Spartan Arabia and Filipino Helots

Around swimming pools, never relax.

Saudi Arabia’s population is 40% immigrant. UAE’s population is even more extreme, at 88% immigrant. Does anyone seriously believe that these guest workers — Indian, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and Pakistanis — are going to take over or threaten Muslim culture?

Compare, by contrast, the arrival of the Mayflower to North America in 1620. It carried only 130 passengers. Within 20 years, the number of Europeans would balloon to over 10,000, and outnumber the native population of New England. By the time of King Philip’s War in 1675, the natives were outnumbered 5:1.

Or, consider the Spartans and their helots. 65% to 85% of the population of Sparta was Helot. The term Helot may derive from halískomai, meaning one who is captured or imprisoned.

Alternatively, it may derive from ἕλος, which refers to a marsh. Accordingly, Helots would be "bog dwellers" or "swamp dwellers." Think of Tolkien's depictions of goblins and orcs as dwelling in marshes or swamps.

In the American south, the “backwater” refers to swampy, marshy bogs where the least educated live.

Wetland is good for growing certain crops, such as rice or cotton. However, America’s most calorically productive staples (corn, wheat, potatoes) are concentrated in areas with less wetland: Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. This is because these crops largely originated in dry grassland regions, such as the Tehuacan Valley and the Anatolia-Armenian Plateau.

In ancient Greece, the main crops were wheat, barley, olives, and grapes. None of these crops thrive in wetlands. Furthermore, the pastoral animals of Greece, such as sheep, goats, chickens and cattle, do worse in wetlands than drylands. The humidity of wetlands breeds disease, especially as a result of the presence of blood-sucking parasites like leeches, mosquitoes, and flies. Stagnant water found in wetlands is a breeding ground for bacteria which make these animals sick. Pigs are somewhat more comfortable in humid conditions, but they do not graze grass, and are dependent on food waste produced from existing agricultural excess.

The Greek prejudice against wetlands was so fierce that it informed their primitive germ theory, the idea of “miasma.” Miasma was “bad air” which caused disease and infection. The concept of a cloud of bad air carrying disease may be derived from the fact that wetlands tend to be very humid, and the air is literally heavier than that of mountain air, which the Greeks thought to be healthy and refreshing.

Cassius Dio, an ethnically Greek citizen of the Roman empire, claimed that the Celts submerged themselves in swamps for days, poking their heads out of the water like frogs. Whether or not the Celts actually did anything remotely similar to this, it indicates that Greeks held “swamp people” in great contempt, and lends credence to the idea that the original Helots were “swamp people.”

If this is correct, then when Indo-Europeans first invaded Greece, they likely found it easiest to enslave the people of the swamps, who were the least agriculturally productive and less integrated into Pelasgian proto-states. These slaves were called Helots by the Spartans because they were kidnapped from wetland areas. Sparta was also called Lacedaemon, from Laconice, which is related to a plateau or highland near Sparta.¹ This prejudice of highlanders against swamp dwellers then lasted for 1,800 years afterward, and may even inform the prejudice in American against “Swamp dwellers,” almost 4,000 years later.

All of this is to say that having a huge underclass of foreign slaves is not a novel development. According to Louis de Jaucourt’s reading of Eusebius, Sparta was founded in 1736 BC,² and did not cease to be an independent state until the death of Nabis of Sparta in 192 BC. By this reckoning, the Spartan state, based on mass slavery of foreigners, persisted for 1544 years.

However, it could be countered that Sparta did not in fact “exist” as a distinct state with a Helot class until the rule of Agis I, in 1090 BC. The last Spartan king, Agesipolis III, died in 183 BC, but it is alleged that earlier Spartan kings, such as Nabis, were of Helot descent. This allows for the possibility of ethnic mixing between Spartans and Helots, and the loss of Spartan ethnic continuity prior to the death of Agesipolis.

All of this is to say that ethnic homogeneity is not a hard precondition for the survival of a state. America’s descent into white minority status does not necessarily spell the end of America as a global power, although it does call into question America’s future unipolarity.

There are two ways that America could deal with increasing ethnic diversity:

1. Mass deportation, expulsion, sterilization, or “peaceful ethnic cleansing”;

2. A Spartan, Saudi Arabian, or Indian style caste system.

Historically, there are some precedents for the first option. The Bible details the genocide of the Canaanites by Israel, and ancient Britain had 90% of its population replaced by invading Indo-Europeans. Less violently, India and Pakistan transferred millions of Muslims and Hindus across the border in 1948, and millions of Germans were expelled from their homelands in 1945.

Most nationalists believe the only thing holding America and Europe back from these ideas is “liberalism,” “decadence,” “weakness,” “slave morality.” This last phrase is especially ironic, since “master morality” can only exist in slave-owning societies. While it is possible that ancient Indo-Europeans genocided native peoples, it is demonstrably true that in the case of Sparta and India, Indo-Europeans preferred mass enslavement and caste systems. It is hard to imagine that they were only held back from genocide because of “slave morality,” 1600 years before Christ.

Instead, the lack of genocide against Shudra and Helots has to do with the economic logic of the caste system. Complex societies benefit from slavery. In fact, all agricultural societies were founded on slavery. Ethnic slavery is not the exception, but the rule. All civilizations were founded on race based slavery. This is the most difficult to prove in the case of China, but there is some evidence for an invasion of ancient China and the establishment of an ethnic caste system.³ As recently as 1912, China was ruled by the Manchu, a Tungusic people who originate from Siberia.

Haplogroup C-M217, associated with Tungusic people, who ruled China until 1912.

After overthrowing Manchu rule, the Han Chinese then spent the next 30 years being absolutely dominated by the Japanese, who would have formed a new ethnic elite over them if not for the American intervention. China has only been an ethnically homogeneous nationalist country for 75 years out of its 2200 year history.⁴

If ethnic heterogeneity is a normal aspect of slave-based societies, like Sparta or India, how would America best manage this situation?

Elite Identity

Spartans had an elite identity. They never formed a majority of their territory, but Spartans had a cohesive ethnic identity that allowed them to fight and die for their country. To an extent, Spartans even mobilized Helots, and possibly intermixed with them, producing the mothax (“stepbrother”) and nothoi (“bastard”) caste. Despite this intermixing, Spartans maintained an ethnic distinction between themselves and the helots for well over 500 years.

Similarly, the Brahmin and Kshatriya of India have distinguished themselves as ruling ethnic classes for at least 2,000 years (although since the colonization of India and the introduction of socialism, this hierarchy has been undermined somewhat). What would such a system look like in America?

First of all, America would need to elect or identify its ruling ethnic caste. Kalergi proposed that Jews could provide this caste for a united Europe. Prior to the 20th century, this was the WASP, white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Peter Thiel and his protege JD Vance advocate for Catholicism as the religion of an American ruling class, although Vance has failed to convince his wife to convert, so that plan does not seem to be going well.

The Democrat Party effectively places whites at the top of a racial hierarchy, but only ideologically committed ones. Democrats are controlled financially by backers like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, and Steve Ballmer. Within the past year, Democrat mega donors include Reid Garrett Hoffman ($25 million in the past year), Fred Eychaner ($23 million), Marilyn Simons ($18 million), and Stephen and Susan Mandel ($15 million). Just so we’re clear, out of these 9 donors, only 2.5 are Jewish (Ballmer is half Jewish).

In the history of the Democrat party in the last 196 years, it has only nominated a non-white for president twice: 2008 and 2024. It can be argued convincingly that the Democratic Party contains some kind of anti-white or “pro-Helot” bias. But this argument depends on a “grass-roots view” of politics. Yes: from the perspective of the middle class, the policies of the Democratic Party are making whites into a minority, transferring their wealth to non-whites, and they attack white nationalism as their biggest enemy. But at an elite level, Democratic policies import cheap labor, drive up the price of housing (which is good if you’re a real estate investor), and undermine unionization.⁵ If you’re a rich white person, these are all positive developments.

In 2019, black on white crime claimed the lives of roughly 566 white Americans.⁶ By contrast, in 2022, 227,664 Americans died by accident. White Americans have a lower rate of death by accidents than black or Hispanic Americans — only 50% of accidental deaths have white victims. Accordingly, we will estimate that roughly 114,000 white Americans died due to accidents.

One of the ways that white American children are killed every year is due to poisoning. When children get their hands on medicine, drugs, or laundry detergent, they ingest these harmful substances and get sick:

In the United States in 2004, there were over 1.25 million poison exposures involving children less than 6 years of age [..]. The substances most frequently involved were cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning substances and analgesics.

23,000 white Americans died in motor vehicle crashes; 52,000 died from accidental poisoning; 23,000 died from falling; 2777 died from choking; 2089 died from drowning; 1745 died from fire or smoke inhalation; 941 died from other forms of suffocation.

By comparison, disease is much more deadly: in 2022, Heart disease killed 350,000, cancer killed 300,000, COVID killed 90,000, stroke killed 80,000, respiratory disease killed 70,000, Alzheimer's killed 60,000, diabetes killed 50,000, liver disease killed 27,000, and Nephritis killed 28,000.

These are all estimates of white deaths taken by simply slicing the total death rates of all Americans in half. Some are bound to be greater (because white Americans tend to be more elderly) and some lesser, but these give the general scale of causes of death.

I don’t mention this to say that black on white crime is not impactful on the families of victims. Rather, to get the perspective of a rich white person, you have to understand that they are logically processing risk factors.

Around swimming pools, never relax.

Personally, I feel that the hysteria surrounding COVID was pathetic, neurotic, and pathological, especially among young people (under age 40). However, COVID was 159x deadlier than black crime for white Americans. Poisoning was 92x deadlier, and motor vehicles were 41x deadlier. White crime was 5x deadlier for white Americans than black crime. The biggest risk factor for drowning is the presence of a swimming pool. Whites could more significantly impact their death rate by enacting a total ban on swimming pools than by deporting 40 million black people to Africa. For rich whites, focusing on black crime doesn’t make sense.

Furthermore, the vast majority of black on white crime occurs within neighborhoods. That is, whites become victims of black crime when they live in black neighborhoods. Even among whites, victims of crime tend to be poorer and less educated. Think of a poor white person who can’t afford to move away when the neighborhood becomes diverse. Think of a poor white person who is forced into public housing because they can’t hold down a job. Think of a poor white woman who marries or dates black men, and cohabitates in a black neighborhood. These account for the vast majority of white victims of black crime.

Between 1998 and 2002, there were 35,000 murders committed by family members against other family members.⁷ While family-on-family murder is probably less likely among white families, even if only 15,000 whites commit familicide, this makes familicide 27x more frequent than black-on-white murder. Rich whites are more likely to kill each other than they are to be killed by a random black guy. This is because most crime is extremely geographic, and most murders are not random, but occur across pre-existing social connections. Because rich people don’t socialize with the black underclass, they are not exposed to the risk of murder. The idea that someday white Democrats will “pay the toll” is maybe possible for poor or even middle class whites, but highly unlikely for rich whites.

I have argued that liberals are going through a process of ethno-genesis.⁸ Albion’s Seed (1989) indicates that the distinction between over-educated New Englanders and the southern and Scots-Irish predates the colonization of America. One could argue that these distinctions have even deeper roots in the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and Danish roots of the English nation.

It wasn’t always the case, however, that rich Americans voted Democrat.⁹ This trend has really only become prominent after 2016, which was the first election in which the top 20% of earners voted more Democrat than any other income group, including the bottom 20% (mostly black and Hispanic) and the middle 80%. The shift in margin over the last 16 years has been astounding: the top 20% only voted 51-49 for Obama in 2008, but in 2020, they voted 57-43 for Biden. Biden wasn’t exceptional, as this trend has been monodirectional in every election since 2008.

But being in the top 20% of income does not really qualify as “rich.” To be in the top 20%, you only need to make $80k per year. What about Americans in the top 4%, who make over $335,891 per year? As recently as 2012, these genuinely rich Americans were still leaning toward Republicans, 53-47, thanks to Mitt Romney. After the “Trumpification” of the Republican Party, they now lean Democrat, 57-43. This is a far cry from 1980, when Reagans won the rich by a 70-30 margin.

Which way, Vance man?

JD Vance represents the Schrödinger state of the Republican Party. On the one hand, he is a Yale educated husband of a Hindu Brahmin, and a good friend of Peter Thiel. On the other hand, every speech he gives is about hillbillies, unions, the working class, and tariffs. Not really a pro-rich message. It may still be possible for Republicans to turn the ship around if Democrats do something to hurt the economy. Unfortunately, from the perspective of the rich, things like “unemployment,” “drug use,” and “inflation” mean very little to them. They care about the stock market, and the stock market is up under Biden, as it was under Obama.

All of this means that from the perspective of rich white Democrats, the average white American may as well be a Helot. This is problematic, though, because it leaves America without a ruling warrior class. America was founded by warriors, not hedge fund managers. On a long enough time scale, no state can survive without a native ethnic elite with its own “in house” warrior class. Machiavelli’s main complaint with Italian politics is that the elite hired mercenaries, rather than developing local militias, which always ended in disaster, because the mercenaries were loyal to the highest bidder rather than the state. This was also the cause of many Roman Civil Wars, where soldiers became loyal to a paycheck from moguls like Crassus rather than the state. This, historically, causes instability.

Can rich whites get around this problem? Can they replace the white warrior class with robots, AI, drones, and other sorts of technology? Alternatively, can they breed a loyal class of non-white Kshatriya who will defend their interests?

David Goggins: the mixed race super soldier of the future?

Unfortunately, these two solutions seem somewhat at odds with one another. If technology is supposedly going to replace “real soldiers” with robots, who are going to be the programmers and engineers for this new robot army? If the military and police force at large becomes majority non-white, how will that be integrated with a programmer and engineer class?

The demographics of programmers and engineers varies depending on the task in question, but there seems to be a trend (at least in Silicon Valley) of hiring Chinese and Indian programmers over white Americans. What sort of loyalty would these employees have to America, other than the loyalty of a mercenary? How can a country endure crisis if its warrior class is only loyal to money? If China offers these programmers a bigger paycheck, what’s to say they will remain a cohesive fighting force?

These questions are relevant whether the fighting force in question is on the battlefield or behind a keyboard. In fact, the loyalty of “keyboard” warriors is even more crucial. This is because a disloyal soldier on the battlefield at least has his own self-preservation at stake, and the sense of comradeship with his unit, which encourages him to fight the enemy, even when he has no sense of national unity at home. However, a keyboard warrior has no sense of self-preservation or comradeship, since he is operating vehicles remotely from the safety of a bunker. There are only two motivations then: loyalty and money.

This question doesn’t depend on the development of robot armies, but is already crucial with regard to infrastructure. Engineers run the power grid. They are paid a salary to keep it going. Their loyalty to their country prevents them from taking a bribe to sabotage the system. If America as a nation dissolves into an economic zone, what is to prevent other nations from wreaking havoc with a few million dollars?

What if the Carthaginians had offered the Romans gold for loyalty? This actually happened: the Carthaginians did attempt to bribe the subjects of Rome. Many Roman subjects, non-ethnically Roman citizens called “Socii,” took the bribe. Those who remained loyal to Rome were ethnically Roman. The only way to avoid this problem is to hope that there exists no Carthage which seeks to undermine America. But Russia and China, and even Iran, show that this is not the case.

Ironically, it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, who have the perfect solution: Americans should simply abandon all their military bases and give up all global influence, handing it over to a “multi-polar world” (China). If America gives everything away to China, maybe the Chinese will leave us alone, and the question of loyalty won’t matter anymore. There does seem to be a free market, libertarian strain among Republicans that endorses this “give away the world, invite the world” message (Vivek and Vance).

But Democrats, so far, refuse to adopt the kind of isolationism necessary to avoid a confrontation with China. It is not entirely clear how this contradiction will be resolved. Will Democrats be forced to make concessions to a white warrior class? Or would they forfeit America’s empire in the name of diversity and progress? Or, in the worst of both worlds, will they provoke a conflict with China while simultaneously declaring war on their own soldiers? This is somewhat reminiscent of Stalin’s war against his own people.

It is possible that America’s merchant class no longer considers itself American in any meaningful sense, and sees a conflict between America and China as an opportunity to make money, without caring whether or not America wins or loses. The hypothetical question remains: if America was interested in developing a functional caste system, what would that look like?

Citizens and Subjects

Ancient Greek city states, like Sparta and Athens, distinguished between citizens, freemen, and slaves. America could adopt this basic model as follows: