In his Politics, Aristotle observes that diversity resulting from immigration without assimilation was a frequent cause of civil war and breakdown of civic solidarity within the Greek city-states. In this brief article, I would like to highlight how diversity in the use of foreign mercenaries and changes in the population were a frequent tool exploited by Greek tyrants to subjugate the citizenry.

The archetypal example of this was the powerful and diverse Sicilian city-state of Syracuse, which was long ruled by a string of tyrants, making for a useful contrast with the homogeneous and free city-state.  Aristotle remarked: “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” (Politics, 1303a13). Furthermore, Aristotle argued that a legitimate ruler was protected by his own armed citizens, whereas tyrants used foreign mercenaries:  “Kings are guarded by the arms of their subjects; tyrants by a foreign force” (1285a16). The use of foreign mercenaries frequently led to rule devolving to a tyrant or a small clique (1306a19). 

Aristotle’s observations have largely been echoed by modern scholars. Tyrants were keenly aware of the fact that common identity and civic solidarity were threats to their personal power. Kathryn Lomas observes that “the use of itinerant populations to subvert the status of the polis is common to many tyrants and Hellenistic monarchs throughout the Greek world.”[1] Paul Cartledge observes that Syracuse became:

what Tyranny in essence was: an autocracy based on military force supplied by a personal bodyguard and mercenaries; and reinforced by multiple dynastic marriages, the unscrupulous transfers of populations, and the enfranchisement of foreigners.[2]

There is evidence that the Greeks more widely considered homogeneity to be a source of strength in a city. During the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian political leader and adventurer Alcibiades argued that Sicily would be easy to conquer, because its diversity meant its cities lacked solidarity and social trust. Instead of common civic action, the Sicilians were prone to individual selfish behavior in the form of corruption and emigration:

Sicily may have large cities, but they are full of mixed rabbles and prone to the transfer of populations. As a result no one feels that he has a stake in a city of his own, so they have taken no trouble to equip themselves with arms for their personal safety or to maintain proper farming establishments in the country. Instead, individuals hoard whatever money they can extract from public funds by persuasive speaking or factional politics, in the knowledge that, if all fails, they can go and live elsewhere. A crowd like that are hardly likely to respond unanimously to any proposal or to organize themselves for joint action: more probable is that individual elements will go with any offer that attracts them . . . (Thucydides, 6.17)

Given that Alcibiades made these comments in a successful speech trying to convince the Athenian Assembly to invade Sicily, we can assume such arguments would have resonated with Athenian citizens in general. (In the event, the Athenian invasion of Sicily proved to be a disaster. Nonetheless, as one might expect, the Athenians did find local allies among Sicily’s diverse population, notably among the indigenous Sicels. Sicily’s lack of unity however was not sufficient to make up for the general riskiness of the enterprise, notably due to geographical distance from Athens, and Spartan support for Syracuse.)

In conclusion, the importation and enfranchisement of foreigners, whether by democrats or tyrants, was a common method to subvert the political process, destroy the constitution, and subjugate the citizenry. By hard experience, the ancient Greeks learned that republican self-government is impossible without the solidarity enabled by a strong shared ethno-cultural identity and that an unarmed citizenry watched over by foreign mercenaries is ripe for tyranny.

References

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

Thucydides (trans. Martin Hammond), The Peloponnesian War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).

[1]Kathryn Lomas, “The Polis in Italy: Ethnicity, Colonization, and Citizenship in the Western Mediterranean,” in Roger Brock and Stephen Hodkinson (eds.), Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political Organization and Community in Ancient Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 182.

[2]Paul Cartledge, Ancient Greece: A History in Eleven Cities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 128.

As propaganda goes, one would be hard pressed to find a nastier, more noxious piece than Sander Gilman’s Newsweek op-ed on the horrifying fact that Paul Nehlen tweeted that he was reading my book, The Culture of Critique. Here’s Nehlen’s tweet:

Currently reading ? pic.twitter.com/8UVUeEn7PC

— Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) December 27, 2017

Nehlen committed the horrible sin of simply saying that he was reading the book, not endorsing it. But for this he has been pilloried in the media and disowned by the likes of Steve Bannon (just as well;  I have lost all respect assuming his remarks in Michael Wolff’s book were quoted accurately). After the over-the-top title, “The Alt-Right’s Jew-Hating Pseudoscience Is Not New,” we are greeted with photo of a KKK rally, the implication being that Nehlen and I endorse such things, or perhaps that the KKK spends their spare time reading my book.

This is ridiculous. Nehlen is a sincere Christian who is deeply concerned about the transformations to the U.S. brought about by immigration and multiculturalism; he is fighting the good fight against Ayn Rand groupie, open borders Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. And for my part I won’t dignify the juxtaposition of the KKK with my work as worthy of a response. My writing speaks for itself.

Read more

This is a short address given at the dinner, sponsored by the Propertarian Institute in NY, on September 26, after the earlier round table held at the New York University.

Allow me to say a few words about the media witch-hunt targeting now non-conformist intellectuals, including some of our friends here. Firstly, however, let me extend my greetings on behalf of our small party, the American Freedom Party, our Chairman Mr. William Johnson, and our colleagues who also helped organizing our round table.

Let me illustrate this new media witch-hunt in the West by drawing parallels with the former communist East. One of the big advantages of living in communism was the ability of its citizens to grasp quickly the main notion of the political: who is the foe and who is the friend. Even a simple citizen in the Soviet Union, or in the ex-communist Eastern Europe, knew very well that communism was a fraud. The official communist narrative about the upcoming paradise on earth sounded so surreal that it could not be taken seriously by anybody, including communist party bosses. By contrast, in the modern liberal West, and particularly in the US, the ruling class, but also a large number of citizens and academics, do believe in the same crypto-communist message, albeit wrapped up in different words and decorated with a different insignia. The imagery of the former muscled proletarian in Eastern Europe, carrying the hammer and the sickle, has been now replaced by a starving African or a Middle Eastern refugee and for good measure by a tolerance preaching homosexual, designed to induce lachrymose and self-denying feelings among their guilt-ridden White hosts. The repression of non-conformists and dissidents in the West is far more insidious than the repression in the former communist East. It is more subtle, less violent and its jargon, diffused in the mainstream media, academia and among politicians, is less polemical. Moreover, it doesn’t leave martyr’s blood behind — for the time being at least.

It is fundamentally wrong to study communism as an ideology only. Communism is first and foremost an anthropology which is nearest and dearest to the masses regardless of is dreadful consequences. Communism represents the true state of nature, ideal for mass multiracial and stateless societies of people with mediocre intelligence facing diminishing materiel resources and vanishing opportunities. The question arises: Why did then Communism fall part in the late 80s in Eastern Europe? Communism fell apart in the East because its much vaunted goals had already been better implemented in the West:  the welfare state, steady economic growth, and ethnic and racial quota system, known in the USA as “affirmative action.” All those big buzzwords, now legally taken for granted by many US citizens, were tested unsuccessfully in the ex-communist East. Also shut-up and criminalizing words like “Nazi,” “Fascist,” “ racist,” “anti- Semite,” which are now very popular in the American mainstream media and colleges, especially when smearing political opponents, were thrown around in the communist East on a daily basis against any potential trouble maker or a dissident.

It is wrong, however, to assume that citizens in former communist Eastern Europe were all starving for Western freedom, all of being ready to overthrow the communist system. Only a few did. It is also wrong to think that anticommunist dissidents were respected species enjoying mass popular support. They were shunned like a plague even by their family members. We can observe the same type of ostracism and self-censorship  among prominent White academics in the USA, not just on the official state level, but also within their own family and  at their work place.

Although being a frugal and violent system communism in Eastern Europe did offer citizens psychological security and economic predictability which citizen in the USA could have only dreamed about. What most citizens in the communist system craved for were mostly Western commodities and Western standard of living. Those individuals who were a threat to the fake and fragile consensus between the communist rulers and the communized ruled were generally despised and demonized as terrorists.

Where do we go from here? Our future actions will depend on a specific local circumstance. By now, however, we have at least the privilege of being able to decipher our main enemy. It is useless and counterproductive to point fingers at them and call their names. Instead, one must raise a very simple question in order to elicit a very simple answer. Who are the people who benefit most from the overuse of criminalizing words “racists,” “white supremacists” and “anti-Semites”? It is not difficult to make them out.  We know them well. Thanks for your attention.