mammon’.

Comments are closed.