By Ian Brubaker
Special to Horizons 

The racist denounces man for his skin color, the sexist for his or her gender, and the bigot for his or her nationality. For thousands of years, man has been assaulting one another for the most petty differences; they seperate each other by subscribing to collectivism, or groupism. In this case, the racist’s core principle is to judge their group as superior based only on skin color. Sadly, the roots of collectivism remain in our society, and its followers are becoming more polarized. 

The response now to the racists is a similarly primitive, nihilistic form of collectivism: “inclusivity.” It destroys individual value, because it is egalitarian in nature, not only in race, nationality, etc., but in thought as well. Inclusivity accomplishes this by stating an individual only belongs to a collective, or culture (based on concretes such as sex or skin color), and states that all cultures are equal, regardless of the individual’s values or virtues. Such a vicious assault on the mind, grossly guised as inclusivity, is not a bastion of reason and justice. “Consider the other side of things,” is the inclusivity phraseology for “you should yield to ideas that are unreasonable and incompatible to your values for the sake of others.” Just as the racists, they claim that many arbitrary concrete merits form a primary, moral merit. 

For example, diversity groups, the epicenter of the ideology of inclusivity, on almost every college campus and workplace, celebrate people for the group that they categorize into, and piggyback off of an individual’s success to idolize their group. For example, if a man makes a great achievement in his life, they will take the credit if he is LGBT, but damn him if he is a straight white male because he is “privileged”. Such diversity groups do not distinguish by objective value, nor that rationality can be developed by any person, because of the collectivist ethics they, and the racists, subscribe to.  

Many are misled that inclusivity will be the cure for racism, bigotry, etc. Sadly, inclusivity is not the moral alternative to racism, as it conforms to the same collectivist philosophy that it claims to be fighting. It requires one to stoop to their level of savage collectivism, blanking out that an individual of any group, or culture, may be void of moral value or reason. The inevitable result is that the individual, along with their moral value, virtue, and reason, will be destroyed, leaving two warring groups to ensure their mutual destruction. 

The only solution to the root issue of collectivism is its inverse: individualism. Individualism holds only one’s own convictions to be the judge of their character, and not the group they conform to. It is the complete dismantling of petty barriers by dissolving the root issue, and upholding the premise of individual ideological merit as the absolute for one’s like or dislike of one-another. You need not damn the group that one bad person conforms to, only damn the individual for the ideologies that they hold. 


An Individualist Response to Racism
By Michael Fusco
Copy Editor 

Individualism is a philosophy of living independently and only by the products of your own mind and effort. The ultimate goal of an individualist is to achieve happiness in life through the achievement of values (i.e., not range-of-the-moment pleasures). In every step of life, man constantly faces decisions on which actions to undertake and which objects to pursue. He must think for himself and decide how to act; the resulting sum of these decisions is his character. 

The individualist respects others’ right to their lives and recognizes that all relationships are value-for-value trades. Just as one chooses a career, one also chooses the people with whom he affiliates. One must morally judge another person to determine whether he will enrich or undermine one’s life, whether that person is a hero or a bum. By what objective standard should others be morally judged? 

Aristotle identified man as the “rational animal,” meaning his defining characteristic from other animals is his sovereign, thinking mind. Therefore, an objective standard of evaluation is if another person is committed to using reason to guide decisions in life (i.e., being rational) and lives by the derivative virtues, like honesty, integrity, and productiveness. Insofar as another individual lives rationally, one must recognize the other person’s character as good (i.e., valuable) and offer proportionally one’s admiration. This is the demand made by the virtue of justice. Any attempt to morally judge people by non-essential characteristics is unjust. 

The evil of racism lies in its injustice and consequent destruction of values. Racism, and any form of collectivism, overlooks that only individuals can achieve values by living rationally. Racists declare an individual’s merit is determined by his ancestry or skin color and all people who happen to share a concrete characteristic, like race, should be considered the same. The line of thinking is “Judge, in the name of racial superiority,” as opposed to “Judge, in the name of justice,” as required by individualism.  

The racist finds an irrational escape from his chronic fear of life by clinging onto a collectivist falsehood that since ancestors of his same race may have achieved values, his race is superior, and so is he. For example, a struggling German musician might think, “Since Beethoven was German, and I am German, I must be great, too. Any musician of another nationality is bad.” Such a person is conditioned for the collectivist dogma: “Your duty is to serve the ‘greater good’” (in this case, one’s race). Only nihilistic destruction can result by abdicating one’s life to a racial (or other non-essential) group. For evidence, see the history of Nazi Germany. 

The individual represents the greatest good. One determines the goodness of his own life through his choice to live by rational principles. If one chooses to live by individualism, one must think in the following terms: “Beethoven was good, and I want to discover the course of action he took that defines a good life in order to improve my own.” 

Leave a Reply