Reason and logic based on honest assessment of facts are understood to be the essential methods of thought and discourse in the Modern World. Rationalists argued that the full use of Reason was suppressed prior to the Enlightenment by the Power of Privilege and Superstition. The Legacy of Inherited Power sustained a system in which monarchs and aristocrats shut down views and opinions deemed contrary to the Divine Right of Kings and the special privileges of Noblemen. And the power of religion, with its assumed canonical truths that were to be accepted without questioning and evidence, held back the advancement of the sciences and a more empirical understanding of man’s place in the universe.

Therefore, in order for Reason and Logic to flow freely like an unobstructed river, the dams and other obstacles of Inherited Privilege and Religion & Superstition had to be removed. Only then could the human mind move freely in the directions necessary to arrive at a closer approximation of the truth.
While the challenge of Reason might be tricky and difficult, a free mind could gradually go from inquiry to illumination if allowed to roam freely, much like a mouse in a maze eventually finds its way to the food. But imagine a maze where certain paths are blocked so that no matter how much one wanders, the end goal remains out of reach. A free mind in pursuit of truth mustn’t be hampered by restraints, inhibitions, or obstacles. The mind must be allowed to roam freely and arrive at the truthful conclusions. That is the ONLY way to the real truth.

And it was for this reason that the Secular Left represented something exciting and essential in the Modern Era. It called for greater freedom in search for the truth. There’s no sense in attacking the idea of the Left in a wholesale manner. Without it, there is no Modern World. The Left played an invaluable role in pushing for more freedoms and truth in a world dominated by kings, aristocrats, and clergy. Kings and aristocrats prioritized their power and privilege above all else. They were more than willing to favor falsehood over truth IF falsehood ensured their continued dominance. While kings and aristocrats did patronize scientists & philosophers and were interested in knowledge & truth, they clamped down on any idea or discovery that threatened their power.

The Church also patronized scientists and mathematicians, if only out of the assumption that science and math would lead to the evidence of God, make mankind better understand the laws of God, and confirm mankind’s special relation to God. (Just like Jews insisted on believing that God favored Jews above the rest of humanity, the Catholic Church was confident that Earth had a special covenant with God, i.e. God placed Earth, as the home planet of mankind, at the center of the universe.) But as with the monarchs and noblemen, the Church placed limits on free inquiry. As long as science and mathematics didn’t threaten core theological assumptions(sometimes by esoteric means), they were to be tolerated, even encouraged. But if the evidence and explanation undermined Church teachings, a man like Galileo could face persecution.

Against the power of the Monarchs & Noblemen and the Clergy, there were the Rationalists of the Enlightenment. In the context of events that led to the French Revolution, the power & privilege of the aristocrats and clergy came to be known as the Right whereas the push for more freedom and openness came to be known as the Left. Back then, the Left stood for something invaluable. Why restrict freedom, the spirit of inquiry, and open discussion of ideas to maintain the power of Inherited Privilege and Church dogma?
And since all men had the power of reason, why should education and knowledge be denied to the masses? Why should rights be enjoyed only by kings and noblemen? Why did kings have the right to rule and why did aristocrats have the right to property and legacy but not so much the people who did the backbreaking work from sunup to sundown?
After all, humans are not mere work animals. They do have minds and souls. And, people aren’t children forever. They grow into adults, and grownups are supposed to think. So, while religion-as-fairytales might be useful in controlling little children, why must adults be expected to bow their heads to the power of superstitions and myths throughout their lives? So, shouldn’t all the people have the right to be educated? Shouldn’t all people be given a chance to grow into thinking adults with a sense of individuality and autonomy?

This Right vs Left divide emerged due to the acceleration of history. For most of history, there was no right vs left. It was right vs right because the world changed slowly. The Roman Empire faced many crises but not revolutions. Same was true of China, Persia, and the Hindu World. No one conceived of rapid change in the revolutionary sense of remaking the world or fundamentally transforming human relations. As most people were concerned, they lived like their ancestors, and their descendants were likely to live much like them. The methodology of knowledge remained mostly static, and most people assumed that their existence was in tune with Eternal Truths. In such a world where so little was new, people didn’t envision or expect a better future, more truth, or greater freedom. Everyone, from top to bottom, was bound within tradition and customs. Even when kingdoms and empires fell, they were replaced by the New Boss who, more or less, thought and acted like the Old Boss.

But at some point, history began to accelerate in Europe, and the rapid changes in ideas, methods, and possibilities changed the way of seeing things. Thinkers, idealists, visionaries, and adventurers grew impatient with the known world or accepted dogma. Just like explorers couldn’t wait to find new trade routes, new lands, and even new continents, the scientists and philosophers were eager for new facts of life-and-space or to conceive deeper, more meaningful, or more just ways to live, rule, and/or organize the affairs of man.
And artists took inspiration from the spirit of exploration & new expression and sought to break free from conventions. And even though mankind had been inventing things forever, the very idea of invention became an obsession of individuals who began to believe that their contraptions could not only serve humanity but revolutionize the way people lived.
Indeed, the inventor of the steam-engine conceivably did more to change mankind than the philosophers and politicians did. In the end, the printing press was more revolutionary than any tract produced by it. Whether cinema or the internet is used for ‘this’ or ‘that’ ideology(or no specific ideology at all), the truth is their very emergence profoundly changed everything.

So, the Left, as the champions of the ideology of revolution, played a most crucial role in the Modern West. Would the West have made such advances without the Left? Other civilizations lacked the concept of the Left. They had rebellions and political conflicts, but it came down to right vs right. It was a struggle among chieftains for power(without much in the way of new ideas).
And, even when the desperate masses rose up to overthrow the existing order, it wasn’t to found a new order based on a theory of justice but to replace the old boss with the new boss. So, everything reverted to much the same following the violent upheavals because the ideas and methods remained constant.

In contrast, the West formulated an ideology committed to progress, advancement, reform, and development. And it is for this reason that wholesale anti-leftism is misguided. Sure, in the narrower historical context, the Left can be associated with failed ideologies such as communism and radical fads & fashions that come and go. But in the broader context, the conception of the ‘Left’ was what set the West apart from the Rest.

This is why the genius of Fascism was in fusing the Left and the Right. Fascism and National Socialism, at their best, was a kind of left-rightism. What the fascists grasped was that the radical left that sought to destroy everything of tradition to make way for utopia was blinded by infantile hubris.

But in the broader context of Western history, the idea of the Left was of profound importance to the West. It was against the complacency of monarchical and aristocratic privilege that rested on its laurels. It was against the self-satisfied and sometimes smug eternalist dogma of the Church that believed the entirety of truth was in the Bible as revealed by the Old Prophets.
Indeed, even science had been hampered by the eternalist cult-worship of Aristotle, regarded so highly as an all-knowing genius that his theories went uncontested. For instance, Aristotle said heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. People through the ages never thought to question this theory until Galileo demonstrated that it’s not true.

Even though the Left emerged fully as an idea with the French Enlightenment followed by the Revolution, its spirit had been alive among Europeans who developed a mindset that sought beyond the status quo, received knowledge, and the known world. When Europeans set sail to distant far-off lands to discover new things, they were in a quasi-left mode. When European scientists and mathematicians questioned Church doctrine and presented new assessments of reality based on their own findings and calculations, they were acting quasi-left.
When European inventors got in the habit of tirelessly inventing new gadgets, they were also animated by the proto-left spirit. They weren’t iron-bound to the status quo. They were open to paradigm shifts.

For virtually all of history, few ever thought in terms of paradigm shifts. If bright minds entertained new notions, it was within the existing paradigm. It was how the Ottoman Empire(and Byzantine before it) and the Far East operated. They did procure innovations but within a fixed cosmology, as if the accepted and dominant view of the world had been settled once and for all, and furthermore, one could improve upon it but never overturn it.
For the Far East, their geo-political priority was to keep the foreigners out than to discover the unknown world. China was less adventurous than even Russia, the most conservative civilization in Europe. As Siberia is right above China, the Chinese could have claimed it. And as Alaska is closer to China than to European Russia, the Chinese could have colonized Alaska after taking Siberia. But it never occurred to the Chinese to be so bold.
And compare Spain/Britain with Japan. The Spanish and the British discovered and unified much of the world, whereas Japan remained at home. And in time, Britain overtook Spain despite the latter’s head start because Spain suppressed quasi-leftist tendencies and grew overly conservative.

Too often, we associate the Left with communism, anarchism, and radicalism. But it was also a spirit. Of course, many who were on the Left in the past would be labeled as rightist or even far-rightist. What matters is the West conceived of a spirit of adventure, discovery, and transformation.

Prior to the emergence of the Left, there was no left or right. Just the sense of ‘eternality’. Even struggles of power were within the same paradigm. Consider the Byzantine Empire that was often unstable and racked with murderous intrigues. But, the overall paradigm remained the same: Christo-Dynastic rule. For all the shifts in rulership, the philosophical and cosmological paradigm remained much the same. Same with Ancient Egypt, a civilization set in stone.

The Ancient Greeks were more adventurous in thought and laid the groundwork for what was to come later in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. And the Ancient Jews were profound and contemplative in their new theories of God. But both the Greeks and Jews were too tribal to think in terms of revolution. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle weren’t theorists for the revolution but searchers for a better formula to serve the existing reality. If anything, they contended that the answer was already present, just not practiced.

As for the Romans, their main theme was power and control. So, the Fall of the Roman Empire was a story of power dynamics than a fundamental challenge to the theory of power.
In contrast, the fall of the French Monarchy wasn’t just about the transference of power but the creation of a wholly new order, a new paradigm in the concept of governance and representation.

This is why the so-called ‘Alt-Right’ was a misnomer. If a future movement has any chance of success, it must be the Left-Right, or a Neo-Fascism that takes the noble aspirations of Fascism while rejecting what proved to be toxic: The Cult of Personality and denunciation of individuality.
While the radical individualism of libertarianism is no less poisonous, individuality is essential for a society to maintain a culture of freedom, autonomy, and, above all, conscience. For there to be a genuine collective conscience, there has to be individuals with conscience of their own, i.e. they must develop a sense of right-and-wrong based on individual reason and personal emotions.

A people for whom the terms of right-and-wrong are determined by the decrees or the dogma of the Order or the Zeitgeist are not truly ethical or conscientious. Germans under Nazism were more like dogs than thinking humans. When Adolf Hitler said the USSR is the eternal enemy, they obeyed and agreed. When Hitler said Germany and USSR are allies and friends, they obeyed and agreed again. When Hitler invaded the USSR and said it is again the eternal enemy, they obeyed and agreed once more. Germans just bent to the shifts in the Official Line.

Same with the Chinese under Maoism. When Mao said the USSR is an eternal friend and the US is the eternal enemy, the Chinese all agreed. When Mao said the USSR is the eternal enemy, the Chinese agreed again. When Mao said the US is a partner, the Chinese once more knew only how to agree.
This is dog-mentality. Notice how a dog will like or hate someone based on the whims of its master. If the master tells the dog to bark at someone, it barks. If the master tells the dog to be kind to that person, the dog obliges. Sadly, most Americans today are like that. They think “Israel is America’s greatest ally” because the Master Media and Whore Politicians repeat the mantra over and over and over.

The problem with the Modern Left was threefold.

(1) In its radical form, it was more about destruction than construction, let alone preservation. Such a destruction could only lead to self-destruction. Imagine the upper branches and leaves of a tree not only growing upward from the roots but targeting the roots for destruction. Truth is, however many paradigm shifts that humanity undergoes, there will always be a common thread in the racial saga. Our basic racial nature remains the same, and much of what we value derives from sentiment.

Modern Jews are different from Ancient Jews, but there is a deep connection between the Jewish present and the Jewish past, and it’d be stupid for modern Jews to renounce all of their culture and memory. The massive destruction wrought by the Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution was an alarming case of how Leftism could turn into mindless evil.

There were radical elements in the French Revolution so obsessed with the New that they targeted everything ‘old’ for destruction. Granted, such a mentality didn’t begin with the Modern Left. Smashing the icons and idols of the vanquished power is as old as history itself. When the New Power took over, it either smashed the old symbols or refitted them. Still, it was mainly a matter of power than of principles or ideals. It was about one power de-legitimizing another power, like the trophy passing from one team to another in sports.

It was with Christianity that the practice of iconoclasm took on a whole new character. Christians didn’t smash pagan temples simply as a power move. Rather, pagan idols and iconography were deemed wicked and evil, therefore their eradication was a revolution in morality than merely a ritual of power.

Still, Christianity couldn’t be leftist, at least in the modern sense, because it was Eternalist. It said there is one God for all times and He has one Truth for mankind as revealed by His Son, Jesus Christ. So, even as the proselytization and ‘institutionalization’ of Christianity would be violent and disruptive, it was to create a world of eternal peace and harmony.

Granted, there were similar threads in Marxism, i.e. after the Proletarian Revolution, a classless society would be one of justice and mutual respect. But there were also other strains of leftism that believed in the Permanent Revolution whereby the main objective of mankind would be change upon change upon change.

Anyway, history has shown that people who cut themselves from the roots are bound to fail. War on the roots could come from communism or capitalism. The reason why the US became sufficiently soulless to support ‘gay marriage’ was because the roots were severed, leaving Pop Culture as the sole cultural arbiter for the great majority of Americans. There’s only a tenuous sense of family, community, lineage, church, and history. It’s pop culture morning, noon, and night. So, if Pop Culture says Homos are ‘cool’, ‘cute’, and ‘cuddly’, most people go along because Celebrity defines the core of their existence.

(2) Another reason why Leftism is bound to fail is the resilience of human nature. Even if leftists were to take over the world, they would eventually turn quasi-rightist. George Orwell illustrated this in ANIMAL FARM. In the end, hierarchy returns with the smarter pigs gaining dominance. And among the pigs, those with greater will and cunning win over the other pigs. In the US, most Jews regard themselves as leftist, but ideology is secondary to their power-lust.
More often than not, the wicked greedy Jews have power over the idealistic and fair-minded Jews. The likes of Sheldon Adelson have far more power than the likes of Norman Finkelstein.

Even if a regime comes to power in the name of Leftist Revolution, human nature drives the New Bosses to conserve and keep their power. Stalin and Mao became new titans, and they ruled much like the emperors of old. Jews are the new elites, and despite all their BS about ‘equality’, they act like globo-aristocrats above the law. They are all about Jewish Privilege.

Also, they play tricks with concepts such as ‘diversity’. They say ‘diversity’ is about leftism and progressivism when, in fact, Diversity has always been the product of imperialism and the preferred tool of imperial hegemony, e.g. the British sure got a lot of traction by using Diversity to set various peoples against one another.
The main reason why Jews push Diversity is to bolster and maintain their globo-aristocratic dominance. Anyone who says ‘diversity’ and ‘equality’ in the same breadth is either a cunning Jew or a naive gentile dupe.

(3) Another reason why Leftism runs into trouble is that its spirit of freedom, adventure, and change creates all sorts of contradictions that eventually trip over one another. Unloosed imagination plays by a different set of rules than unleashed reason. Reason relies on facts and logic(though often sparked by intuition), whereas imagination runs on creativity and fantasy. Both Rationalism and Romanticism were the result of greater freedom of mind and spirit, but they often ran counter to one another. Also, there are Apollonian and Dionysian aspects in both Reason and Romanticism.

One aspect of Reason means more order, clarity, and predictability. Yet, in using science, technology, and better organization/management to create an orderly world of greater prosperity and individuality, one consequence of Reason is the cult of Recreation. With the aid of Reason, the world demands less struggle and more fun. (Of course, plenty of smart people in science/technology see a benefit in this. Not only can they profit from mass consumerization of their innovations but they figure most people are too dumb to appreciate science at any rate. So, why not have them indulge in self-gratification as mindless consumers willing to toil and pay for the new gadgets, thus putting more money in the pockets of the super-smart? Michio Kaku certainly seems to think so.) So, even though Reason is usually associated with Apollonianism, it also provides fuel for Dionysianism, if only unwittingly.

Romanticism is usually associated with the Dionysian for obvious reasons, but it also has an Apollonian side. As a ‘reaction’ against rapid industrialization unleashed by the power of Reason, the Romantics sought to reconnect with the organic balance and the order of Nature. Also, there was a neo-spiritual aspect to Romanticism that aspired to cosmic meaning above and beyond the ever-changing truisms of modernity. Mankind was supposed to control Reason, but from its Pandora’s Box erupted the uncontrollable innovations of science that led to industrialization and the Satanic Mills. It used to be that mankind thought of nature as wild & unpredictable and of society as tame & stable. But the industrial revolution made society seem far more out-of-control than nature. Entire landscapes were transformed within decades into behemoths of factories and slums.

Another contradiction within the Left owed to the conflict between truth and freedom, between truth and justice, and between justice and freedom. If Reason could lead to the truth, should all people be forced to commit to the truth? Or should people be free to be wrong-headed? If Reason proves there is no God, should all people be coerced to be atheist(as in communist nations) or should they be allowed to worship in the name of freedom of worship/conscience?
If Reason can lead to the truth, shouldn’t it be forced on all the people as good medicine or mind-vaccine for immunity against falsehood?

Those in favor of freedom argued that the Truth, even if based on Reason, could turn out to be false, i.e. while Reason is invaluable, it is hardly infallible, as many scientific assertions turned out to be false or even fraudulent, not least in the field of nutrition that once pushed margarine over butter.
Indeed, the Power could monopolize and misuse Reason. Communists claimed that Marxism is ‘scientific-materialist’? Today, many people say Global Warming is irrefutable and even go so far as to say those who reject the idea should be silenced, fined, and even imprisoned. Cass the Ass Sunstein once wrote that Global Warming rejecters should be treated like ‘Holocaust Deniers’. (Of course, Holocaust Studies are less history than dogma, as those who rationally question certain aspects of the event are canceled or worse.)

Then, there is the conflict between truth and justice. Many so-called Progressives, especially Jews, worry that the evidence of racial differences, even if verifiable and increasingly irrefutable, is true, it should be denied and suppressed because it might be bad for society. In other words, maintain the Noble Lie. Because something as evil as Nazism was based on the theory of racial differences, these ‘Justicist’ Progressives believe even the truth must be silenced IF it is ‘bad’ for society.

But then, the dissenters may argue that truth is a form of justice in and of itself, whereas Falsehood, especially if willful, is the very seed of evil. Even if a given falsehood isn’t evil per se, an order based on Falsehood invariably leads to evil. Also, the evil of Nazism owed not to racial science per se but to FALSE racial science. The Nazi view of the Russo-Slavs-as-subhuman was nonsense.
And, slavery existed independent of racial ideology. It’s been around for 10,000 yrs, and most slavery existed within the mono-racial framework, i.e. blacks enslaved blacks, yellows enslaved yellows, whites enslaved whites, and etc. It was only beginning in the 17th century that a form of slavery based on one race enslaving another became a major phenomenon(due to the Spanish subjugation of Meso-Americans and the Atlantic Slave Trade).

Most troubling of all is that something far worse than Communism and National Socialism threatens to undermine the West: It’s the False God of anti-race-ism. (By race-ism, I mean belief in the reality of race and racial differences. If -Ism means belief, then race + ism should mean belief in the validity of race as a human category.) Unless white folks wake up to the fact that races are different and that black race is especially dangerous, the West will be destroyed. The current EU is under the PC spell that black Africans are either white people with black skin or magical creatures who fill the West with vibrancy and exuberance.

In fact, blacks are less intelligent, more aggressive, more muscular, and bigger-donged. Blacks in Africa can hardly maintain a semblance of civilization in their own countries, and in large enough numbers they are destined to turn much of Europe into One Big Detroit.
While European Communists and National Socialists did a lot of damage, they still maintained civilization. The blackening of Europe will mean the end of civilization. Rapping and Twerking ugabugans will turn all of European culture into ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh booty’. And as stronger and tougher blacks will kick the white man’s arse, white males will be cucked and devoid of manhood while white wombs are Afro-colonized. This is the biggest threat facing Europe, but the demented theory of justice at the core of PC and ‘wokeness’ has brainwashed most white people that it is ‘evil and racist’ to wake up to the reality of race and racial differences.

And then, there is the contradiction between justice and freedom. In the US, many people believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of association. They want the freedom to say whatever is on their minds and to associate with people they prefer. This is not a matter of truth but of freedom.
But the leftist theory of justice argues that such freedoms will lead to ‘hate speech’ and hurt feelings. It may also lead to ‘exclusion’ of certain groups. Surely, many whites moved to the suburbs to seek refuge from urban Negroes gone wild due to the BAMMAMA Factor — Blacks Are More Muscular And More Aggressive. Those in favor of freedom believe that whites have a good reason for avoiding dangerous black areas. But the current Leftist theory of justice regards blacks as sacred beings who are victims of ‘discrimination’. In fact, the problem is not so much that whites discriminate against blacks but that blacks crime-hate against whites and others.

The Left unleashed the struggles for truth, freedom, and justice, but the three are often conflicted and act like the Three Stooges. In the media and academia, Justice is like Moe, Freedom is like Curly, and Truth is like Larry.
Another problem with Leftism is one man’s freedom is another man’s subjugation. The West’s voyages of discovery around the world were spectacular and opened up vast new horizons not only for the West but for humanity as a whole. But they also led to invasions of other civilizations or tribes and eradication or enslavement of entire peoples. The animated movie MOANA ends with an anti-conservative message that celebrates the spirit of exploration & discovery and leaving one’s old homeland behind, but what might happen if these adventurers come upon another island inhabited by another tribe? Archaeology tells us that it usually led to violent confrontations.

Anyway, why is the unfettered use of reason so problematic in certain quarters in regards to particular issues. Reason is generally effective absent the restraints on the nature of inquiry and discourse; rapid advances in sciences and technology owe to unrestricted research and experimentation. Physicists, chemists, and biologists(as long as they avoid the issue of race) can pursue any project.
To be sure, the examples of Enron and Theranos show that even those involved in science and technology can be hamstrung by considerations of power and profit. Elizabeth Holmes reportedly fired anyone who dared to confront her about the fraudulence at her company. And of course, even in cases of real scientific research, the discoveries could be used to make the atom bomb or bio-weapons: The power of reason weaponized to serve political agendas, the story of mankind since the invention of the spear and the bow-and-arrow.

It’s been said that mathematicians were one group that was totally free in communist nations as their expertise had nothing to do with ideology. That said, every order is held together by certain myths. Even when existing myths are removed as morally tainted, they are replaced by new ones. There is a sense that a community, especially a complex political order, cannot be held together by truth, freedom, and justice alone. The problem is that Truth has a thousand faces; Freedom can mean a million different things; and Justice differs from group to group, individual to individual.

Therefore, a nation is held together by a unifying myth, a Narrative consensus, and a shared veneration of certain sacred symbols. Such lends shape, structure, and limits to the idea of truth, freedom, and justice.
For instance, the Cult of Holocaust fixates Truth with the nobility of Jews and the evil of ‘Anti-Semites’. And it limits public and political freedom to those who wouldn’t dare to offend Jews. Because Jews as the Holy-Holocaust-People are sacred, freedom that offends Jewish sensibilities shall be punished. And justice is defined as making things more comfortable for Jews. Since Jews are holy, the highest form of justice is one that pleases the Jews the most.
The other holy symbols in the US are MLK Cult and Homomania. So, freedom that offends blacks is a non-starter. And truth must conform to the nobility of blacks, especially those of the Civil Rights Era. And justice must be about massaging Negro ego because blacks are sacred. And then, there are the Holy Homos.

Reinforcement of the myths leads to a mytho-mechanism within the mind. Mytho-mechanics plant tripwires in the mind, thus limiting the free flow of Reason. The overall effect is akin to that of electric fences, cattle-prods, mines, and booby-traps. Reason is made to tread carefully or think twice about venturing into certain areas or stating certain views.
If you need to cross the field to pick the fruits, you will likely choose the shortest(and most logical) path. But suppose you discover the field is laden with mines and booby traps. Suppose an electric fence make a straight path hazardous. Suppose wild dogs obstruct the path in certain areas.
In Franz Kafka’s THE CASTLE, the seemingly short trek to the destination takes forever because of the obstacles, subtle and not-so-subtle, that stand in one’s way. And in Andrei Tarkovsky’s STALKER, the eponymous character steeped in the myth of the Zone insists on a convoluted and meandering journey to the Room. And there is no simple way back to Kansas in THE WIZARD OF OZ where dream-logic traps Dorothy in mythic witchcraft. And in CLOVERFIELD, it takes seemingly forever to cover a few blocks in NY because of all the complications stemming from the crisis.

The same kind of dynamics operates in the minds of so many Western folks. Their psyches have been so deeply mytho-mechanized with a set of iconography, idolatry, and narrative that their Reason cannot go from point A to point B in a straight line. They must go around and around to get there. Many never get there and end up back in point A. Some dread to tread through certain thought-zones out of fear. They’d either been admonished for thought-crimes or witnessed others who were destroyed for having expressed them.

But for many, it has less to do with conscious fear than with the Glow and the Tripwires. Even if you or someone you know has never been censured for being politically incorrect, the mytho-mechanics in your mind undermine your propensity for Reason. Having certain idols & icons and sacro-narratives lodged in the crevices of your mind means that your thought processes will trigger certain tripwires that will alter the flow of your thoughts and their outcome. Think of a pinball machine or pachinko. Why do balls operate differently from machine to machine? Because the arrangement of obstacles is unique with each machine. Supposing the ball is a metaphor for thought, it bounces around differently within the panel or board depending on the placements and sizes of the bumpers and spinners. So, even if the objective of the thought-ball is to go straight to the Occam’s exit of conclusion, it may take some time to get there because the bumpers, ramps, spinners, and flipper bats do everything to keep the thought-ball on the board. As Jews have control over the media and academia, they get to play the pinball wizard with our minds. Our thought-balls are complicated by those obstacles and ‘trips’. As we are connected to electronic media day in and day out, it’s like there’s a Jew Wizard in our minds to hit the flipper bats to keep the thought-ball from making it to the out-hole.

So, let’s consider some examples of how these tripwires work inside the mind. Because of the traps and alarms within the mind, it’s tricky for certain observations and ideas to reach satisfactory conclusions. Instead, thought processes often find themselves halting and praying before altars of holiness between traipsing around the cursed objects of taboo.
D.W. Griffith, for instance, is one of the most important film-makers ever. His THE BIRTH OF A NATION revolutionized cinema. He should be honored as one of the absolute giants of movie history, and he used to be lionized even by scholars and film critics who were critical of his views on politics and race. But PC planted such powerful traps in the minds of the mavens of culture that NO ONE now wants to go anywhere near THE BIRTH OF A NATION. It is almost never mentioned among the absolute greatest films even though its importance is up there with BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN.

In contrast, a film as worthless as JEANNE DIELMAN is now highly esteemed because ‘intellectual’ minds have been planted with the sacred icons of Jewishness, homo-lesbianness, feminism, and Marxism(or at least ‘cultural marxism’). So, even though JEANNE DIELMAN is quite possibly the worst film ever made, plenty of shallow cinephiles get on their knees and offer prayers to Chantal Akerman’s pile of crap because it’s aglow with those holy-schmoly signifiers. By golly, she was a Jew, a lesbian, a Marxist, and a feminist. Wow, just wow.

An honest mind would recognize Griffith as a giant and THE BIRTH OF A NATION as a great work even if some of its history is shoddy and simplistic. After all, cinephiles have no trouble defending BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN even though the film is a historical fantasy filled with crude caricatures of eeeeeeevil reactionaries. For all that, it is a stunning work that illustrates the power of montage.
Apparently, there’s no problem with recognizing the artistic merit of a Soviet film(despite communism’s bloody history and the fact that classic Marxist theory has fallen out of favor among Progs) because there is still the Cult of Leftism as a radical commitment to Good Intentions.

In other words, despite communism’s crimes and ultimate collapse, it’s still deemed a Noble Failure. There’s also the myth that the Revolution might have turned out differently IF Leon Trotsky or someone like him(especially a Jew) had beat out Josef Stalin. Thus, there are no tripwires against radical leftism and communism in the minds of academics and cinephiles.

If anything, altars to radical leftism are planted in the minds of many in academia filled with bitter commissar types(whose main gripe is that their business-minded peers do better in life). Despite or especially because of their relative privilege(of careers producing nothing of real worth), they play the roles of armchair radicals, if only to convince themselves that they are with the Cause.
It’s like those educated bourgeois-hipster Latin Americans who prioritize their positions and privilege but wax romantic about Che Guevara. It’s like the rich noblemen through the ages who lived for power and wealth but postured as Good Christians with golden crucifixes around their necks.

Our mental pinball machines are set in such a manner that D.W. Griffith goes neglected while a phony like Chantal Akerman is praised as one of the all time greats. It got even more comical with the near universal hyperbole over nonsense like THE LAST JEDI and BLACK PANTHER. Whenever the thought-ball bumps into Diversity or Sacro-Negro, the mind lights up with holy radiance. Criticality vanishes and makes way for mindless hosannas. Today’s pinball pinheads are so screwy that they awarded the Best Picture prize to a movie about a woman humping a fish-man because it’s supposed to be about Open Borders, Diversity, and Interracism.

Consider some other examples of how the tripwire of the mind works, the effect being the most potent when associated with figures of iconic value and taboos. Take the Jews. Our minds have been pinball-machined with icons of the Holy Holocaust and taboos of ‘antisemitism’. So, when we think ‘Jew’, our mind lights up with the Holy Holocaust glow. We think of Anne Frank and SCHINDLER’S LIST where a Jewish elder is played by ‘Gandhi’(Ben Kinsley). Our minds are overcome with goody-good feelings about Jews. If our thoughts and feelings turn negative about Jews, our thought-ball trips the ‘Anti-Semitic’ wire, and alarm bells go off. We feel a sudden rush of self-doubt and fear that, “Oh my, am I an ‘anti-Semite’ or a Nazi?” This mechanism affects our thoughts about Jews 24/7.

For instance, take the current problems with Russia. Any honest person knows it’s about the Jews. Jews hate Russia because it forestalled the complete takeover by Zion following the dreadful Yeltsin era. Jews also hate Russia because it said NO to the Jewish Proxy Neo-Religion of Homomania and instead revived Orthodox Christianity. Jews hate Russia because it developed close relations with nations like Iran and Syria that are loathed by Israel. Even though Russia has close ties with Israel and is good to its own Jewish population, Jewish power-lust isn’t appeased as it must have it all. That is why Jews created all this problem with Russia. And with the Ukraine War, there may be no going back for Russia and World Jewry, now locked in a life-and-death struggle.

Our thought-ball should go directly from the entrance to the obvious exit, but instead, it bounces and rattles around the board because Jews have planted our minds with sacred cows and taboos. Whenever one of our thought-balls senses something negative about Jews, it bumps into obstacles that sound the alarm ‘anti-Semite, anti-Semite’, and our minds fear to ‘go there’ and instead goes elsewhere. So, even though Jews are most responsible for what’s wrong with the world, most people would rather not discuss the Jewish role in any of this. They’d rather blame the ‘left’, which is like blaming black crime on ‘teens’. (Never mind the so-called ‘left’ of the Democratic Party is just as slavish to ultra-rightwing Israel as the GOP is.)

Now, some people are consciously aware of Jewish power and fear it for obvious reasons. Donald Trump surely knows all about Jewish Power. He knows he has to kiss Jewish arse even when Jews kick his arse. Vladimir Putin knows this too. They both know the world is ruled by the Empire of Judea that can make or break nations. So, even as they do things that displease the globo-homo Jewish overlords, they dare not go all-out to naming the Jewish Power and dealing honestly with the JQ or the Jewish Question.
And, many more people don’t name the Jewish Power because their minds have been pinball-machined into worshiping Jews and hating anything counter-Jewish as ‘antisemitic’ or ‘Nazi’.

And the same goes for the blacks and homos, two other groups that have been sanctified and taboo-ized. They are showered with sacral blessings and shielded by powerful taboos. So, most Americans feel good about themselves when they harbor nice and fuzzy feelings about Negroes & Homos but feel bad when negative feelings arise.

These tripwires of the mind undermine rationality because our thoughts fail to go straight from observation to conclusion. Too often, the thought process comes to a halt while one’s inner-self kneels before the Holy Negro or Holy Homo, akin to Christians making a sign-of-the-cross as they pass the main altar. Furthermore, the thought process triggers alarm bells if any negative feelings about Nasty Negroes or Hysterical Homos arise. The tripwires reinforce the notion that Negroes are the MLK-people like the Mountain-Sized Negro who loves a little white mouse in GREEN MILE and that homos are ‘rainbow’ angels. Negroes and Homos being so sacred and special, how dare our minds entertain any negative thoughts about them, which is tantamount to sacrilege, akin to Muslims having bad thoughts about Allah and Muhammad.

So, even when blacks act badly, our minds pretend otherwise and just sweep the facts under the rug. It’s the truth that black students get suspended more because of their unruly behavior. But in virtually all public discussion, reason dares not go straight from observation to conclusion because the pinball-machined minds trigger so many alarm-bells that cry ‘racism, racism’. So, the thought-balls bounce around in search of alternative explanations as to why black kids get suspended. It must be the lingering ‘racism’ in schools than evolution in Sub-Saharan Africa that selected for jungly bunner traits of hollering, ass-shaking, jiving, and apelike antics.

Evolutionary Momentum in black Africa came to favor the jivers for two reasons. Africa was filled with big dangerous wild animals, and Negroes had to be tough warrior-hunters to survive. So, the toughest fellers were favored by evolution. Being tough, they not only had tough sons but wild bitches for daughters whose idea of womanhood was shaking their jungle-booties to attract muscle and dong.

In contrast, the Ice Age in Europe favored the kind of people who calmed down to cooperate better. As it was frigid up north, white folks wouldn’t have survived by burning up their calories by shaking their buns and dongs all night long. Besides, exposing one’s body parts would have led to frostbite, gangrene, and a painful death.

Another factor that tamed the DNA was agriculture. As it produced surplus food and stable settlements, the hunter-warrior came to be less favored. Also, the system eventually came to weed out the overly aggressive and antisocial as there was a need for order and consensus among a large population living in settlements. There had to be more cooperation, which meant jive-ass behavior was looked down upon.

Because black Africans didn’t go through the Ice Age and instead lived in primitive conditions in proximity with big dangerous animals that hated Negroes more than anything — African animals were the first ‘racists’ who saw the Negro for what he be, a jive-ass punk who be chucking spears all over — , their genes were selected for hunter-warrior abilities.

Also, there’s an avalanche effect in evolution. Once a certain people come to value certain traits as special, they(consciously or unconsciously) keep pushing for those traits to become more pronounced. So, what began as natural selection turns into a social selection of DNA. Once primitive black tribes began to favor proclivities associated with ass-shaking and dong-swinging, black evolution accelerated in that direction to make dong-booty-centric behavior even more pronounced.
Also, if some human communities value a wide range of human characteristics — the Ancient Greeks valued everything from intellect to athletics to aesthetics to creativity — , some human communities come to favor a few traits above all else. With black tribes, the Evolutionary Momentum came to fixate on ‘muh dick’ and ‘muh booty’ and ‘chuck a spear at hippo’ and ‘run like a mothafuc*a’.
And Jews came to fixate on prophetic thinking and profiteering. Then, it’s no wonder that black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews evolved so differently from one another. Jews are the ‘happy merchants’ who own the media and sports franchises. And blacks are the athletes who play on the teams, kick butt, and hump da ho’s.

Evolutionary Momentum accelerated the developments of different traits among Jews and blacks. While the world of black Africans naturally favored the tough hunter-warriors while the world of Jews favored the scholars and merchants, the conscious obsession with those traits-as-preferable made them develop in an even more pronounced manner. So, not only were tougher blacks favored by selection but the African village came to obsess about the tough guys with the dongs and the biatches with the buns to attract the big boys. Sub-Saharan African culture came to be centered on contests as to which guys can chuck spears and swing their dongs and which women can shake their booties and ‘twerk’ like baboons. So, ‘blackness’ was favored not only by the natural environment but by the culture that obsessed over oogity-boogity.

In contrast, the Evolutionary Momentum came to favor the Big Think and Big Money among the Jews. Consider Jews vs Chinese. Chinese were also adept at business, but the culture looked down upon merchants. So, traits associated with trade were not favored by Chinese culture. Even though Chinese merchants made good money and had mor