Enlightened Free-Loaders and the Pathological Altruists Who Love Them – Weaponized Honesty, Trump, and the New Right

“I am just a vigilant citizen
In a house that no one is living in

I am just a vigilant citizen
In a bed that everyone’s pissing in”-Cruel Hand, “Vigilant Citizen”

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”-Aristotle

What is it about European civilization, and the Anglo-Saxon tradition in particular, that makes it so unique in the history of the world? There is a stunning cathedral in the center of York, England, called the York Minster that offers the perfect metaphor. Originally a Roman fortress, in 627 AD a wooden church was hurriedly constructed to be able to baptize King Edwin of Northumbria. A more permanent, but still humble, church was eventually erected, but it burned down in 741; a much more ambitious church with thirty altars was constructed on the site, and lasted until its severe damage in 1069 during William the Conqueror’s Harrying of the North and its ultimate destruction in 1075 by a Danish Viking raid. From 1080 another church was built in the Norman style. The present structure, which took over two hundred years to construct (1230-1472), is Gothic in style and sits on the Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman foundations that came before. Given its size, intricacy, centrality, and importance, the cathedral requires consistent maintenance and renovation in order to preserve it in all its grandeur, but the expense is more than worth it to honor the region’s history and to be able to awe oneself in the presence of the cathedral’s stained glass, opulent ornamentation, magnificent architecture, and tombs of seminal religious and political figures. Visiting the Minster, you can time travel the two thousand years below the cathedral through the previous foundations and their artifacts, and climb the central tower to see the still-intact medieval walls of York and the nearly one thousand-year-old Clifford’s Tower that still stands on its outskirts.

The diligence, respect, patience, talent, faith, and cooperation it takes to create and maintain such a house of worship across many lifetimes is really a testament to civilizational pride and religious devotion, a true labor of love, and it speaks to something deep and profound in the Western psyche. I’ve written at length about the various contributing threads that have inter-woven over the course of the development of the West, but there’s one key factor that I haven’t considered in its entirety yet, mostly because it is a bit more nebulous and I needed to do much more research in order to speak with some “authority” on it, and that would be the role of giving, cooperation, and altruism.

The evidence for altruism having a strong biological component is mounting, and its occurrence varies across different races. Whites seem to have the highest levels of altruism, and are unique among the races for their de-emphasis on kinship and re-orientation of society to a more person-to-person “contractual” system, whereby cooperation between non-familial societal sub-groups and individuals takes on extra importance. To be sure, familial ties remain central to the organization of white societies, but beyond the immediate family, the ties, generally speaking, rapidly diminish. In Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about the kin system in Somalia, where everyone was expected to know their lineage ten or twenty generations in the past as a form of social organization and hierarchy, which could certainly be a source of strength and function both as a “networking tool” and as its own kind of welfare system in times of need, but could also in times of instability, such as the Somali civil war, turn into a tribal nightmare. The kin system is not conducive to building a modern nation-state.

Kin selection is just one mechanism in the evolution of cooperation, which also involves three different kinds of reciprocity, a “guardian function,” and group selection, which with the de-emphasis of kinship in Western societies allowed for voluntary association and hence a much greater degree of cooperation, which in turn allowed for the development of more complex social, political, and economic systems. Coupled with the genetic impulse among whites to be more altruistic than other groups—perhaps owing to climatic factors, but more research needs to be done here—the ready embrace of Christianity conjoined with the unique and varying local pagan customs, rituals, and spirituality, helped facilitate an extreme emphasis on the individual and stands in stark contrast to Jewish and Islamic tribalism, though Judaism is much more insular than either as it is not a proselytizing religion and has its own ethnic component. With these considerations we can clearly see why Western civilization surged ahead of its competitors once the free market began to take root after the Black Death and as the works of luminaries such as Chaucer, Boccaccio, Dante, and Petrarch writing in the vernacular in the High Middle Ages melded with the Renaissance of classical antiquity’s intellectual and artistic traditions, and were widely dispersed following the invention of the printing press. This double fusion—first of Christianity with local paganism, then with a re-discovery and advancement of the ideas and ideals of classical antiquity—imbued Europe with tremendous energy and brought it to the doorstep of modernity.

Somewhere along the line, however, the altruistic cooperation that was once so central to the development of Western civilization became a monstrous Catholic-Guilt-on-steroids; the reversion to Christian universalism and abandonment of the pagan infusion of what is essentially an alien faith, often unconsciously received, became whites’ Achilles heel. To quote Barbara A. Oakley:

For cooperative behavior to continue in complex biological or sociological entities, that is, for entities not to fall prey to ever-present, ever-evolving defectors, some form of evolving active guardian function must be present that detects when debilitating or destructive advantage is being taken of cooperative or altruistic behavior. The guardian system must not only detect but also disable such noncooperative behavior or render the entity immune to the pernicious effects. Without such detection and mitigation mechanisms, we see modeled evolutionary entities that are wiped out by defectors (note: emphasis added).[1]

These mechanisms are no longer present, and the defectors are eating away at the Western organism. These are the “enlightened free-loaders,” and we are the guilt-ridden “pathological altruists” who enable them. Metapedia defines pathological altruism as: “Sincere attempts to help others that instead harms others or oneself and where this harm could have been reasonably anticipated. It is often caused by cognitive and/or emotional biases that blind people to the potentially harmful consequences of their actions.” Our immune system is down and the carrion of our civilization is up for grabs. In fact, we’ll help you strip the carcass bare! As Mark Steyn says, “You don’t extinguish prudence for utopian delusions,” but that’s precisely what we’ve done. Pathological altruism and rampant white guilt under the manipulative guise of “liberalism” have enabled the transformation of the politics of the West—and the tributary of big-government-favoring Third World immigrants—into a kind of racial spoils system. This malignant form of liberalism, which is really not liberalism at all, is founded on premises closely hewing to Original Sin. That said, for Shelby Steele:

White guilt is not actual guilt…White guilt is not angst over injustices suffered by others; it is the terror of being stigmatized with America’s old bigotries—racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia. To be stigmatized as a fellow traveler with any of these bigotries is to be utterly stripped of moral authority and made into a pariah. The terror of this, of having “no name in the street” as the Bible puts it, pressures whites to act guiltily even when they feel no actual guilt. White guilt is a mock guilt, a pretense of real guilt, a shallow etiquette of empathy, pity and regret. It is also the heart and soul of contemporary liberalism. This liberalism is the politics given to us by white guilt, and it shares white guilt’s central corruption. It is not real liberalism, in the classic sense. It is a mock liberalism. Freedom is not its raison d’être; moral authority is…Without an ugly America to loathe, there is no automatic esteem to receive. Thus liberalism’s unrelenting current of anti-Americanism…This is moral esteem over reality; the self-congratulation of idealism. Liberalism is exhausted because it has become a corruption.[2]

What passes for liberalism in the United States today, and indeed much of the rest of the West, is a useful racial and tribal extortion racket for non-whites. Our political process is becoming a farce as we pantomime our commitment to what this great experiment in self-determination was meant to be. There is perhaps no one more emblematic of this than the mawkish ((((((Chuck Schumer)))))), incessantly whining and crying on television for some new entitlement or welfare program—or some stripping away of civil rights—in the name of COMPASSION and THE CHILDREN. It’s a cheap trick, but it works on the whites either already afflicted with an altruistic pathology or on those so encumbered by the guilt they’ve been marinated in their entire lives, they’ll willfully let the government cleave off half their paycheck so as to not be called racist. As Kevin Jackson says, “Race pimping has cost America trillions of dollars, as the money in race guilt is fantastic. Politicians line their pockets and those of family and friends, while delivering little to nothing to their constituents or the community at large.” ((((((Schumer)))))) and Company are living high on the hog (unless they’re kosher, in which case they’re living high on the New York bagel with cream cheese, lox, and capers), race-baiting their way to the bank.

Never mind that, pace Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson, “The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations … is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa.” No, the present dogma holds that there is something fundamentally cruel and insidious about the United States, deep-seated sins that must be atoned for, from its legacy of slavery to its legacy of colonialism. “That leads me to make several elephant-in-the-room observations,” says Sherriff David Clarke:

These “news” reports are followed by coverage of race hustlers calling for a “national discussion on race.” Provocateurs demand that all white Americans engage in self-flagellation, confess to false accusations of harboring racist feelings and admit that America is racist to the core. Like Pavlov’s dogs, many Republican politicians begin rushing to the nearest camera to flaunt their racial sensitivity…Do we allow false accusers to commit a criminal act and escape accountability? Not prosecuting a crime encourages others to commit similar offenses…Everyone is encouraged to feel aggrieved (everyone except white males). If no feeling exists, fantasize and make one up.[3]

Thanks to American Renaissance, we know that there were over one hundred hate crime hoaxes in the U.S. between when Donald Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015 and the close of 2017. There are tremendous privileges afforded the victims of hate crimes, and the mass outpouring of media coverage, money, and—you guessed it—empathy incentivize minorities to fabricate these crimes in order to be a beneficiary of the White Guilt Industrial Complex. What’s more, there’s virtually no downside, as when the hate crimes are revealed as hoaxes, with maybe one or two exceptions, the individuals in question receive at worst a slap on the wrist. Contrasting sharply with the narrative of “white privilege,” Gregory Hood makes the observation that, “Political power comes from shedding the imagined privileges of whiteness, and securing the actual privileges of non-whiteness.” None other than Linda Sarsour proved his thesis when she said, “When I wasn’t wearing a hijab I was just some ordinary white girl from New York City.” This is really deranged when you step back from the hysteria and think about it, and the gruesome twosome of guilt culture and pathological altruism is not confined to the United States by any means. It is a pan-Western epidemic of guilt assuagement with no set number of Hail Mary’s to affect clemency and a suicidal selflessness cresting a wave of giving-giving-giving-induced endorphins. Clearly the guilt-motivated penance, the pathology of altruism, and the imagined moral high ground and real social benefits of “altruistic” virtue-signaling do not need to have any basis in reality, or even actually help people. And when they are institutionally enshrined, even better! Returning to Barbara A. Oakley:

The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted the cost of this “altruism” to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans.[4]

Western elites and their clueless Goodwhite allies (colloquially known as “shitlibs”) are impervious to the mounting social, financial, and human cost in their endless pursuit of the brass ring of moral superiority. For some, it is purely self-serving, either through the acquisition of power and social capital, or because of the potent “helper’s high” that comes from giving and the perception of having “done good.” Others guiltily shrink away from confronting the harsh realities of existence while yet another camp toasts the cheap labor and cheap commercial products, drunk on the apathy of affluence—finally, still others’ eyes shine with malevolence, possessed as they are with raw hatred of the Western world and a desire to see it first reduced to ashes and then swept away forever. These groups are variegated in their present positioning, but all stand to gain from, depending on the group in question, our subjugation, demise, or erasure.

To be fair, there are many people out there who do good simply because it aligns with their moral code and because it is just the right thing to do, or at least appears to be, and not all who do good are pathological, but there can be no question that: 1) as a society, as a culture, and as a civilization (what’s left of it), we are thoroughly pathologized, and 2) there are many self-interested “defectors” who, though not morally, are rationally reaping enormous benefit from the absence of a “guardian system.” We venerate the barbarian Other at our own expense and worship the Great Flattening of our dynamic and exceptional civilization and call it “virtue.” It is worth asking, in the end, who really benefits.

From https://theanatomicallycorrectbanana.com/home/2018/7/18/enlightened-free-loaders-and-the-pathological-altruists-who-love-them

 

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690610/

[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exhaustion-of-american-liberalism-1488751826

[3] http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/360083-systemic-racism-is-so-rare-in-america-the-media-just-cant-stop-lying

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690610/

A B S O L U T E L Y Z E R O F U C K S: God Emperor of Mankind Labels the EU a “Foe”!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
July 15, 2018

We voted for a man who did not give a single fuck.

Then when he came in a few problems happened and we were like “wait does this guy give a fuck or something?”

Turns out that no, he does not – he never did. He just had some problems he had to deal with.

Now, the man is a whirlwind.

He is tearing across the entire planet, reshaping it in his own image – and his image is nothing other than the image that we projected onto him.

Because he is no longer a man. He is an embodiment of the collective will of the American people, and of the entire white race.

ABC News:

Coming off a contentious NATO summit and a trip to the U.K. in which he seemed to undercut the government of America’s closest ally, President Trump took aim at another Western institution just days before his high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In an interview with “CBS Evening News” anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union — comprising some of America’s oldest allies — when asked to identify his “biggest foe globally right now.”

Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn’t mean they are bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitive,” Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland.

This is after he said that Russia isn’t a foe.

He is absolutely correct.

Russia has shown no hostility towards him. The EU has shown nothing but disdain for him, going back even before he was the candidate. When he was still in the primaries, these faggots were attacking him – and all of WE THE PEOPLE by proxy – as pure evil.

Russia wants to be friends.

Tomorrow, history will change.

The seeds of a new alliance will be planted – an alliance that will grow into a WHITE EMPIRE that that will conquer the stars.

The Robotic Burgers are Coming

They all got to go home!!

Adrian Sol
Daily Stormer
July 15, 2018

Activate technological unemployment.

This is just one more reason to let in infinity beaners. After all, who’s going to do the maintenance on all these robots? White people?

I think not.

White people aren’t interested in doing things like that. We need immigrants to come here and do the jobs we won’t do, such as engineering complex automated systems to reduce labor costs.

The lesson: HODL!!!111 It’s not like you’re going to have a job to go back to anyway.

The Verge:

Arriving at Creator, a new restaurant located on the ground floor of an office building on downtown San Francisco’s Folsom Street, feels like walking into a catalog. Sleek, wooden communal tables with high white stools line one end of the room, with a bookshelf full of hand-picked culinary books against the wall and modern light fixtures overhead. On the other end, however, two large machines each the size of a small car form a 90-degree angle around a center counter, giving the whole space a retro-futurist aesthetic. It’s what you would have imagined a restaurant eventually looking like if you watched a lot of The Jetsons.

It took a damn long time, but that Jetsons future appears to be on its way. Except for the whole trannies and niggers thing.

At least we’ll have robots to fend off the pervert/colored hordes.

Those machines, with large transparent glass casings and ingredients in cylindrical tubes, are Creator’s burger-making robots. Each 14-foot device contains around 350 sensors and 20 microcomputers to produce the best, freshest, locally sourced cheeseburger that $6 can get you in America’s most expensive city.

IDZ HABBENING!!!!

Dog bless Ameriga.

After trying the first one out of the machine that day, I can confidently say the claim holds up; it’s the best-tasting burger for the money I’ve ever had. The machine is also capable of making multiple kinds of burgers, with vastly different flavor, ingredient, and condiment combinations. In a way, it feels like the future of fast casual food.

“We wanted to design a device that meets nature where it is, and not make food conform to a robot,” CEO Alex Vardakostas tells The Verge in an interview. “We didn’t want something that would make one kind of burger. We look at this like a platform for recipes, and we wanted as much culinary creativity as possible.” Right now, Creator is only taking reservations for 30-minute lunchtime slots on Wednesdays and Thursdays through the month of July, and plans to do the same in August while it irons out kinks and improves its software and workflow. But, eventually, Vardakostas says you’ll be able to order takeout using the company’s mobile app, while workers with iPhones will stroll around the restaurant to take eat-in orders, just like an Apple Store.

Right. The technology already exists to make all the food automatically and allow people to order using their own phones, or touch-screen terminals in the store.

Ultimately, this means that restaurants could be run with one or two employees, instead of eight or more on the floor simultaneously. This also means that the few employees required will have greater responsibilities, and will be paid more – which is to say, they won’t be Shaniquas.

BYE BYE NIGGERS!

Operating a cash register is already straining the average Black’s abilities to the breaking point. Keeping machinery functional is obviously way beyond what they could ever manage.

Case in point, pretty much every time I’ve been to a McDonald’s location with self-service terminals, half of them were not functional, and the nogs who worked there didn’t even bother putting up “out of service” signs, let alone fix whatever mundane problem the machines were having.

Creator, formerly known as Momentum Machines, is one of a rising new type of automated restaurant, mixing the best of the tech industry’s software, robotics, and artificial intelligence skills with top-tier culinary expertise. The goal is not to automate away humans entirely, but to automate the portion of the restaurant experience that can be done better, faster, and be more cost efficient with machines. Creator joins companies like San Francisco-based quinoa bowl chain Eatsa, pizza-delivery company Zume in Mountain View, CaliBurger parent company and Miso Robotics investor Cali Group, and a smattering of up-and-coming locations around the country like Boston’s Spyce and Seattle’s Junkichi.

These robotic restaurants are spreading fast, as the technology gets cheaper. Moreover, various types of self-service counters are being implemented in existing franchises, cutting down on labor requirements.

These companies always claim that the goal isn’t to replace employees with machines. That’s obviously bullshit; this situation where they have just as many employees as before is just a temporary phase, as they work out the kinks in the system. Very quickly, the number of employees will be cut down to the minimum.

This isn’t a problem for White people per se. An average 100 IQ White guy can easily learn how to operate and repair all the machines in a restaurant. Thus automation will simply create more high-wage jobs for technicians in various fields.

But our underclass of useless brown people is about to get a whole lot bigger.

Well This is a Grand Idea

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 27, 2018

And here I thought that the Daily Beast was trying to be more serious than the likes of WaPo, The Guardian and NYT and not go nuts with the “THESE PEOPLE ARE LITERAL TATTOOED NAZI SKINHEADS” bit when talking about anti-immigration parties in Europe.

Whatever the case, I hope this isn’t fake news.

Half-cucked or not, populist parties taking over the intelligence agencies of any Western country would be awesome 2 the maxx.

Daily Beast:

A slow-simmering scandal in Austria has brought into public view potentially disastrous divisions among Western intelligence agencies. As far-right politicians have joined coalition governments in Austria and Italy and taken ministerial positions in charge of security and law enforcement, concerns have grown among intelligence professionals that they will ignore or even encourage the threat of violent ultra-right extremists.

The extreme right is now in charge of the interior ministries in both Vienna and Rome, putting conspicuous pressure on the intelligence services. In Austria, there have even been police raids on the homes and offices of top intelligence service staffers.

Already, at least some intelligence sharing between Germany and Austria appears to have been curtailed, and the relationship between Italy’s extreme-right-wing interior minister Matteo Salvini and other major European countries is severely, publicly strained. French President ((((((Emmanuel)))))) Macron last week likened the rise of such populists to “leprosy all across Europe.”

At the same time, these far-right politicians’ open friendliness toward Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the KGB veteran who may have helped some of them get elected, raises grave security issues for the NATO alliance. And the fact that right-wing U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be playing a similar game—trying to discredit U.S. intelligence professionals while flirting with Putin—greatly heightens the sense of alarm.

Far-right groups and political parties across Europe have close ties to Russia and may be sponsored by the Kremlin. Some even have close links to Russian intelligence services, said Carpenter. So for these groups to head the intelligence services charged with protecting their countries from foreign meddling is “like the fox guarding the henhouse,” said Carpenter. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Yeah, hopefully Russia has the nerve to act on that. Generally, they don’t seem to want to act on anything. Which might have been a sensible position a few years ago, but they’ve already been blamed for all this fake shit, they might as well start doing real spy shit. If you’re going to do the time, you might as well do the time, as Nietzsche said.

Generally, intelligence agencies exist as independent agents, capable of maintaining independence from the elected government due to the necessarily secret nature of their operations. That’s where the whole “deep state” thing comes from in large part.

But theoretically, these people can still be strong-armed, if the will exists.

If anyone has the will it is CAESAR SALVINI.

Media Still Doesn’t Get That Calling People Racist Doesn’t Help Their Anti-Racist Agenda

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 25, 2018

Morning Joe the Ladykiller once again attacked Trump supporters, calling them “openly racist.”

Fox News:

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough took a shot at both President Trump and his supporters Friday, labeling both as “openly racist.”

The scathing comments during “Morning Joe,” which Scarborough co-hosts with Mika Brzezinski, came amid a highly controversial immigration debate over the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that led to children being separated from their parents after coming across the U.S. border.

Scarborough leveled that people “cannot say, ’Oh, I’m just supporting him because he’s giving them hell in Washington.’ No, he’s been openly racist, just like we said back in December of 2015, openly racist.

“And if you support him, then you’re supporting that, and you are that,” Scarborough continued. “It’s that simple. And that’s what we’ve come to now.”

It isn’t really very complicated psychology that the more people are berated as “racists” for supporting policies that were standard just a few years ago, the more likely they are to just say “okay, well I guess I’m a racist then!”

Once they go ahead and say that, then they start to self-associate with others that get called racists.

And so, when the Daily Stormer is referred to as a “racist website,” they say “well, they’re probably on our team then!”

Our open and stated goal is to radicalize “conservatives” into racial nationalists. And the media seems to share that goal.

I don’t think they actually do share that goal. I think they are just dumb. They are still operating under the paradigm that public attempts to shame and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them as evil might still work.

Credit where due, that is sort of what Glenn Beck was saying to Brian Selter yesterday.

Glenn Beck’s agenda – a multiracial 56% mess – is the same goal as CNN’s. But he for whatever reason – probably due to his emotional instability – is capable of removing himself from the frame and seeing that radical polarization feeds into the goals of the far-right.

This also ties into the problem of claiming that Donald Trump is literally Hitler.

Radical polarization is a good strategy in South Africa, where whites are a tiny minority. But in America, where whites just won a Presidential election and are about to win these midterm elections, it is not a good strategy.

Because at the same time that all of this is happening, whites are being pushed out of the Democrat Party.

It just shows you that these people do not have competent strategists.

At all.

Because why would any intelligent person want to be a leftist strategist? No intelligent person can actually believe that giving children hormone injections to “change their sex” and replacing working class white people with Somalians is anything other than evil. And people who are willing to consciously do evil for a profit are all in finance, where they make a whole lot more money than they would in political strategy.

They’ve still got all of their Jews, but Jews are pathological. Despite their high IQs, they are emotionally-driven and prone to act on instincts which are now often wrong.

The only efficient political strategists are on the right, because we actually believe in what we are doing.

I often like to sit around and imagine if I could have gotten Hillary Clinton elected if I’d led her campaign. I think I probably could have. If I’d been given free reign, I think there’s an 85% chance I could have won that election for her. Although to be fair, she was ignoring a lot of advice from people who were trying to tell her to do things that I would have told her to do. So maybe it would have been impossible.

Anyway, my point is: we are smarter than these people. And we now have them doing our agenda for us.

It is only recently, after I published my writers’ guide, that they figured out what I was doing to them.

This needs to be written about a lot more, but as you might have noticed, we are experiencing a blackout in the media, and this was due to me dropping my writers’ guide. Which I did because I needed out of the spotlight for a while. It was a fun time, but it was creating too many problems.

Here are two papers that have been published on that issue, explaining why I should be blacklisted from mention in the media:

They’re both worth skimming through. But neither could have been written without having the guide where I explicitly explained what I was doing.

For three years, these people did exactly what I wanted them to. And when I wanted them off my back for a while so I could get my shit together, I got them to do that.

I’m not saying I’m a genius. I might be, but that is not what I am trying to say right now.

What I am saying is that we are not dealing with capable individuals.

We can win the culture war. It is a battlefield we can fight on, we can win on.

The battlefield that we cannot win on is that of the protest march.

So please – don’t go to the Charlottesville anniversary march thing.

Please.

I’m asking you.

Just don’t go.

We can win, we are winning, we will win. We need to continue on the winning path, which is influencing and manipulating culture. Marching through the streets doesn’t do anything but make us look crazy, stupid, get people doxed, get people sued, give the authorities an excuse to crackdown.

We don’t fucking need this retard shit.

Continue to do real life stuff with the meetup groups, continue to take care of yourself. Don’t go get doxed. Don’t walk into some idiot setup.

Fool me once, right?

Ancient Sparta: The First Self-Conscious Ethnostate? Part 1-3: Educating Citizen Soldiers

If in Athens we have ethnopolitical aspects, insofar as the democracy was tempered by Hellenic virtue, in Sparta we have a State wholly dedicated to systematic organization of the society according to a biopolitical ideal. Sparta’s mixed system of government and fiercely communitarian and hierarchical customs were supposed to have been created by the semi-legendary lawgiver Lycurgus, who perhaps lived in the ninth century B.C. Virtually nothing can be said for certain about his life. Lycurgus was, in later ages, rumored to have traveled to Egypt, Ionia, Crete, and even India, where “he talked with the Gymnosophists,”[1] before establishing Sparta’s constitution. What is clear, in any case, is that the basic law and way of life attributed to Lycurgus, and credited for Sparta’s success, were emphatically biopolitical.

Spartan law and culture were obsessed with systematically ensuring good breeding, martial education, and group unity. Spartan ethics and law considered that what was good was whatever was good for the community. During a debate as to whether a commander had abused his authority, the Spartan king Agesilaus argued: “The point to be examined . . . is simply this: has this action been good or bad for Sparta?”[2] Kevin MacDonald has argued that the law instituted by Lycurgus – featuring in-group altruism, relative egalitarianism, separation from and unity in the face of out-groups, specialization in warfare, and communally-determined in-group eugenics – qualifies as a genuine “altruistic group evolutionary strategy.”[3]

Few forms of government have so drawn the admiration of both liberals and ‘totalitarians’ as that of Sparta. Many republicans, both ancient and modern, have been impressed by the Spartans’ ‘mixed’ system of government, with its combination of monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements, as conducive to social unity, stability, and the rule of law. The Founding Fathers of the United States sought to emulate the stability of Sparta’s constitution and saw in it a precursor to their own system of checks and balances. Thinkers of a more communitarian bent, such as Rousseau and Hitler, have for their part admired the city for its rigorous organization in service of the community.

The Spartan citizen body was made up of landowning males past the age of 30 who had completed their arduous military training and education. These Spartiates, known as Homoioi (roughly meaning ‘Equals’ or ‘Peers’) made up an uncertain, but no doubt small, percentage of the country’s population. The Helots, Sparta’s large population of agricultural serfs, provided the citizens with the leisure to specialize in military training. These slaves were fellow Greek-speakers although, as non-Dorian Achaeans, there was a certain degree of ethnic difference from the Spartiates. So-called ‘Peripherals’ (perioikoi), foreign residents engaging in various skilled crafts at the service of the Spartans, appear to have regularly accumulated around the Spartan State.

Sparta was presided over by two relatively-weak kings, from two distinct royal families, who served as priests, generals, and occasionally judges. The Ephors, five powerful magistrates elected by all citizens for a non-renewable one-year term, were responsible for implementing decrees and had judicial powers to supervise and prosecute others, including the kings. The most powerful body was the Gerousia, a council made up of the two kings and 28 elders over the age of 60, who were elected for life. The Gerousia set the political agenda, debated issues, and presented the decisions open to the Assembly. The Assembly of Spartan citizens did not propose legislation but could only decide on whatever was presented by the Gerousia. Through these institutions, the Spartan regime sought to reconcile the values of authority, stability, law, aristocracy, seniority, and community. When asked why he did not institute a democracy, Lycurgus is supposed to have answered: “Make your own household a democracy first.”[4]

Spartan society was systematically organized by the regime to achieve social unity and martial prowess. Practically, among the elite Spartiate body of citizens, this meant the encouragement of births, the communal education of children according to an austere and militaristic way of life and living perpetually together through common meals and training. Failure to live up to the city’s demanding standards was harshly punished. Citizenship was not an automatic right, but had to be earned, by passing one’s educational training and paying one’s duties to the mess hall. According to Xenophon, Lycurgus “gave an equal share in the state to all law-abiding citizens, without regard for physical or financial deficiencies. But Lycurgus made it clear that if anyone should shirk the effort required to keep his laws, then he would no longer be considered one of the Equals.”[5]

Following such customs was in Sparta a sacred duty. Not only were Sparta’s institutions and customs attributed to the wise Lycurgus, but these were said to have been approved by Apollo himself. This was significant as the Spartans appear to have been exceptionally pious, regularly engaging in common rituals and sacrifices. Herodotus says that for the Spartans “divine matters took precedence over human ones” (Herodotus, 5.63). Once again, we find religious piety being central to the foundations of custom and the enforcement of group norms. Xenophon also highlights the importance of Spartan religious practice in warfare, saying of their meticulous rituals while on campaign: “if you witnessed this you would think that militarily others are amateurs, whereas Spartans alone are real masters of the craft of war.”[6] Both Xenophon and Plutarch believed that the joint and pious fulfillment of ritual inspires confidence in men before battle.[7]

Spartan politics began with the rearing of children and their education in the martial and communitarian values of their society. Lycurgus is said to have “regarded the upbringing of children as the greatest and noblest responsibility of the legislator.”[8] Young men and women performed sporting events in the nude, so as to encourage both physical fitness and marriages. Lycurgus was emphatic that there was a civic duty to ensure that the next generation of citizens be not only be produced but be the healthiest and best possible. Plutarch reports this while drawing a direct analogy with heredity in animals:

First and foremost Lycurgus considered children to belong not privately to their fathers, but jointly to the city, so that he wanted citizens produced not from random partners, but from the best. Moreover he observed a good deal of stupidity and humbug in others’ rules on these matters. Such people have their bitches and mares mounted by the finest dogs and stallions whose owners they can prevail upon for a favor or fee. But their wives they lock up and guard, claiming the right to produce their children exclusively, though they may be imbeciles, or past their prime, or diseased. They forget that where children are born of poor stock, the first to suffer from their poor condition are those who possess and rear them, while the same applies conversely to the good qualities of those from sound stock.[9]

Past a certain age, single men were severely stigmatized. Lycurgus also believed that “the production of children was the most important duty of free women,” thereby making a fundamental contribution to the society which sustained their freedom.[10] Spartan women were not sedentary and trapped in the family home, as most Greek women were. As their husbands were training constantly away from home, Spartan women were unusual in managing their own households, often becoming wealthy in their own right. These women were discouraged from overeating and encouraged to participate in sports such as wrestling and javelin-throwing on health grounds:

Thereby their children in embryo would make a strong start in strong bodies and would develop better, while the women themselves would also bear their pregnancies with vigor and would meet the challenge of a childbirth in a successful, relaxed way.[11]

It was apparently considered shameful for men to be seen with their wives at Sparta, resulting in sex occurring irregularly while the sex drive remained strong. There was another primitive eugenic rationale behind these measures: young, healthy, active, lustful parents were believed to produce healthier and stronger children. “Puny and deformed” newborns were to thrown into an abyss (or, perhaps more likely, killed through exposure) “considering it better both for itself and the state that the child should die if right from its birth it was poorly endowed for health or strength.”[12]

Lycurgus is supposed to have banned dowries and make-up: “So that none should be left unmarried because of poverty nor any pursued for their wealth, but that each man should study the girl’s character and make his choice on the basis of her good qualities.”[13] His concern with biological quality was so extreme he apparently even allowed for a bizarre official practice of ‘eugenic cuckoldry’ whereby an elderly husband could have children by introducing his wife to “any man whose physique and personality he admired.”[14] Conversely a wifeless man could, if “eager to have remarkable children,” have them “by any fertile and well-bred woman who came to his attention, subject to her husband’s consent.” Plutarch claims that by this measure the Spartans succeeded in “planting in fruitful soil, so to speak, and producing fine children who would be linked to fine ancestors by blood and family.”[15] These measures—so foreign to the contemporary mores of the West—were eugenic and natalist in their objectives. They also emphasize Spartans’ supreme subjection of their personal and familial interests to the public good, ideally up to and including access to their wives! Xenophon, an eyewitness source, claims that by these methods, Sparta gained “men whose size and strength are . . . superior.”[16]

There was an enormous emphasis in Sparta, as in no other Greek city, on the truly systematic education and training of the citizens in order to shape a culture conducive to the public good. Spartan education was communal and austere. The children were taken from their families at age seven and would not complete their training until they were 29. At that point, if the young man had succeeded in this agoge training, he would be made a full citizen. Whereas wealthy Athenians might have a private slave tutor for their children, Spartan children had a single Trainer-in-Chief (a paidomus, literally a “boy-herdsman”) and any citizen could discipline them.

Young Spartans would go barefoot, have a single cloak to wear all year in hot or cold, and would be given a limited amount of food, measures all aimed at making them tougher. Youths were expected to steal from or even murder Helots. The Spartans in general appear to have treated their Helots with extreme cruelty, from humiliation through making them drunk to regular ritualized murder—evidently aimed at keeping this class firmly separate and subservient. Plutarch himself concedes that “there is nothing to match either the freedom of the free man at Sparta or the slavery of the slave.”[17] Montesquieu later would sum up the conflicted feelings of many classical liberals concerning Sparta, saying: “Lycurgus, combining larceny with the spirit of justice, the harshest slavery with extreme liberty, the most atrocious sentiments with the greatest moderation, gave stability to his city.”[18]

We must imagine Sparta as an ordered, hierarchical, and pious state characterized by constant ritual and training, a cross between a military-athletic camp and a monastery. Plutarch says:

Spartiates’ training extended into adulthood, for no one was permitted to live as he pleased. Instead, just as in a camp, so in the city, they followed a prescribed lifestyle and devoted themselves to communal concerns. They viewed themselves absolutely as part of their country, rather than as individuals, and so unless assigned a particular job they would always be observing the boys and giving them useful piece of instruction, or learning themselves from their elders.[19]

Concerning adolescents, Lycurgus “gave orders that even in the streets they should keep both hands inside their cloaks, should proceed in silence, and should not let their gaze wander in any direction, but fix their eyes on the ground before them.”[20] Young adults were encouraged to be competitive in music, sports, and “manly gallantry.”[21] According to Xenophon, this education succeeded: “The result has been that respect and obedience in combination are found to a high degree at Sparta . . . [the system] turns out men who are more disciplined, more respectful, and (when required) more self-controlled.”[22] By his laws, Lycurgus was said to have “done away with prudery, sheltered upbringing, and effeminacy of any kind.”[23]

Go to Part 2.


[1]     Literally “naked wise men,” which is what the Greeks called the Hindu and perhaps Buddhist ascetics they found in India. Plutarch, Life of Lycurgus, 4.

[2]     Xenophon, Hellenica, 5.2.32

[3]     Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples (Lincoln, Nebraska: Writers Club, 2002), pp. 8-35, 394-95. Editor’s note: I first got the group strategy idea by writing a chapter on the Spartans for my 1988 book, Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis. 

[4]     Plutarch, Lycurgus, 19.

[5]     Xenophon, Spartan Constitution, 10.

[6]     Xenophon, Constitution, 13.

[7]      The later Greco-Roman writer Polybius went so far as to argue that Rome’s extreme religiosity was what made her constitution “so markedly superior” to other states (Polybius, 6.56). See Guillaume Durocher, “Religious Piety in Sparta & Rome,” Counter-Currents.com, January 18, 2018.

[8]     Plutarch, Lycurgus, 14.

[9]     Ibid., 15.

[10]   Xenophon, Constitution, 1.

[11]   Plutarch, Lycurgus, 14.

[12]   Ibid., 16.

[13]   Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans, “Lycurgus,” 15.

[14]   Xenophon, Constitution, 1.

[15]   Plutarch, Lycurgus, 15.

[16]   Xenophon, Constitution, 1.

[17]   Plutarch, Lycurgus, 28.

[18]   Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 4.6.

[19]   Plutarch, Lycurgus, 24.

[20]   Xenophon, Constitution, 3.

[21]   Ibid., 4.

[22]   Ibid., 2.

[23]   Plutarch, Lycurgus, 14.

There is a sense in which all life for Spartan citizens was communal and hierarchical. Even once one had completed the agoge, Spartiates would eat together in common mess halls, again creating common feeling. The ages were mixed, so that the older could teach the young, and citizens were expected to discuss noble deeds. In the gymnasium, the oldest man would supervise, and citizens were expected to train regularly. Xenophon claims that “it would certainly not be easy for anyone to find men healthier or more physically apt than Spartiates.”[1]

Lycurgus reputedly had accompanied his basic law with a land reform giving each of those in the small citizen class an equal property, although economic inequality gradually accumulated over time. A positive consequence of the Spartans’ systematically communal lifestyle was an extremely high degree of trust among citizens. They shared each other’s hunting dogs and horses, the latter being extremely valuable property in those days. Citizens even trusted others to beat their own children if they had done wrong, for “there was a sense in which everyone regarded himself as father, tutor, and commander of each boy.”[2]

The entire society was oriented towards inculcating martial valor and unity. Cowards were severely stigmatized—so much so that they could be beaten freely—and “the citizens considered an honorable death preferable to a life of disgrace.”[3] Citizens were banned from working and instead “all their time was taken up by choral dances, festivals, feasts, hunting expeditions, physical exercise, and conversation.”[4] At the same time, the society’s general frugality meant “there was . . . no need to amass wealth (with all the work and concentration that this entails), since riches were emphatically neither envied nor esteemed.”[5] Music played a large role in Spartan society and their songs dealt with military heroism, sacrifice for Sparta, and the shaming of cowards. The result was an intensely communal ethos:

Altogether [Lycurgus] accustomed citizens to have no desire for a private life, nor knowledge of one, but rather to be like bees, always attached to the community, swarming together around their leader, and almost ecstatic with fervent ambition to devote themselves entirely to their country.[6]

The supreme values of this society are suggested even by their burial practices: “Those who buried a dead person were not permitted to inscribe the name on a grave except in the cases of a man who had died on campaign or a woman who had died in labor.”[7] The dead were buried within the city, so as to habituate the young to their sight.

Sparta was an exceptionally xenophobic society, sharply controlling population movements of both citizens and foreigners so to maintain their unique customs. Xenophon says that “expulsions of foreigners used to occur and absence abroad was not permitted, so that citizens should not be infected by lax habits caught from foreigners.”[8] Iron bars, worthless outside of Sparta, were the only legal currency in the State. Plutarch claims this also led to great benefits: “it was impossible to buy any shoddy foreign goods, and no cargo of merchandise would enter the harbors, no teacher of rhetoric trod Laconian soil, no begging seer, no pimp, no maker of gold or silver ornaments.”[9]

Plutarch says Sparta’s values of patriotism and sacrifice were apparently so ingrained that Spartan women were among their fiercest enforcers. A mother reputedly handed her son a shield as he was leaving for battle saying: “Son, either with this or on this.”[10] There are many stories of Spartan mothers rejoicing that their son died in battle or conversely, if he had returned by fleeing as a coward, killing him herself. Plutarch says:ntly so ingrained in the society that Spartan women were among their fiercest enforcers. As he left to fight and die at Thermopylae, Leonidas is supposed to have told his wife “to marry good men and bear good children.”[12] When Xerxes proposed making Leonidas tyrant of Greece, he is supposed to have responded: “For me, it is better to die for Greece than to be monarch of the people of my race.”[13]

The Spartans were famous for their brief ‘Laconic’ sayings and sharp wit. Plato claimed that the “distinctive kind of Spartan wisdom” was found in “their pithy, memorable sayings” (Protagoras, 343c), which can be recalled easily and thus be borne in mind in our daily lives. Laconic brevity also reflected the Spartan concern with doing well rather than merely speaking or speculating like the verbose Athenians. Lycurgus is supposed to have forbidden his laws from being written because “the guiding principles of most importance for the happiness and excellence of a state would remain securely fixed if they were embedded in citizens’ character and training.”[14] When asked why the Spartans kept their laws on bravery unwritten, a Spartan king is said to have replied: “it’s better for [the youth] to get used to acts of bravery rather than to study written documents.”[15]

A number of Spartan sayings have come down to us, although their precise attributions to various historical figures are probably unreliable. The Spartans, like the Cynic philosopher Diogenes, came to be idealized across the ancient world as an example of perfect virtue and would then tend to be credited with proverbs reflecting this. Nonetheless, the Sayings of the Spartans collected by Plutarch do give us a feeling for the Spartan spirit, as in the following sample:

When asked how anyone could rule the citizens safely without having a bodyguard, [King Agasicles] said: “By ruling them in the way that fathers do their sons.” (Agasicles, 2)

[King Agesilaus] watched a mouse being pulled from its hole by a small boy. When the mouse turned round, bit the hand of its captor and escaped, he pointed this out to those present and said: “When the tiniest creature defends itself like this against aggressors, what ought men to do, do you reckon?” (Agesilaus, 9).

When somebody asked what gain the laws of Lycurgus had brought to Sparta, he  said: “Contempt for pleasures.” (Agesilaus, 20)

To the man who was amazed at how modest his clothes and his meals were, and those of the other Spartans as well, he  said: “Freedom is what we reap from this way of life, my friend. (Agesilaus, 20).

When somebody else asked why Sparta lacked fortification walls, he pointed to the citizens under arms and said: “These are the Spartans’ walls.” (Agesilaus, 29)

As [King Agis] was passing through the Corinthians’ walls and observed their height and strength and great extent, he said: “What women live in this place?” (Agis son of Archidamus, 6)

When asked how one should remain a free man, he said: “By despising death.” (Agis son of Archidamus, 18)

When somebody said that [the philosopher Xenocrates] was a wise man and one of those who search for virtue, [King] Eudamidas said: “And when will he make use of it if he is still searching for it?” (Eudamidas son of Archidamus, 1)

To the stranger who was claiming that among his own citizens he was called a friend of Sparta [King Theopompus] said: “It would be better for you to be called a friend of your fellow citizens rather than a friend of Sparta.” (Theopompus, 2)

When a Persian inquired what type of constitution met with his greatest approval, he said: “Whichever gives brave men and cowards their due.” (Lysander, 11)

When someone was asking why they made the poet Tyrtaeus [an Athenian, whose poems provide some of the only surviving Spartan literature] a citizen, [Panthoidas] said: “So that a foreigner should never be seen as our leader.” (Panthoidas, 3)

When amongst the spoils some people were amazed at the extravagance of the Persians’ clothing, he said: “Better for them to be men of great worth rather than to have possessions of great worth.” (Panthoidas, 5)

When [Governor Pedaritus] observed some effeminate person being nonetheless praised by the citizens for his fairness, he said: “Men who are like women should not be praised nor should women who are like men, unless some necessity forces the woman.” (Pedaritus, 2)

When someone asked [King Charillus] which type of government he considered the best, he said: “The one in which the largest number of citizens are willing to compete with each other in excellence and without civil concord.” (Charillus, 4)

Go to Part 3.


[1]  Xenophon, Constitution, 5.

[2]  Plutarch, Lycurgus, 17.

[3]  Xenophon, Constitution, 9.

[4]  Plutarch, Lycurgus, 24.

[5]        Ibid.

[6]  Ibid., 25.

[7]  Ibid., 27.

[8]        Xenophon, Constitution, 14.

[9]  Plutarch, Lycurgus, 9.

[10] Plutarch, Sayings of Spartan Women, 16.

[11] Plutarch, Lycurgus, 14.

[12] Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans, “Leonidas,” 2.

[13]      Ibid., 10. Interestingly, many of Plutarch’s Sayings of the Spartans – which may have in fact been attributed in later years – contain expressions of pan-Hellenic patriotism, sentiments generally at odds with the more narrowly self-interested realities of Spartan foreign policy.

[14] Plutarch, Lycurgus, 13.

[15] Plutarch, Sayings of the Spartans, “Zeuxidamus,” 1.

 

The Virtuous Circle of Spartan Power: Discipline Through Lordship

The defining fact of Spartan life was the hard-won conquest of neighboring Messenia in the eighth century and the enslavement of its population as Helots. This victory had launched the virtuous circle of Spartan power. The subjugated Helots provided the Spartan citizen-soldiers with both the leisure and the imperative need to dedicate themselves to martial prowess in the face of a constant threat of rebellion at home. The entire social organization of Sparta came to reflect this state of affairs. Thucydides noted: “most Spartan institutions have always been designed with a view to security against the Helots.”[1]

The system instituted by Lycurgus proved remarkably successful for centuries. The organization and training of the—at their height—around 8,000 Spartan citizen-soldiers to suppress the Helots also translated into international military power, which in turn allowed Sparta to secure allies and thus yet more military power in the Peloponnese. Xenophon opens his account of the Spartan regime saying: “Sparta, despite having one of the lowest populations, had nonetheless clearly become the most powerful and most famous state in Greece.”[2] The unsentimental Thucydides says of Sparta: ‟its system of good order is very ancient and it has never been subject to tyrants. The Spartan constitution has remained unchanged for somewhat over 400 years . . . a source of strength, enabling their political intervention in other states” (Thu., 1.18). Indeed, Sparta was hailed for her lack of civil wars among citizens, a common cause of grief in the Greek world, and for having intervened to liberate other Greek cities from tyrants. Sparta’s oligarchic government seems to have been better than Athens at securing consenting allies among fellow-Greek city-states. The Spartans seem to have been better able at developing stable interpersonal ties with foreign elites,[3]  whereas the Athenian democracy tended to a chauvinism serving her own citizens alone without regard for its imperial subjects. Thucydides has Pericles boast that Athens did not use undependable foreign allies in war but only Athenian residents, implying that Sparta in contrast had the assistance more-or-less consenting allies.[4]

The great successes of Spartan social organization came at a heavy price. The city was devoid of material culture, leaving precious few artifacts in the archaeological record. Even during its heyday, Thucydides observed that Spartan architecture was so unimpressive in comparison with Athens, that “if the city of Sparta were to become deserted, with only the temples and the foundations of buildings left to view, I imagine that with the passage of time future generations would find it very hard to credit its reputed power (Thu., 1.10). Alexander Hamilton wrote that “Sparta was little better than a well-regulated camp.”[5] Sparta is unlikely to have had much intellectual culture either. If there were any Spartan dramatists and philosophers, there is virtually nothing that survives of them. There is little to suggest there was any Spartan equivalent of Athens’ extraordinary theatrical and philosophical achievement, notwithstanding the idealizations and ironic paradoxes of the philosophers.[6] Indeed, the Spartans were said to be “the least intellectual of men” (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1398b).[7]

Sparta was basically a caste society. Besides the solidary elite citizen body of Spartiates, there were also “fallen” Spartans who had lost their citizenship for reasons of poverty or dishonor, “neo-citizens” who had been naturalized (especially in the later years) to have more soldiers, the working Peripherals who gravitating around the city, and finally the Helots. This appears to have been, somewhat like ancient and medieval India, a largely static society. It was certainly a closed society in which, besides the rigid social order, foreigners were restricted from entry and regularly evicted to prevent the Spartans from being infected with foreign cultural influence. Furthermore, it appears that Sparta’s power in the Peloponnese was based on its ability to retard urban development abroad: rival cities were broken up into villages and placed under the government of Spartan-friendly landowners.[8] Sparta has an air of stagnation, and while the appearance of eternity typically impressed the Ancients, we Moderns tend to feel that that which does not grow is already doomed. At the same time, living in a time of perpetual economic growth leading to cultural collapse and ecological exhaustion, the Spartan ideal and long-lasting success of a socio-political steady-state perhaps has a new relevance for our time.

By the yardstick of individual freedom, the ledger is perhaps not quite as much in Athens’ favor as one might expect. In every premodern economy, the precious leisure necessary for culture and civic life is necessarily the purview of a select few. Athens no doubt afforded more scope for individual merit, freedom, and political participation to a greater share of the population on the whole. But one also should not forget that democratic Athens itself was based on chattel slavery, subject colonies, and house-bound women. In the Spartan empire, notwithstanding the hard lives of the Helots, women and allied states were generally freer than those of Athens. Furthermore, those who have tasted the monastic life may also suspect that the highly-regimented Spartan lifestyle—the constant training in community life, athletics, and self-restraint—may have offered citizens certain deep satisfactions not available with the liberal lifestyle.

Ironically, Sparta’s greatest failing was precisely in the biological and specifically in the demographic sphere. Sparta, somewhat miraculously, defeated Athens in the Peloponnesian War but fell within decades due to the failure to maintain the population of citizen-soldiers. As Kevin MacDonald observes:

It would appear that the system devised by the Israelite lawgiver [Moses] was in some sense a better strategy for maintaining long-term ethnic coherence than that designed by the Spartan lawgiver, since the Israelite strategy, arguably, continues today (see [The Culture of Critique], ch. 8). The Spartan system was an excellent defensive system, but was ill equipped to administer an empire, and there were no provisions, such as the hereditary Israelite priestly class, that would have allowed it to survive being militarily conquered – a contingency that was all but inevitable in the ancient world and that certainly continues to some extent today.[9]

For MacDonald, “while the group strategy of the ancient Spartans was successful for a significant period, it was ultimately a failure.”[10] In marked contrast with the Jews, who were able to survive through fanatical adherence to a dogmatic ethnocentric religion, the Spartans proved completely incapable of maintaining their identity and group evolutionary strategy in the absence of a supportive sovereign State. In this, the Spartans were sadly typical of Western peoples. There is furthermore little reason to believe that Sparta’s primitive eugenic measures had much positive effect.

We would be wrong to downplay the Spartan achievement however. The other Greeks were greatly impressed by those four centuries of Spartan order and power which were so great a factor in their international affairs. Polybius, a later Hellenistic historian who documented the rise of Rome, gave a balanced summary of the greatness and limits of Sparta through a useful comparison with the Roman Republic. He remarked that “the constitution so framed by Lycurgus preserved independence in Sparta longer than anywhere else in recorded history” (Polybius, 6.10). Furthermore:

The Lycurgan system is designed for the secure maintenance of the status quo and the preservation of autonomy. Those who believe that this is what a state is for must agree that there is not and never has been a better system or constitution than that of the Spartans. But if one has greater ambitions that that – if one thinks that it is a finer and nobler thing to be a world-class leader, with an extensive dominion and empire, the center and focal point of everyone’s world – then one must admit that the Spartan constitution is deficient and the Roman constitution is superior and more dynamic. (Polybius, 6.50)

There is no doubt that there is a tendency to “slouching” in human history: every new generation balks at the unexplained disciplines and traditional rigors inherited from the past. If this rebelling against the past is done for the sake of comfort and pleasure, as opposed to replacing a tradition with new practices because they are more conducive to the public good, we call this decadence. In Sparta alone, the citizens were able to maintain a fearsome degree of virtue, by the authority held by the elders, by the systematic education and training of the citizens, and by the threat posed by the Helots.

The constitution of Lycurgus – with its stability, mixing of elitism and democracy, sovereignty, lawfulness, training, social unity, and sacrifice for the common good – may serve a model for all nations that truly wish to fight to determine their own destiny and adhere to values. The example of Sparta, like Prussia in the modern era, also shows that smallness is no reason for defeatism, that all nations have, with effort, a chance at achieving freedom and greatness. No wonder that the law of Lycurgus and the sacrifice of Leonidas’ 300 Spartans have inspired philosophers and statesmen throughout the ages, even in the face of terrible odds. Given the challenges facing Western and European nations in the twenty-first century – consider the sheer scale of the rising foreign superpowers, ecological threats, and demographic collapse – the Spartan experience in building a lawful, holistic, and biopolitical martial republic may yet help inspire our renewal.


Bibliography

Aristotle (trans. H. C. Lawson-Tancred), The Art of Rhetoric (London: Penguin, 1991).

Cartledge, Paul, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300 to 362 BC (New York: Routledge, 2002).

Herodotus (trans. Robin Waterfield), The Histories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

MacDonald, Kevin, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples (Lincoln, Nebraska: Writers Club, 2002).

Plato (ed. John M. Cooper), Complete Works, (Indianapolis, Indian: Hackett, 1997).

Plutarch (trans. Richard Talbert and Ian Scott-Kilvert), On Sparta (London: Penguin, 2005), includes Plutarch’s Life of Lycurgus, Sayings of Spartans, and Sayings of Spartan Women, and Xenophon’s Spartan Constitution.

Polybius (trans. Robin Waterfield), The Histories (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).

Xenophon (trans. Rex Warner), A History of My Times [Hellenica] (London: Penguin, 1979).

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


[1]  Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 4.80. Translation from Paul Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300 to 362 BC (New York: Routledge, 2002), Annex 4, p. 299. The passage is somewhat ambiguous. Cartledge also provides an alternative translation: “as far as the Helots are concerned, most Spartan institutions have always been designed with a view to security.”

[2]  Xenophon, Spartan Constitution, 1.

[3]        The Old Oligarch observes:

 For oligarchic cities it is necessary to keep to alliances and oaths. If they do not abide by agreements or if injustice is done, there are the names of the few who made the agreement. But whatever agreements the populace makes can be repudiated by referring the blame to the one who spoke or took the vote, while the others declare that they were absent or did not approve of the agreement made in the full assembly. (The Constitution of the Athenians, 2.18)

[4]        Pericles says: “The Spartans do not invade our land on their own, but they have all their allies with them” (Thu., 2.39). Earlier, Pericles had argued that the Spartans’ need for their allies’ agreement to take decisions would paralyze them:

 In a single pitched battle the Peloponnesians and their allies are capable of resisting the whole of Greece, but they are incapable of maintaining a war against an opposition which differs from them in kind: as long, that is, that they continue without a central deliberative forum, for lack of which they cannot take any immediate decisive action, and as long as all the various tribal groups in a miscellaneous confederacy have equal votes, so each promotes its own concern – a system unlikely to produce any effective results. (Thucydides, 1.141)

This can be taken as an early argument for sovereign central government rather than divided confederal government. Perhaps the need to convince their allies was partly responsible for the supposed timidity and slowness of Spartan foreign policy (Thu., 8.96).

[5]        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 6.

[6]        Plutarch states that “some . . . claim that devotion to the intellect is more characteristic of Spartans than love of physical exercise” (Lycurgus, 20) and, in a beautiful rhetorical flourish, concludes his Life saying:

 Lycurgus . . . brought into the light of day, not paper theories, but a functioning constitution which is quite unmatched. To those who suspect that it is impracticable for a theoretical structure to be centered upon a Sage, he has exhibited his whole city practicing philosophy” (Lycurgus, 31).

Such passages in Plutarch must be considered idealizations and inspiring exhortations to political philosophy, rather than realistic history.

In his Protagoras, Plato has Socrates ironically claim that “the Spartans have the best education in philosophy and debate” (342e). This is no place for a full commentary on this dialogue. However, given the context, it seems Plato is making a paradoxical and humorous comment praising certain Spartan virtues – namely discretion, Laconic wit, remembrance of wise sayings – as integral to the practice of philosophy. One of the great challenges in studying ancient Greek literature, is determining whether a text is ironic or is making some kind of in-joke. Herodotus, Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon certainly often appealed to ironic humor.

[7]  Whereas Aristotle is here quoting someone else, he was more generally one of the few ancient philosophers to be broadly critical of Sparta, having come of age after its collapse after the Battle of Leuctra. At the same time, Aristotle did admire the communitarian ambitions of the Spartan educational system.

[8]  Xenophon, Hellenica, 5.2.7.

[9]  MacDonald, PSDA, p. 395.

[10] MacDonald, PSDA, p. 8.