By Guillaume Durocher | 24 February 2017
Aristotle (trans. Ernest Barker and R. F. Stalley), Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995)
THE OCCIDENTAL OBSERVER — One measure of the intellectual and moral degeneration of the West over the last decades is the now near-total ignorance of the founding Classics of Western civilization, even among the so-called educated class. Those who remain in ignorance of what superior minds have thought before them are condemned to remain as children, at best reinventing the wheel, rather than standing upon the shoulders of giants.
While the Classics were clearly written for a time and place very different from our own, their concerns often speak to us very directly. Aristotle’s Politics, his main political treatise, is replete with comments concerning the dangers of diversity and egalitarianism. Aristotle’s political thought does not soar to the eugenic and spiritual heights of Plato’s utopia. However, Aristotle’s moderate and pragmatic brand of politics is much more palatable to someone raised in modern liberalism, while at the same time being a better introduction to the communitarian and aristocratic political ethics of the ancient Greeks.
Aristotle is greatly concerned with the preservation of civil peace in the city-state. One of the most common causes of “faction” and civil war, he says, was the unhappy consequences of unassimilated immigration and the consequent diversity. Aristotle’s prose is perfectly clear:
Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted. (1303A13)
Thus, immigration of different peoples was a common source of conflict, often leading to civil war and concluding with the ethnic cleansing of either the native peoples or the invaders. […]
Great find above. Have just posted links to this & to the Durocher original, onto the Unz site. Tho Durocher text citations of Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ above, may have slightly erroneous ‘Bekker numbers’ for Aristotle’s original, per the Perseus site, which has the 1944 H. Rackham translation, which I give below.
One fascinating passage from the ‘Politics’ of Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE), speaks of the habit of oligarchs to prefer that their operational mafias be some kind of foreign tribe or aliens or ‘dual citizens’ (1311a, 1314a): “A king’s body-guard consists of citizens, a tyrant’s of foreign mercenaries … And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions … feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him.”
More applicable-to-today phrases from Aristotle’s ‘Politics’ (1313b-1314a): “It is a device of tyranny to make the subjects poor, so that the people being busy with their daily affairs may not have leisure to plot against their ruler … Tyranny is a friend of the base [i.e., low-quality people]; the base are useful for base business, for nail is driven out by nail, as the proverb goes … And it is a mark of a tyrant to dislike anyone that is proud or free-spirited; for the man who shows a free spirit robs tyranny of its superiority and position of mastery.”
The longer quote from above in the Rackham translation, Aristotle giving multiple examples of immigration disasters … Aristotle saying that often, either you expel the immigrants or they take over and maybe even expel you (1303a-b):
Aristotle also spoke of how masculine republics tended to transition into feminist democracies and then tyrannies, a process which is ongoing in the USA today. The USA became a feminine democracy when American women got the right to vote in 1920, something that Aristotle (and most Ancients) would have opposed. Notice how soft Americans are today compared to pre 1920 and especially the 1800s. This is the consequence of allowing women to vote and soften the political system.
I also recently watched a 5 hour interview with retired Delta Force operator Dale Comstock. He mentioned that one reason he left the U.S. Army is because of an incident where he was disciplining a soldier who had committed an offense and then a woman of a lower rank came in and tried to interfere and stop him which rightly pissed him off. Women and trannies are being used to deliberately destroy the army and push real patriots like Comstock out.
Immigration is mainly a problem in White nations like Germany, Canada, the USA, UK and France where the ancestors of modern Whites either committed historical atrocities against the Americans, owned African colonies or enslaved Blacks. In White nations like the Czech Republic where Russ Winter lives, which have no history of enslavement or genocide, are restricting immigration and doing well, and will continue to do so. George Friedman in his book The Next 100 years says the Eastern European states will become great powers while Western Europe will implode. Sounds about right.