FAILURE AT THE GATES OF VICTORY

COME HEIL OR HIGH WATER?

by Colin Liddell

Virtue and vice are not, as the Left supposes, determined by a line that divides humanity into "the Blessed" and "the Damned." That is a very Manichean, Judaic, and inherently non-European concept, which has, like some toxic chemical, been present in the moral bloodstream of our civilisation for too long, and with which Western Christianity has long struggled.

No, that simplistic view of good and evil creates a retarded morality that is unable to recognise the organic complexity of reality, and which thus cuts across it with a brutal and unforgiving blade. True virtue is, as Aristotle expounded, a Golden Mean between two unhealthy extremes. Between Cowardice and Rashness, lies the golden virtue of Courage. Between Humility and Vanity, Pride glitters in all its glory...

STEFAN MOLYNEUX AND ARISTOTLEAN RACISM

Looks like famed YouTube vlogger Stefan Molyneux has been visiting these pages and taking notes. In a short video posted by him recently he comments on the likelihood of a rape epidemic in Europe this summer and paraphrases the central idea of Colin Liddell's 2015 article "Racism and Sexism Viewed as Aristotlean Virtues."

RACISM AND SEXISM VIEWED AS ARISTOTELIAN VIRTUES

Aristotle: the original shitlord.

by Colin Liddell

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”?

THE BITTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

 The fatal flaws of Classical Liberalism 

by Charles Jansen

The Classical Liberal – as opposed to the contemporary statist-favoring one – was, deep within, a saintly creature. The same can be said for his current heir, the Libertarian. The quest for equal rights embodied in both arises from a search for a compromise between equality and freedom, in short, a carefully crafted synthesis between the two. For the Classical Liberal and the Libertarian, liberty is sacred, but it has to be bestowed on everyone in order to avoid absolutism or unfair domination from the State.

But, of course, a major flaw in all this, is that any remaining difference can be conceptualized as an inequality, so equality has to be stopped somewhere. Rights shall be equal, but individuals' property and social status shall remain beyond the pale of state intervention – as much as possible. Every citizen shall be a right-bearer, but his rights shall not intrude on other people's rights, nor shall he be forced to do anything for them beyond minimal social intercourse. As libertarians say, “we want to take over the world, and then leave you alone.”

THE CULT OF INCOMPETENCE

Émile Faguet was an important French writer and political philosopher. This extract, from his seminal work, "The Cult of Incompetence," was published in Aristokratia II, a journal of philosophy dedicated to the ideas of Nietzsche, Plato, Evola, Cioran, Aristotle, Socrates, and others. Aristokratia III: Hellas was recently published, and is highly recommended.

THE PRINCIPLES OF FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

By Émile Faguet (Translated by Beatrice Barstow)

The question has often been asked, what is the animating principle of different forms of government, for each, it is assumed, has its own principle. In other words, what is the general idea which inspires each political system?

Montesquieu, for instance, proved that the principle of monarchy is honour, the principle of despotism fear, the principle of a republic virtue or patriotism, and he added with much justice that governments decline and fall as often by carrying their principle to excess, as by neglecting it altogether.

And this, though a paradox, is true. At first sight it may not be obvious how a despotism can fall by inspiring too much fear, or a constitutional monarchy by developing too highly the sentiment of honour, or a republic by having too much virtue. It is nevertheless true.

THE KING'S TRUE CHAMPION

by Colin Liddell

Egalitarianism, the scourge against which the modern West seems to have few defences, had its origins in the ancient world, whose people understood it and coped with its dangers and shortcoming a lot better than we did. Like some dormant virus, it lay hidden throughout most of the Middle Ages, to awaken round about the 17th century.

A major reason for its success, after it awoke from its lengthy slumber, was that it managed to infect not only its proponents but also most of its opponents, who were tricked into accepting many of its premises. This includes even the likes of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the philosopher most readily identified with the defence of monarchy and hierarchy in the early modern period.

But one man who wasn’t tricked by egalitarianism on any level was the English political theorist Sir Robert Filmer, who was born in the same year as Hobbes, the famous year of the Spanish Armada, and who died in 1653, in the midst of the English Republic (1649-1660) that was created by the overthrow and execution of the King.

THE EARTH IS A MACHINE FOR PRODUCING IDIOTS

by Colin Liddell

The teleology of teleology will always be elusive, but occasionally, from our lowly position in the "omniscience vector," we may be vouchsafed a glimmer of the true purpose of our universe – or at least parts of it.

What, for example, is the purpose of our odd little planet circling – along with its gaseous neighbours – a mediocre star in what Douglas Adams famously called "the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the galaxy"?