Guillaume Durocher’s “The Ancient Ethnostate: Biopolitical Thought in Ancient Greece”


The Ancient Ethnostate: Biopolitical Thought in Ancient Greece
Guillaume Durocher
Amazon Createspace, 2021

This is an extended version of the foreword to The Ancient Ethnostate.

Guillaume Durocher has produced an authoritative, beautifully written, and even inspirational account of the ancient Greeks. Although relying on mainstream academic sources, he adds an evolutionary perspective that is sorely lacking in contemporary academia at a time when the ancient Greek civilization, like the Western canon in toto, has been subjected to intense criticism reflecting the values of the contemporary academic left. To get a flavor of the current state of classics scholarship, consider the following from the New York Times:

Long revered as the foundation of “Western civilization,” the field [of classics] was trying to shed its self-imposed reputation as an elitist subject overwhelmingly taught and studied by white men. Recently the effort had gained a new sense of urgency: Classics had been embraced by the far right, whose members held up the ancient Greeks and Romans as the originators of so-called white culture. Marchers in Charlottesville, Va., carried flags bearing a symbol of the Roman state; online reactionaries adopted classical pseudonyms; the white-supremacist website Stormfront displayed an image of the Parthenon alongside the tagline “Every month is white history month.” …

For several years, [Dan-el Padilla] has been speaking openly about the harm caused by practitioners of classics in the two millenniums since antiquity: the classical justifications of slavery, race science, colonialism, Nazism and other 20th-century fascisms. Classics was a discipline around which the modern Western university grew, and Padilla believes that it has sown racism through the entirety of higher education. Last summer, after Princeton decided to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from its School of Public and International Affairs, Padilla was a co-author of an open letter that pushed the university to do more. “We call upon the university to amplify its commitment to Black people,” it read, “and to become, for the first time in its history, an anti-racist institution.” Surveying the damage done by people who lay claim to the classical tradition, Padilla argues, one can only conclude that classics has been instrumental to the invention of “whiteness” and its continued domination.

In recent years, like-minded classicists have come together to dispel harmful myths about antiquity. On social media and in journal articles and blog posts, they have clarified that contrary to right-wing propaganda, the Greeks and Romans did not consider themselves “white,” and their marble sculptures, whose pale flesh has been fetishized since the 18th century, would often have been painted in antiquity. They have noted that in fifth-century-B.C. Athens, which has been celebrated as the birthplace of democracy, participation in politics was restricted to male citizens; thousands of enslaved people worked and died in silver mines south of the city, and custom dictated that upper-class women could not leave the house unless they were veiled and accompanied by a male relative. They have shown that the concept of Western civilization emerged as a euphemism for “white civilization” in the writing of men like Lothrop Stoddard, a Klansman and eugenicist. Some classicists have come around to the idea that their discipline forms part of the scaffold of white supremacy — a traumatic process one described to me as “reverse red-pilling” — but they are also starting to see an opportunity in their position. Because classics played a role in constructing whiteness, they believed, perhaps the field also had a role to play in its dismantling.[1]

Durocher’s treatment is a refreshing antidote to this contemporary academic orthodoxy. Unlike so many scholars, whose main concern is to score political points useful to the anti-White left and thereby improve their standing in the profession, he has attempted to present an accurate account of these writers and the world they were trying to understand and survive in. The phrase “so-called white culture” in the above quotation from Rachel Poser’s New York Times article is indicative of this mindset. Durocher does not shy away from discussing slavery, the relatively confined role of women, or the cruelty that Greeks could exhibit even toward their fellow Greeks. But he also emphasizes the relative freedom of the Greeks, their intellectual brilliance, and the ability of the two principal city-states, Athens and Sparta, to pull together to defeat a common foe and thereby save their people and culture from utter destruction.

The contemporary academic left has abandoned any attempt to understand the Greeks on their own terms in favor of comparing Western cultures (and typically only Western cultures) to what they see as timeless moral criteria—criteria that reflect the current sacralization of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But even the most cursory reflection makes it obvious that moral ideals such as valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion are not justified because of their value in establishing a society that can survive in a hostile world. They are valued as intrinsic goods, and societies that depart from these ideals are condemned as evil. Recently there was something of a stir when a video was released by the website of Russia Today, a television station linked to the Russian government, comparing ads for military service in Russia and the United States.[2] Ads directed at Russians show determined, physically fit young men engaged in disciplined military units and difficult, dangerous activities under adverse conditions. On the other hand, the recruitment ad for the U.S. military features a woman who, although physically fit, dwells on her pride in participating in the marriage of her two “mothers.” The contrast couldn’t be more striking. The Russian military is seeking the best way to survive in a hostile world, while the American military is virtue-signaling its commitment to the gender dogmas of the left.

Durocher emphasizes that the Greeks lived in a very cruel world, a world where “the fate of the vanquished was often supremely grim: the men could be exterminated, the women and children enslaved as so much war booty. Our generation too often forgets that our political order exists by virtue of a succession of wars — from the revolutionary wars of the Enlightenment to the World Wars of the Twentieth Century — and it cannot be otherwise.” We in the contemporary West have a life of relative ease, wealth, and security that was unknown to the ancient Greeks who were threatened not only by other Greek poleis, but by foreign powers, particularly the aggressive and much more populous Persian Empire. In such an environment, there is no room for virtue signaling. Survival in a hostile, threatening world was the only worthwhile goal:

Before anything else, a good city-state was one with the qualities necessary to survive in the face of aggressive foreign powers. This was ensured by solidarity among the citizens, each being willing to fight and die beside the other. Hence the citizen was also a soldier-citizen.

 Aristocratic Individualism. Ancient Greece was an Indo-European culture, and thus prized military virtues, heroism, and the quest for honor, fame, and glory. Homer “tells of a terrible war for sexual competition, for the heart of beautiful Helen, and its inevitable tragedies. But the maudlin self-pity and effeminacy of our time are unknown to Homer: if tragedy is inevitable in the human experience, the poet’s role is to give meaning and beauty to the ordeal, and to inspire men to struggle for a glorious destiny.” “Their way of life is one of ‘vital barbarism,’ having the values of ruthless conquerors, prizing loot, honor, and glory above all.” Achilles “prefers a brief but glorious life to one of lengthy obscurity.” “Quick, better to live or die, once and for all, than die by inches, slowly crushed to death – helpless against the hulls in the bloody press, by far inferior men!” (Iliad, 15.510). Trust was confined to people within one’s social circle. Strangers and foreigners could not be trusted: “As in the Iliad, in the Odyssey strangers and foreign lands are synonymous with uncertainty and violence. This is a world without mutual confidence. Even the gods do not trust in one another.”

This sense of heroic struggle in a hostile environment is central to the classical world of Greece and Rome, and was evident among the Germanic peoples who inherited the West after the fall of the Roman Empire. As Ricardo Duchesne notes, the Indo-European legacy is key to understanding the restless, aggressive, questing, innovative, “Faustian” soul of Europe. Indo-Europeans were a “uniquely aristocratic people dominated by emerging chieftains for whom fighting to gain prestige was the all-pervading ethos. This culture [is] interpreted as ‘the Western state of nature’ and as the primordial source of Western restlessness.”[3] Durocher expands on this beautifully:

This Aryan ethos is what so appealed to Nietzsche: a people not animated by pity or guilt, nor trying to achieve impossible or fictitious equality in an endlessly vain attempt to assuage feelings. Rather, Hellenic culture, driven by that aristocratic and competitive spirit, held up the ideal of being the best: the best athlete, the best warrior, the best poet, the best philosopher, or the most beautiful. This culture also held up the collective ideal of being the best as a whole society, for they understood that man as a species only flourishes as a community.

This competitive ethic so central to the West is fundamentally individualistic, not based on extended kinship. It is in strong contrast to the contemporary West where the main goal of far too many of its traditional peoples is to uphold moral principles and to feel guilt for differences in wealth and accomplishment. In individualist Western culture, reputation is paramount, and in the modern West, reputation revolves mainly around being an honest, morally upstanding, trustworthy person, with moral rectitude defined by media and academic elites hostile to the Western tradition. In my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition I ascribe this fundamental shift in Western culture to the rise of the values of an egalitarian individualist ethic that originated among the northwestern European hunter-gatherers—an ethic that is in many ways the diametrical opposite of the Indo-European aristocratic tradition.[4] This new ethic began its rise to predominance with the English Civil War of the seventeenth century and remains most prominent in northwest Europe, particularly Scandinavian cultures.

The aristocratic individualism of the ancient Western world implies a hierarchy in which aristocrats have power over underlings (although there was the expectation of reciprocity), but there is egalitarianism among peers. “The kings … are not tyrants: they are expected to welcome legitimate criticism from their peers and even tolerate a good deal of backtalk.” In the Iliad, the Achaean army is made of several kings and is therefore fractious, with no one having absolute power over the rest. Decisions therefore require consensus and consultation. Aristocratic individualism is always threatened by what one might term a degenerate aristocracy—the ancient tyrants and early modern European monarchs kings who aspired to complete control. For example, King Louis XIV of France (reigned 1643-1715) had power over the nobility undreamed of in the Middle Ages while his legacy of absolute rule led ultimately to the French Revolution.

Herodotus notes that a common strategy for ruling elites was to form a distinct and solidary extended family by only marrying among themselves, for example by the ruling Bacchiadae clan of Corinth (Herodotus, 5.92). This also occurred in the European Middle Ages and later as elites severed ties with their wider kinship groups and married among themselves—likely a tendency for any aristocratic society.

But even apart from peers, there was an ideal of reciprocity within the hierarchy—a fundamental feature of Indo-European culture. As I noted in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Oath-bound contracts of reciprocal relationships were characteristic of [Proto-Indo-Europeans] and [Indo-Europeans] and this practice continued with the various I-E groups that invaded Europe. These contracts formed the basis of patron-client relationships based on reputation—leaders could expect loyal service from their followers, and followers could expect equitable rewards for their service to the leader. This is critical because these relationships are based on talent and accomplishment, not ethnicity (i.e., rewarding people on the basis of closeness of kinship) or despotic subservience (where followers are essentially unfree). (p. 34)

Such reciprocity is apparent in Homer’s world: “The Homeric ideal of kingship is one of familial solidarity, moderation, trust, piety, strength, and reciprocal duties between king and people, to the benefit of one another. Hierarchy and community are fundamentally necessary in Homer’s world. Followers require leadership and, indeed, servitude in a sense makes them foolish.”   

Greek Collectivism: The Necessity of Social Cohesion

Given the exigencies of survival in a hostile world, Greek conceptions of the ideal society were firmly based on realistic assessments of what was necessary to survive and flourish. In my book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition,[5] I noted that the Puritan-descended intellectuals of the nineteenth century, like today’s academic and media left, were moral idealists, constructing ideal societies on the basis of universalist moral principles, such as abolitionist ideology based on the evil of enslaving Africans. The Greeks also had ideas on the ideal society, but they were not based on moral abstractions independent of survival value. And among those values, social cohesion was paramount. Because of its inherent individualism and the practical necessity of social cohesion, Western culture has always been a balance between its individualism and some form of social glue that binds people together to achieve common interests, including forms of social control that impinge on the self-interest of at least some individuals, but also providing citizens with a stake in the system.

There is thus a major contrast between the Greeks and a slave-type society such as the Persian Empire—a contrast the Greeks were well aware of. For example, Aristotle wrote “these barbarian peoples are more servile in character than Greeks (as the peoples of Asia are more servile than those of Europe); and they therefore tolerate despotic rule without any complaint” (Politics, 1285a16). The social cohesion of the West has typically resulted from all citizens having a stake in the system. In the world of Homer, kings understood that they would benefit if the citizens are willing to fight and die for their homeland: “The Odyssey reaffirms the Iliad’s tragic message: that good order and the community can only be guaranteed by the willingness to fight and die for family and fatherland.” And Herodotus noted that Athens became a superior military power after getting rid of tyrants and developing a citizenry with a stake in the system: “while they were under an oppressive regime they fought below their best because they were working for a master, whereas as free men each individual wanted to achieve something for himself” (Herodotus, 5.78).

My interest in understanding the West has always revolved around kinship, marriage, and the family as bedrock institutions amenable to an evolutionary analysis. An important aspect of social cohesion in the West has been institutions that result in relative sexual egalitarianism among males, in contrast to the common practice (e.g., in classical China, and the Middle East, including Greece’s main foreign enemy, the Persian Empire) where wealthy, powerful males maintained large harems, while many men were unable to procreate. In ancient Greece, the importance of social cohesion can be seen in Solon’s laws on marriage (early sixth century BC). Solon’s laws had a strongly egalitarian thrust, and indeed, the purpose of his laws was to “resolve problems of deep-seated social unrest involving the aristocratic monopoly on political power and landholding practices under which the ‘many were becoming enslaved to the few.’”[6] As Durocher notes, Solon “abolished existing private and public debts and banned usurious loans for which the penalty for defaulting was enslavement. In his poems, Solon condemns the nation-shattering effects of usury and poverty, which lead unfree citizens to wander the world, homeless.”

The concern therefore was that such practices were leading to a lack of social cohesion—with people not believing they had a stake in the system. As in the case of the medieval Church, the focus of Solon’s laws on marriage was to rein in the power of the aristocracy by limiting the benefits to be gained by extra-marital sexual relationships. In Solon’s laws, legitimate children with the possibility of inheritance were the product of two Athenian citizens, a policy approved by popular vote in 451 B.C. As Pericles noted, bastards were to be “excluded from both the responsibilities and privileges of membership in the public household” (in Patterson, 2001, 1378). Given that wealthy males are in the best position to father extramarital children and provide for multiple sexual partners, it’s critical that Solon’s legislation (like the Church’s policies in the Middle Ages) was explicitly aimed at creating sexual egalitarianism among men—giving all male citizens a stake in the system.

Greek thinkers and lawgivers thus had no compunctions about reining in individual self-interest in the interest of the common good. For example, “Aristotle’s discussion of population policy and eugenics reflects the view which the Greeks took for granted: that the biological reproduction and quality of the citizenry was a fundamental matter of public interest. The citizen had a duty to act and the lawmaker to regulate by whatever means necessary to achieve these goals.” The public interest in achieving a society able to withstand the hostile forces arrayed against it was paramount, not the interests of any particular person or segment of the society, including the wealthy.

Greek cultures therefore often had strong social controls aimed at creating cohesive, powerful groups where cohesion was maintained by regulating individual behavior, effectively making them group evolutionary strategies. These cultures certainly did not eradicate individual self-interest, but they regulated and channeled it in such a manner that the group as a whole benefited. For example, in constructing an ideal society, Aristotle rejected a mindless libertarianism in favor of a system that had concern for the good of the society as a whole. Anything that interfered with social cohesion or any other feature that contributed to an adaptive culture had to be dealt with—by whatever means necessary.

Solon’s laws on marriage and inheritance would therefore have been analyzed by Aristotle for their effect on social cohesion. Egalitarianism, like everything else, had to be subjected to the criterion of what was best for the community as a whole, and that meant that societies should be ethnically homogeneous and led by the best people. Aristotle’s arguments for moderate democracy are not founded on abstract “rights” or a moral vision, ideas that have dominated Western thinking since the Enlightenment, “but rather, are based on what benefits the community as a whole. … Aristotle’s citizens rule and are ruled in turn, this reciprocity fostering a spirit of friendship between social classes.” “Aristotle is clear … that private property is not a right enabling individuals to be as capricious and selfish as they please, but merely a sensible way of producing wealth, whose aim must ultimately be the well-being of the community.” The social cohesion needed in a hostile world was a fundamental value that trumped any concern for individual rights. Durocher:

Aristotle’s unabashed ethics are typically Hellenic: there is no egalitarian consolation for the ugly and the misbegotten, there is no pretense that all human beings can be happy and actualized. Rather, Aristotle, like the Greeks in general, celebrates excellence. … This vision is in fact unabashedly communitarian and aristocratic: Firstly, the human species cannot flourish and fulfill its natural role unless it survives and reproduces itself in the right conditions; secondly, the society must be organized so as to grant the intellectually-gifted and culturally-educated minority the leisure to exercise their reason.

Sparta was even more egalitarian among the Spartiates, giving the citizens a stake in the system, but with an ethic that rejected effeminacy and weakness and in which individuals strived to achieve excellence in military skills. Also likely promoting social cohesion was that the Helot slave class was an outgroup that Spartans understood needed to be rigorously controlled, setting up a very robust ingroup-outgroup psychology that promoted social cohesion and high positive regard for the ingroup along with disparagement and even abuse of the outgroup. Spartan social cohesion is legendary and likely contributed to the intense solidarity needed to defeat the far more numerous Persian Empire:

By their triumph in the Persian Wars, the Greeks preserved their sovereignty and identity, setting the stage for the Golden Age of Athenian power and philosophy. The Greeks triumphed because of the winning combination of their culture of civic freedom and solidarity, and the successful alliance between Athens and Sparta, which required both cities to adopt a conciliatory attitude. Herodotus’s Histories are a poignant commemoration of the fragility and value of Greek unity.

The results have resounded down the ages:

In the Persian Wars, the Greeks showed that a small and scattered nation could, with luck, skill, and determination, triumph even over the greatest empire of the day. This example can still inspire us today and discredit all defeatism. In their victory, the Greeks were able to pass down an enormous political, cultural, and scientific heritage to generations ever since. No wonder John Stuart Mill could claim: “The Battle of Marathon, even as an event in British history, is more important than the Battle of Hastings.”

This emphasis on giving individuals a stake in the system as a mechanism for social cohesion thus has strong roots in Western culture. The political system of the Roman Republic was far from democratic, but it was also far from a narrow oligarchy, and the representation and power of the lower classes gradually increased throughout the Republic (e.g., with the office of tribune of the plebs). The highest offices, consuls and praetors with military and judicial functions, were elected by the comitia centuriata, a convocation of the military, divided into centuries, where people with property had the majority of the vote (people were assigned to a century depending on five classes of property ownership, with the lower classes voting after the wealthy; the election was typically decided before the poorer centuries could vote).

A deep concern with social cohesion enabled by having a stake in the system was also apparent in the Germanic world after the fall of the Roman Empire. Although unquestionably hierarchical, early medieval European societies had a strong sense that cultures ought to build a sense of social cohesion on the basis of reciprocity, so that, with the exception of slaves, even humble members near the bottom of the social hierarchy had a stake in the system. The ideal (and the considerable reality) is what Spanish historian Américo Castro labeled “hierarchic harmony.”[7]

For example, the Visigothic Code promulgated by seventh-century King Chindasuinth of Spain illustrates the desire for a non-despotic government and for social cohesion that results from taking account of the interests of everyone (except slaves). Regarding despotism:

It should be required that [the king] make diligent inquiry as to the soundness of his opinions. Then, it should be evident that he has acted not for private gain but for the benefit of the people; so that it may conclusively appear that the law has not been made for any private or personal advantage, but for the protection and profit of the whole body of citizens. (Title I, II)[8]

Thus the concern with social cohesion is a strong current in Western history.

Ethnic Diversity and Lack of Social Cohesion.

Aristotle was well aware that extreme individualism may benefit some individuals who gain when a culture discourages common identities. I recall being puzzled when doing research on the Frankfurt School that intellectuals who had been steeped in classical Marxism had developed an ideology that prized individualism—jettisoning ethnic and religious identities in favor of self-actualization and acceptance of differences.

In the end the ideology of the Frankfurt School may be described as a form of radical individualism that nevertheless despised capitalism—an individualism in which all forms of gentile collectivism are condemned as an indication of social or individual pathology. … The prescription for gentile society is radical individualism and the acceptance of pluralism. People have an inherent right to be different from others and to be accepted by others as different. Indeed, to become differentiated from others is to achieve the highest level of humanity. The result is that “no party and no movement, neither the Old Left nor the New, indeed no collectivity of any sort was on the side of truth. . . . [T]he residue of the forces of true change was located in the critical individual alone.”[9]

Aristotle understood this logic, noting that both extreme democrats and tyrants encouraged the mixing of peoples and losing old identities and loyalties. Aristotle:

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 [the] 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. (Politics, 1319b19)

The ancient Greeks were also aware that ethnic diversity leads to conflict and lack of common identity. As Aristotle noted, “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.” Realizing this, tyrants often took advantage of this evolutionary reality by importing people in order to undermine the solidarity of the people they ruled over.

It’s interesting in this regard that such efforts to undermine the homogeneity of populations continue in the contemporary West. In the wake of World War II, the activist Jewish community, in part inspired by the writings of the Frankfurt School,[10] made a major push to open up immigration of Western countries to all the peoples of the world, their motive being a fear of ethnically homogeneous White populations of the type that had turned against Jews in Germany after 1933.[11] Corroborating this assessment, historian Otis Graham notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.”[12] The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws which dramatically lowered immigration and restricted immigration to people largely from northwestern Europe. These same intellectuals and activists have also pathologized any sense of White identity or sense of White interests to the point that it’s common for White liberals to have negative attitudes about White people.


Greek Race Realism. The ancient Greeks were vitally concerned with leaving descendants and they understood that heredity was important in shaping individuals—a view that is obviously adaptive in an evolutionary sense. Aristotle writes that “good birth, for a people and a state, is to be indigenous or ancient and to have distinguished founders with many descendants distinguished in matters that excite envy” (Rhetoric, 1.5). The Greeks also had a sense that they shared a common ethnicity and culture with other Greeks, resulting in common expressions of the need for ethnic solidarity, particularly in the wars with Persia. Durocher notes that “One cannot exaggerate the pervasiveness of the rhetoric of kinship and pan-Hellenic identity throughout the conflict.”

The Greeks were thus proud of their lineage and had a sense of common kinship. However, it was not the sort of extensive kinship that is typical of so much of the rest of the world. There was an individualist core to Greek culture stemming from its Indo-European roots, resulting in the famously fractious Greek culture, with wars between Greek city-states. Even during the Persian wars, several Greek city-states failed to join the coalition against Persia, and “the sentimental love for Hellas was often overridden by personal or political interests. Prominent Greek leaders and cities frequently collaborated with the Persians, either because the alternative was oblivion or simply for profit.”

As in individualist cultures generally, lineage is confined to close relatives, and there are no corporate kinship-based groups that own property or where brothers live together in common households: “Despite typically vague modern notions of a primitive clan-based society as the predecessor to the historical society of the polis, early Greek society seems securely rooted in individual households—and in the relationships focused on and extending from those households.[13]

And congruent with contemporary behavior genetic research, there was an expectation that children would inherit the traits of parents: King Menelaus is impressed by Odysseus’s son Telemachus: Surely you two have not shamed your parentage; you belong to the race of heaven-protected and sceptered kings; no lesser parents could have such sons” (4.35-122). Menelaus later adds: “What you say, dear child, is proof of the good stock you come from” (4.549-643).

Reflecting the common Greek view that it was necessary to regulate society in order to achieve adaptive goals of the city as a whole, the Greeks accepted the idea that individual behavior needed to be regulated in the common interest, resulting in eugenic proposals by philosophers and, in the case of Sparta at least, practices such as killing weak infants. Both Plato and Aristotle accepted eugenics as an aspect of public policy. Plato was particularly enthusiastic about eugenics—Durocher labels it “an obsession,” and, like many evolutionists, such as Sir Francis Galton, he was much impressed by animal breeding as a paradigm for eugenic policies for humans. For Plato, eugenics was part of a broader group evolutionary strategy he proposed for the Greeks. As Durocher notes, Plato advocated

a great reform of convention grounded in reason and expertise, to transform Greece into a patchwork of enlightened, non-grasping city-states, cultivating themselves intellectually and culturally, reproducing themselves in perpetuity through systematic and eugenic population policies, avoiding fratricidal war and imperialism among themselves, and working together against the barbarians, under the leadership of the best city-states. Taken together, I dare say we can speak of a Platonic Group Evolutionary Strategy for Greece.

It’s worth noting in this context that the basic premises of eugenics are well-grounded in evolutionary and genetic science and were broadly accepted in Western culture, even among progressives, from the late nineteenth century until after World War II when the entire field became tarred by association with National Socialism. It is thus part of the broad transformation among Western intellectuals away from thinking in terms of racial differences and the genetic basis of individual differences—to the point that it’s currently fashionable to deny the reality of race and any suggestion that race differences in socially important traits such as intelligence could possibly be influenced genetically. As Durocher notes, “Race is, especially in geographically contiguous land masses, typically a clinal phenomenon, with gradual change in genetic characteristics (i.e., allele frequencies) as one moves, for instance, from northern Europe to central Africa.” However, in the contemporary West, intellectual and cultural elites have sought “to suppress cultural chauvinism and ethnic solidarity, for example by glorifying foreign cultures and shaming native ethnic pride. Such nations are unlikely to survive long however.” So true. 

Scientific Think as Characteristic of the West

In his discussion of Herodotus, Durocher describes the “beginnings of scientific thought concerning both nature and society, for instance with plausible speculations about the formation of the Nile Delta, micro-climates, and the effect of the natural environment on human biology and culture.” Analogical thinking is fundamental to science (e.g., Christiaan Huygens’s use of light and sound to support his wave theory of light; Darwin’s analogy between artificial selection and natural selection—with obvious implications for eugenics; the mind as a blank slate or computer). Scientific thinking is thus apparent in the eugenic recommendations noted by Greek philosophers based, as they were, on analogies with animal breeding.

Such scientific thinking is a unique characteristic of Western individualist culture. In his book The WEIRDest People in the World, Joseph Henrich describes “WEIRD psychology”—i.e., the psychology of Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic people. A major point is that the psychology of Western peoples is unique in the context of the rest of the world: “highly individualistic, self-obsessed, control-oriented, nonconformist, and analytical. … When reasoning WEIRD people tend to look for universal categories and rules with which to organize the world.” (21)

Henrich notes that people from cultures with intensive kinship are more prone to holistic thinking that takes into account contexts and relationships, whereas Westerners are more prone to analytic thinking in which background information and context are ignored, leading ultimately to universal laws of nature and formal logic. I agree with this,[14] but, while Henrich argues that analytical thinking began as a result of the policies on marriage enforced by the medieval Church, this style of thinking can clearly be found among the ancient Greeks. Consider Aristotle’s logic, a masterpiece of field independence and ignoring context, in which logical relationships can be deduced from the purely formal properties of sentences (e.g., All x’s are y; this is an x; therefore, this is a y); indeed, in Prior Analytics Aristotle used the first three letters of the Greek alphabet as placeholders instead of concrete examples. Or consider Euclidean geometry, in which theorems could be deduced from a small set of self-evident axioms and in which the axioms themselves were based on decontextualized figures, such as perfect circles and triangles, and infinite straight lines. Despite its decontextualized nature, the Euclidean system has had huge applications in the real world and dominated thinking in geometry in the West until the twentieth century.

Ancient Greece was an Indo-European-derived culture (Individualism, Ch. 2) and, beginning in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity, logical argument and competitive disputation have been far more characteristic of Western cultures than any other culture area. As Duchesne notes, “the ultimate basis of Greek civic and cultural life was the aristocratic ethos of individualism and competitive conflict which pervaded [Indo-European] culture. … There were no Possessors of the Way in aristocratic Greece; no Chinese Sages decorously deferential to their superiors and expecting appropriate deference from their inferiors. The search for the truth was a free-for-all with each philosopher competing for intellectual prestige in a polemical tone that sought to discredit the theories of others while promoting one’s own.”[15]

In such a context, rational, decontextualized arguments that appeal to disinterested observers and are subject to refutation win out. They do not depend on group discipline or group interests for their effectiveness because in Western cultures, the groups are permeable and defections based on individual beliefs are far more the norm than in other cultures. As Duchesne notes, although the Chinese made many practical discoveries, they never developed the idea of a rational, orderly universe guided by universal laws comprehensible to humans. Nor did they ever develop a “deductive method of rigorous demonstration according to which a conclusion, a theorem, was proven by reasoning from a series of self-evident axioms,”[16] as seen in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Indeed, I can’t resist noting the intelligence and creativity that went into creating the incredibly intricate Antikythera Mechanism designed by an unknown Greek (or Greeks). Dated to around 150–100 B.C. and “technically more complex than any known device for at least a millennium afterwards,” it was able to predict eclipses and planetary motions decades in advance.[17] Western scientific and technological creativity did not begin after the influence of Christianity, the Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution.

Schematic of the Antikythera Mechanism

As Durocher notes, “The fruits of Hellenic civilization are all around us, down to our very vocabulary.”



The Ancient Ethnostate should be at the top of everyone’s reading for those interested in understanding Western origins and the uniqueness of the West. It is also an inspiring work for those of us who seek to reinvigorate the West as a unique biocultural entity. The contemporary West, burdened by loss of confidence and moral and spiritual decay, cannot be redeemed by a fresh influx of ethnically Western barbarians as happened with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Germanic Europe. There are no more such peoples waiting in the wings to revive our ancient civilization.

Reinvigoration must come from within, but now it must do so in the context of massive immigration of non-Western peoples who are addicted to identity politics and are proving to be unwilling and likely unable to continue the Western traditions of individualism and all that that implies in terms of representative, non-despotic government, freedom of speech and association, and scientific inquiry. Indeed, we are seeing increasing hatred toward the people and culture of the West that is now well entrenched among Western elites and eagerly accepted by many of the non-Western peoples who have been imported into Western nations, many with historical grudges against the West. It will be a long, arduous road back. The Ancient Ethnostate contains roadmaps for the type of society that we should seek to establish.

[1] Rachel Poser, “He Wants to Save Classics from Whiteness. Can the Field Survive?,” New York Times (February 2, 2011).;  see also Donna Zuckerberg, Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age (Harvard University Press, 2018).


[3] Ricardo Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 51.

[4] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Susan Lape, “Solon and the institution of ‘democratic’ family form. Classical Journal 98.2 (2002–2003), pp. 117-139, p. 117.

[7] Américo Castro, The Structure of Spanish History, trans. Edmund L. King (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954), p. 497; see also Américo Castro, The Spaniards: An Introduction to Their History, trans. Willard F. King and Selma Margaretten (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).

[8] The Visigothic Code (Forum judicum), trans. S. P. Scott (Boston, MA: Boston Book Company, 1910; online version: The Library of Iberian Resources Online, unpaginated).

[9] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political movements (Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2002; originally published: Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998), p. 165, quoting J. B. Maier, “Contribution to a critique of Critical Theory,” in Foundations of the Frankfurt School of Social Research, ed. J. Marcus & Z. Tar (New Brunswick, NJ: 1984, Transaction Books).

[10] Ibid., Ch. 5.

[11] Ibid., Ch. 7.

[12] Otis Graham (2004). Unguarded Gates: A History of American’s Immigration Crisis. (Rowman & Littlefield), p. 80.

[13] C.B. Patterson, The Family in Greek History (Cambridge, MA: 2001, Harvard University Press), pp. 46–47.

[14] MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 112–113.

[15] Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, 452,

[16] Ibid.

[17] S. Freeth, et al. (2006). Decoding the ancient Greek astronomical calculator known as the Antikythera Mechanism. Nature 444: 587-591, 587.

28 replies
  1. Noel J.
    Noel J. says:

    A brilliant article by Mr. Kevin MacDonald.

    And anyone who has been to Greece knows the old Greek were white. Greeks even today are white skinned. Sure there might have been some mixture like in Rome but probably not to agreat degree but I am no expert.

    Although I read that in many ancient Greek states slaves and foreigners outnumbered the Greek.

    I have to say though there is one thing in the text where I think it’s to early to say whether or not that was the case. This has been pointed out by another person I remember reading, and this is the idea of the anchient Greece being an aristocratic indo european culture.

    Now in this text, Mr. Kevin MacDonald does not state he thinks the old Greeeks were at large indo European as such but that the culture was so.

    Fistly, the averege western man is a mix quite often of mainly different white groups like wester hunter gatherers, eastern hunter gatherers, indo europans and to a small degree quite often asians (apparently of the japanese kind), aswell as white levians, which were like todays armenians or georgians but without the mixture with turkmenics (turkmenics and arabs invaded todays Turkey and later there was mixture with arabs and thereby subsaharian africans because the arabs mixed with them). They have even found in Israel large graves of people living there in ancient times that were anchient levians and they had blue eyes, that came from the same region.

    If we look at northern Spain alot of them have largely western hunter gatherer origin I read for example.

    Like Mr. Mason (author of Siege, who’m I don’t agree with much in politics), and Mr. David Lane I do think the old Israelites were white. The high IQ and often fair skin still today after many of the original Israelites mixed with with other ethnical groups such as arabs and subsaharian africans. I do believe the few white Israelites, many of them mixed with whites in Europe and that many of Europes and Americas geniouse had this background.

    Also how do we know the Indo Europeans had an ariistocratic attitude? I would have to read more of Mr. Kevin MacDonalds latest work to know his reasoning here. I mean sure goths in Spain had this attitude certainly and one may argue that this was a foundation for aristocracy in Europe, blue blooded, from seeing the veins in fair skin and so on. But theyr were a minority in their region. Many other regions where the system was adopted, the aristocracy came from more or less the same stock as the majority population it seems.

    Also assuming a large indo european influence on Greece is premature I think. Where is the genetic evidence of that. It is possible certainly.

    But later science by german scientists has shown million year old footprints in Greece of pre-human or proto human species. So it seems that man evolved if this scientific finding is correct over millions of years in Europe and if so it seems that it is possible that westerm hunter gatherers were a founding stock of anchient Greece.

    An other interesting factor is that during the ice-age in Europe most of it’s population moved to todays Italy and Spain and that this bottle neck evolutionary times or however you wanna put it was instrumental in forming our heritage. And partly due to this Italy is today one of the most

    Now some scientists claim that the old wester hunter gatherers did not have fair skin due to no such specific genetics having been found. But the Japanese has fair skin most often and they do not have any such specific genetics therefore the scientists do not know the colour of their skin. Also the hunter-gatherers in the Nordic region did have genetics associated with fair skin.

    But there are now scientists that think it may have been apes that came out of africa when the mediterranian sea was landmass, and that these apes evolved to humans separately from the development if Africa. They may also have had fair skin under their fur.

    And Darwin for example did not think subsaharian africans were human but another species.

    Also I do think the road back may be explosive and may not take a long time but we will see I suppose.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      Herodotus describes the Greeks as “blonde and blue-eyed”. All of ancient (but post-Neanderthalic) Europe was far blonder than today.

      • Noel J.
        Noel J. says:

        I mean the french don’t have many blondes and those who are are often decendant to vikings or such. Still most of them are like 100 % white.

        Sure there might have been blonde and blue eyed greeks, but what percentage? Should we analyze old paintings on vases and the like from the period?

        I don’t have the time now and I’m not a history professor.

        But that would also contradict an indo-european theory I suppose since the indo-europeans according to Kevin MacDonald had for the most part brown hair so…

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      “A brilliant article by Mr. Kevin MacDonald.

      And anyone who has been to Greece knows the old Greek were white. Greeks even today are white skinned. Sure there might have been some mixture like in Rome but probably not to agreat degree but I am no expert.”

      Not true at all. The present Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Hellenes, including DNA. Greece has been overrun many times by foreign powers, and occupied for hundreds of years by Ottoman Turks, who sucked the life out of the people.

      Many Greeks today have “olive complexions”, and some are darker skinned. I am 100% Greek, and my DNA is composed from all over the Mediterranean, including the Balkans, the Middle East, and North Africa.

      • Tsigantes
        Tsigantes says:

        Poupon, I am a Greek from Kefalonia living in Lesbos (Greece, in case you don’t know), and I don’t believe for a second that you are Greek.

        If you were Greek you would know that Greece has never been “over-run
        by foreign powers”. Greece was free until 1453. The Ottomans then ruled Greece for 400 years (of its 5000+ years of recorded history), but Turkish populations did not move here, only the occupying administration with their families. As in Ottoman Turkey itself, separation was strictly maintained through the fillet system and punishments, but also through preference and religion. Some mixing will have occurred in the 2-300 years of Genoese and Venetian garrisons and local prostitutes on certain Aegean islands and during Italy’s 60 year stewardship of the Dodecanese – but this is negligible.
        Later, the Germans occupied Greece for 3 years.
        And that is the end of the story.
        Compared to the continental migrations, intermarriages and immigration this is “tipota” as we say.

        As for Greeks having “very little in common with the ancient Hellenes, including DNA” I direct you to this articles and the many other articles you will find if you search –

        Greeks Really Do Have Near Mythical Origins Ancient DNA Reveals

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          It makes not difference, Tsigantes, what you believe of me. My father’s family is from Anatolia, having lived there for a very long time. These Greeks are darker complected It is assumed-and my DNA confirms-that our family has Turkish blood. The Islamic-Turkish model of wide spread rape concubinage of women of conquered people certainly was attendant at the fall of Constantinople. All the women were raped, men slaughtered or taken off as slaves, in Hagia Sophia. This certainly was repeated at every succeeding conquest of the Grecian World. Plus this:

          Like in the rest of the Ottoman Empire, Greeks had to carry a receipt certifying their payment of jizya at all times or be subject to imprisonment. Most Greeks did not have to serve in the Sultan’s army, but the young boys that were taken away and converted to Islam were made to serve in the Ottoman military. In addition, girls were taken in order to serve as odalisques in harems.[23][24][page needed]

          These practices are called the “tribute of children” (devshirmeh) (in Greek παιδομάζωμα paidomazoma, meaning “child gathering”), whereby every Christian community was required to give one son in five to be raised as a Muslim and enrolled in the corps of Janissaries, elite units of the Ottoman army. There was much resistance to this. For example, Greek folklore tells of mothers crippling their sons to avoid their abduction. Nevertheless, entrance into the corps (accompanied by conversion to Islam) offered Greek boys the opportunity to advance as high as governor or even Grand Vizier.

          While Greece-by extension-included the Near East, Anatolia, Northern Egypt and North Africa, this colonization for Greek DNA resulted in much mixture. As Greater Greece eventually faded, Greeks that returned to Greece where quite different than the Home Boys. I remember my Father’s family complaining that when they were driven out of there village next to Troy, they were met with thinly veiled hostility and at best indifference. That’s because they had adapted to Turkish culture for centuries. You cannot tell me that Greeks that had lived outside to the Grecian Peninsula had significant differences due to being run out of their former abodes in the colonies.

          Balkan Slavs invade and occupy large parts of Greece, and assimilate to a large degree.

          I consider your comments as ahistorical and surly, which seems to derive from a sort of compensation for the failures of the Grecian World in the post Hellene Period. We are past the contention of Greeks being large homogenous DNA of a people. The largest percentage of my DNA comes from my Mother’s side, which was located in the middle of the Peloponnesus. From there, 14% is derived from Sicily, the next tier is from the Balkans, and some found from ancient Persia. “Pure Greek Blood” indeed!! A lot of modern day Greeks have historical inferiority complexes, blaming their problems of today on the long occupation by the Turks, and their middling advancement as a modern nation. Very native and stagnant for many many years.

          It really seems a bit sad. I have traveled the world and lived in many places my whole adult life, coming from a military family who changed duty stations frequently and later as a merchant mariner. I must inform you that Greek ships and merchant seaman-for a civilized country-are some of the worst I have encountered. Dirty ships, slothful upkeep, stratified social structure and insecure officers, who, like Jews, do not like to get their hands dirty.

          Anyway, T., keep breathing, and I will look for my re-reincarnation to the Asian East, which is who I am in essence.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Current Greek Intelligence Quotient is 92. I am Greek [Theta Chi] from Long Beach State ’68. Many Geeks, I mean Greeks also had 92 IQs, except for Brother Spielberg [I hereby renounce whatever “brotherhood” I may have once had with Brother Spielberg. He said, in 1966, he was gonna be a big shot in Hollywood. He was fairly good looking at the time. . .]

          • Poupon Marx
            Poupon Marx says:

            Very pithy, TJ. *Chortle*. Most of today’s Modern Greeks have DNA from all points of the Mediterranean. For a more direct confirmation, look at their faces, and you find all the variations. Some look like Jews and indeed have Jewish DNA. I did not mention above that part of my DNA is beyond the Balkans, into Slav country, and all around North Africa. My ancestors got around!!


            When I was active in my Orthodox Church, I remember an article from a bishop how inter-marriage between Greek Americans who were in the Border Patrol, and local Mexican Americans would be handled, vis a vis conversion and instruction for their wives. Next generation, who might call themselves Greek, would be a mischung.

            And that is the reality of any diaspora or far and wide distribution. In Cyprus, the Greek population has the highest percentage of Turkish DNA.

            Byzantium did not have to die. Internal rot, and petty pissing contest with the Catheter Poops left them dangling in the wind, like overripe fruit to be picked.

            Meanwhile….when I was Chief Engineering on a privately contracted US Naval Research/Spy vessel in the Mediterranean and Arabian Gulf, we were ported in Chania Crete, where our agent laisoned with the local resource and assets, including provisions, logistics, and repair assistance. I had to purchase an outboard motor for the launch that retrieved the torpedo shaped robot submersibles. The agent was Danish, who married a Greek who owned the Company. She would tell me that he would talk and argue politics, drink a lot of coffee and smoke continuously. Nonetheless, she was in love with him because he was “a real man”. Anyway, it is easy to see that modern Greeks bear more than a superficial resemblance to Arabs and their culture.

            So-and I will never forget-in one of our conversations she said that Greeks can be divided into two groups: one, the best people in the world, diligent, hardworking, efficient, and top shelf in every way. The others, well, aren’t “top of the line”, rather lackadaisical, low focus on important matters, and easily distracted. In brevity, not ideal employees, at all. Not very reliable. Remind you of some ethnic groups you know? My greatest professional misfortune was dry docking my ship in a Greek shipyard in Piraeus. Pain, woe, trouble, rage, despair. It was subsidized by the then socialist Government.

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          NOEL J,
          POUPON MARX,

          NOEL J: Yes, there must’ve been mixture in Rome, but with whom? Not significantly with non-Caucasoids.

          Suetonius on Roman phenotype–
          Augustus: blue eyes, hair yellowish
          Caligula: pallid, pale
          Domitian: ruddy (and therefore of complexion more light than dark)
          Galba: blue-eyed
          Julius Caesar: fair complexion
          Nero: light-blond, dullish blue eyes

          Plutarch on Roman phenotype–
          Brutus: pale
          Cassius: pale
          Marcus Cato: ruddy-complexioned, gray eyes
          Sulla: blue eyes, white-ruddy face, red-blond hair

          Other sources (perforce, since the following lived after the said historians):
          Lucius Verus: blond
          Commodus: blond

          FLAVIUS was a somewhat common name and it denoted blond hair; RUFUS was fairly common too and it signified or suggested red hair.

          The poet Ovid, famous for eroticism, said “I’m crazy for girls who are fair-haired and pale-complexioned.” He also characterized the Gods Aurora, Ceres, Minerva, Diana and Venus as blondes. Here I’m bouncing off the Greek philosopher Xenophanes who, saying that the Thracians’ Gods were red-haired and the Ethiopians’ Gods were black-skinned and woolly-haired, remarked that people tend to make Gods in their own image.

          I agree with the assertion that fair hair, indeed Nordic phenotype, was probably commoner in ancient Europe. As for the very curly hair one sees on Roman images, the Romans evidently thought such hair attractive and used an instrument called the CALAMISTRUM to curl their hair. Accordingly their natural hair must’ve been straight and at most wavy.

          Regarding the French and blondness–huh? Have seen plenty of blonds and blondes in France; and they’re not any less French for being descended from Vikings (you mean the Normans, and rightly); nor need they be Normans, as many more French derive from the FRANKS, on whose national name FRANCE is based; and the Franks were Germans from the Lower Rhine.

          POUPON MARX: “The present Greeks have very little in common with the ancient Hellenes, including DNA.” As you know, Southern Italy including the island of Sicily was anciently Greek, called MAGNA GRAECIA by the Romans. And the fact that Southern Italians are more closely related to today’s Greeks than to any other nation, suggests that the Greeks still bear significant ethnic/genetic heritage passed down to them from the ancient Greeks. That is, unless there was identical non-Hellenic demographic change in both later Greece and later Southern Italy–and I see no indication of that.

          Also, be cautious about ascribing darkening phenotype to the Turks! The average inhabitant of Turkey is not an ETHNIC Turk–that is, a descendant of Turkic invaders and conquerors from East-Central Asia. Ethnic Turks are Mongoloid, clustering with East Asians, whereas people of the Near-Eastern land once known as Asia Minor must largely descend from Indo-European peoples. The Ottoman Turks who conquered Asia Minor were few compared to the Caucasoid population descended from, e.g.,
          *Ionian Greeks
          *Galatians–Eastern Celts
          *Byzantine Greeks

          Yes, the Greeks weren’t conquered and occupied many times, and the people who did conquer and occupy them were not such as to erode their Caucasianness or even their Indo-Europeanness. The Macedonians and Romans were kindred peoples, and even the Ottoman Turks had, as I said above, a typically large share of Indo-European heritage. Look even at their most renowned military corps, the Janissaries–NOT Central Asian Mongoloids to be sure but tough White boys mainly from the Balkans–Albanians, Serbs, etc.

  2. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    While Russia, like America, has many ethnicities it has not become a melting pot. I think it is because they – for various reasons – have reasonably strong moral and spiritual standards coupled with a reverence for their genetic and cultural heritage.

    I have a working knowledge of Russian and I have seen a number of the Russian military recruiting videos KMAC mentions in this essay (sixth paragraph from the top). Suffice to say that Russia, as well as many other countries, are laughing at America.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      Russian nor China has thrown open its borders to races and ethnicities that are different and dissonant from their native culture. There is much to be said for limited democracy, to a scale of knowledge and wisdom.

      One of my proposals is that votes be available to all citizens, but in different quantities. The number of votes per person would be determined by a standardized test of knowledge, and verbal review, financial, employment and background/opinions.

      For example, the Tier 1 category would be given 5 votes. This could be a doctor or truck driver. Tier 2 allowed 4 votes, T3 three votes, etc. Tier 5 is the person who basically basks in ignorance, has various problems of a wide sort. He is employed but is the “just enough to get by” sort.

      Anyway, this sketch and outline would obviously work to promote permanence and carry forth the “Right Ideas and the Right Actions. Note that a highly educated individual might be given only 1 vote, due to lack of critical thinking, personality disorder, severe neurosis, etc.

      Periodic review of qualifications is required. This way everyone is a “stakeholder”, based on a widely accepted model and criteria.

      I have other ideas and ideals that I believer are superior to the usual retroactive and historical templates put forth here and many other venues. There is a reason why this is so.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Christianity in the Middle East, including E-gypt, is complete different from the putrid, rotting, adipose version in the West-including Orthodoxy.

  3. Jez Turner
    Jez Turner says:

    The ‘powers-that-should-not-be’ will really have to ban Aristotle. His noting the fact that tyrants and tyrannical elites, in order to consolidate their own position, give power to women, children, slaves and immigrants, is far too close to the bone. In fact I rather think that if anything can save the White Race, then it will be the Classics reinvigorated by the likes of Lothrop Stoddard, Revilo P Oliver, Ricardo Duchesne, Guillaume Durocher and Kevin MacDonald that will do so.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Really? How’s that working out? Western Man is stuck in a circular cognitive and Spiritual cycle of failed concepts, ideas, and ideals. He was spiritually weak before the Enlightenment and lobotomized hence. He is amazingly tenacious, clinging, and clutching of overused, threadbare concepts and precepts of his Existence. He cannot perceive that some answers could be found outside of his history and heritage.

        Believe me, I have tried to introduce some, but the interest is exactly zero, or impudent in response. Which leads me to believe that we are a people that has inherited complacency, arrogance, and intellectual and spiritual laxness. Today, we are focused on Material Determinism and a worn out spiritual engine of low horsepower that fails to to provide as advertised.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” Which leads me to believe that we are a people that has inherited complacency, arrogance, and intellectual and spiritual laxness.”

          Christian sheeplism promotes complacency ___

          “” Servants , obey in all things your masters according to the flesh ,””…

          ( verbatim holy instruction quote from :
          Christian NT / KJV / Book of Colossians / 3:22 ) .

          Exceot for a few notable dissenters , most Christians are subservient to the chosenhite jewmasterss .

          Christianity is basicly anti-intellectual ___

          “” Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy “”…

          ( verbatim holy instruction quote from :
          Christian NT / KJV / Book of Colossians / 2:8 ) .

          In particular , analytic philosophy has a crucial role in the creation of the sciences , the technologies , and the arts that are needed for humanity to thrive-n-survive beyond

          {{ The Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }} .

          Furthermore , most Whites are primarily Christian descendents of rural cultures which have little or no need for intellectualism . Therefore , the vast majority of Whites are simply intellectually incompetent — not intellectually lazy .

          Moreover , Christianity is a bankrupt religious fantasy about eternal spiritual life and is not especially interested in technology needed for humanity to physically survive indefinitely into a boundless future .

          Here is a link below this quote

          ( by “letmepicyu” on “6 December 2021 at 20:42”,
          of part of an erudite comment posted in the essay “”Viganò:”those who resist the NWO will have the help and protection of God” “” at “The Eye of the Needle” website )

          that succinctly explains how Christianity originated as a Garden of Eden blood feud between two subsequent bloodlines presently called “Jews” and “Christians” begotten by the historicly world renown woman called Eve ___

          ” Genesis [ 3:13 ] isn’t about magic snakes and magic apples. Genesis [ 3:13 ] is about SATANIC SEDUCTION AND THE 2 BLOODLINES THAT RESULTED THEREOF.”

  4. Evgenis
    Evgenis says:

    “Now in this text, Mr. Kevin MacDonald does not state he thinks the old Greeks were at large indo European as such but that the culture was so.”

    Depends on what we mean by “Indo-European”, once someone starts talking Indo-European, they become Indo-European. If we mean being genetically/ancestrally derived from the Proto Indo-Europeans who (are believed to have) live on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Chalcolithic and Early bronze age. Well then yes, they had some ancestry to that region. But most of their ancestry (75%) was still derived back to the earlier Neolithic farming population of the Aegean. At least that’s what the genomic science says about the Greeks of the age of Achilles/Mycenaean era.

    Only 4 or 5 Mycenaean samples total, and only 1 elite sample. But definitely the most informative data publish to date on the topic.

  5. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” Thus the concern with social cohesion is a strong current in Western history.”

    Social cohesion ( aka solidarity ) is an especially crucial requirement for military combat organizations . In any case , cohesion is obviously an important organizational necessity for attaining goals that are not achievable for a single individual alone . A rational individual joins an organization that offers an opportunity for them to achieve THEIR goal(s) . Whenever an organization/collective infringes , “for the common good”, on an [ “inalienable” right ] , it becomes dysfunctional to the individual raison d’etre ;
    and consequently

    the organization/society/collective/(political entity , including also a nation-state)

    loses both its relevance and legitimacy .

    This loss of vital organizational ( especially influential political entities )
    relevance and legitimacy
    is a major factor in the genocidal existential threat to
    predominant descendants of
    (and probably a few unspecified others) .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Please note ___

      Many so-called “human rights”
      ( for example , such as the right to medical services )
      do not have the supreme status of an
      [ unalienable right ] ( aka inalienable right ) ;
      and “unalienable rights” does not mean
      that governments have never , can never , and would never violate those rights and refuse to support them .

      In the language of Christianity , an “unalienable right” is one that is given by God ; a secular explanation is beyond the scope of this comment . Maybe a grade six or above public schoolteacher could give a secular explanation of it ?

  6. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    ” Anything that interfered with social cohesion or any other feature that contributed to an adaptive culture had to be dealt with—by whatever means necessary.”

    The importance of social cohesion is most likely a major factor , in addition to psychopathy , for the historicly documented egregious moral corruption ( as especially and notoriously exemplified by the assassination orders of Stalin ) of Bolshevik collectivism and its contemporary formations whereby any non-interfering exercise of any “unalienable Rights” , such as journalistic Life/Liberty/Happiness , would often be perceived , by typically paranoid Jewish Bolshevik commanders , as a capital threat to the belief in collectivist supremacy over any and all asserted individual sovereign “unalienable Rights” or any other rights .

    Be assured that “unalienable Rights” exist whether or not they are presumed to be granted by God . Such Rights have very little or no purchase on the nature of normally cowardly sheeple majorities . However , “unalienable Rights” do not just disappear into the abyss because of any asserted cancellation of them by marxist communists whom proclaim collectivist supremacy over any and all individualist sovereign rights .

    Make no mistake , apparently China President Xi has covertly ordered the assassination of several Chinese citizen opponents whom were exercising their “unalienable Rights” against his will . China President Xi and his communist cohorts likely believe those assassinations will end the issue of “unalienable Rights”. Many and various worldly historical narratives overwhelmingly indicate otherwise .

  7. Malaparte
    Malaparte says:

    Although I acknowledge and greatly appreciate MacDonald’s many contributions and sacrifices for the cause of Europeans, the theory of “Indo European” aristocratic individualism is pure myth-making & backward projection without any basis in archaeological science. MacDonald & Duchesne are overly reliant on David Anthony’s now discredited chronology of horse mastery on the primordial Steppe. Duchesne paints a romantic picture of young, daring men on horseback garnering individual glory & fame by raiding herds across the Steppe for a few thousand years before they swept into Europe, bringing in their train the culture and practices of “aristocratic individualism.”

    But there’s a fatal flaw with this theory, which is that R1b groups entered and spread across Europe long before the horse was mastered on the Steppe for purposes of raiding and warfare. Although Mycenaean Greece may itself have been the product of a late-stage takeover by Steppe warriors circa 1600 BCE (see the work of Robert Drews), the wider West European world has no such legacy or cultural foundation. We are not the descendants of Aryan conquerors on horseback or chariot. Rather, we are the children of the all the different peoples who combined to make modern Europeans.

    See —->>>
    “Whereas horses living in the Western Eurasia steppes in the late fourth and early third millennia BC were the ancestors of DOM2 horses, there is no evidence that they facilitated the expansion of the human genetic steppe ancestry into Europe8,9 as previously hypothesized7. Instead of horse-mounted warfare, declining populations during the European late Neolithic35 may thus have opened up an opportunity for a westward expansion of steppe pastoralists . . . . Our results also have important implications for mechanisms underpinning two major language dispersals. The expansion of the Indo-European language family from the Western Eurasia steppes has traditionally been associated with mounted pastoralism, with the CWC serving as a major stepping stone in Europe39,40,41. However, while there is overwhelming lexical evidence for horse domestication, horse-drawn chariots and derived mythologies in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family, the linguistic indications of horse-keeping practices at the deeper Proto-Indo-European level are in fact ambiguous42 . The limited presence of horses in CWC assemblages43 and the local genetic makeup of CWC specimens reject scenarios in which horses were the primary driving force behind the initial spread of Indo-European languages in Europe44.”

    See also —>>> this article shows, among other things, that Corded Ware Culture was primarily descended from “Forest Steppe” peoples, i.e., they weren’t bold raiders sweeping in on horseback!!! —>>> “Unresolved questions concern the genetic and geographic origins of CW and Bell Beaker (BB) individuals, their relationship to one another and to Yamnaya individuals, as well as the origin of Early Bronze Age (EBA) Únětice individuals. Although it has been proposed that CW formed from a male-biased westward migration of genetically Yamnaya-like people (23, 41–44), no overlap in Y-chromosomal lineages (with the exception of a few nondiagnostic I2) has been found between the predominantly R1a-carrying CW and mainly R1b-Z2103–carrying Yamnaya males. Steppe ancestry is also present in BB individuals (5); however, they predominantly carry R1b-P312, a Y-lineage not yet found among CW or Yamnaya males. Therefore, despite their sharing of steppe ancestry (3, 4) and substantial chronological overlap (45), it is currently not possible to directly link Yamnaya, CW, and BB groups as paternal genealogical sources for one another, particularly noteworthy in light of steppe ancestry’s suggested male-driven spread (23, 41–43) and the proposed patrilocal/patriarchal social kinship systems of these three societies (46–48) . . . . Early CW society was diverse and emerged amid a strong cultural and genetic transition, involving males and females of diverse origins and likely ethnicities. Genetic shifts occurred within CW, BB, and EBA societies despite continuity in material culture. Cultural affiliations played a major role in third millennium BCE social behaviors, which ultimately changed with the influx of new people over time.”

    It would be nice if MacDonald & Duchesne gave their theories are thorough re-think in light of new evidence. It isn’t 2007 anymore. In the meantime, I shall read the Durocher volume.

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      Thanks for the papers. The theory presented in my work and Dr. Duchesne’s was based on the current state of science, not romantic myth. I will certainly look at these papers. Science marches on.

    • Kevin MacDonald
      Kevin MacDonald says:

      Having looked briefly at the articles, I don’t think they overthrow the central point. Whether or not the shift came about via horse domestication is interesting but doesn’t get at the point that there was a major cultural, linguistic and genetic shift. And inevitably, any explanation has to deal with the “overwhelming lexical evidence for horse domestication, horse-drawn chariots and derived mythologies in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family.” As the second paper notes, there were genetic shifts but cultural continuity for CW culture. Early CW culture was not the result of an I-E invasion, but no one need be wedded to the idea that CW culture was Yamnaya-derived, only that the genetic shift happened because of an I-E invasion.
      The research for Chap 1 of my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition was completed in 2019, not 2007, and includes articles like: Wolfgang Haak et al., “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe,” Nature 522 (June 11, 2015): 207–211.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        I appreciate your work (and Duchesne’s), but this recondite stuff seems a bit beside the point at this very late date in the process by which white men are being rendered powerless to control their own communal destinies via the mechanism of elite class engineered imperialism-by-demographic-dilution. I think it more worthwhile (for academics, that is – what we really need are public speakers, rhetoricians, and those who can simplify complex ideas into punchy and pungent talking points and slogans, and, of course, wealthy funders) to focus white preservationist scholarship on the ethics of white survival, and possible routes to white sovereignty. The dilemma we really face at bottom is that most whites just don’t care about their racial survival. They have been thoroughly “individualized”. How do we make them care? By hammering home what life will be like further down the road of this extinction process, for themselves and their children. Arguing about events thousands of years ago is unlikely to retard or prevent white oppression or extinction.

        • Al Ross
          Al Ross says:

          Prof Macdonald’s point is only ” recondite” to those who regard the etiology of White dispossession as being of absolutely no historical interest.

          There is one powerful group who take the view that White history should be as interesting to us as Egyptian hieroglyphics.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          “” [ Most Whites ] have been thoroughly “individualized”.””

          Superb observation .

          The systematic/programmatic individualization of Whites makes them vastly more susceptible to ILLuminati enslavement agendas .

          Individualization programs convince Whites that the world environment is more of a creation of their own thought processes than a creation of the powers-that-be ( in particular , the jewmasterss ) ; and that the individual is ultimately the master of his own socio-political fate/destiny where the covert existence of a super-ordinate enslaving/totalitarian collective cabal is not acknowledged .

          If there is any chance that Whites can reclaim their racial autonomy from their jewmasterss , then they would need to realize that individualism is not anti-organizational or anti-collective so they can adequately organize or collectivize
          ( in an unJudaic sense of collective that repudiates the Judaic assumptions of collective supremacy over any and all individual sovereign and supreme “unalienable Rights” such as the three most important ones of Life , Liberty , and Pursuit of Happiness )
          to defend themselves from internal subversions and external assaults , by relentlessly aggressive Jewish supremacists , on White autonomy of sovereignty .

Comments are closed.