Problems of the Failure of Reason to Predict Emotions.

We value the ‘rational’ life because there’s a certain logic and consistency to reason. We prefer order to chaos–well, maybe not in rock music and sports(though they too require basic order or form at the core. Thus, we have a tendency to project reason onto emotions. Since it may be possible to predict result B following from action A, there is a temptation to believe that action A will not only lead to result B but produce emotion B. But, the emotional side of the equation has its own logic–or illogic, as the case may be.
　
Long ago, I had a friend who took home a stray puppy. He intended to take care of the pitiful creature marked by much suffering. But, the puppy had too many behavioral problems, and my friend gave up on the dog. So, he thought the most humane thing would be to take it to the anti-cruelty society and have it put to sleep. He figured or rationally predicted he wouldn’t feel so bad since the dog would be peacefully laid to rest and suffer no longer.
It didn’t turn out that way. His emotional prediction had been way off the mark. He went into a deep funk. He thought he was doing the wretched dog a favor–since he’d saved it from homelessness and sent it into eternal sleep–, but he was overcome with grief and guilt the moment he called the anti-cruelty society and confirmed what happened. It was no surprise that the puppy would be put to sleep since it had behavioral problems. Indeed, his mood was rather upbeat prior to the phone call. But, the news made his emotions spiral downward. He got me worried because he called me everyday to talk about it for like 3 months. It got me depressed too–if only because I had better things to do than emote over the phone with some whimpering dude. At any rate, his rational prediction about his emotional state proved to be utterly wrong.
　
I knew of a similar case involving a young woman who had an abortion. She was one of those annoying liberal types, but I’d known her pretty well in college, and we kept in touch for awhile. She was working, doing okay, and living the sex-and-the-city lifestyle before the stupid show even aired. Anyway, to make things short, she got pregnant from unprotected sex and decided to abort the child. She asked me for advice, and I didn’t really offer any except to say she ought to do what she felt was right. She figured she was too young to have a kid–and besides she didn’t really care for the guy and vice versa–, and the smart(and modern) thing seemed to be rid of the kid. Of course, she knew it would be an unpleasant experience but still thought she would get over it quickly. Now, it is true that many women–especially Negresses and white trash–suffer no great emotional pain following an abortion, but in the case of my friend, the emotional prediction had been the equivalent of an air ball. Like the guy who had the puppy put to death, she was overcome with severe depression and guilt-borne trauma for a long time.
　
Now, consider feminism and all that it promised. The radical new order would liberate women, raise their consciousness, bring forth new happiness, and so on. But, how did a lot of women really end up feeling in the feminist and post-feminist era? They found out that life is still what it is–a bitch–, and there is no pot of gold–nor even potted ham–at the end of the rainbow.
Many women had thought they would do just fine without men and children, but approaching their 40s they looked around and grew envious of women with family. They began to feel alone, isolated, and dejected. They thought they would be young and vibrant forever and surrounded by ‘sisters’, but not only were their youth passing away but many ‘sisters’ had gotten married and were busy with their own families. ‘Liberated’ women tried to compensate for their loneliness by striving for more money and power, but they felt emptier and emptier. (Besides, the fact remains that only a tiny percentage of the population–male or female–will make big bucks or gain major power. Most people, despite their effort, will remain working stiffs–even if relatively well-paid working stiffs.)
The point the emotional aspect didn’t work out as the feminists had predicted. Feminists had been convinced of the ideological and rational infallibility of their movement and thought that human–or womyn–emotions would follow suit upon changes in the socio-economic realm. In truth, emotions, though connected to and shaped by the rational mind, swirl in a deeper and darker pool.
Emotions have a way of overriding, violating, subverting, or defacing ideological or rational justifications and certitudes. Thus, no ideology or thought system–including religions–can map out or predict human emotions perfectly. There are predictable emotions to be sure: if you lose all your life savings, you’ll be very upset–no shit. But, more often than not, ideologies or rationales tend to repress or deny certain deep or basic emotions that make up our inner souls.
Thus, communism did not bring forth happiness for all ‘comrades’ as it had predicted. Thus, a man who thinks money and/or power brings happiness may find misery upon success. Thus, a woman who chooses a career over home & hearth may not be happy in the rat race. Conversely, a woman who tells herself that she will be content as a simple housewife may end up feeling depressed and trapped.
The important thing is to know that different people have different personalities just like no two cats or dogs are ever alike. Thus, what may be true of one person may not be true of another person. Different people feel varying degrees of sensitivity, guilt, self-doubt, confidence, and so forth. Ideologies or rational systems argue that there is a universal or collective one-size-fits-all for all people or for everyone within the group. This simply isn’t so.
　
Richard Nixon thought his political career was over when he lost to Kennedy and then the gubernatorial race. In 1968, he saw his star rise again and CONSCIOUSLY+ thought he would be truly happy and grateful IF he won the presidency. Yet, he was not a happy president, and his emotional instability led to the catastrophe of Watergate. He–and those closest to him–had thought the presidency would make a new person out of him, but it didn’t. He turned darker and more morose.
　
In 2008, many Americans thought a bright new era would be upon the nation with the election of Barack Obama. They didn’t merely support Obama politically but emotionally invested their heart and soul into Obama-ism and Obama movement. Many educated and intellectual people who prided themselves on their rationalism THOUGHT Obama would change everything. If people who take pride in their rationalism ‘think’ and feel like this, what does it say about the relation between the mind and emotion? Not only is the mind often wrong about the future of one’s emotions but what passes for rational thought is, as often as not, drugged by emotions.
Indeed, even if Obama had done everything to the delight of stupid white liberals, many ‘progressives’ were bound to feel let down by the fact that Obama there is no happy ending in life.
　
Sometimes, emotional letdowns follow rationalist promises because promises are often not forthcoming–true of communism and other radical ideologies–, but even when the promises are delivered the emotions one had expected fail to materialize or may even be eclipsed by opposite emotions. Why do so many dream marriages fall apart? For example, celebrities get all excited about marrying someone equally famous in a glamorous star-studded ceremony, but the minute it’s over, it’s a downer. Or, consider the movie "The Graduate" where Benjamin Braddock thinks he’ll be happy forever if he wins the girl, but he feels empty when he does. This is all common knowledge, but in the realm of politics we keep foolishly dreaming of Hope and Change, the City on the Hill, or some kind of Deliverance. Even the most secular, well-educated, and rational people think higher happiness can be attained through utopianism. Perhaps, the Founding Fathers were wise to talk of ‘pursuit of happiness’ than happiness itself. They didn’t promise happiness to the American people through government or ideology. They only said people should be free to pursue their own happiness, with an added implication that happiness is really in the chase than in the destination of which there is no final one.
　
Perhaps, there’s something in the human psyche that thinks and feels this way. Maybe, evolution favored this kind of trait. After all, those who get all excited about the prospect of great victory, triumph, happiness, and riches are more likely to be motivated to go out and achieve something. Upon reaching his goal, he may feel an emotional letdown as his emotional expectations hadn’t materialized, but the letdown may motivate him to pursue yet another Great dream, vision, or idea. Consider that Alexander the Great didn’t initially plan to conquer the entire world. But, every time he conquered a new piece of land, he felt empty, a kind of ‘been there, done that’ before a Roman coined the term. Thus, he had to keep looking for newer conquests. Alexander learned that the happiness was in the searching, in the expectation of great things. Same must be true of politicians and businessmen. They seek the dream of happiness by pursuit of ever greater power or wealth, and they gain our support or money by promising us greater happiness if we vote for them or buy their products/services. Things nearby look commonplace while things far away–in time or distance–seem alluring. So, you go for new discoveries, conquests, or progress, but once you have them and the initial novelty passes, they too become commonplace or depressing. Thus, you set out for yet newer discoveries and conquests. Genghis Khan was probably motivated by a similar kind of mindset.
In this sense, it is our profound unwisdom–search for the impossible El Dorado–which drives us toward newer and greater(and sometimes reckless and dangerous)possibilities. Of course, even if we were to find an actual El Dorado, we shall never find an emotional El Dorado for human nature turns gold into lead upon contact. King Midas got his wish, and everything he touched turned into gold which became common as lead and burdensome as chains around his legs.
In a way, this is necessary for our minds need to achieve emotional equilibrium upon finding happiness or pleasure. If we were excited or thrilled by our achievements or acquisitions 24/7, our neurons would burn up from too much ecstasy. A star that shines brightly burns out quicker. If a person had a non-stop orgasm, his or her nerves would turn to cinder soon enough. Why do meth addicts deteriorate so quickly? Meth heightens their sense of pleasure, in the process overcharging and frying out the nervous system and much else.
　
Anyway, the thing is to know that what you think you’ll feel and what you’ll really feel are two different things.

The Irrational Religion of WHITE GUILT

What is one of the most blaring contradictions on the Left? It is none other than the ideology or spirituality of "white guilt". This is amusing considering that the Left prides itself as the RATIONALIST inheritors of the Enlightenment tradition opposed to religion. As rational materialists, leftists staked their claim of intellectual superiority by characterizing their methods, theories, and proposals/policies as ‘scientific’ unclouded by emotions entangled in religious or spiritual notions of ‘good and evil’.
Then, how does one explain the cult of white guilt? What is its rational basis? Is it rational at all? Or, is it really a mindset rooted in spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity?
　
Science or reason explores the world of man and matter minutely and specifically and then draws theories from those observations. There is no collective truth in science or reason. Thus, if one apple is rotten, it doesn’t follow that all apples are rotten. Science will find the culprit of the rot in whatever mold or bacteria that settled on the decaying apple. In the realm of man, reason would lead us to blame certain individual, ideas, or policies than entire populations. Thus, the crimes of Nazism should be blamed on Hitler, those who served him, and on its policies. It doesn’t rationally follow that ALL Germans were to blame, and it doesn’t make any sense to say ALL Germans past, present, and future should be tagged with the crimes of the Holocaust and WWII. Yet, the concept of collective German guilt promoted and peddled by the German Left had led to exactly that kind of mentality. Is it rational? Or is it irrational? Now, irrational feelings and values are not necessarily bad. There is much we cannot answer through reason; therefore, people find meaning through faith, mysticism, the concept of the sacred, etc. The problem isn’t irrationalism per se but irrationalism posing as rationalism. And, that is indeed the essence of the modern Left.
　
Consider the quasi-spiritual ideologies of white guilt, black nobility, and Judeo-philia–aka philosemitism. They are the pillars of what passes for modern leftist view of justice and socio-political agenda. But, what do they have to do with reason? What is rational about the notion that what happened to a one people at the hands of another people should forever define and shape our views of their goodness or evil for all eternity?
Also, what is rational about saying what happened at a particular time in human history was ENTIRELY bad and deserving of eternal apologies from the descendants or racial cousins of the perpetrators. Take American slavery for example. It’s true that mostly Anglo-Americans in the South practiced this institution. But, let’s look at the bare facts. Most whites in the South didn’t own slaves. Though slavery is unjust according to modern Western values, people had different assumptions about slavery, serfdom, and different races/peoples in the past. After all, slavery was universal all over the world until the 20th century.
Black Africans, though oppressed as slaves, also made great progress by having been brought into the bosom of a much more advanced civilization.
And, after waves of immigration, the majority of white Americans are not even Anglo-American. Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Greeks, and Russians had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery in America.
If we use our REASON and deal with facts, it’s quite apparent that American slavery was not the worst evil ever committed by man–not even close–, most whites had nothing to do with it, descendants of slave owners after the Civil War didn’t own slaves(and can’t be blamed for what their parents or grandparents had done), and European immigrants who arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries never owned nor profited from slavery.
　
Given these facts and relying on reason, how can anyone perpetuate the ideology of white guilt as a progressive, rational, and scientific idea? It is something that must be taken on FAITH. It is an idea that bestows eternal victimhood/nobility or wickedness/rottenness on entire groups. Thus, Polish Americans are expected to share in White Guilt though they arrived decades after the American Civil War and though they suffered tragic histories of their own at the hands of both Western Europe–Napoloeon, Prussia, Nazis, etc–and Eastern Europe, especially in the form of Russia or USSR. So, even Polish-Americans are discriminated by affirmative action. They too must pay the price for American slavery that happened long ago and was carried out by non-Polish whites.
Or, consider the fact that black African immigrants enjoy affirmative action benefits though their ancestors were not slaves in the US. If anything, African immigrants are the descendants of slave masters or slaves in Africa. In addition, US did them a great big favor by letting them in. But, instead of expecting gratitude from the African arrivals, we teach them that they are automatically and eternally noble simply because they are black and because all whites–Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc–owe them something because they are of the same race as the Anglo-Americans in the ante-bellum South owned black slaves.
　
What is rational about any of this? What is rational about passing judgment on the past with today’s values? What is rational about ennobling an entire race of people because some of their ancestors or racial cousins had been oppressed by slavery? Do we say Russians are all noble for all time since most Russian peasants had been serfs until the middle of 19th century? And, why are only white people–among all the races in the world–burdened with the guilt of oppression when oppressiveness was the rule throughout human history on all five continents until relatively recently? Even today, most non-white nations are non-democratic, oppressive, and brutal. Yet, the tendency of the Left is to explain everything in terms of white evil and white guilt.
It says non-white nations are poor, backward, and/or non-democratic because of Western imperialism or neo-imperialism, when in fact, they had always been traditionally oppressive even before the first white man set his foot on their territory.
The Left also says that the only or the main reason why the West is rich and powerful is because it robbed and exploited sweat and labor from the toiling third world masses–and does so to this day through the machinery of globalist neo-imperialism. One can argue the merits and demerits of globalism for both the West and the non-West, but it should be clear to any honest and rational person that most non-Western nations are backward because their rulers, the people, and the native cultures are stupid.
Generally, non-Western nations are ‘exploited’ because they are poor than they are poor because they are ‘exploited’. Non-Western nations with intelligent people and smart cultures LEARN from their relations with the West and develop ways to catch up and even surpass the West. The success of East Asia should have made this patently obvious to honest observers. But, the Left still prefers the irrational and convenient ideology of white guilt to explain everything.
　
The ideology of white guilt is, of course, selective. It has two sets of criteria for white people and non-white people. Thus, it was a great sin of Afrikaners to practice apartheid but not so bad for the Chinese to crush Tibetans or Uighurs. When South African whites killed a handful of blacks, it got more world news coverage than black African nations killing 100,000s.
When white people want to preserve their own racial, national, and cultural heritage, they are said to be SUPREMACIST. But, when Jews do the same vis-a-vis the Palestinians in Israel and the Occupied Territories, it’s just Jews trying to SURVIVE. Whites are held to a higher standard while non-whites–especially blacks and Jews–are allowed to get away with just about anything. White guilt is utterly paralyzing to the white community while emboldening to the black and Jewish communities.
Also, everything white–past and present–is judged morally while most non-white cultures are approached anthropologically. Thus, if a white kingdom waged war and killed a lot of people long ago, it is remembered as having been ‘genocidal’, ‘cruel’, and ‘intolerant’. But, if a non-white culture did the same or worse, we must anthropologically UNDERSTAND why it did what it did and not be quick to pass moral judgment–lest we be ‘Eurocentric’. Never mind that European or Western cultures of the past were nearly as foreign to our modern values as non-European cultures are today. If we shouldn’t pass easy moral judgment on other cultures, then the same should apply to European and Western cultures of the past since people long ago didn’t know, believe, nor feel what we know, believe, and feel today.
　
White Guilt is also, paradoxically and irrationally, premised on the notion of eternal white domination. There seems to be a ridiculous–even a bit arrogant–conceit among white liberals that they will forever be on top and therefore in the position to feel sorry for everyone else. Indeed, there is an element of condescension on the part of white liberals and leftists, as if they are firmly lodged in positions of power to dispense compassion for all the poor and backward non-whites out there. This idiotic outlook exists not only on the left but also on the right, with such stupidities as ‘compassionate conservatism’. Since Bush Jr. is rich and privileged, he seems to think ALL white people share his power and position to dole our white-guilt-inflected favors to everyone(who isn’t white). Thus, Bush pushed for not only more affirmative action but also affirmative immigration for Mexican Illegals.
But in truth, NO power is forever permanent nor to be taken for granted. At one time, Rome as the most powerful empire in the world. Well, what happened? One time, the Chinese Empire was the most powerful and advanced in the world. By the 19th century, China was the ‘sick man of Asia’ and about to be picked apart by Western imperialist powers. So, any white person who thinks white power is assured and permanent–and therefore, white people shall forever enjoy the privilege of feeling sorry for everyone else–is a naive, ignorant, and moronic fool.
　
Of course, some white people think otherwise, in a more devious and disingenuous way. They push White Guilt as a template for what they hope will morph into Guilt of All Stripes. Some white liberals do indeed fear the day when the West and white people will be eclipsed by the power of non-whites–Chinese in the area of international trade, Mexicans or Muslims via waves of invasive immigration, blacks and Africans in terms of higher birthrates, etc. Thus, white liberals hope that if they establish the ideology of White Guilt and maintain high moral standards for themselves, they will be in a better position to judge non-whites and eventually pressure them to develop their own forms of collective guilt.
For example, if Germans apologize for the Holocaust over and over and renounce all forms of ‘racism’, then they will have gained the right to judge others who have yet to purge their ‘racist’ views. Indeed, some white liberals in Europe have admitted that they support hate crimes legislation in the hope that it may used against non-whites when they become the majority over the whites.
　
One may ask why don’t white liberals everywhere push for sensible measures such as a moratorium on non-white immigration and expulsion of illegal aliens? Wouldn’t that be the rational thing to do for the preservation of white survival and well-being? Yes, but modern white liberalism is, above all, anti-racist and cannot abide by any idea or policy that suggests that the West primarily belongs to Westerners or whites. Also, the Left has long embraced the ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ theory that all races are the same except for skin color. All truly rational and scientific people know this to be false, but what prevails in the liberal community is more scientism than real science–at least in the human realm. Scientism, as we all know, has the appearance of science but isn’t really science–any more than imitation crab meat is really crab meat.
　
White Guiltism is EMOTIONALLY paralyzing and, as such, cannot be deemed rational. Truly rational thought motivates and encourages us toward necessary action. Reason is supposed to be active and applicable, not apologetic and apathetic. Suppose rats are spreading germs and killing people left and right in a community. The rational thing would be to decrease or eradicate the rat population. But, suppose the people in the community see rats as divine creatures and feel guilt about having to kill them. That would be irrational though perhaps beautiful in a spiritual way. White Guiltism is, similarly, a one-sided pacifism which says whites cannot take necessary measures to save their race, culture, heritage, and power. It emotionally paralyzes white people from waking up to reality, facing hard facts, and doing what is necessary.
　
Of course, one could argue that even the will to RACIAL survival isn’t rational but essentially irrational. The Life Force within every living creature is not a function of reason but the fierce will to live. People use reason to facilitate their animalistic survival instinct. Also, the desire for CULTURAL survival is also irrational at its root. People want to preserve their culture because it has become ‘sacred’, just as a rare faded family photograph may be emotionally and ‘spiritually’ precious to its possessor. Reason follows universal logic, but this cannot be said of cultures or personal items. Cows are sacred to Hindus but hamburger meat for Americans. One woman’s heirloom is just old junk to another person.
So, it would be wrong to say that the White Right is rational and the White Left is irrational. Both are irrational at their intellectual root. But, the instinct for survival and self-preservation is more useful than gushy pompous emotions about the unworthiness of one’s own people. It’s better to fight to survive and hopefully win than to seek dissipation and defeat in the name of some elusive notion of ‘higher morality’. Higher morality is fine and wonderful for individual seekers of wisdom; there’s nothing wrong with gurus, hermits, or monks searching for otherworldly or inner-worldly truths. It just cannot be sought in a collective fashion.
　
Also, this isn’t to suggest that everything in life is a either/or kind of zero-sum game. There may be choices other than fight-to-win or lay-down-and-lose. The human world is not the animal world. A community can have rich and meaningful minorities groups. Indeed, human progress wouldn’t have been possible without the movements of populations and ideas. Many ancient civilizations had cities where diverse peoples arrived to travel, learn, and teach. But, stability was generally possible only when a geographical domain had a sufficient majority to maintain a degree of social, cultural, and political cohesiveness. Too much homogeneity and xenophobia led to isolation, stagnation, and eventually defeat at the hands of more advanced peoples. Too much diversity led to division, dissension, and chaos.
　
Like all religions or faith-based ideas, White Guiltism comes with taboos. Taboos are always irrational and based on notions of the sacred and profane. For example, beef is taboo among Hindus because cows are considered sacred, and pork is taboo among Jews and Muslims because pigs are seen as profane–spiritually polluted. A devout Muslim will not even eat a perfectly clean piece of pork because his revulsion goes beyond microbes or health concerns. Eating pork is seen as an affront to Allah.
True reason has no use for taboos and works according to logic regardless of whether something is regarded as sacred or profane. So, a true man of Reason must reject social and ideological taboos that get in the way of logic and truth-seeking.
But in historical reality, Reason has been as much a religion as a science. Just consider the cult of The People during the French Revolution or how Marx’s theory of history was read and revered as sacred text–and how those who dissented were labeled as heretics and treated accordingly.
So, the fact that White Guiltism is riddled with taboos is nothing new to the real history of Reason and "Progress". For all the bragging on the Left about its respect for reason and science, certain ideas are forbidden in public–sometimes even behind closed doors. Thus, James Watson got in hot water for his views on black intelligence. Instead of debating or disproving his views, the liberal academic establishment just told us to accept on faith that Watson is wrong and that views such as his have no place in ‘respectable’ discourse. Worse, some liberals have said that EVEN IF people like Watson are correct, their views should be suppressed because they may have ‘evil’ consequences. They are worried about the use of ‘racist’ ideas to oppress blacks and Jews. But, couldn’t one argue that anti-racist ideas are leading to the oppression of whites under blacks and Jews? After all, blacks are physically stronger than whites, and integration will hurt whites. And, Jews are smarter than whites and also happen to be generally leftist. Since Jews use their superior intelligence AGAINST the interests of whites, shouldn’t whites embrace racist truths than anti-racist lies?
Besides, in any true practice of real reason there is no place for ‘good or evil’. Good and evil are essentially emotional or spiritual concepts or notions. They are beyond reason. Yet, the cult of White Guiltism is all about ‘good and evil’. How is it that Rational liberals and leftists are so hung up with the concept of ‘racist evil’? To a true Rationalist, there can only be one definition of good vs bad. Truth and honesty are good, falsehood and dishonesty are bad. According to real reason, something is either true or untrue, logical or illogical, functional or dysfunctional.
A rationalist may find some things less useful, pleasant, or illuminating. For his purposes, he may say some things are worse than others. But, he cannot say something is ‘evil’, a spiritual concept which cannot be explained by reason–though many have tried.
　
White Guiltism is nothing without taboos and obligations. One is forbidden to speak or even think certain thoughts. One is obligated to ‘redeem’ one’s soul by prostrating before non-whites, especially blacks and Jews. White Guilt forbids stating the obvious and enacting necessary measures because it says all whites must pay a special price for their GREATER sins and evil throughout history–for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
　
White Guilitism also says that white people must not only suppress their racial consciousness but feel responsible for the well-being of all the less fortunate non-whites around the world–especially for blacks in Africa. Indeed, White Guiltism is at the heart of so many major issues and agendas around the world. Take the issue of Global Warming or Climate Change or Whatever It’s Being Called Today. Its proponents claim that Africa is in social and economic decline because evil and greedy white people have messed up the world climate. Whenever some ‘progressive’ activist wants donations, grants, or important positions, he adds ‘racism’ to whatever happens to be his pet cause. Thus, environmentalism gets a boost if it denounces ‘environmental racism’. Or, nutrition activists will yammer about how blacks are fatter than whites, as if it’s white people’s fault that blacks consume too much fried chicken, biscuits, and malt liquor.
　
Whatever problem that exists among non-whites, the burden always falls on whites. Consider Somalia and Rwanda. In the early 90s, US was blamed for getting involved in Somalia. Then, it was blamed for not getting involved in Rwanda. And, though the enmity between Hutus and Tutsis predated European imperialism, the liberal media told us that everything had been hunky dory between the two groups before Europeans introduced ‘racism’ in the Garden of Eden that had been Africa. So, everything that is wrong in black Africa or black America is explained in terms of having been the work of the White Serpent.
This is extended to other parts of the world as well. So, even as leftists agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, they argue that evil white imperialists put him in power. Now, I’m not one to deny that Western governments did their share of bad shit and are culpable for them. But, the habit of the Left is to offer one answer to why the world is so messed up. It’s always one or more of the following: (1) whites did too much (2) whites didn’t do enough (3) whites did it badly (4) whites did it stupidly (5) whites did it with ulterior motives. Just as Jews could never live up to God’s expectations, whites can never live up to White Guiltism’s expectations of White Redemption.
.
Thus, whites were blamed for conditions in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina though blacks had run that city to the ground long before the storm arrived. And after the hurricane, blacks all sat on their ass and waited for HEP than getting off their ass and trying to do something for themselves. Bush got so much blame for this that he sought to redeem his white guilty self by giving billions in aid to Black Africa. He sought forgiveness and approval from blacks and white liberals by being a good ‘compassionate conservative’ white boy. But, did they show him any gratitude, shower him with praise, or forgive him? No, Bush got nothing out of it, just like Richard Nixon had gotten nothing out of expanding Great Society programs.
　
What are the roots of White Guilt? It probably goes back to Christianity with its notion of Eternal Sin and the Promise of Redemption through the one true Messiah. According to Christianity, Jews were forever guilty of having killed the Son of God unless they converted to Christianity. But, this has roots in Judaism as well. In the Bible, God protects his Chosen People and eternally condemns and ruins entire peoples for all time for having harmed His children. Or, there is the promise that God will one day send a messiah to curse and defeat certain peoples forever. Thus, all of the Egyptians are cursed for all time in the Bible. Because of the sins of the Ham folks, it is said that the sons of Ham shall be slaves of sons of Schlam.
　
But, the concept of spiritual guilt is not a problem as long as it remains spiritual. If there is indeed God, we can never measure up to his greatness or perfection. Our lives are filled with lies, betrayals, cowardice, treachery, and etc. Even when we don’t commit transgressions, our hearts are filled with vanity, envy, hatred, and cruelty. So, in a spiritual sense we are all guilty, and religious people feel a need to pray to God and ask forgiveness. Spiritual guilt makes sense because the assumption is that the only figure who has the right to judge our souls is God.
But, when spiritual guilt is applied to the secular realm, it means some groups get to play god over other groups. Thus, Jews and blacks put on airs of divine wisdom. They act like Jesus Christ–as both the Son of God and as the saintly martyr of (white)Man. But, aren’t Jews and blacks human too? Aren’t their hands also stained with the blood of Cain? What did blacks do throughout history? They waged wars, conquered, raped, and robbed while they ruled Africa. What did Jews throughout history? They committed their share of ‘crimes’.
　
In the secular world, guilt must be defined in a legal and specific manner. So, if John commits a transgression against Roger, John must be blamed for what HE DID. And, John must pay for what he did–for his specific crime–than for the ‘wickedness’ of his soul. This is why HATE CRIME LAWS are irrational and ‘spiritual’. They force the justice system to judge people according to the ‘spiritual stain’ in their hearts. It criminalizes thoughts and emotions as well as the specific crime.
Now, this isn’t to say that intention behind crime is irrelevant. The difference between first degree and second degree murder is that the former is pre-meditated. And, we do make distinctions between murder and manslaughter. So, the judge must take into the WHY of the crime in sentencing the criminal. But, to separately criminalize the WHY is to bring spiritualism into the courtroom. The criminal is being specifically judged and sentenced for the wickedness of his soul.
Even worse is the fact that this kind of spiritual guilt, when applied to the secular realm, favors or targets specific groups. Thus, whites are held to greater account for racial hostility than other races. A white ‘hate criminal’ is not judged only for what HE did but judged within the context of what white society might have done in the past. He is being spiritually judged for the collective sins of his entire people.
God has the right to see all of us as guilty in heart and soul as He is supposedly all-knowing. But, secular law, if it claims rationality and objectivity, cannot judge individuals this way.

Rational Explanation Not Necessary to Know Why Homosexuality Is Weird, Even Offensive.

Advocates of ‘gay marriage’ keep demanding rational reasons as to why we oppose it, but they don’t realize that our views on ‘gay marriage’ goes beyond Reason. Humans are essentially emotional beings, and our use of reason relating to social matters are premised on our basic emotions. These emotions must be controlled and guided by reason, but we should not deny them. Denial of basic emotions leads to an unhealthy repression of emotions. We not just physical beings controlled by mechanical reason but creatures fueled by powerful emotions. Indeed, the same could be said of non-human physical reality. Physical reality is not made up of neutral matter in which every piece acts and reacts the same. All forms of matter have different levels of energy and react to one another in accordance to the amount or the nature of energy they possess. If all atoms were the same and if energy operated the same way at every layer of reality, physical reality would just be a mass of undifferentiated blob. The reason why different atoms exist and form into different molecules which then form into different kinds of matter is because energy has varying qualities and intensities among different kinds of matter. For instance, you cannot start a fire by rubbing any two elements together. And, chemical energy isn’t the same as physical energy. The energy produced by fusion of two forms of matter cannot be produced by other forms of matter.
Similarly, humans are not just walking blobs of matter or perfectly/uniformly reasoning machines. We are feeling organisms; we are fueled by powerful natural emotions which determine our likes and dislikes. Why are we sexually attracted to other humans(mostly of the opposite sex) but not to warthogs? Why do most of us find a deer to be more beautiful than a toad? It’s about our natural likes and dislikes fueled by emotions. Our use of reason must be in accordance with our basic emotions so crucial to our health, well-being, and survival.
Without emotions we wouldn’t be human. So, we cannot deny our emotions. But, we can’t simply go with our emotions either because we would be no better than animals whose actions are ruled largely by primal instincts. So, humans find a middle ground between emotions and reason, between instinct and laws. For instance, we have a natural territorial sense. If we heeded this territorial instinct on a primal level, we would be like wolves or tribal savages–or gang bangers of inner cities. We would be battling over every piece of turf. So, we have government and laws that ensure peace and order in the land. And, we have the concept of private property that says you must not interfere with another man’s property.
We seek to tame the territorial instinct, but we MUST NOT deny it. We seek a middle ground between the basic instinct and our social ideals. If we go to either extreme, things break down. Pure emotionalism or instinctualism revels in animal passions while pure reason based on ideology represses natural healthy emotions–resulting in repressed primal emotions resurfacing in distorted, ugly, and twisted ways.

One of the hallmarks of being civilized is civility, which is to be friendly, polite, and ‘nice’. To maintain this niceness we can’t be honest or emotionally raw most of the time. There is a need to lie, to deceive others, and even to deceive ourselves to some degree. If everyone was totally honest, we would end up with a very bad state of affairs. For instance, suppose a fat ugly girl asks you, ‘do I look nice?’ If honesty is ALWAYS a virtue, you would say, ‘you’re an ugly disgusting-looking pig!’ That would be honest, but the person would feel bad, and you would have acted cruelly. Kids, less cultivated in ways of civility, are often more likely to say what’s on their mind. Suppose there’s a room full of people among whom one blows silent nasty fart. Suppose everyone knows who did it. The fart is mighty unpleasant, but most people pretend not to notice for the sake of niceness. Inhibition is necessary for there to be social order. To maintain the order, we must sometimes sacrifice raw honesty in favor of social order. (The problem in the black community is the lack of inhibitions. As blacks are naturally more hormonally charged, aggressive, and outspoken, they are more likely to say what’s on their mind, much of which happens to be obnoxious and self-centered, honest or not. This leads to a great deal of social conflict between men and women, between adults and children, among badass dude and badass dude. It’s no wonder African political systems have to resort to great brutality to maintain order. If you allow freedom among blacks, there’s too great a chance of craziness getting out of hand. But, this naturalness on the part of blacks can sometimes be refreshing and charismatic since inhibited ‘niceness’ and social order can be stuffy and stifling–like in "Lilies of the Field". So, we like to see black entertainers who are saying what many people dare not say. If blacks have been civilizationally disadvantaged due to their overt uninhibitedness, Japanese have had the opposite problem. As Japan is an oppressively polite and ultra-inhibited society stressing order, unity, conformity, and submission, many Japaense don’t have the guts, courage, or the balls to say what must be said. Each Japanese is afraid to stick out like the odd nail in a society that says ‘hammer the nail that sticks up’. So, though Japan has been able to build up civilization through social order and politeness, it’s been slow to change and reform when compared to the West because most Japanese are too inhibited or afraid to upset the social order.) But, if a kid were in the room, he might be likely to blurt out, ‘mister, you blew a nasty fart; it sure stinks!’ We need to maintain ‘niceness’, so we don’t say what we really feel on many occasions. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, and they don’t want to hurt ours. So, to some degree, we feel a need to repress truth. But, we must NOT DENY truth, and there are times when we MUST put aside ‘niceness’ when bad people take advantage of it. Suppose there’s a room where a guy blows one nasty fart after another just for hell of annoying everyone else. He’s stinking up the entire room, and it’s getting mighty nauseating. Would it make any sense for people in the room to pretend that fart odors are not filling up the air and making people feel sick? They must tell the gleeful farter to quit with the disgusting act.
Sometimes, we need to suppress the truth for the sake of ‘niceness’, but we must also confront that which is willfully offensive. If there’s a dumb student in class who can barely read, the teacher must be understanding and ‘nice’; the teacher must not be harsh on the naturally dumb kid and certainly shouldn’t say stuff like, ‘hey kid, you’re a moron!’ even if it’s true. But, if there’s a kid who knows nothing and causes problems in class because he’s willfully lazy and rude, then the teacher must put aside ‘niceness’ and confront the lowly behavior of the student. ‘Niceness’ can aid civilization if it promotes goodwill among decent people, but it can be anti-civilizational if it turns into defenselessness on the part of good people against bad people who willfully seek to offend and transgress against meaningful social norms.
For example, there are lots of ugly people in the world, and that’s just how it is. It’s not nice to go up to an ugly person and say, ‘HEY, YOU’RE UGLY!’ . That may be truthful, but so unnecessary and hurtful. But, suppose some ugly hag makes a spectacle out of her ugliness like Barbra Streisand or Sandra Bernhardt does all the time. When confronted with such in-your-face ugliness, we have a right and duty to say, ‘Go jump in the lake, dogula!’

Because we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings, we shouldn’t make too much of the fact that many people are ugly. We need to repress some of our natural feelings–aversion to ugliness–and try to be nice. We sometimes even need to lie. So, if an ugly girls feels sad and lonely, we tell her that she’s pretty or say stuff like ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. But, all said and done, we know there is beauty and there is ugliness. They are not one and the same. There may be no pure beauty and pure ugliness, but we know some things are generally more appealing than other things. We know that Greta Garbo was more attractive than Shelly Winters. It would be stupid to equate prettiness with ugliness just for the sake of ‘niceness’ or the ideology of egalitarianism. (There are two reasons why the standards of beauty have been under attack. One is Jewish and the other is black. Though many Jews are very attractive, the ugly ones tend to be spectacularly, almost unbearably ugly. An ugly white gentile is just plain ugly but an ugly Jew can be howlingly ugly. Many smart Jews tend to be the ugly than good-looking. Due to their mad neurosis of self-loathing ugliness, radical Jewish intellectuals have been trying to destroy the concept of beauty. Just like Alberich in Nibelungen tried to destroy beauty in a world where blonde Rhine maidens wouldn’t have him, lots of ugly Jews–especially the hag feminists–have been trying to destroy beauty they could not attain. Jews also know that Nazism was an extreme Beauty Cult which depicted ‘Aryans’ as noble and beautiful and Jews as ugly and gross. So, whether it was Betty Friedan or Naomi Wolf, there has been an ideology of anti-beauty in the radical Jewish community. This, in no way, suggests that all Jews are ugly or that white gentiles are generally handsome; most people of all races are plain homely or near ugly. It’s simply to point out that Jewish ugliness can be especially gross. I don’t know why, but it’s just a fact. Lots of Jews look like goats with sheep wool for hair. Of course, there are Jewish beauties like Susan Sontag. Lauren Bacall, Simone Signoret, and many others–and they happen to be more European looking in general. But, it’s been the agenda of ugly Jews to destroy beauty. The problem is that many Jews are not only ugly but smart. Most ugly gentiles are dumb as well as ugly, so they don’t get very far in the academic or cultural world. But, many ugly Jews, being highly intelligent, creative, and/or original, have gained a tremendous amount of respect and admiration as thinkers and artists. Woody Allen and Norman Mailer are specimen of Jewish ugliness but Woody is funny as hell and Mailer was a great writer–due to their high IQs. Just as Jewish radicalism instilled moral guilt and self-loathing in the hearts of white goyim, Jewish-led feminism/leftism filled good looking goyim with lots of self-loathing for being good-looking. The Cult of Beauty turned into the Guilt of Beauty.. ‘Broadcast News’ says that Jewish men are smarter and more principled, but good-looking white goyim got all the break. This kind of argument effectively made good looking white goyim feel worthless for having succeeded in the world. The idea was that whereas Jews achieved success through hard work and merit, goyim gained success through looks–or connection. Robert Redford and Jane Fonda became leftists due to the influence of Jewish intellectualism. Being white and handsome was said to be an ‘unfair advantage’. So, even though Redford and Fonda succeeded in the business due to their good looks, they felt a moral imperative to push an agenda favoring the ‘ugly’ minority over the ‘pretty’ white majority. "Quiz Show" was made by Robert Redford, but the moral of the story is the same as the one in ‘Broadcast News’. Pretty white goyim got an unfair advantage over smarter albeit ugly Jews. The other factor in the undermining of our standards of beauty came from blacks. Though black men are not particularly pretty, they are big, muscular, and strong. Sexually, many women feel more attracted to big strong men than to pretty boys. And, many guys admire big strong men over nice looking dandies. So, even though whites generally have better looking faces than black men do, the black physique has been admired more. Among females, though white women are prettier than black women, black women have the moves and voice that white women don’t. So, even though white women are more attractive and feminine, black women have been known to be FUNKY and SEXY. Though black women aren’t liked by most men, their style and groove are imitated by women all over the world. The black challenge to the traditional white standards of manhood and femininity overturned certain assumptions about beauty.)

Anyway, let us now look at the issue of homosexuality. As with other matters, we must recognize our natural feelings about homosexuality and balance that recognition with the need to maintain a civilized society made up of civil people. We must seek the middle ground between feelings and ideals. The natural feeling of heterosexual or normosexual people regarding homosexuality is that it’s weird, freaky, or downright disgusting. Personally, I find gay sexuality–homosexuality between men–gross and repugnant, not least because men who act like girls are irritating and because the practice of fecal penetration is sickening. As for lesbianism, I find it ridiculous-to-weird but not gross like gay male sexuality because lesbian sex is at least physically clean. Also, women acting like men is less ridiculous than men acting like sissies. I’d rather be among a bunch of tough girls than among a bunch of pansy guys. There is an elemental quality in maleness–toughness, strength, standing-tall-ness, etc–that works for both males and females, whereas femininity is more restrictive to a single sex. When a woman dressed up like a man, she still has the qualities of a woman and looks normal. But, when a man dressed up like a woman, that’s just silly. Joan of Arc as knight is surely more acceptable than Rush Limbaugh in a ballerina outfit. In Monty Python skits, it’s funny to see men dressed up as women, but is it so funny to see women dressed up as men? (That said, I will admit gay men have been among the most creative people in history and have contributed significantly to arts, culture, and ideas; therefore, I recognize there is some cultural benefit to society from homosexuality. Still, this doesn’t mean that homosexuality is necessarily good or decent in and of itself. Consider for instance that many great artists have been semi-madmen. Normal folks generally don’t become GREAT artists. But, does that mean mental illness should be praised because it may, on occasion, lead to creativity in the arts? Heck, there are some autistic kids with a genius for certain skills, but who would say autism is a good thing? Autism Pride Parade, anyone? )

Anyway, our negative feelings toward homosexuality are essentially natural. All cultures have a problem with homosexuality, from the most simplistic-savage-tribal to the most highly civilized. Some societies have been amused by gayness and have tolerated it to some degree. Other cultures, namely that of Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, have been severely anti-gay. To be sure, Christians had less of a problem with gays than traditional Jews and Muslims because Greco-Roman paganism(relatively tolerant of gayness) and Christianity became closely entwined since the Renaissance(or earlier). Anyway, the point is one doesn’t have THINK in order to find gayness strange, weird, or offensive. Paradoxically, our antipathy toward gays is the result of our ability to feel a great deal of empathy for other humans and imagine what they do and feel. (Animals, with far less capacity for empathy, wouldn’t be disturbed by gay-ish behavior among others of their kind.) Every human being senses a kind of shared experience/feelings/behavior with other human beings if only through imagination. He senses that other people would understand his likes and dislikes as he would understand their likes and dislikes through the capacity for empathy.
So, a guy who likes ice cream senses/thinks that others will like ice cream too. If he sees another guy eating something and liking the flavor, he senses that he will probably like it too. If a guy loves the scenery of a beautiful lake and mountains, he expects most people to like it as well. We know that we are not alone in our natural likes and dislikes. Sure, we all have different variations and degrees of likes and dislikes, but there are general perimeters to our emotions.
So, there’s a kind of empathy of mutually shared likes and dislikes. So, if you like fried chicken at a certain joint, you might buy some for your friends or family members, expecting them to like it too. You know this because most of us share certain common preferences and tastes. So, if I say, "I love ice cream" and if you say, "I like ice cream too", we understand one another. But, suppose someone says, "I love eating dog shit." That freaks us out. Why? Because we are naturally empathetic creatures, we imagine what it would be like for ourselves to eat dogshit instead of ice cream; we immediately feel grossed out. We don’t even need to think about it rationally. It just appalls our natural sense of what is good and bad. We naturally feel that it’s disgusting to eat.
Sure, a pro-dog-shit person may argue RATIONALLY that dogshit is not without nutrients. Indeed, we sometimes see dogs eating the shit of other dogs and cats. And, who’s to say just because dog shit is offensive to us, it’s necessarily offensive to everyone? What if some people really like the smell of dogshit and really enjoy eating that stuff? Why shouldn’t they? (Besides, it could be argued that we eat oyster shit when we eat oysters and lobster shit when we eat the green/orange stuff inside the lobster, so why not eat dogshit as well? Also, all cereal products have some degree of rodent, bird, and insect shit mixed in. Also, the food we eat have been reprocessed from fertilizers made from shit material, so all food is really reprocessed shit. So, from a RATIONAL point of view, we can make a case for shit as food.) To that, I would reply, there should be no law banning adults from eating dogshit if they so desire. Besides, sugar and shortening aren’t much better for our health anyway. But, should the rest of us be forced to accept dogshit as FDA approved food?
Why is it that the story of Gandhi drinking his piss grosses us out? Again, it’s because we’re naturally empathetic and can imagine ourselves drinking piss. Just the thought makes us go blah! There’s no need to think or use reason on issues such as this.. We naturally have an aversion to eating shit and drinking piss. We might do it if driven to hunger or thirst, but we prefer not to. Similarly, we feel the same way about gay sex. Guys acting like pansies, sucking each other’s dingdong, and sticking their penises into fecal holes is disgusting to us. We need not think about it. We naturally sense it. All a straight guy has to do is empathetically imagine himself kissing another guy, sticking his penis into some guy’s fecal hole, or having some guy sticking his penis into his own fecal hole. Who needs to think about this? It’s so naturally obvious that it’s gross and gay! The capacity of empathy allows a straight guy to imagine what it would be like to be gay, and that’s enough to emotionally turn him off to gayassness.
And, this natural sense is good because fecal penetration is disgusting. It’s disgusting between men and women, and even more disgusting between men and men because the very male-male relationship is so biologically weird. Of course, some straight men may be driven to fecal penetration in extreme situations as in prison. In a society made up entirely of men who are horny but can’t get no poon, some of them may indulge in fecal penetration just to get off.

So, when a gay agenda freak asks us what are our RATIONAL reasons against ‘gay marriage’, all we really need to say BECAUSE GAY SEX IS DISGUSTING, PERIOD! Indeed, if REASON is the iron rule for every situation, why shouldn’t we allow cannibalism? What is the rational argument against it? Why can’t we have cannibalism-as-long-as-it-doesn’t-involve-murder? Suppose a child gets hit by a car in an accident and dies. Suppose some people with a taste for human flesh want the corpse to make into human stew and roast. Suppose the parents of the dead child are willing to sell the corpse for $1,000. What RATIONAL case can be made against it? The kid is already dead. Whether it’s buried or eaten, it will never live again. His flesh is filled with proteins, vitamins, and other good stuff. Why let it go to waste by burying it six feet under or cremating it? Why not sell it to people who wanna pay for it and eat it? Or, why not chop it up, process it, can it, and send it to starving people in poor countries who will eat anything? We use all sorts of body parts from cadavers for replacement surgery anyway. Why not allow people to EAT some body parts if they so wish and willing to pay good money for it? I’ll bet a child’s liver has lots of vitamin A. The same can be said for all the aborted fetuses. They are dead tissue like any piece of meat. They are full of protein. They can be used for dog food or cat food. There could even be a market for fetus meat among prospective cannibals. Why not market fetuses that way? If liberals, who are mostly pro-choice, argue that fetuses are NOT human beings, we should be able to treat fetuses like any other kind of meat. From a purely RATIONAL point of view, this should be true.
But, we don’t allow such things, and WHY NOT?? Because of our NATURAL FEELINGS OF AVERSION to cannibalism(notwithstanding the fact that some savage societies have practiced it)!!! We don’t need to explain the RATIONAL WHY as to our aversion to cannibalism. Most healthy and normal people just find that sort of thing GROSS!!! Of course, rationalist-cannibals can argue that no one will be directly or physically harmed if neo-cannibalism only allows the marketing and consumption of flesh of accident victims or fetuses. But, what would such thing say about our society as a whole if we allowed it? Do we want that degree of RATIONALITY or do we want to trust some of our natural, healthy, and normal feelings? Because our feelings our so crucial to our humanness, our natural aversion to homosexuality should be enough for us to reject crazy ideas like ‘gay marriage’. We don’t need to come up with some arch RATIONAL argument against ‘gay marriage’. We should stress our feelings about homosexuality, especially how our negative feelings about it are not only natural and normal but healthy.


Of course, that doesn’t mean we should make homosexuals feel less-than-human. This is especially true in the West since much of the flowering of Western culture owes a good deal to the brilliance and genius of gay men and even some lesbians. Totally denying homosexual achievements/contributions would be tantamount to denying much of Western art and culture itself. We don’t need nor want the ultra-moralistic injunctions against homosexuality as developed by the Hebrews nor the ultra-antiseptic hostility against homosexuality stressed by National Socialism. Perfection or purity is impossible in the human world, and we should reject both moral and biological puritanism.

However, we must still maintain values, norms, and hierarchies. There is a place for homosexuals in our society as citizens and individuals with equal rights, but we cannot acknowledge, accept, nor legitimize homosexuality as normal or healthy. Such extreme egalitarianism too is a kind of puritanism and radicalism. It is a politically correct moral puritanism devoted to the ideology of absolute egalitarianism. Radicals are crazy because they–regardless of ideology–have a single-minded devotion to one idea, one truth, one agenda. For example, there’s a difference between people who call for humane treatment of animals and crazies at PETA who really can’t tell the difference between man and a rat. We shouldn’t needlessly inflict pain on any animal, but it makes sense to value the lives of certain animals more than those of others. But, PETA, as we know, is devoted to the morally puritanical and ultra-egalitarian ideology of absolute equality among all living beings. Similarly, the ‘gay rights’ agenda seeks total equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality(aka normosexuality). And, with the aid of the liberal Jewish media, the gay agenda is becoming the mainstream of America.

Now, one may ask how could ‘gay marriage’ turn into a mainstream idea IF most people have natural feelings of aversion to homosexuality? Doesn’t the tidal wave of change in our social attitudes toward homosexuality proof enough that all moral values and social norms are purely cultural. In other words, previous generations were anti-homosexual because education, movies, and tv depicted homosexuals as deviant freaks whereas many young people today think homos are perfectly fine because ‘progressive’ education and culture weaned them away from ‘prejudice’ and ‘homophobia’. After all, if feelings of aversion to homosexuality are natural among most people, how come over 50% of white people in California are for ‘gay marriage’?
Nice try, such is a false argument. For starters, the depiction of homosexuality has not been honest in education and culture. Many movies and tv shows idolize and idealize gays as perfect saints, noble martyrs, funny lovable people, or pleasant folks who are, in most respects, more normal than we are. Also, depiction of homosexuality tends to be Victorian, almost never showing the disgusting aspect of its bio-sexual functions. Also, just as handsome goyim have been recruited to play Jewish characters, handsome and virile straight actors have been cast to play gay characters. So, we don’t really see gay people truthfully as gay people or the gay world truthfully as the gay world. We see a very idealized vision of gayness and gaydom.

Of course, books and movies in the past simplistically vilified or mocked gays in ways that weren’t realistic either. But, the falsity and delusions of old culture haven’t been replaced by honesty and truthfulness of new culture but by political correctness which romanticizes and idealizes gays.
Indeed, isn’t it odd that when we explain why we oppose the legitimization of homosexuality–by describing the nature of its sexual/physical acts–‘progressives’ turn up their noses and act all grossed out and offended. They act like priggish Victorian ladies who simply cannot stand any discussion of sexual biology. But, these people are utterly specious because, on the one hand, they say homosexuality is perfectly healthy and wonderful, BUT on the other hand, if you describe the nature of gay sex, they get so uncomfortable and offended. Though all we are describing is the homosexual act itself–as practiced by real homos–, the progressives act like we’re saying something vile and disgusting. If what we are saying is vile and disgusting, it must be because the act itself is vile and disgusting. But, ‘progressives’ blame the messenger than the ASS-injure. So, if a gay guy sticks his penis–a reproductive organ–into a fecal-stained anus, ‘progressives’ have no problem with that. But, if you say, ‘gay men stick their penises into the fecal holes of other men’, then ‘progressives’ act all grossed out.
We see the same pattern when it comes to radical leftist politics. So, when it was outed that Obama had associations with radical figures like Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright, the burden wasn’t on Obama for having associated with such people but on the people who pointed it out. So, according to the liberal media, it’s not shameful to hang out with leftist terrorists and demagogues, but it is shameful to point it out. Of course, if a politician hung out with far right white nationalists, the liberal Jewish dominated media would go all out to destroy him.
This double-standard has long been the game played by the Left since the 50s. Therefore, ‘Red-baiting’ is considered worse than being a Red. If someone’s a communist, no problem. And, if you point out that he’s a communist, YOU are the ‘paranoid hater’.
Similarly, speaking truthfully about gay sex is offensive but gay sex itself is not. It’s possible that in their egalitarian delusions, many liberals have really fooled themselves into thinking that gay people are as normal as the liberal media have made them out to be. Why not? The liberal white media in the 50s and 60s pretended that most American Negroes were the nicest people, a fantasy swallowed by many white liberals hook, line, and sinker.

Anyway, IF a ‘progressive’ says that our description of gay sex is disgusting, our reply must be, "BUT, ALL I AM DOING IS DESCRIBING IN NEUTRAL LANGUAGE THE ACTUAL HOMOSEXUAL ACT. IF WHAT I DESCRIBE IS DISGUSTING, THEN THE ACT ITSELF MUST BE DISGUSTING."
Similarly, suppose someone eats dogshit and you tell other people about it. Now, what is more disgusting? The act of eating dogshit or describing the act of eating dogshit? Of course, it’s the dogshit eater who is disgusting. Indeed, the person describing the act isn’t disgusting at all. All he’s doing is bringing to light a disgusting act of the dogshit eater.

Though we all have normal and natural feelings, it’s possible for masses or entire populations to become swept up in unnatural or anti-natural prejudices and delusions, even through centuries or millennia. We need only to consider the history of Christianity which instilled generations of people with the belief that the flesh is filthy, sex is dirty, and so on. Christianity allowed marriage, but even sex-in-marriage was seen giving in to the sinful flesh. The ideal male was modeled on Jesus and his disciples who remained ‘pure’. And, the ideal of womanhood was Virgin Mary, who conceived the God-child without sex with a man. They were seen as figures who’d triumphed over flesh and reached the level of pure spirit. So, even though sexuality is a natural feeling in all humans, entire generations of Christians came to think of sex as dirty and filthy. It led to all forms of psycho-pathologies. Catholic priests weren’t even allowed to masturbate, and their balls got overloaded with stale semen–often leading to testicular cancer. Or, Catholic priests, with brains poisoned by toxins produced by overloaded testicles, began to do funny things to little boys. And, there was a dark and drab puritanism in Northern Europe where men and women wore black garb and were afraid of every kind of sensual stuff. This extreme and repressive Christianity led to witch burning and destruction of much pagan art and culture.

In the Muslim world, the ideal of pure womanhood led to the practice of lopping of clitorises in some communities as sexual pleasure for a woman was thought to be filthy and sinful. Also, though women naturally want to show off their beauty, many parts of the Muslim world demand that women cover their heads and even faces. These customs have become so pervasive among Muslims that many Muslim women have come to deny their natural feelings(of wanting to look good in public) and embrace the anti-sensual puritanism that looks askance at women who show off their beauty.

There is a variation of this in feminism as well. In the 70s and 80s, many feminists argued that women who wanted to look good were just sexual toys or puppets of evil and oppressive patriarchal men. Women who dressed well, used makeup, and looked sexy were said to be hussies. In a sense, there is a link among feminists, Christian puritans, and Muslim fanatics.
It’s no wonder that many feminists in the West have been muted in their criticism of Islam. Though Western feminists believe in freedom and liberty for women, many of them still tend to be puritanically anti-beauty and anti-sensual. Though most Western feminists use makeup and privately care about their looks–natural feelings can be repressed and denied but cannot be expunged–, many of them still cling to the ideal of women liberated from the Beauty Ideal. As long as the Beauty Ideal exists, feminists feel that women will be subservient to men in trying to look appeal to and please the man. It’s no wonder that many Western feminists admired communism. Under communism, men and women often wore the same drab clothes of uniform color, shape, fit, and texture. It supposedly eradicated the ‘unjust inequality’ between man and woman.
Indeed, there is an moral and ideological zone where communism and Islam see eye-to-eye. They are both universalist, morally puritanical, and repressive of the sensual/natural. As such, the term ISLAMO-FASCISM should really be ISLAMO-MARXISM. Isn’t it interesting that Muslims in Europe are far more closely linked with the European Left than with the European Right?

Anyway, civilizations have long suppressed and denied natural feelings, and the latest attempt to normalize and legitimize homosexuality is simply the latest in this effort.
Civilization is created by taming and suppressing many of our natural feelings as I’ve stated above. Furthermore, societies produce certain ‘high ideals’. There is some natural tendency in Man to take ideas and values to their ‘logical’ extreme. (There is a HAL computer or Big Brother in each of us.) Just as an alcoholic feels a need to drink more and more until he gets smashing drunk or just as a piggish eater feels a need to eat more and more until there’s nothing left to eat, a thinker or leader in any given society feels a tendency or temptation to push his idea or agenda to The Limit. Christians at one time tried to set up a Holy Christian state. Muslims sought to do the same. Communists tried to create a pure communist state. Nazis tried to create a pure ‘Aryan’ civilization. The first emperor of China tried to set up a perfect ‘legalist’ totalitarian state. And, conquerors like Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan never wanted to give up until they conquered everything and united all under heaven. This aspect of man can be positive and negative. On the plus side, it makes Man keep pushing on and on, like when European navigators sought to go further and further, or when scientists push their theories further and further to find the deeper truth. On the minus side, it can blind people to everything but The One True Idea or Agenda. It can lead to tunnel vision.
There is also a natural tendency in people to submit to such totalizing systems or Great Leaders.
Man, like wolves, developed as a social animal, and for societies to be powerful and cohesive, people had to unite under the same flag, same values, same principles, and same leader. As such, there is something natural in man that seeks to commit to One Single Truth or Power.

So, it’s natural that radical ‘progressives’ should try to push their version of Truth and Justice to its extremes. Like anyone else, they too have the radical or totalist bug in their psycho-spiritual system.
But, this natural tendency toward totalism has a way of repressing and denying other natural feelings, impulses, and instincts. So, though a puritanical Christian’s absolute faith in his creed is a natural tendency, he comes to regard other natural tendencies–such as sexual feelings and other pleasures of the flesh–as evil and sinful.

The demands of culture can even make people want to choose death, the ultimate case of how society can turn people against their natural tendencies. All organisms have a natural fear of death and cling to life, but many warrior cults created the ideal of the fearless warrior. Vikings were supposed to hurl themselves toward sure death laughing and howling. And, samurai warriors were supposed to be impervious to pain. They were supposed to be willing to give up their lives for their lords for the sake of HONOR. Having grown up under a brutal and/or strict regimen, such warrior folks were taught to suppress or deny their life-affirming emotions and exult in the culture of Death.

We saw this even as late as 1970 with the ritual suicide of Yukio Mishima. Steeped in Japanese culture and the samurai code, Mishima convinced himself that he wanted to die, indeed had to die. He even had a young devotee follow him to death. But, suppressed and denied feelings don’t go away. They remain somehow and somewhere within the human soul. So, Mishima died miserably and agonizingly by all accounts. And the kid that were scared stiff, failing even to fully plunge the blade into his belly before his head was lopped off. Alas, FEAR remained in both of them. And, we all heard of the Kamikaze in WWII and how they were happy and willing to die for the nation and Emperor. But, what did many of the pilots really cry out when they dove down to strike the American ships? "MOM!!!!" True story.
All religions and ideologies try to simplify or escape from the reality of natural tendencies. Hindu yogis do horrible things to their bodies to overcome pain and achieve spiritual meaning, and in some cases, do achieve something of note(though I don’t know what.). But, more often than not, such denial and repression of pain is ugly and grotesque. These are all cases of taking the civilizational idea TOO FAR. Whether it’s a hindu yogi seeking to obtain perfect spirituality, Japanese samurai seeking to achieve pure warrior-hood, a communist seeking to establish total equality, or a Muslim seeking to set up a pure sacred order or blow himself with bomb, too much of the natural is destroyed within their souls in the name of ideological, spiritual, or social purity or perfect justice/equality.

This is the danger of all systems developed by Man. Man is, by nature, both accepting of hierarchy and seeking of equality. Man is, by nature, both in need of order and need of freedom. Man needs more than one idea or one tendency, natural or not. The problem with all radical or extreme or purist ideologies or theologies is they choose one idea and elevate it above all else. So, communists cannot tolerate economic hierarchy. So, anarchists cannot tolerate institutional order. So, libertarians cannot stand any government beyond the most minimal. So, Christians and Muslims couldn’t stand pagan or infidel culture. So, Nazis couldn’t stand Jews or certain non-Aryans. So, ancient Hebrews couldn’t stand any gays. And, the radical gay agenda cannot accept anything other than TOTAL equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In some ways, gays are insisting that homosexuality is SUPERIOR to heterosexuality, much in the same way that Jews have traditionally felt that they are better–‘chosen’–than other peoples. Though Jews are 2% of the US population, they often act like they are the most important and valuable people in this country. And, though gays are less than 2% of the population, they act like their lifestyle is equal in every way to the other 98% whose sexuality produces life and makes biological sense.

So, we’ve arrived at yet another mass delusion, much like the delusion in the Middle Ages which equated sexuality with sin, filth, and nastiness. The new delusion is the idea that gays are modern saints and their sexuality is just the most wonderful thing and IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU’RE ROTTEN, LOW-LIFE, DISGUSTING ‘HOMOPHOBE’ WHO SHOULD BE BURNT AT THE STAKE–OR AT LEAST BLACKLISTED FROM GOVERNMENT JOBS, UNIVERSITY POSITIONS, HOLLYWOOD, AND MUCH ELSE.
If this goes on, the US military will not discriminate against gays but against ‘homophobes’. Already, government, universities, and many private companies are less likely to hire or promote people opposed to ‘gay marriage’ than people who’ve jumped on the gay agenda bandwagon.
Though people have a natural aversion to gayness and gay behavior, this aversion is targeted and shamed from an early age. This natural and healthy aversion to homosexuality is said to be a phobia–an intense, pathological, irrational, and unnatural fear of something harmless. So, aversion to homosexuality is said to be like hydrophobia–rabies–or claustrophobia. If the medical institution decades regarded homosexuals as mentally sick, today it considers people with aversion to homosexuality–‘homophobes’–as mentally ill. Richard Hofstadter in the 40s and 50s said conservatives all suffered from ‘paranoid tendencies’–as if conservatism was a mental disease–and, today, liberals believe that those opposed to ‘gay marriage’ are the ones who are mentally sick.

So, if a bunch of kids laugh at a gay joke or make a negative remark about gay people, the teachers or politically correct parents will shame them. Kids are forced to repress their natural aversion to homosexuality. (It’s one thing to teach kids that it’s wrong to mistreat or abuse gays, but it’s quite another to teach kids that they must think well of homosexuality or else be considered sick-in-the-head and even possibly in need of re-education.) Kids are made fearful of using ‘gay’ as a pejorative since doing so would be ‘homophobic’. And, there’s also the influence of popular culture which is dominated by the liberal Jewish media elite and by artists and creative people who, for all their talent and brilliance, lack honesty, truth, and moral fiber. To the extent that creative people in the modern world are committed to an hostile and rebellious stance against the mainstream, they tend to knee-jerkedly side with fringe groups and the ‘freaks’ of society. It’s gotten rather pointless since all of mainstream culture has now become dominated by political correctness and ‘fringe’ sensibilities. When the screenplays of gay Hollywood writers and jungle beat of inner city hoodlums dominate as mainstream culture, how truly fringe is fringe, how truly oppressed are the ‘oppressed’?

But, there is actually a sane middle ground between our natural feelings and the need for civility. The current gay agenda is confused, crazy, and contradictory. On the one hand, gays tell us their sexuality is their business, and we should not interferet. Okay, fair enough. But, then gays insist that we MUST acknowledge gay sex and behavior as not only normal, healthy, and decent but as noble, saintly, and heroic. Though the AIDS epidemic was spread by disgusting and promiscuous behavior among gay men, the gay community would have us look upon every AIDS ‘victim’ as the equal of Jesus Christ. Naturally expressive and exhibitionistic, gays also love to parade their dysfunctional sexuality all over big cities. So much for keeping their gayness to themselves! They make it our business by pushing it out into the open and interfere with our meaningful moral institutions, YET they accuse us of interfering with their sexual lifestyles when we explain why gayness is neither suitable nor worthy of marriage.

Gays are among the most selfish people on Earth. It’s no wonder there’s such a close link between the American Jewish community and the gay community. Just as the Jewish community only remembers the Holocaust but neglects the history of Jewish involvement in communism, gays flaunt and parade their gayness(gay pride!) before our eyes but get all hissy and pissy when we tell them that their sexual and ‘moral’ exhibitionism childish, repugnant, and disgusting. When two guys kiss each other out in the open, how is it gays minding their own business? When cities have gay parades where guys clad in tight leather and other sexual garb flaunt their thing, aren’t they forcing gay garbage on all of us?
Of course, many non-gays participate in such parades too, mostly as an act of moral narcissism. They want to flaunt how ‘tolerant’, ‘progressive’, and ‘open-minded’ they are. Many white people are so pitifully lacking in normal and healthy white sense of white identity and heritage–mocked and attacked as whitebread 50s suburban conformism–that the ONLY means for them to gain any kind of moral worth is by championing the causes of minorities or deviants. So, if black guy can say "I’m proud as a black guy" and if a gay guy can say, "I’m proud as a gay guy", a straight white guy cannot say "I’m proud to be a straight white guy." The only way he can win moral credits in the politically correct world is by saying, "I, as a dweeby guilt-ridden straight white guy, bow down to you black guy or to you gay guy or to you Illegal Mexican guy." His moral pride lies in the exhibitionism of his shame.


How pathetic! Meanwhile, we ignore the meaningful middle ground. What would be that middle ground? It would be one that takes into account the natural feelings of all of us and devises laws and values that most sanely and productively serve them. What are the natural feelings of the 98% of the population which isn’t gay? They have a natural aversion to homosexuality. It can be repressed through political correctness but it cannot be expunged–even if they desperately try to fool themselves otherwise. Just as a Catholic priest who convinces himself that he’s beyond sexual lust is only fooling himself and just as a Kamikaze pilot who steels himself to die for his country is only denying his natural desire to live, a straight person who convinces himself or herself that gay sexuality is all fine and dandy is just fooling himself or herself.
Such mass delusions are not healthy for society, just as extensive sexual repression in the Christian world–and currently in the Islamic world–has been unhealthy. Such denial of true feelings deforms souls. Well, at least Christians and Muslims denied or repressed sexual feelings in the name of moral redemption. Straight people who suppress their natural aversion to homosexuality may think they are doing it for ‘progress’ and ‘justice’, but they are doing it for lack of courage, moral fiber, and in the service of moral decline. (Truth is the greatest moral value of civilization. Truth cannot always be spoken as it can be intemperate or discomforting, but when truth is sacrificed in favor of correctness, civilization begins to rot at the core.) Straight men who repress their natural aversion to homosexuality pretend that gayness is okay for the sake of ‘progressive’ correctness. They are like the white boy character in the movie SIX DEGREE OF SEPARATION who is exploited and cheated by the gay Will Smith character. The slick black gay boy Will Smith toys with the do-goody liberal emotions of the straight white guy who’s not only robbed of his cash but is persuaded to be sodomized by Will Smith. (Sounds like what Obama has done to white liberal men across this country and in Europe.)

The middle ground we need is to accept that homosexuals were born as homosexuals, a fact that should be undeniable to all honest people. We must let them be gay and do their gay stuff in their own world. We mustn’t force them not be gay. But, we must also acknowledge the fact that homosexuality is an aberration of nature and a form of sexual dysfunction. It must not be put on the same pedestal as heterosexuality or normosexuality which is healthy, productive, and naturally functional. The old extreme used to ban homosexuality altogether and persecute homosexuals as mentally sick people. Today’s extreme seeks to equate morally, biologically, and socially the meaning and purpose of heterosexuality with homosexuality while persecuting those who oppose the gay agenda.
That’s like saying people born deaf are just as functional as those born with hearing. We must make our society ‘nice’ to gay people and deaf people, but let us not, in the name of radical purist egalitarianism, pretend that deafness is as wonderful and functional as the ability to hear or that homosexuality–as an emotion or behavior–is the moral or biological equivalent of heterosexuality.

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.