 |
| Aristotle: the original shitlord. |
For Aristotle there were always two vices for every virtue. This was because of his belief in the “Golden Mean.” For example, the virtue Courage existed between a vice of deficiency (Cowardice) and a vice of excess (Rashness).
To emphasize the metapoint: Aristotle saw all vices as existing on a continuum with all virtues, with no wall between them. This is very different from the Manichean morality that later poisoned the West through Judaic theology.
What happens, however, if we apply this Aristotelian analysis to the major “vices” of the modern day, namely “Racism” and “Sexism”?
Of course the liberal left, with its agenda of deconstructing all elements of identity above the atomistic individual, seeks to impose its totalitarian will through a variation on this Judaic Manichaeism called “political correctness.” The sins of “Racism” and “Sexism” are accordingly seen as evil essence that must be expunged from society and all intellectual discourse through a no-platform, knee-jerk, quarantine, point-and-sputter approach. Despite its crudity and lack of sophistication, this approach has been highly successful at imposing liberal extremism on the West. But it is clearly an approach that is at odds with an Aristotelian viewpoint, not to mention intellectualism and reason themselves.
Aristotle, were he alive today, could easily have slotted these supposed vices into his system. The only problem would be whether these supposed vices – or degrees of them – were vices of excess, vices of deficiency, or actually virtues.
One problem with the Judaic, Manichaeistic, all-or-nothing approach is it does away with gradations, degrees, balance, and context, which are at the heart of the Aristotelian system. But if “Racism” is seen as part of a continuum of vice-virtue-vice, then the question arises of how much of whatever Racism is is good?
Some idea could be derived from considering Aristotle’s other virtues – Courage, for example. It is clear that Aristotle is taking a functional view of these virtues and that Courage is preferred because it is more likely to achieve optimum results than either its paired vices, Rashness or Cowardice. On occasion, however, Rashness and Cowardice may in fact have higher functionality than courage. What was Thermopylae but a heroic act of Rashness that served to galvanize other Greeks, while Pericles’s wise policy of avoiding land battles with the Spartans and sticking to naval battles could be seen as an example of sensible Cowardice. Rather than the crude and primitive moral “essences” that the Left prefers, the Aristotelian approach to virtue requires constant analysis, contextualization, and validation through results. Aristotelian morality is rationalist morality.
Functionality is the defining aspect of these virtues. Courage exists because battles need to be won, enemies defeated, threats defied, oppression challenged, etc. This raises the question, then, of what is the functionality of the vice-virtue-vice continuums on which Racism and Sexism exist?
Sexism is the easiest to start with as it pertains to the relationship between men and women. We can easily conceive of what a healthy relationship between the sexes looks like, and while many of the details – such as who wears the apron – could be open to debate, the most unquestionable aspect would simply be healthy reproduction rates relative to environment.
Sexism that did not achieve this would obviously be vicious, while Sexism that treated the woman as a mere baby-factory-until-death, "fuck bucket," possession, or working drudge would also be obviously vicious. Socio-economic and environmental factors could, of course, impact on this equation to a significant degree. In earlier societies women would have to be treated as drudges and baby factories to a certain extent, as that was the necessity of the times.
This means that vice and virtue have historical aspects. But, from our modern Western point of view, with our women having less than replacement birthrates, we can unequivocally say that we are suffering from a marked deficiency of Sexism that we can label "Feminism," and that what is required is clearly more Sexism, i.e. forcing or encouraging women to take up a more traditional role as mothers.
If this is taken too far, to the point where we treat our women the same way that they are treated in backward Muslim and African countries, then we would be involved in a vice of excess, that we could term "Hyper-Sexism." This would be an ill fit with our ideal of a technologically and culturally advanced, high-nurturing society; although it may actually have a certain rationale in those backward Muslim and African countries, as well as in parts of the welfarized West.
The functionality of Racism is not too difficult to elucidate either. It could be defined as maintaining and protecting the security and identity of the racial or ethnic group in question, without provoking undue enmity. In this respect it becomes abundantly clear that the modern West has a major racism problem in that it does not have enough racism. In 1965, Whites were 90% of the US population. They are projected to become a minority within less than a hundred years from that date. Western Europe faces a similar threat.
These facts on their own imply a serious lack of Racism among Whites, although part of the problem is also a deficiency of Sexism. This vice of deficiency of Racism can best be called Anti-Racism (as Race Blindness is a psychological impossibility). There is some question of what the vice of excess would look like in this case, but perhaps this could be defined as an attitude that creates a general sense of opprobrium for the group concerned that threatens its power, position, and survival in the wider world.
Historically, given the way subsequent events turned out, 1930s Nazism and 1980s Apartheid South Africa could be seen as examples of the vice of excess Racism (Hyper-Racism).
If Nazism had adopted a less confrontational and more gradualist approach to solving its Jewish problem and revanchist claims, it could have perhaps avoided the vice of Hyper-Racism and its historical consequences. In the case of 1980s South Africa, given the global moral climate at the time, a more acceptable form of White power would have been partition into racially discrete states. Apartheid actually pushed in this direction in a very limited form with the creation of token Bantustans, when what it should have been doing was defining a White homeland with defensible boundaries. That would have provided a much more virtuous form of Racism and a much smaller target for the enemies of the White race to attack.
While Whites in America constantly suffer from a lack of virtuous Racism, American Blacks on the other hand provide a good example of an excess. Nowadays Blacks have little to fear from Whites, unless directly confronting a police officer (who happens to be White), nevertheless, as a group, they blame Whites for everything that is wrong with their lives, with zero gratitude for the fact that most of their handouts are paid for by White taxpayers.
Some might say that historically Whites treated Blacks with excessive Racism, for example Segregation and Slavery, but even that is questionable. Seen in their true historical contexts, both Segregation and Slavery benefitted the Blacks in question. From a racial rather than economic point of view, Slavery was essentially the relocation of Africa’s excess population, which would not have survived otherwise, to new lands that Africans were incapable of colonizing themselves. As for Segregation, it is clear that it did much to impose a degree of discipline on Blacks so that they could function reasonably well within the majority White society. Since its dismantling, Black communities have practically disintegrated.
By definition, Hyper-Racism needs to harm the group practising it, either by destructive external effects or destructive internal effects. The former case works by bringing the state or group in question into such a degree of opprobrium that other groups feel incensed or justified enough to attack it. This is essentially what happened to the slave states that made up the Confederacy in the American Civil War, although it is possible to detect additional motives for that increase in Federal power. American Blacks today, however, are an example of the destructive internal effects of Hyper-Racism. This is because White Anti-Racism for the time being prevents negative external consequences.
American Blacks clearly suffer from an excess of Racism. This limits their ability to function in the wider society they find themselves in and predisposes them to welfarism, amoralism, alienation, and criminality, factors that can only harm them in the long-term. The best proof of this is that Blacks who overcome or control their Hyper-Racism and practice simple Racism, tend to become reasonably successful in modern America.
It may be impossible for all Americans to achieve a Golden Mean of Racism, but, if it is possible, it would probably involve Whites being more racist than they now are and Blacks being a lot less racist.
To emphasize the metapoint: Aristotle saw all vices as existing on a continuum with all virtues, with no wall between them. This is very different from the Manichean morality that later poisoned the West through Judaic theology.
What happens, however, if we apply this Aristotelian analysis to the major “vices” of the modern day, namely “Racism” and “Sexism”?
Of course the liberal left, with its agenda of deconstructing all elements of identity above the atomistic individual, seeks to impose its totalitarian will through a variation on this Judaic Manichaeism called “political correctness.” The sins of “Racism” and “Sexism” are accordingly seen as evil essence that must be expunged from society and all intellectual discourse through a no-platform, knee-jerk, quarantine, point-and-sputter approach. Despite its crudity and lack of sophistication, this approach has been highly successful at imposing liberal extremism on the West. But it is clearly an approach that is at odds with an Aristotelian viewpoint, not to mention intellectualism and reason themselves.
Aristotle, were he alive today, could easily have slotted these supposed vices into his system. The only problem would be whether these supposed vices – or degrees of them – were vices of excess, vices of deficiency, or actually virtues.
One problem with the Judaic, Manichaeistic, all-or-nothing approach is it does away with gradations, degrees, balance, and context, which are at the heart of the Aristotelian system. But if “Racism” is seen as part of a continuum of vice-virtue-vice, then the question arises of how much of whatever Racism is is good?
Some idea could be derived from considering Aristotle’s other virtues – Courage, for example. It is clear that Aristotle is taking a functional view of these virtues and that Courage is preferred because it is more likely to achieve optimum results than either its paired vices, Rashness or Cowardice. On occasion, however, Rashness and Cowardice may in fact have higher functionality than courage. What was Thermopylae but a heroic act of Rashness that served to galvanize other Greeks, while Pericles’s wise policy of avoiding land battles with the Spartans and sticking to naval battles could be seen as an example of sensible Cowardice. Rather than the crude and primitive moral “essences” that the Left prefers, the Aristotelian approach to virtue requires constant analysis, contextualization, and validation through results. Aristotelian morality is rationalist morality.
Sexism is the easiest to start with as it pertains to the relationship between men and women. We can easily conceive of what a healthy relationship between the sexes looks like, and while many of the details – such as who wears the apron – could be open to debate, the most unquestionable aspect would simply be healthy reproduction rates relative to environment.
 |
| This picture so triggered a liberal that it had to put a cross over it. |
This means that vice and virtue have historical aspects. But, from our modern Western point of view, with our women having less than replacement birthrates, we can unequivocally say that we are suffering from a marked deficiency of Sexism that we can label "Feminism," and that what is required is clearly more Sexism, i.e. forcing or encouraging women to take up a more traditional role as mothers.
If this is taken too far, to the point where we treat our women the same way that they are treated in backward Muslim and African countries, then we would be involved in a vice of excess, that we could term "Hyper-Sexism." This would be an ill fit with our ideal of a technologically and culturally advanced, high-nurturing society; although it may actually have a certain rationale in those backward Muslim and African countries, as well as in parts of the welfarized West.
The functionality of Racism is not too difficult to elucidate either. It could be defined as maintaining and protecting the security and identity of the racial or ethnic group in question, without provoking undue enmity. In this respect it becomes abundantly clear that the modern West has a major racism problem in that it does not have enough racism. In 1965, Whites were 90% of the US population. They are projected to become a minority within less than a hundred years from that date. Western Europe faces a similar threat.
These facts on their own imply a serious lack of Racism among Whites, although part of the problem is also a deficiency of Sexism. This vice of deficiency of Racism can best be called Anti-Racism (as Race Blindness is a psychological impossibility). There is some question of what the vice of excess would look like in this case, but perhaps this could be defined as an attitude that creates a general sense of opprobrium for the group concerned that threatens its power, position, and survival in the wider world.
 |
| Black Hyper-Racism feeding on past White Hyper-Racism and present White Anti-Racism. |
While Whites in America constantly suffer from a lack of virtuous Racism, American Blacks on the other hand provide a good example of an excess. Nowadays Blacks have little to fear from Whites, unless directly confronting a police officer (who happens to be White), nevertheless, as a group, they blame Whites for everything that is wrong with their lives, with zero gratitude for the fact that most of their handouts are paid for by White taxpayers.
Some might say that historically Whites treated Blacks with excessive Racism, for example Segregation and Slavery, but even that is questionable. Seen in their true historical contexts, both Segregation and Slavery benefitted the Blacks in question. From a racial rather than economic point of view, Slavery was essentially the relocation of Africa’s excess population, which would not have survived otherwise, to new lands that Africans were incapable of colonizing themselves. As for Segregation, it is clear that it did much to impose a degree of discipline on Blacks so that they could function reasonably well within the majority White society. Since its dismantling, Black communities have practically disintegrated.
By definition, Hyper-Racism needs to harm the group practising it, either by destructive external effects or destructive internal effects. The former case works by bringing the state or group in question into such a degree of opprobrium that other groups feel incensed or justified enough to attack it. This is essentially what happened to the slave states that made up the Confederacy in the American Civil War, although it is possible to detect additional motives for that increase in Federal power. American Blacks today, however, are an example of the destructive internal effects of Hyper-Racism. This is because White Anti-Racism for the time being prevents negative external consequences.
American Blacks clearly suffer from an excess of Racism. This limits their ability to function in the wider society they find themselves in and predisposes them to welfarism, amoralism, alienation, and criminality, factors that can only harm them in the long-term. The best proof of this is that Blacks who overcome or control their Hyper-Racism and practice simple Racism, tend to become reasonably successful in modern America.
It may be impossible for all Americans to achieve a Golden Mean of Racism, but, if it is possible, it would probably involve Whites being more racist than they now are and Blacks being a lot less racist.
