The Right Must Fight with Bad Faith when It Comes to Free Speech.

The Left has several advantages on the issue of Free Speech and Hate Speech. They have a long record of fighting for free speech going back to days of HUAC and Joe McCarthy. When conservatives went after communists and fellow-travelers, leftists and liberals–many of them Jews–took a seemingly principled stand which called for absolute freedom of speech. Back in those days when white people freely expressed their hostility toward communism and called non-white people ‘niggers’, ‘kikes’, ‘chinks’, and ‘spicks’ with impunity, they didn’t fear their speech of freedom being curtailed or controlled. People who feared government control or being blacklisted were communists, fellow travelers, and trouble-making radical leftists of all kinds. Since there was no possibility of the Left taking away freedom of speech from white people(even of the far right), the most that the Left hoped for was total freedom of speech for everyone like the Constitution says in order to, at least, protect their own freedom of speech. If the Left in the 40s and 50s had called for banning ‘hate speech’ of the Right, anti-communists could have argued for banning dangerous and subversive communist or far-left speech. After all, if far-right speech should be controlled lest it lead to social harm, why shouldn’t leftist speech be controlled lest it cause similar harm? Besides, with the fall of Nazi Germany and heating up of the Cold War, America’s main enemies were on the Far Left soon after World War II.
The Left back knew they had to fight an uphill battle. So, instead of calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, they called for total freedom of speech for everyone–for Nazis and communists too, for white bigots and black bigots.

Even people who hated communists and leftists had to admit this was a principled stand, one upheld by the constitution. But, the clever Leftists knew that if you allow equal free speech to the Left and the Right, the Left would eventually come out on top since it had far more original, intelligent, brilliant, and dedicated thinkers than the Right did. Liberals far outshone conservatives in artistic, cultural, and intellectual pursuits in the modern era. And, the far left produced a number of brilliant and influential thinkers even if their ideas were ultimately wrong-headed and harmful.

The Far Right, on the other hand, was not only morally and intellectually bankrupt but associated with the unpardonable crime of the Jewish holocaust. Though communists murdered a lot of people too, they could stand proud as the vanquishers of Nazi Germany. As US had fought Far Right Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan–and had been indelibly altered by the long Liberal reign of FDR–, US was essentially placed on the liberal path even if it was anti-communist.
At any rate, there were numerous leftist and Marxist thinkers and artists of great talent in the post-war period. Though there had been talented rightist thinkers in pre-war Europe, they had vanished by the end of the war. The fall of Germany, the revelations of crimes, and etc made it difficult for anyone to be a respectable rightist intellectual or artist. Worse, those on the Hard Right in the post-war period tended to be criminal types, thugs, lunkheads, and dolts.
So, total freedom of speech for both left and right was bound to favor the left because the left made far better use of that freedom than the right. The left, populated with many intelligent Jews, wrote books, published fancy journals, directed plays and screenplays, made movies, wrote laws, etc.
The right, populated with crusty complacent wasps or ape-like rednecks, put on silly airs(like Bill Buckley) or waved the Conderate Flag and made Nazi salutes.
It was no contest. In time, the smarter and more creative Left won out over the Right in the so-called Culture War. Culture belongs to those who remember it, preserve it, and make it. You’d think the Right would at least preserve and remember their ‘proud’ culture, but your average American rightist was more into country music, silly pulp novels, and TV shows than culture. Even if Leftists waged war on tradition, they were far more likely to read the classics, think them through, discuss and dissect them, and write about them. Why is it that the English Department is run by Marxists and feminists? Partly because leftists who rule the roost favor their own kind for promotion, yes. But, the main reason is most people devoted to arts and humanities are found on the Left than on the Right.
Also, you cannot win a culture war if you don’t produce any ammo. Where are the conservative artists of note? The Right made a big deal out of Mel Gibson, but Gibson is no great artist. He’s good, and it’s nice to have him but he’s outgunned 100 to 1. And, if conservatives cannot stand Hollywood, why can’t they form their own film companies?
Leftists and liberals also tended to be more interested in journalism, a key area through which we learn about the world. For every Pat Buchanan or Robert Novak who went to journalism school, a 100 liberals and leftists majored in the field. Also, many rich liberal Jews bought up most of the media conglomerates or built them up from scratch with their brilliance, energy, and cunning.
Also, because conservatives tended to be anti-government, far more liberals entered government and took over all the bureaucracies. Instead of being for sound and clean government, conservatives were kneejerkedly for NO government. But, the fact is there will ALWAYS be government. Just as the Sunni boycott of elections in 2004 handed all the power to Shias and Kurds in Iraq, conservative animosity and defacto boycott of government handed all the levers of power in government to the liberals so that even when Republicans run the White House and Congress, all the agencies are managed and controlled by liberals who can stall, undermine, subvert, and counter everything Republicans try to do.

Anyway, in due time, Leftists and liberals won the culture war, the legal war, the social war, the media war, and took over the most powerful institutions in this country. In the 60s and early 70s, they completely triumphed over the Right on the issues of free speech. This was possible due to the consistency of their argument and logic, the aid of the liberal media and academia, and the tenacity/passion/talent of their members. Before political correctness appeared on the scene, liberals argued CONSISTENTLY(and correctly) that freedom of speech/expression meant freedom of ALL speech/expression.
When the issue of porn movies tore the country apart, liberals supported legalizing it as freedom of expression. Liberals were for the freedom of filmmakers to use greater violence on screen. Liberals were for use of foul language. Hollywood had been constrained for decades up to the early 60s by various moral groups–led by the Catholic Church–which said you couldn’t show this, you couldn’t say that. It got so ridiculous that one couldn’t even use the word ‘pregnant’ in an old Hollywood movie. A married couple had separate beds in the same room.
Of course, onne could make a compelling argument that these censorious controls kept filth out of the screen and had constructive social value. Even so, they did violate constitutional right of free speech. In the 60s and 70s, ACLU, though mainly a Jewish organization serving leftist causes, loudly supported free speech for all. In some cases, ACLU went out on a limb to defend the KKK and Neo-Nazis. (The fact that right-wing groups had to rely on the legal expertise of liberals and leftist shows you how intellectually–and financially–bankrupt the far right had become). However one may feel about them, people like Alan Dershowitz won grudging respect from all sides for their intellectual consistency. Dershowitz may be a "weasly Jew" but he stuck to what he said on the issue of free speech(though his recent derailing of Norman Finkelstein’s tenure at Depaul was a low blow of the worst sort). As the Far Right was both intellectually and financially bankrupt, it even became dependent on organizations like ACLU to defend its freedoms against local groups who were angry with the KKK’s right to light crosses or Neo-Nazis’ right to hold rallies in certain communities. So, even people who hated Jews–and denied the Holocaust or wanted to gas Jews themselves–came to rely on Jewish legal expertise to enjoy their right of extreme speech in all communities across this nation.

As time passed, with liberals and leftists(Jews prominent among them) controlling most schools and colleges, most media outlets, most popular entertainment industries, most publishing, most law firms, most radio(even conservative Talk Radio is downright slavish when it comes to Jewish/Zionist interests), and so on, it dawned on the ‘progressive’ community that it no longer needed protection of the constitution. Why would people who own and control the apparatuses of the nation need its protection?
When the left had been a pariah in the political wilderness during the early stages of the Cold War, it needed protection of the constitution. By the 80s, the left had become deeply entrenched in all the powerful institutions. Even if the 80s were the Reagan decade, the power and control of liberals(especially Jews) over institutions were near total.
Though Reagan was allowed to be anti-communist against foreign nations, he could not go after domestic communists and leftists INSIDE the US. He could only go after communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Reagan got a blessing to do this from many in the Jewish community(even among liberals) because the Soviet Union had turned anti-Jewish despite its ideological and historical roots in Jewish radicalism. By the 70s and 80s, most Jews were thinking in terms of ‘Save Soviet Jews.’ The very movement that the Jews had supported in 1917 had viciously turned on them since Stalin’s final days.
Reagan was also acceptable to the Jews for he was archly Zionist as opposed to his predecessor Jimmy Carter who angered the Jewish community by sympathizing with Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions. In 1980, Reagan incredibly got nearly 40% of the Jewish vote(and lots of Jewish support in the media). Though most Jews despised Reagan on social and cultural matters, they wanted to use him to bring down the ‘antisemitic’ Soviet Union and to strengthen Israel’s hand in the Middle East. Anyway, Reagan’s anti-communism could only be aimed at enemies outside America. The Iron Rule in the media allowed the far right to be depicted as evil both abroad and in America, BUT the far left could only be shown as evil abroad. In other words, Hollywood movies could show heroic guys blowing away Nazis in Europe or mowing down subhuman ‘white supremacists’ in the US–like Clint Eastwood did in "Pink Cadillac." But, it was generally not permissible to show far leftists or communists as enemies IN America. They had to enemies abroad. Take Rambo where Sly Stallone fights Vietnamese commies and the Soviets but not commies and leftist radicals in the US. Even "First Blood" had Sly Stallone inexplicably at odds with rightwing rednecks than with leftwing reds. "Red Dawn" by John Milius took place on American soil but all the enemies were Soviet invaders. There was no American-born leftist collaborator in sight.

What was true with movies was true with Reagan politics. He could brashly attack communism abroad but he couldn’t go after leftists IN America. For any government official or big businessman to go after or denounce far leftists IN America was said to be ‘red-baiting’ or ‘McCarthyism’.
The liberal media and academia had pulled off a clever trick after the excesses of McCarthy. Though McCarthy had largely been right about the communist subversive threat, he had played his cards sloppily, drunkenly, paranoid-ly, boorishly, and stupidly. Instead of being surgical and cautious, he went the shotgun approach and hurt people whose connections to communists were dubious.
Because McCarthy came to be nationally disgraced in the most humiliating way, ALL of his ‘victims’–even real commies–were rehabilitated as innocent saints and ‘patriotic Americans’ whose constitutional rights had been violated. The liberal media and academia lost no time replaying this political soap opera narrative over and over. Though FDR had used similar means to suppress the anti-war Right and even locked up 130,000 mostly innocent Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, the liberal media and historiography declared that US had never faced such a danger to its democratic freedom as during the McCarthy period(and again during Nixon’s Watergate scandal though it was small potatoes compared to what Woodrow Wilson and FDR had done during wartime. But what do you expect from liberals? They complain that Bush was acting like a dictator but don’t mind that Obama has become a ‘sort of god’).

It is for this reason that there has long been a double standard in American culture and politics. It’s wrong to ‘red-bait’ but it’s okay to white-bait. If you burn the American flag and attack this country from the leftist perspective, liberals defend and even praise such expressions as what America is all about–dissent and freedom of speech. But if you attack the far left or Marxists, you are said to be a paranoid McCarthyite red-baiting lunatic with no respect for free speech nor for American values of radical dissent.
According to liberals and leftists(especially among the Jewish kind), radical dissent is more truly American than conservative values. For liberals and leftist, the True America is that which the country must become in the future. The REAL America and its past are regarded as essentially negative and hypocritical. This is why 60s radicals and the KKK get different treatment in the media. Though some 60s radicals have been shown in a negative light to some degree, they are seen as essentially well-meaning, idealistic, and ‘ahead of their time.’ They are shown to be essentially good people who got overzealous and did bad. Indeed, even Jim Jones–the original Mr. Kool Aid–was partially idealized in a recent grisly PBS documentary. Though the documentary showed the murderous excesses of Jim Jones’s movement, it ended on a kind of hopeful note, as if to say Jim Jones had wonderfully utopian ideas but failed to see them through because he was sick in the head(the implication being that his rage was the product of our refusal to recognize and support the goodness of his movement and his followers).
.
In contrast, KKK people are shown to be evil incarnate. Naturally, liberals and leftists in the media and academia favor the far left over the far right even if both are deemed dangerous in the larger sense. Anyway, we saw the final culmination of this double standard in the 2008 election. Obama got off scot-free though his political origins are of the radical left and though he hung around radical lunatics like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright all his life. If McCain had such connections, he would have been shot down right away.
The rationale employed by liberals to justify this double standard has a degree of validity. Generally, we believe that those with great power should be held to greater account and responsibility than those with less power. Since whites had long discriminated against blacks and are still dominant in the politics/economics of this country, it could be argued that blacks have more of a legitimate gripe against white society than vice versa, notwithstanding the fact that in the past four decades, black crime and violence have been endemic in robbing, raping, and murdering white folks. It could also be argued that the Far Left, no matter how wacky, are closer to the letter and spirit of the US constitution than the Far Right is. Though the Far Left rejects individualism, personal liberty, and private property, it does subscribe to the notion that all people are created equal and should be treated equally in a color-blind manner. Leftists have never lived up to these principles, but as far as ideas go, it is true enough that Leftism and the US constitution agree on the universality and equality of man–though the definition of ‘equality’ isn’t uniform across the Leftist spectrum. The Far Right–whether it be the KKK or the Black Muslims–, on the other hand, reject the notion of equality of man, universality of human rights, and the brotherhood of man. The Far Right tends to be bio-realist or tribalist whether on cultural grounds or national scale. Because the Far Right is based more on animal instincts of clannishness and us-against-them, it is bound to come across as uglier, meaner, and less moral than the ‘noble ideals’ of the Left. In as much as The West has been deeply influenced by Christianity, a egalitarian and universalist doctrine, and Hellenic philosophy, which sought the universal and unifying truths across the, the Left will enjoy a moral advantage over the right at least in the ideological and intellectual sphere... unless the Right makes a powerful and effective argument for biology as the fundamental basis of our social reality and functionality.

Anyway, Leftists have arrived at a time and place where they no longer have to struggle or plead for freedom of their own speech. They control most of the levers of society determining laws, ideas, values, fashions, and trends. Since their speech can no longer be threatened, they are now looking for ways to control the speech of their enemies. But, Leftists and liberals know that they cannot do this overnight. After all, they would come across as sheer hypocrites. People would wonder how activists who’d been at the forefront of Total Free Speech in the 50s, 60s, and 70s suddenly morphed into a political force trying to control speech by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. How is it that liberal free speech activists, who used to throw fits about curtailment of speech for communists–and even aided Neo-Nazis and KKK in free speech cases to show that it supported Free Speech for EVERYBODY–, have been so silent about the erosion of free speech due to the machinations of liberals and leftists? Why aren’t members of the Free Speech Movement getting out there to fight for the free speech of ALL people, even of the radical right? It’s because the radical left is no longer threatened. The Radical Left controls all of the academia, runs Hollywood and makes movies like V for Vendetta which dehumanizes white gentile males, and control the news media. Heck, the radicals even ideologically prepared and groomed Barack Obama who is now president despite his disgusting associations. Most trial lawyers are liberal or leftist, and most legal scholars are liberal or leftist. Even most capitalists–educated by leftist professors–are socially and culturally leftist.

So, the Left is now poised to take away our free speech. But, being clever and patient, the Left will not try to enact their laws overnight. They don’t want to look like hypocrites after decades of having fought for total free speech for everyone. If they suddenly called for curtailing far right speech or ‘hate speech,’ people would realize that the Left(mainly controlled by Jews) had acted in BAD FAITH all along.
So, leftists and liberals must make it appear as though the NEW GENERATION of good decent people are DEMANDING ‘hate speech’ laws in order to create a better society. Though the older generation of liberals and leftist had called for Absolute Freedom of Speech, they instructed their own students and audiences(via popular culture) to view The Right as disgusting, evil, vile, hideous, gross, sick, demented, and etc. Though the new generations since the 70s grew up under a system of total free speech, they were emotionally and mentally conditioned to virulently and rabidly hate the White Right. By the 90s and 2000s arrived, the new generation had grown into politically indoctrinated young adults incapable of critical thinking. They were brainwashed into thinking ‘blacks, Jews, homos, and feminists are GOOD’ and ‘whites, especially white gentile males, are BAD’. They were told that EVERYTHING wrong with the world–poverty, oppression, corruption, crookedness, etc, etc–was the product of white ‘racism’, imperialism, and blah blah blah. Since young ones, indoctrinated by political correctness, are loudest in calling for ‘hate speech’ laws, the previous generation of ‘progressives’ who fought for Total Free Speech can pretend that ‘hate speech’ laws are not their doing but demands made by idealistic younger generations whose feelings we should respect. Though people like Alan Dershowitz and Ira Glasser will pretend to oppose the new censoriousness, they will only go through the motions without really putting up a fight. Indeed, almost all liberal and leftist Jews–even or especially those who had called for total freedom of speech in the past–privately want ‘hate speech’ laws. Indeed, the whole Free Speech Movement wasn’t meant as an END but only as a MEANS to bring about the real goal which is ‘hate speech’ laws so that the Left will have freedom of speech to itself while the far right and even the mainstream right will be hamstrung.

It’s a very clever trick, which goes to show that one should NEVER underestimate the brilliance of the left-wing Jews. Notice that though Alan Dershowitz and Nat Hentoff are still officially committed to Total Free Speech for all, they barely stand up to the Leftist PC Police nor to the liberal efforts seeking to institute ‘hate speech’ laws. They make just enough noises and complaints to show that they are still free speech stalwarts, but deep down inside, I’ll bet both leftist Jews are happy that The Right is poised to lose their freedom of speech–like already happened in Europe and Canada.

This is a very dangerous time for the Right. In Europe freedom has already been lost. Only violent uprising can save Europe as white people no longer have their freedom to save their own countries from social decay and foreign invasion. We still have freedom of speech in the US, but with the liberal and leftist control of institutions and shifting demographics, the white right is bound to lose their rights of free speech in the US as well.
This is why we must FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE. USE BAD FAITH AGAINST BAD FAITH. You see, the Liberals are playing it both ways. By supporting extreme leftist and anti-American speech–‘dissent’–, liberals claim that they are defending total freedom of speech. After all, they are even defending the right to desecrate the American flag or to denounce the US government–as long as the hostile speech comes from the Left(radicals) or People of Color(‘underdogs’) of course.
But, Liberals also win moral points for standing up to HATE. They say that as important as free speech is, freedom of dignity is even more important. So, they take pride in opposing ‘hate speech.’ Of course, by HATE, liberals generally mean hostile speech from the White Right. In simple terms, only leftist dissent should be allowed.

Now, anyone with any integrity should plainly see that one cannot be for Total freedom of speech yet also be against ‘hate speech’. Yet, this is the game the liberals(mostly Jewish) play in utter bad faith. Remember that these are the same people who say ‘gay marriage’ is really marriage or that illegal aliens are true Americans. Liberals twist logic into a pretzel to impress people that they are for both total free speech and for ‘social justice’–by enacting ‘hate speech’ laws. This isn’t a true duality but merely a form of duplicity.
More and more people are being won over to the anti-‘hate speech’ crusade since they are hooked to stuff like Oprah and have been educated by public schools and get the news from the liberal media. In their stupid minds, Hate is simply a bad evil thing, so what’s the loss if people are not allowed to express ‘hatred’? As far as they’re concerned, it’s no worse than banning smoking in a public restaurant or banning farting in public. Since there’s NOTHING of value in ‘hate speech’, why not ban it outright? It’s only removing toxins from our collective consciousness, right?
And, even those who oppose ‘hate speech’ laws are loathe to stand up openly because they don’t want to come across as condoning ‘hate’. Even if they argue that they are only for the FREEDOM of ‘hate speech’ than for the hatred per se, they still feel like secret supporters of the KKK and Neo-Nazis.

This is why Political Correctness has been so crucial and important to the Left. The Left needed to shape the hearts and minds BEFORE pushing for laws curtailing free speech. The Left had to show that the White Right is truly evil and distasteful. The Left had to make Americans feel this animus against the White Right EMOTIONALLY. So, as ‘hate speech’ laws incrementally arrive, the majority of Americans are embracing it–not intellectually but emotionally. If you can’t win over people through the head, go through the heart.
After generations of kids raised on stuff like ‘Mississippi Burning’, ‘Fried Green Tomatoes’, ‘Boys Don’t Cry’, and PBS documentaries on Emmit Till, it’s no wonder that so many young people FEEL that ‘hate speech’ laws are necessary. Butter the heart and the mind soon turns to mush.

Indeed, liberals(again, mostly Jews)have done the same thing with the gay agenda. Notice how all these liberal Jewish dominated publications are saying it’s time for ‘gay marriage’ since all these young people–the future majority of this country–demand it. In other words, w we need ‘gay marriage’ because of POPULAR DEMAND from fresh young people. But, who shaped and influenced all those young minds addicted to pop culture, dependent on school textbooks, and attuned to the latest fashions and trends? We know full well that liberals and leftists(good many of them Jews) control the top levers of pop culture, academia, and trend industry. So, the rising popular demand for ‘gay marriage’ is merely the product of the masses being brainwashed by the softly coercive and nudge-nudge-nudging manipulation of the liberal and leftwing Jews. Indeed, Cass Sunstein, now working in the Obama administration, even wrote a book on how to nudge, nudge, and nudge the masses toward goals favored by liberals and leftists. These super-smart leftist and liberal Jews see us as Pavlovian dogs or guinea pigs to manipulate. Dimwit goyim, at the end of day, come to believe that they are for ‘gay marriage’ and ‘hate speech’ laws from their own volition when, in fact, they’ve been gently and not-so-gently nudged, nudged, and nudged in that direction by powerful liberal and leftwing Jews who control so much of our society.

This is why need to act in bad faith and call for the curtailment of leftist speech while calling for total free speech. Not because we really believe in controlling free speech but just to drive the Left crazy like it drives us crazy. In boxing, you cannot win by defense alone. Go solely into defense mode and your opponent will just attack and attack. Sometimes, offense is the best defense. If you attack the opponent, he will be too busy covering up to punch you back(unless he happens to be a great counter-puncher); constant jabbing is the best form of defense.
In the free speech debate, the Right has long been purely on defense while the Left has been on Offense. The Left no longer need to be go on the defensive since its power is deeply entrenched in media, academia, culture, etc. Since leftists need not fear any control of their own speech, they are busy attacking the free speech of the Right. In order to divert leftist energy from their non-stop offense against our freedom, we must attack the freedom of leftist speech. We don’t want to control leftist speech; we simply want to put the left on the ropes. We simply want to beat them at their own game.

What is the leftist game? The leftist game is that ‘hate speech is not free speech’ because it may lead to violence, oppression, and hurt feelings. Leftists say that speech itself is dangerous because a hateful statement by a prominent far right figure might inspire a street-level skinhead to go out and commit acts of violence. The leftist argument is that those who inspire such hatred and violence are just as culpable. Well, we can make the same argument. After all, if Karl Marx hadn’t written the Communist Manifesto, not so many people would have been ‘inspired’ to join the radical leftist movement and commit massive crimes against humanity. Where did Che Guevera get his sick ideas? From leftist intellectuals he read in books and magazines. So, if some far right intellectual or leader must be held account for actions committed by others who may have been inspired by his words or teachings, then leftist intellectuals and leaders must be held accountable for all the violence committed by leftist revolutionaries, saboteurs, guerillas, and murderers inspired by the writings of people like Jean-Paul Sartre, Franz Fanon, Noam Chomsky, or Bill Ayers. All theories may lead to practice. If dangerous right-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous right-wing practice, then dangerous left-wing ideas must be banned lest they lead to dangerous left-wing practice.

Well, we can play this same game that the Left is using against us. We can say radical leftist speech IS hate speech. Marxism is hatred for certain classes slandered as ‘exploitive’ and ‘evil’. Marxism is also hatred for religions as ‘the opiate of the masses’. It is also hatred for national cultures as ‘irrational tribalism’. Tally up the body count from the history of leftist hatred and it approaches 100 million in the 20th century. It was Marxist-Leftist hatred for the so-called bourgeoisie which led to dispossession, expulsion, and/or mass execution of people of property. It was leftist internationalism that led to mass deaths of various ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Or, just consider what Chinese Marxist imperialism did to the culture of Tibet. Just look at what leftist Jewish radicalism has done to our national borders? Legal citizens in this country are routinely being robbed, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens thanks to the leftist Marxist ideological hatred of national borders and identity(especially those of white nations and peoples). The left is filled with hatred, no less than the right. If we on the Right hate certain things, ideas, and peoples, the those on the Left have their specialized hatreds. Sure, leftists claim to be for equality and universality and loving all mankind, but their formula for justice and love requires ALL OF US to conform to their demands... OR ELSE! Otherwise, you get persecuted, attacked, and even killed. Islam is universalist too. It too embraces all of humanity as its brother and sister, but Islam says everyone has to do as the Koran says; otherwise, you’re a no-good infidel. So, both Marxist and Islamic forms of universalism are conditional, coercive, hostile, and aggressive. They embrace you like a python and spare you ONLY IF you kiss their ass. It’s a kind of love that makes all the demands and tolerates no deviance. Indeed, it HATES all those who refuse to comply.
There has been an element of this in Christianity as well. Christianity also tried to spread universality all over the world and create a unified brotherhood of man. So, what’s the problem, you may ask. What’s wrong with spreading love and justice? The problem is religions or ideologies like Christianity, Islam, and Marxism assumes that it holds all the TRUTH and all other beliefs and values are lies or worse. In the name of their supposedly higher and righteous love, the followers of these faiths have felt justified in hating those who don’t comply. To be sure, Christianity, as an ideal at least(and ideals do color and shape practice), is better than Islam and Marxism because it advises persuasion than coercion to convert non-believers. Also, Christianity is anti-utopian and accepts that there can never be Heaven-on-Earth.

Anyway, we can make a powerful argument that Marxist intellectuals, academics, activists, and others are haters and that their speech should be curtailed(or they should be fined or dragged to prison)since they are espousing and spreading an ideology of hatred(of classes, nationalities, and religions).
We can also charge them of Bolshocaust Denial or Apology. If David Irving should be locked up for denying the Holocaust or apologizing for Hitler, why shouldn’t leftist intellectuals in Europe, Canada, and the US not be locked up too for having denied communist mass murders or having praised the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che? Who says only racial hatred is hatred? The Left is filled with all sorts of hatreds. Hatred for the US, hatred for national borders and identities(especially white), hatred for religions, and hatred for the supposedly ‘wrong’ classes–not just the bourgeoisie but also the peasantry. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Gorky despised the Russian/Ukrainian peasantry, targeted farmers, took their grain, and let them starve? Why? Because communism favors the urban working class. The peasants were seen as backward and stupid animals whose only purpose was to be worked like cattle so that their blood and sweat could be stolen by the government so as to build up the proletarian class in the cities.

Leftists also say that ‘hate speech’ should be banned because it hurts people’s feelings. But, doesn’t leftist speech hurt people’s feelings? Aren’t Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Americans not emotionally hurt when they go to Western universities taught by left-wing Jewish professors who extol communism, the ideology and system that starved and killed millions of Ukrainians? How would Jewish students feel if a Nazi-sympathizing professor demeaned the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust? If Holocaust denial or apology is ‘hate speech’, then Bolshocaust denial or apology is also ‘hate speech’.
How would refugees from communism–Polish, Vietnamese, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc—feel if they had to attend high school or college classes where some leftist professor(Jewish or brainwashed by leftist Jews) gave a lecture or passed out reading material saying that communism was a good thing or that Lenin, Stalin, or Mao weren’t so bad or even good in many ways? Wouldn’t the feelings of those students be hurt?

Of course, we are for free speech, and we don’t believe that speech should be curtailed or controlled to spare bruised feelings, BUT we’ve come to a point where many forms of speech have already been banned because they are said to be hateful and hurtful to various groups. Since political correctness is already the law, we can only fight fire with fire. We must use the same tactics. Relying purely on pure principles will not work at this time. We must fight fire with fire. We must say that leftist speech is deeply hurtful to people who, or whose relatives, suffered under communism. Just consider how Cuban-Americans must feel when leftist Jews in this country praise Castro to high heaven or when leftist Jewish PBS mis-characterizes Cubans who fled Castro as a bunch of mafia-connected hoodlums when in fact most Cuban refugees were decent people who left because of communist tyranny.

And, consider the number of white people victimized by black crime. Think of the people who’ve been robbed, looted, raped, and murdered. Think of their relatives.
Given this horrible reality, many white people are understandably hurt and offended by black speech in gangster rap and from demagogues like Al Sharpton and Henry Louis Gates. It’s bad enough to be robbed, raped, or murdered, but it’s even worse when black artists, leaders, and thinkers continue to verbally attack whites and even threaten more collective rage and violence against the white community unless we toady up to black demands. If protecting the feelings of people is so important, we should ban Rap music since it hurts the feelings of people brutalized by black behavior and crime.

Just for the satirical fun of it, we should even call for banning speech making fun of ugly people. Indeed, whose feelings would be more hurt? A Polish American who’s called a ‘Polack’ or an ugly girl who’s called ‘a disgusting ugly dog’? The dumb Polack may laugh it off but the fat ugly girl may go home and cry all night. If protecting hurt feelings is so important, then we need to ban all speech that hurts feelings. Recently, Letterman deeply hurt the feelings of the Palin family, so maybe we should call for the banning of nasty, snarky comic speech too. After all, we have to protect people’s feelings. And, how would a hard working small businessman feel if he worked all his life yet is called a ‘parasitic capitalist pig’ by leftist intellectuals? He would feel hurt and angry. So, we must ban all leftist speech that might hurt the feelings of hard working business folks.

This whole thing would be a game, but we need to play the game. The left operates in total bad faith. We know that. We know that leftist Jews are clever, brilliant, and Marx-Brothersy in running circles around us. We cannot act in good faith with those who only operate in bad faith. We must fight fire with fire. If they call for banning hateful rightist speech, we must call for banning hateful leftist speech. If they say rightist speech hurts feelings, we must say our feelings have been hurt by leftist speech.

We need to do the same with ‘affirmative action.’ If liberal and leftist Jews say white gentiles must give up their jobs to blacks and browns, we must call for affirmative action for whites whereby Jews have to give up their jobs to us. Indeed, this is how White Russians took their country back from Jewish control–through Soviet Affirmative Action which limited the Jews in top echelons of society. We need to do the same. Though we are opposed to Affirmative Action in principle, the superduper powerful Jews are saying we white folks must give up our jobs to blacks and browns. Well, well, then it’s only fair for superduper rich powerful Jews to fork over their wealth and privileged positions to us... OR ELSE!!!

Were Stalin and Hitler’s mass killings rational? What is the essence of Rationalism?

The following piece asks the question, ‘was what Hitler or Stalin did rational?’.
The question sounds perverse, and in a way it is. How can the mass killings of people–especially those who are ‘innocent’–be rational? Also, even if we allow that no one is innocent in either the spiritual or ideological sense, who has the right to kill so many?

Still, rational isn’t the same as moral. The opposite of rational is mad or irrational. Neither rationalism nor madness is moral or immoral; both are amoral. We generally prefer rationality, but rationality isn’t the same as rationalism. Rationalism says that we should think, believe, and act according to the rational dictates arising from premises founded upon scientific principles. It could be argued that Hitler and the Nazis would have been less dangerous had they been mad than rationalist. As madmen, they might have killed Jews one day, spared them on the next, and so on. Mad people lack consistency and don’t follow logical courses of action.

This cannot be said of Stalin or Hitler. They had a set of beliefs or principles supposedly founded on scientific facts, and acted accordingly and consistently. To be sure, there are people who can be mad or delusional in some fundamental way and then be logically consistent in the pursuit of that delusion. Think of UFO nuts whose basic belief in alien beings are founded on nonsense or lunacy but logically pursue ‘data’ based on their assumptions. And, there’s another kind of madness where some people see patterns and conspiracies through overly active, imaginative, and paranoid mind.

All of this makes us wonder to what extent people like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and others were merely scientifically wrong or fundamentally imbalanced psychologically. Were they scrupulously rational and sane men who unfortunately or tragically came upon a set of wrong ideas, or were they fundamentally imbalanced mentalities fated to mis-connect historical and ‘scientific’ dots–those that would not have been connected by people more attuned to reality. (But, what is macro-reality except what we read about in books and magazines, and what author or researcher has full grasp of larger social reality? All views of social reality are half-truths and half-guesses founded on personal agendas and prejudices.)
Anyway, no one can know everything about the world of men. It’s difficult enough to understand the nature of elemental particles or the behavior of ‘simple’ organisms. When it comes to mankind–all the people together--, it’s impossible to know the utlimate truth about human nature, human potential, human diversity, and human good/evil. So, anyone who claims to know about humanity and then comes up with a set of theories which justifies policies for creating utopia is deeply suspect.
In this sense, rationalism is dangerous when applied to the human world because there is only so much we know about ourselves, much less others. To look upon mankind as particles of (historical)matter can lead to dehumanization–no matter how utopian the goals–, as was demonstrated many times in the 20th century.
The problem is never rationality, something we always need more of but of excessive rational-ISM. Excessive or radical rationalism assumes that a handful of very intelligent men can understand the true nature and potentialities of man, and such, they should have the power to socially engineer us like guinea pigs. This is not necessarily an anti-government position. Indeed, one could argue libertarianism is just another radical ideology though less dangerous than leftism. The libertarian philosophy of let-chips-fall-where-they-may also looks upon human beings as particles of (socio-economic)matter; supposedly, individual freedom and free markets will sort everything out for the good of all. Rather fanciful notion considering the nature of man.

Anyway, one could argue both Stalin and Hitler were rationalistic men–even ultra-rationalistic. They believed in a set of principles and then pushed them to their logical conclusions. When it came to ideology, Stalin was a communist and Hitler was a National Socialist. When it came to strategy, both were opportunists. As a result, their tactics were sometimes at odds with their stated ideologies–especially during the Nazi-Soviet pact–, but everything they did made rational(ist) sense within what they believed about the world and statecraft.

One may ask, how rational was it for Stalin to kill so many? What possible harm to the state could entire families of peasants or various powerless ethnic groups possibly do? What was the necessity of pushing millions of Ukrainians and others toward starvation? Why did entire ethnic groups have to be deported across the vast Soviet continent and worked and/or starved to death?
While some of it made brute economic sense, the scale on which it took place makes us wonder if there could be any rational justification.
And yet, if we take Stalin’s ideology seriously, it made sense enough. After all, Stalin wasn’t only trying to build an economy but create the New Man, a New Culture, a New World. In this equation, all the little nationalisms were an hindrance. All nationalisms had to be smashed or made Soviet-friendly. And, the logic of the revolution dictated that the most ruthless, dramatic, and sudden attacks on the Old Order was most effective. The Russian Civil War taught the Bolsheviks that it’s us-or-them. There could be no compromise. So, the communists waged a total blitzkrieg against the old order–churches, nationalities, property owning peasants, etc. That most of the victims were powerless–and even poor–was irrelevant. Cumulatively, they were seen as a deadweight dragging the revolution. The only way to turn the lethargic masses into a revolutionary force was through a war mentality. Everything had to be us-against-them. So, even people who didn’t oppose the revolution could be deemed as the enemy if they weren’t part of the revolutionary army or militants. The enemies were not only the anti-revolutionary saboteurs and agents, but the people themselves clinging to old ways of thought. In a way, the latter type was a bigger challenge for the revolution. The ruthless Soviet secret police could amply ferret out and destroy anti-communist agents in a totalitarian police state. But, what do you do about the population who only wanted to be left alone, keep their property, and mind their own business? Such people weren’t out to overthrow the system, but they were standing in the way of the revolutionary locomotive. Either they worked to lay down new tracks or they had to be run over.
In this sense, Stalin’s mass killings did make sense. That they unfairly killed millions of innocents is very true, but what is an ‘innocent’ in historical terms? Whether one is innocent or not depends on the historical context. A well-off German family in the early 1940s is doing no direct harm to anyone and is indeed innocent. But, as a witting or unwitting cog in the Nazi-dominated German machine–much of it devoted to war–, is he truly innocent? Similarly, within the context of Soviet ideology, anyone who owned private land and didn’t want to relinquish it to the communists could not have been regarded as innocent. By the very nature of his outlook and habits, he could only be regarded as a reactionary or even anti-revolutionary.

Much the same could be said of Hitler’s mass killings. It may seem perverse to say Hitler’s killings–especially of the Jews and gypsies–were rational(ist), but it would be more perverse to say they were mad. It was not like Hitler was hallucinating day in and day out, rolling the dice and killing Jews and gypsies the one day and then embracing them the next. No, there was a terrible logic to what Hitler did, and it was certainly rationalist.
One may ask, what is so rational about killing Jewish conservatives(Jews who embraced German nationalism) and Jewish children? How could children be guilty of anything? This is a valid question within the field of criminal justice, but Nazi ideology had another way of judging people-racially. It was the contention of Hitler and other Nazi ideologues that Jewish problem was essentially biological. Therefore, the outer manifestations of Jewish sickness was rooted in Jewish genes. As such, the genes themselves had to be eradicated. Within the beliefs of this ideology, Hitler’s holocaust makes rational sense.
After all, how do we deal with cockroaches and rats? Do we just kill the adults of the species since they are the ones doing the harm? No, we find ways to eradicate their babies too. Why? Because the babies will inevitably grow up into harmful bugs and pests. We don’t hope that maybe the young rats and roaches will grow up to be different from their pesty parents. We believe that rats and roaches are genetically programmed to engage in behavior that is harmful to us.
This was the logic of Nazism when it came to the Jewish and gypsy question. Nazis believed that the social, economic, and political problems related to Jews or gypsies were essentially rooted in biology. In other words, Jew can’t help but be a Jew. A gypsy can’t help but be a gypsy.
Of course, not even Hitler believed all Jews were bad or corrupt, but he believed that even good or decent Jews possess recessive or latent genes that could produce an evil or wicked Jew down the line.
The nature of Nazi ideology being what it was, one could argue that the Jewish holocaust was rational even if horrific. Rationalism always operates within the context of what is assumed to be true. As such, it is amoral.

To be sure, one may question the rationalism of the premise itself; one can argue, for instance, that Nazi ideology wasn’t rational at its roots, and so the Jewish holocaust was the rational outcome of something irrational. There is some truth to this. If Hitler and the Nazis had looked carefully at the facts, they would have realized that the nordic race wasn’t purely ‘Aryan’, a misapplied term to begin with. Also, they would have admitted that the so-called Aryans were not superior to Jews in intellect nor superior to blacks in physical prowess. So, Nazi ideology was fundamentally false, and the rationalist actions perpetrated in its name served a set of lies or delusions. So, would proper rationalism have prevented something like Nazism? If Nazism had been founded on truth than falsehoods about race and human biology, could the Jewish and gypsy holocaust have been prevented? Perhaps, perhaps not.

After all, the truth–Jewish intellectual superiority, for instance–could just as well have served an ideology committed to the mass killing of Jews–man, woman, and child. A people may feel contempt for those deemed inferior but may fear those deemed superior. We humans wouldn’t want to be visited by beings much smarter than us from other planets. (Suppose a 1000 alien being arrive from another planet, and their average IQ is a 1000; and suppose we accept them as fellow beings. Suppose their numbers multiply quickly, and they gain control of our economy, politics, etc. Suppose they grow more arrogant and contemptuous of us dumb humans as they gain power and wealth. Wouldn’t many people prefer to wipe them out before we eventually become their guinea pigs–like Christian Slavs, for a time, became the chattel of Bolshevik revolutionaries disproportionately made up of significantly smarter Jews?) There’s a chance that the Alien Beings may be nice, but what if they are not? And, even if they are nice, it would mean we are now at the mercy of their kindness; if they choose to destroy us, we are finished.

So, the Jewish holocaust could have happened even if Nazism had been an ideology of inferiority than of superiority. Indeed, there’s enough evidence to suggest that Nazism was as much founded on inferiorist impulses and resentments as on supremacist ideas. No race, nationality, or people want to regard themselves as inferior or less worthy, so they mask their feelings of inferiority with superiorist rhetoric. But, look behind the facade, and the real passions may well be driven by fear and resentment of the people perceived to be smarter, richer, more talented, and/or hostile to the established order of the native majority. In Germany, especially during the great depression of the 20s and early 30s–and the humiliation of defeat in WWII and fear of Soviet communism(dominated in the early stages by radical Jews), many Germans came to regard Jews with envy, fear, and dread. Many Germans were too proud to admit their sense of inferiority vis-a-vis the Jews, so the Nazis came up with a theory of why Jews were more successful and accomplished than Germans. It was said Jews were devious, cunning, or conspiratorial. Or, that Jews concocted false ideas like Marxism, Freudian psychology, and Einstein’s theory of relativity to confused good solid Germans. Even in the world of the bourgeoisie, it was said Jews got ahead through fancifully devious finance capitalism than good honest economics. (A crucial contradiction that Nazism fed upon was the perception that ‘Aryans’ looked nobler and more handsome but were less intelligent than Jews. Nazis believed that aesthetics should be synonymous with intellect, and natural nobility with talent, but that wasn’t the case in actual reality. A rather funny looking and acting Einstein was the greatest scientist of his age. ‘Nibelungenish’ Jews were better businessmen than Germans who were themselves among the best in the world. This divergence of intellect and aesthetics has been something Jews have been well-aware of as well. So, Jews always found ways to find and use idealized‘decent’ good looking goyim who would serve to cosmeticize the superior intellectual ideas of Jews. And, so Freud placed his hopes on the Aryan Carl Jung to be serve as the conduit for Freudian psychology. Ayn Rand was radical Jewess who propped up Aryan-like heroes of commerce and art, when in fact many giants of business and arts of the 20th century were funny looking Jews–or funny looking gentiles for that matter. Reagan was the tall handsome goy face to Milton Friedman-ism, and the ‘noble’ and ‘soulful’ Obama is the idealized mask behind which Jews like Larry Summers and the New Republic gang hope to operate. In Hollywood, many writers have been funny-looking Jews, but the actors have often been Aryan-like whites or Idealized blacks. The superior aesthetic image of the goyim has been made to serve the ideas and values of Jews. Since the audience come to see ‘Aryan’ or ‘Soulful’ types espousing values pushed by liberal Jews, people are led to think that Jewish values are their own values.)
Anyway, for the Nazis, this wasn’t just a political, cultural, or historical problem but one rooted in Jewish genetics. Hitler and his ideological comrades were convinced that the Jewish gene had directed Jewish survival, behavior, deviousness, and repulsiveness toward non-Jews from the beginning of history. Jews were like a unpleasant breed of dogs–one with weasel-like features and different from the normal breeds. This was an extreme form of anti-semitism, but philo-semitism could also be based on genetic uniqueness of the Jews. Charles Murray, a neo-conservative gentile, wrote an article last year in Commentary magazine arguing that Jews–at least the Ashkenazi kind--are intellectually and creatively more gifted than other peoples(which implies that Jews are more precious than other peoples). Murray makes a genetic case for why we should admire Jews whereas Nazis made a genetic case for why we should hate them.

Given the premise of Hitler’s beliefs about race and history, it made rational(ist) sense to remove Jews from gentile society and even execute something as radical as racial extermination. Indeed, given the principles and beliefs of Nazis, it would have been irrational not to do otherwise. Again, rational(ist) isn’t the same as moral or what we would consider sane. It is what logically follows from what is accepted as the factual premise. If the premise states that Jews are a cancerous tumor, only radical surgery can save your people from the Jews.

It’s often said that Nazi biological science ranged from crude to downright false, but that was true of all biological sciences back then. (Of course, much ‘scientific’ knowledge about humanity even today is pretty fanciful or tainted by ideological prejudices, mostly leftist and egalitarian.) The problem wasn’t so much the theory of racial differences but the radical conviction that one’s beliefs were totally correct. In this light, one may ask whether Nazi prejudices were the results of biological sciences or biological sciences merely justified their prejudices. We may also ask if rationalism and radicalism are compatible, inseparable, or opposites.

First, the relationship between rationalism and radicalism is a tricky one. Rationalism says one’s view of reality and worldly actions must comply with what reason has revealed about the nature of reality. Perhaps, the problem isn’t so much rationalism as the need to live and to act–to apply rationalism to the real world. If we existed as mere consciousness without physical form, we may indefinitely ponder the nature of truth through open-ended rationalism. But, we must act IN THIS WORLD, and our knowledge–whatever the methods used to attain it–is always faulty and incomplete. So, rationalism can only amount to applying one’s imperfect understanding of reality to reality. For most of history, the great scientific minds thought the sun and stars revolved around Earth.
Even the best minds could only be rational with known data, and not everything is ever known; also, even if everything has been discovered and revealed, no single man or group of men can learn and synthesize ALL knowledge and come up with a totally unified theory of reality or what it means to be human. Also, what we may know about subatomic particles or cells or simple organisms may not tell us much if anything about morality and human needs.

Anyway, the problem of man is he must live, and in order to live he must act. To act, he must make decisions. He cannot put off decisions forever in search for the ultimate truth. Like a commander in battle, he must make decisions with limited, faulty, and ever shifting intelligence. So, man is always condemned to act with imperfect understanding of reality despite his effort to be factual and rational.
(We must also keep in mind that factual and rational are not the same thing. The problem is different ideas and decisions can be rationalized from the same set of facts. Suppose you hit a dog with a car. Should the dog be put to sleep or treated for recovery at great cost? Both are rational.)
Besides, most people are not particularly brilliant or intelligent, and so their rationalism amounts to accepting what the experts say. If textbooks told kids that there are only two lifeforms–animals and plants–, that’s what most kids would unquestioningly believed. If a new textbook said there are 3 lifeforms–animals, plants, and protists–, that would the new orthodoxy. And, so on. So, even for most secular people, rationalism is little more than going along with the experts. Since we can’t understand the complexity of their ideas and methods, we readwatered down magazine articles or books that explain in layman terms. Or, we watch a PBS or cable documentary on scientific matters which are really no more than fancy graphics and generic narration. Even so, we believe that most people in science are serious and worthy men committed to the truth and have the character and caution to admit and correct mistakes. And, who can deny that this system has indeed done wonders for the modern world? Of course, we are talking of hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, and elemental biology.
But, when it comes to human or social sciences, the picture is different. Assumptions and beliefs about mankind are never free of prejudices, agendas, ideologies, and so on. Worse, though social or human sciences are the least truthful and objective of all the sciences, they are expected to offer the greatest number of answers to our social and psychological problems. And, this is where radicalism creeps into rationalism. Social scientists don’t merely want to understand the world but to change it–as Marx put it(though Marx was wrong to assume he was the first to try; philosophers had ALWAYS wanted to change the world; one only needs to read Plato, Han Fei Tzu, or Machiavelli). On the one hand, as scientists they must be filled with caution and humility. But, given the nature and scale of human problems, they feel a need to do something. Just being ‘objective’ may be belittled as ‘bourgeois’, ‘privileged’ and detached from the needs of fellow man. Social scientists and intellectuals of the Left argue that scientists who insist on ever more experiments and discussions are living in a bubble; when the world is crying out for help from poverty, oppression, ignorance, and so on, how can scientists in their ivory towers just search for better truth and look upon every proposed program for social change with skepticism? And, indeed, it may well be true that some people calling for caution and more experimentation/discussion rather than radical action aren’t necessarily devoted to pure science but trying to maintain the status quo. The Left may call for a radical program on scientific grounds, but the Right may call for caution and stasis on the same grounds. The Left may argue that science tells us so and so, and we must act on the so and so. The Right may argue that the so and so are not so certain, and we shouldn’t do anything until we know more. But, how long do we have to wait?

Rationalism isn’t the same as radicalism, but it’s often compatible with radicalism–at least in the human sciences–because many ‘scientists’ in the field believe that their discoveries must serve to advance mankind. There is a built-in impatience within human sciences, which aren’t so much about knowing simply to know but about knowing to DO more. Even so, rationalism isn’t necessarily serviceable only to the Left. Though the Right, due to its religious grounding, has often been at odds with rationalism, rationalism has served the agendas of the Right. Consider the leftist principle of the equality of man. More scientific data are showing that not only are individuals markedly different from one another but there are also considerable differences between men and women and among races. The scientific left has tried to do away with the concept of race altogether, but more data is showing that such is a scientific stupidity, borne more of ideological fixations than real science. While race is not the same as species, that different groups within the same species have different genetic makeup cannot be denied.
Today, there are many rationalist scientists whose findings may be equally disturbing to the religious right and to the ideological left. Consider the case of Edwin O. Wilson whose theories are at odds with the religious right who cling to God and the ideological left which blindly embraces the notion of human equality as fact than as mere ideal.

And indeed, this has been the problem of the Left from the very beginning. On the one hand, it claims to be rationalist, i.e. based on scientific inquiry, experimentation, and data, but on the other hand, it claimed to be for the equality of man. This is the fundamental contradiction within the so-called Enlightenment Principles. Consider this statement on the Soviet revolution from this site which we’ve heard over and over from the Left: http://www.history.ucla.edu/people/faculty?lid=651

"His research seeks to understand how the greatest experiment of the 20th century, led by a movement that grew out of rational, enlightened, egalitarian, and democratic traditions resulted in dictatorship and the deaths of millions of its own people."
The above statement assumes that ‘rational’ and ‘enlightened’ are synonymous with ‘egalitarian’ and ‘democratic’. Taking note of the contradiction within Enlightenment principles, it’s not hard to understand why Leftist experiments failed miserably.
To be sure, there was something enlightened and undoubtedly true about the notion that all men are basically the same and that the traditional forms of social hierarchy were based on false assumptions. In other words, the King and noblemen didn’t have any special kind of blood running through their veins; they were not biologically superior to their subjects. So, an idea of a society where all people would have equal chance and a greater stake made sense. But, just because traditional forms of hierarchy were based on false assumptions, it doesn’t naturally follow that there are no natural hierarchies among men.
Given the fact that most people aren’t very intelligent, we can’t expect them to be expert rationalists. Also, to be truly enlightened was and will always be an elitist ideal and possibility. One may argue that all people should equally have access to higher wisdom, but the fact is only a relatively few are bound to achieve it. Also, being educated doesn’t necessarily mean learning how to think freely or think rationally. For many people, it simply means being indoctrinated, just swallowing what one reads in books or gets from lectures. Why else are so many social scientists clones of one another, spouting the same cliches and certitudes? They’ve learned how to read books, take notes, and make good grades, but the great majority of them never learned how to think freely on their own.
So much for rationalism and enlightenment being cousins of egalitarianism and democracy. The enlightened order is bound to be just as elitist and hierarchical as the old order though on firmer biological and, perhaps, moral grounds(depending on how one conceives of right and wrong). In the old order of the king and aristocracy, power and wealth were passed down by blood/heredity. In the enlightened order, many on top happen to be people with the best minds, talent, ambition, etc. The successful in the enlightened new order tend to have earned their right to wealth and power. Even so, we don’t have an egalitarian order.

There were bourgeois revolutionaries–especially Americans–who were perfectly happy with this new order; there was a greater emphasis on equality and fraternity–whatever that means in practice–in the French Revolution. Many French revolutionaries wanted simply to get rid of king and the noblemen and make for a freer society. But, the more radical ones–and such folks tend to be more ruthless, committed, and conspiratorial–insisted that the ‘rational’ and ‘enlightened’ must be synonymous with ‘equality’ and ‘democracy’. They were Procrustean rationalists. It was this irrational insistence that led to socialism and communism and the horrors of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism.
Worse, radical leftism also raised major doubts about the value of intelligence and intellect. People like Marx, Lenin, Bela Kun, Trotsky, Stalin, Ho, Mao, Che Guevara, etc were no dummies. They were highly intelligent men. Marx and Trotsky were probably even geniuses. Yet, each of them was monstrous in his own distinct way. While some people with superior intelligence/ intellect may despair of the stupidity of most people, other men of intelligence actively seek to ‘save’ mankind–and make things worse.
To be sure, most communist leaders embraced the ideal rather than the factuality of equality as it was a useful justification for holding onto all the power. Even a communist society isn’t equal, and that becomes the excuse for leaders to hold onto power–as the goal hasn’t been accomplished yet. Indeed, this is still the ideological justification of the Chinese Communist Party--that everything it does(even pushing capitalist market reforms)is all part of building a truly equal society.

This may well explain why so many elitists–cultural, intellectual, and political–have tended to be of the Left. Egalitarianism has been more about creating than living in an equal world. For such to be realized, ‘enlightened rationalists’ must have more and more power over the people(nominally, to serve the people). So, it is in the name of equality that a permanent mandarin class seeks power. And, people are too dumb to realize this, which is why the masses of people keep voting for politicians who promise more equality and ‘social justice’. The end result is we end up with politicians who are more powerful than ever before. We elect would-be-tyrants in search for equality. We need only to look at the example of Venezuela with Hugo Chavez. The funny thing is, for all the rhetoric about the nobility and self-respect of The People, The People often don’t trust themselves or their. Poor people want tougher government to take from the rich to give to the poor. The rich people may want tougher government to protect the property of the rich from the poor. The more ‘enlightened’ rich may want bigger government to buy off the poor–by providing diversionary bread and circuses–before the people turn into angry mobs and rebel.
There is also the problem of temperament and personal nature. Whatever intelligence may achieve in math or hard sciences, it is a slave to one’s temperament or emotional nature shaped by cultural upbringing and factors in human affairs. Men like Marx, Lenin, and Hitler may have been genetically fated to be radical and dangerous. What’s true with cats and dogs is true with humans. Some people are naturally more tolerant and live-and-let-live than others. Generally, people of strong emotional dispositions tend to seek dogmatic or radical belief system. It’s hard to imagine someone like Marx or Hitler as an easy going liberal even if they had been raised by Maude(of the 70s TV show). On the other hand, take a man like Gorbachev who grew up in a radical communist system; he had a generally congenial and easygoing nature and liberalized an iron-clad totalitarian system. Intelligence may be crucial in attaining power, but decisions are often driven by emotion and temperament.

In some cases, totalitarian systems do come under the rule of men of superior intelligence and intellect. This can be said of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, and to a lesser extent, Castro and Che. But, in some cases, second-raters come to power with the help of sponsors–like the communist bosses of Warsaw Pact nations installed by the Soviet Union–or over a mostly ignorant, stupid, and pathetic populace(in which case, it only takes cunning and opportunism–as with Mobutu in Zaire or Chavez in Venezuela). This fact further complicates the problem of ‘social justice’ and egalitarianism. What chance does a nation have for making progress if its rulers who think themselves so smart, wise, courageous, and visionary are really just demagogic political hacks? But then... did nations ruled by men of genuine intelligence and talent–Russia under Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin–, or Italy under Mussolini, or Germany under Hitler, or China under Mao do any better? Intelligent and talented, yes, but intelligence and talent in the service of what? In the service of impossible dreams and warped by the megalomaniacal personalties who thought they knew everything.

Neither the rationalist–as opposed to rational–premise for communism nor Nazism was truly scientific in light of what we know today–indeed even of what they knew back then. The Enlightenment ideal of equality was rooted in Judeo-Christian principles despite the anti-religious position of French revolutionaries. The concept of fairness or justice has little or nothing to do with scientific facts. Also, the facts were bound to show that humans were more equal than some ‘scientists’ claimed while less equal than others claimed. There was always bound to be scientific data that could be used to emphasize similarities or differences. Study of DNA can show that every person on Earth belongs to the same human species and originated from a tribe in Africa. But, studies of people around the world make it plain as day that intellectual, emotional, and physical differences do exist among races. So, there is a scientific and rational basis for both leftism and rightism. Humans and society, being ever so complex, what is The Truth that favors one -ism over the other.
A leftist could argue that his side is preferable because it’s in our interest to live together as equal world citizens with mutual respect for one another. A rightist could argue that the nature of blacks being what it is, a higher number of blacks in any society is bound to lead to social decay and the sort of thing you have in Haiti, Detroit, and Africa; it can be argued that no amount of goodwill or idealism is worth a dime if it goes against the reality of how things actually work out.

And indeed, this is a major problem we face today. The number one problem in both US and Europe today is race. In the US, Jews, the smartest and most talented people on Earth, have gained near-monopoly in many areas. Jews tend to look upon white gentiles as their main rivals and have used blacks to guilt-bait white gentiles. Blacks, the strongest and most aggressive and the wildest race on Earth, have often been a criminal, social, sexual, and cultural threat to white America. Of course, most Jews don’t live with dangerous blacks; most Jews range from affluent to super-rich. Jews have also milked the Jewish holocaust for all its worth to pre-empt any criticism of Jewish power. Though many Jews are leftists and champion the need to speak truth to power, don’t ever think it applies to Jewish power. We must all pretend that even billionaire Jews just got off a refugee boat. We have idiot white trash Evangelicals praying for Israel and cheering Jerry Springer who exploits them with derision.
As long as Jews control the media and schools and fill our eyes, ears, and brains with the Jewish holocaust all night and day, we’ll think that our primary moral duty in life is to suck up to Jews. Thomas Frank wrote a book called ‘What’s the Matter with Kansas?’ where he asked why poor whites support rich Wall Street Republicans. Someone should write a book called ‘What’s Wrong with White Goyim?’. Why are so many white gentile Americans supportive and slavish to Jews and Jewish interests when the vast majority of Jews support policies–economic, political, cultural, demographic, foreign policy, etc–which go against interests of white goyim? If rich secular Wall Street republicans have exploited cultural issues to make poor whites vote for free trade policies, Jews have exploited moral and historical issues to make white folks support the Jews when in fact most Jews are doing everything in their power to undermine white power. The vast majority of Jews–through their all-powerful control of media, culture, entertainment, and academia–has given us the contemptible and disgusting Obama as president. When will white America wake up and understand that Oprah and Obama are both hoaxes manipulated by liberal and leftwing Jews to undermine white power. And, why shouldn’t white people think in terms of white power when blacks think in terms of black power and Jews think in terms of Jewish power?

When it came to Jews, the Nazis came to find a connection between their physical repulsiveness with their moral repulsiveness. Of course, repulsiveness is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what may be deemed morally repulsive to some may seem morally justified and liberating to others. But, we have a tendency to match one kind of hideousness with another. Most movies still follow this formula, which is why good guys are generally handsome and bad guys tend to be either ugly or hideous in some way. The central prejudice that says beauty is good and ugliness is evil still stands.
And, in some ways, we use this against the Nazis. How useful it has been for anti-Nazis that Hitler and his henchmen were mostly an unpleasant looking bunch. To be sure, there was a certain intensity and striking quality about Hitler; there is genuine power in his photos. But, Hitler and many Nazis come across, in many newsreels, as dark and disturbed rabble-rousers. They were into the ‘bad boy’ image. Given the nature of our debased and mindless rebel culture, it may explain why there continues to be a fascination among some youths for Hitler and his cohorts; they could almost be seen as the proto-Rolling Stones who played rock n roll with history itself.

Anyway, the way we remember and condemn Nazism is often contradictory. On the one hand, we give them the same treatment they gave the Jews. We look upon them as ugly, hideous, monstrous, subhuman, degenerate, and irredeemable sickos. It’s as though there was only one way to get rid of them--eradicate them. Germany had to be thoroughly de-nazified, and even–or especially–Germans took up on this theme. In a way, the process is far from over. Today, German kindergarten students are drilled to tears about the Holocaust and made to feel national-spiritual guilt over what happened during WWII. It’s as though the German soul and psyche are naturally infected with this evil which must be rooted out at an early age; in other words, Germans are BORN guilty and wicked.

In contrast, there is the oft-seen image of the noble Jew, the wonderful Jew, the Jew you wanna hug, Jew you wanna invite to dinner, the Jew worthy of your daughter, the delightful Jew, the warm Jew, and etc. In many cases, good looking non-Jews play Jewish characters in movies to physically ennoble Jews–to sanctify them as more christian than christian. So, Lena Olin is a Jewess in "The Reader", Montgomery Clift was a Jew in "Young Lions" and "Freud", and Aidan Quinn played a Jew in "Avalon" and so on. Or, Jews are placed in what should really be handsome roles. Because we’ve been brainwashed that Jewishness is wonderful, we don’t say ‘Ewwwwwwwwww’ but force ourselves to believe that Barbra Streisand is really the romantic heroine or that Sarah Jessica Parker is sexy and on par with the hot women around the world. So, there is the ugly-fication of Nazis and ‘white supremacist’ types who are portrayed in most movies as subhuman neanderthals, human apes, degenerate retards, or sick fuc*s, whereas there is the pretty-fication of Jews as the new and proper ideal of physical nobility or beauty. (This reversal of standards is also being carried out with homosexuals. The Jews who run the media would have us believe that there’s nothing as dysfunctional, desperate, and degenerate as the traditional nuclear family and nothing as healthy, normal, and clean as a gay couple. Ozzie and Harriet are closet psychotics while Ozzie and Harry know best.)

But, there is a more sophisticated twist to countering the Nazi myth that equated (Aryan)beauty with goodness. This way is to subvert and undermine the notion of beauty altogether, or at least the notion of Aryan or gentile white(especially Northern European) beauty. The remarkable documentary ‘Architecture of Doom’ does exactly this. http://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Doom-Rolf-Arsenius/dp/B00003XALS

The central theme of Peter Cohen’s documentary is that beauty as a political ideal is anti-humanist as it imposes godly standards on us. Susan Sontag argued along similar lines in ‘Fascinating Fascism’, an attacks on the aesthetic sensibility of Leni Riefenstahl. Beauty itself is the enemy since it is elitist and exclusive. Most people are not beautiful, not even pretty. Indeed, one wonders if Nazism would have waged war on the ugliness among the Aryans after the Jews had been dealt with. Had Hitler triumphed, what would have been the next stage? To favor the beautiful and healthy Germans over the ugly and less healthy Germans? We may be attracted to beauty, but people are generally not beautiful.
Also, beauty is not the same as morality or intelligence. And, since Jews are generally less beautiful than white gentiles, Jews have seen beauty as a false idol to smash and desecrate. So, the Jewish character in ‘Broadcast News’ says that William Hurt’s character(who gets promoted based on looks) is ‘the devil’. And, white goyim have bought into this as well. So, Robert Redford made ‘Quiz Show’ which apologizes for the special treatment good looking white goyim got over more deserving and intelligent Jews. So, Tom Brokaw broke down in tears and confessed that he got ahead in his profession because he was a good looking white gentile male on the night of Obama’s win. (So, do Obama’s undeserved win and the promotion of other undeserving blacks in various professions at the expense of better qualified non-blacks serve justice?). So, Betty Friedan waged her feminist campaign which essentially was an ugly Jewish attack on the pretty goyess order. Since Friedan felt ugly and worthless as a woman, she felt a need to undermine and discredit the entire edifice of femininity. Her main enemy for many years was Phyllis Schlafly, but Schlafly could never be effective with her marmish and moralistic demeanor. The ugly gang of Jewesses finally met their match in the pagan Camille Paglia who celebrated beauty.

Though the Jewish attack on (white)beauty was radical, hateful, demented, and ugly, there was an important issue to consider–namely, that beauty in and of itself is not morality, intelligence, dignity, or nobility; heck, we need only to consider the moral and intellectual makeup of most Playboy bunnies. The Nazi cult of beauty was indeed not just dangerous but insane. It was inhumane in its impossibility, contempt, arrogance, and delusion. (Hitler was also blind to the beauty of the Slavic peoples.)

The absurdity of the cult of beauty can be seen in Japan today. Most Japanese are, by world standards, short. By world standards, Japanese are not generally a good-looking people though there are wonderful exceptions. Now, consider the manga and anime, the cultural obsessions of Japan. From a young age, Japanese kids gobble up this stuff, and what do they learn? That nothing is more important, essential, and cool than being tall, muscular, western-looking, and etc. Most Western people cannot match the ideals set forth in manga and anime, so just imagine how many Japanese fit the bill? This culture has spread all over Asia and may explain why so many Japanese are unwilling to get married. With short Japanese guys dreaming of the ultimate dreambabe goddesses of anime and with short Japanese girls dreaming of the ultimate studs of manga, most Japanese are bound to be very disappointed with actual fellow Japanese. This is a massive self-delusion on a national scale. At the very least, the Nazi ideal was based on some measure of reality as good number of Germanic peoples were tall, sturdy, and solid looking. When wimpy Japanese guys pretend that they are anime-like studs or when Japanese girls pretend they are like manga-like goddesses, it’s pathetic and ridiculous. They may dye their hair blonde or wear shoes with foot-high midsoles, but they aren’t fooling anybody but themselves. Of course, Japanese haven’t killed anyone as a result, but it is still a flight from reality that is pitiful and laughable.

Anyway, another way Jews have tried to destroy white beauty is by promoting miscegenation. This way, white beauty becomes absorbed by blacks, Jews, and others. Since our multiculturalist society ideologically favors non-whites over whites, half-breeds generally tend to identify with the non-white side–especially if black. So, when a white mixes with a black, white beauty is serving blackness. When we see a good looking person of white/black ancestry, we don’t say, ‘doesn’t white features make the black person look good?’ but instead, we say, ‘isn’t he or she good looking because he or she IS black?’
Jews see a sexual parallel between Nazi hatred of Jews and white American fear of blacks. In the American South, white men feared the much stronger black men on two levels: one fear was that the black man would rape the white woman whereby the weaker white man would be unable to protect his wife or daughter(the Willie Horton scenario where the negro raped a white woman while her man was beaten up and helpless to save her); the more humiliating was perhaps the scenario where the white woman would willingly choose the black man over the white man because she found the negro so much more masterful and stud-like(the Jack Johnson scenario where white women swarmed all over the studly and powerful negro and laughed at the flabby white men who’d been pummeled into hamburger meat by Johnson). Black men were a physical sexual threat to white men. As such, white men propped up the mythic ideal of the pure and dignified white woman who remained loyal to her chivalrous white knight warrior.

In Europe, gentile men often resented the ‘ugly Jew’ using his superior intellect and talent to gain more money and power to charm and buy quality ‘white pussy’. There is some of this today. There’s no way any good looking woman would fall for Woody Allen if not for his fame, fortune, and celebrity attaiend through superior smarts and talent. The idea of ugly and hideous Jews using their smarts and cunning to ‘buy’ quality Aryan women was anathema to many proud European men. (A variation of this resentment and even fear applied to Asiatic men as well–the Fu Man Chu or Ming the Merciless, who sought to sexually conquer and enslave white women with their ruthlessness and wantonness. This, like the fear of blacks and resentment of Jews, was rooted partly in history as huge areas of Europe had once been conquered and raped by Mongol barbarians; also, the Ottoman Turks who conquered Greece and some of the Balkans and long posed a threat to Europe were partly of Asiatic origin.)

Anyway, for these reasons, Jews have a felt a need to destroy the ideal of the pure white woman and the noble chivalrous white knight warrior. Jews have tried to turn white women into lowlife skanks aping and lusting after negroes or hopping into bed with a rich Jew. As for white males, they’ve been castrated into faggotyass dweebs who look upon this prospect of racial suicide with happy acceptance befitting a retard.

Is an ideology based on beauty irrational? If so, one could argue that the Nazis rationally served an irrational idea. But, could a rational case be made for beauty? After all, we all love beauty. Suppose there are two kinds of butterflies facing extinction and only one could be saved. One is very beautiful while the other one is plain. Wouldn’t we choose the beautiful one? Would such choice be rational or irrational? Isn’t it rational or at least sensible to choose beauty over ugliness or plainness? On the other hand, beauty isn’t necessarily the truth. What if we had to choose between a beautiful painting that presents a false vision of humanity and an ugly painting that presents something truthful. Would the ugly truth have greater value than the beautiful lie? I’m sure many on the Left would agree with this, but this preference of truth over beauty also undermines the philosophical assumptions of the Left. The idea of human equality is, after all, just a beautiful lie. We know that people and peoples are not equally beautiful, intelligent, or noble in disposition. Is the ugly truth held by misanthropes then preferable to the beautiful lie of progressives who’d have us believe that if we overcome our ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’, the world will be a shining utopia? What if we swallow their lie onl to find our civilization invaded and under attack by savages and barbarians who cannot elevate themselves? What if a healthy modern white nation takes in a million black immigrants from Africa in the leftist belief that blacks are merely white-people-with-black-skin and find out otherwise: that blacks are, by nature, stronger, less intelligent, more aggressive and out-of-control?
A beautiful idea is worthless unless it is grounded in truth. Otherwise, it’s the false dream of the privileged elite that doesn’t have to deal with reality on the streets but only learns about reality through the media owned and operated by themselves. It becomes a self-perpetrating lie until all of civilization crumbles and even the elite finally fall under the sword. The problem is that the privileged elite is always the LAST to fall under the sword. Even as the elite has the most power over social policy, it suffers the least until it’s too late. They can afford to be safe and protected in their gated communities and ivory towers. So, the civilized masses fall first before the barbarians or savages–or the civilized people themselves become savage or barbaric(as is happening in the UK). And then, the elite no longer finds itself protected by a buffer of stable civilized folks(the very people the elite has been admonishing all these years)from the savages and barbarians(those whom the elite had been apologizing for and corrupting with their destructive and decadent policies).

The rise of Fascism and National Socialism can be understood in these terms. The elite lost its soul, and the civilized masses in the middle felt civilization giving way to madness and supported men like Mussolini and Hitler who promised a iron-clad defense of all that is proud, strong, stable, healthy, and noble. Of course, Mussolini and Hitler ended up bringing about the fall of European civilization as dictatorial systems have a way of allowing ‘great leaders’ to act according to their personal whims. But, the mass support and solidarity behind both Fascism and National Socialism weren’t so much to worship the godlike leader as to save civilization from looming chaos and/or radical-bloodbath-of-the-Bolshevik-kind.

If an ideology founded upon beauty isn’t fully rational, can the same be said of one founded upon the notion of human equality? How is egalitarianism rational when there’s plenty of scientific evidence to show that humans are, as individuals and as racial groups or as sexes, not equal? There’s an idea about all men having been created equal by God, but this is not a rational idea. Perhaps a nice idea, but nothing more. One could argue that people are, more or less, the same, but this is only true in the most basic sense. There is a world of difference between Albert Einstein and Mike Tyson, just as there is between a Chihuahua and a Pitbull. And, there’s a world of difference between someone with an IQ of 80 and someone with an IQ of 180. An person with IQ of 80 will probably never master Calculus in a 1000 yrs whereas a person with an IQ of 180 can build the atomic bomb in a few yrs. Indeed, though Jews are publicly the most vocally opposed to the notion of racial differences, no group better demonstrates the awesome power of racial differences. The power of the Jews cannot be explained nor understood without taking genetics into account. For some reason, Ashkenazi Jews ended up with the highest IQ of any group.

It is for this reason that one of the profoundest contradictions in the West, especially America, is that the people who are vocally and ideologically most egalitarian are themselves the richest and the most powerful. In a way, the Jews are trying to have it both ways. They practice Ayn-Rand-ism to become the richest and most powerful amongst us and then they support big government socialism to fool us that they care about all of us. Of course, capitalist Jews and socialist Jews collude to help one another.
In a way, socialism empowers the elite more than the masses. Socialism is about government power, and as such, it makes those in government more powerful over the people. Sure, the people get more freebies, but this means people become less self-reliant and more dependent on government programs and dictates(the bureaucracy and the professional political class; also for the rich, nothing is as satisfying, sexy, and fulfilling than Political POWER!!!).
Jews gain riches through capitalism and then expand government so that they will have political power over us as well. And of course, Jews pretty much took over all of the media and have the dominant role in the top universities across America. Much of this is worthy of great admiration and respect as Jews achieved so much through intelligence and diligence. But, there are other reasons as well. Though Jews have long attacked the old-boys-network(generally meaning wasp or wasp-ized power), they practice the Jew-Boys-Network. We need only look at the workings of Hollywood and the Bernie Madoff scandal to see Jewish tribalism in business.
Also, Jews have cleverly exploited the Jewish holocaust to prevent anyone from speaking truth to Jewish power which is the most powerful power in the world.
Anyway, whether it’s Milton Friedman-ism or Naomi Klein-ism, it means more power–economic or political–power to Jews. Just look at the top businessmen in the US, and great many are Jews. Just look at the top appointments in governments, and they are Jews. To some extent, this is inevitable since Jews are more intelligent and talented. On the other hand, it means more power to liberals and leftists since the great majority of Jews are liberals and leftists. And, considering that Jews generally look upon white Americans with feelings ranging from condescension to distrust to hatred, it’s something we need to be worried about.

Anyway, the notion of rationalism is generally flawed in our political discourse. At best, all we can hope for is a crazy quilt coordination of mini-rationalisms based on mutual respect and trust. In this sense, rationalism is like law and business. It cannot work properly unless all sides play by the rules and don’t overstep their boundaries. Laws are worthless unless people obey them. Not everyone may interpret or adhere to laws equally, but they must do so, more or less. Same is true of business. Commerce cannot long function if only a handful of people follow the rules while most people cheat–at least woefully. Since no one has the powers of God and can know everything, the most he can do is try to gain the best knowledge in his own specialized field and then try to coordinate his findings with data gathered and theories developed in other fields. So, people in each field should ideally follow the methods of science and offer up their fragment of truth. Some people may then be adept enough to knit all these pieces together to form a better sense of the larger reality.
In hard sciences, great things have been achieved through this process, but the same cannot be said for human sciences. There is too much ideology, too much prejudice, too many agendas, too many sacred dogmas–religious, cultural, or secular–for us to arrive at any agreed upon unified understanding of human reality. In sociology, for instance, those who favor the nurture argument will not even bother to consider the findings of those who favor the nature argument, and vice versa.

Also, what may be valid for one group of humanity may not be applicable to others; there may far less universal truths for humanity than we assume. For instance, many of us believe that the free market system works best, but perhaps its success depends on a people with adequate intelligence, discipline, and certain emotional qualities. After all, what applies to some breeds of dogs may not apply to other breeds of dogs. All dogs are intelligent, but some breeds are more intelligent than others. Also, temperamental differences among breeds make some breeds better at other tasks than other breeds are. So, in a very general sense, we can speak of universality of man but this breaks down when we get down to the nitty gritty. What would have been the chance of creating an atomic bomb had the Manhattan Project been dominated by African Pygmy scientists? How many gold medals in the 100 m sprint would US win if it only sent Mexican- or Asian-Americans? Humans are flexible and intelligent enough all around the world to appreciate and imitate the achievements of others–and even the most intelligent peoples required ideas borrowed from other peoples and cultures–, but it cannot be said that what comes naturally or more easily to one group of people will be true with all groups of people.

In the human sciences, we have three main problems as pertaining to the ideal of rationalism. First, scientists come with ideological baggage first and then seek only that data which justifies or validates their ideology or prejudices. So, a leftist who enters the field will seek only the data proving that races don’t exist at all whereas a rightist will try to emphasize biological differences as much as possible. Secondly, there is the willful falsification, distortion, or repression of data to disprove the other side; the left will also use social, moral, and intellectual ostracism to discourage any research that might undermine its ideological dogma. Third, because there’s so much bogus or exaggerated ‘science’ from all sides, it’s nearly impossible to coordinate them into even a rough rationalist picture of reality. There are simply too many divergences among the ‘discoveries’ and theories. It must also be said that humans are the most difficult subject to study–even if they could be used as guinea pigs.

In hard science, there is much less of this problem. In many cases, scientists will first look at the vast available data before venturing upon their own hypotheses. In other words, a new hypothesis is likely to be the product of great knowledge gained through long years of study than merely something to prove out of ideological fervor. Also, though hard scientists are often passionate, it’s hard to get ‘personal’ about neutrons and electrons. And, since the data are likely to be produced from genuine scientific methods, they are much more likely to complement other data to form a larger picture of reality.

I don’t see human sciences being truly rational no matter how much it may be rational-IST. But, just as realism isn’t reality, rationalism isn’t rationality; rather, it is the conceit that one is being rational or the cult of rationality. In a way, rationalism may blind us to rationality just as much as religion, because a fool who’s deluded that he’s being rational is less likely to heed warnings and advice. Why should he when he’s being SO ‘rational’? This was both the problem of Nazism and communism. They had no need for critics or nay sayers since they had Reason on their side.
Still, no one argued that Nazism was the legacy of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Despite its scientism, it hasn’t fooled most of the scientific and humanities community. But, communism did fool a lot of people–in hard sciences, human sciences, and the humanities–that it is indeed a product of the Enlightenment. But, this is both a curse and a blessing. There was much that was profoundly good and necessary about the Enlightenment but much that was twisted and contradictory. The Age of Reason wasn’t so much about reason as what intellectuals assumed reason would reveal. It was more about the prophecy than the practice of reason. The French philosophs argued that reason would show This to be true,Tthat to be false and would lead to such and such society. Much of this was fantasizing and delusional. And, communism was built upon the hallucination of reason. Funny that those who were most passionate about reason were so unreasonable, but then passion and reason are dangerous partners.