Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own (

We contend that the inveterate practice of characterizing opponents – be they intellectual opponents, or sentimental/emotional rivals (the sentimental/emotional disposition – and their attendant concerns is subject to the febrile affectation manifest from vagaries accompanying the day-to-day ebb and flow of events…) – is a corollary manifest from rejecting an objective moral order…

In any intellectual discipline, which proposes to offer a view – to those of the particular discipline of consideration – which is contrary to that which is thought to be well established, or accepted, it is generally proposed under the rubrics of the discipline; thus, the “wheel-need-not-be-re-invented.” Presenting the view- in-house – within the discipline, allows for criticism i.e., peer-review, which allows for refutation, correction of errors, and/or refinement of the view. To present a view – out-of-the-ordinary – to the general populace, generally a need to define a number of terms, establish a number of related concepts, arguments, theorems etc. so as to provide enough information to the general public for them to understand that which is being presented for their consideration. What holds in intellectual disciplines, is similarly necessary regarding pedestrian Governmental, political and cultural affairs.

A presupposition of those presenting a contrary, or new, view – before any individual, discipline, group, or nation – is that if the view is controversial, is that – if the presenter is allowed to make his/her/their argument – and if the argument is given a fair hearing – their argument will be tentatively considered by the public… Such is the pipe-dream of the rational mind, and the rationally ordered…

Regularly the word bigotry is ascribed to political enemies; generally, it is a social-political Leftist ascribing bigotry to those which they believe they differ on an issue, generally the one so characterized is on the social-political Right. The ascription is generally issued reflexively (thus, without thought); it is precipitated by the sentiment which animates the social-political Leftist. And sentimentality dominates those which embrace the social-political Left, because those on the social-political Left – knowingly, as in the case of modern philosophers who reduce Philosophy to nihilism i.e., meaninglessness; or, unknowingly, the vast majority of people who have thoughtlessly i.e., with-out-thought, imbibed – cradle to adulthood – the dominant meaningless culture; synthesizing and reducing any objective concept/idea/teaching to the cultural; the result is a soul sentimentally ordered, and one which cannot abide systematic delineated rational arguments…. This then presents us with dichotomy among the social-political Left, viz: 1.) the true ideologues – the intellectual who will engage others in argument (these are übermenschen’s; the over-men a.k.a. leaders) with their intellectual opponents; at least until they begin to be measured i.e., demonstrated as holding sophisticated, albeit vacuous views, they may revert to character assassination, characterize their opponents as bigots and 2.) the üntermenschens (under-men a.k.a., cattle, whom quickly end most tête-à-têtes – with intellectual opponents – by casting aspersions upon the opponent…

The übermenschen’s – having rejected objective reality, objective truth, objective morality, rationality (i.e., God) as chimera’s – additionally reject the dialectical* method generally utilized by those which embrace rational society, and its attendant rational discourse; eristic** replaces dialectic…

* Dialectic, and the dialectical method, presupposed objective truth, objective reality, and objective morality (Note: the dialectician seeks to unveil truth); because of these presuppositions, the dialectician seeks to resolve conflicts on matters controversial by first establishing a common ground with those with which he/she is at logger-heads (often this entails the proponent of dialectic  to allow their opponents to define terms; such definitions are scrutinized – contrasted with other definitions, ideas, concepts and through rational agreement – amended as necessary for logical consistency…), once a common ground is established, and terms are agreed upon, the discourse is constrained by the overriding principles of objective reality with it accompanying attendees objective truth, and objective morality… It is rare to find another – in this sentimental culture – to submit to a dialectical discourse; even those on the social-political Right, often are too egoistically ordered (note: they too are sentimentalists, but are ‘conservative’ in appetites and habits… Thus, many on the social-political Right are somewhat like Fox News, viz: left-of-center, but seems to be on the Right, by contrast with most Leftists…). Recall that the aim of dialectic, and the dialectician, is to unveil the truth…

** In Platonic dialogues, eristic was presented as the opposite of dialectic (Callicles – from the dialogue Gorgias – exemplifies the heuristically ordered; he is a nihilist in practice if not in proclamation); the eristic gives-no-quarter, will not cede a common-ground, will not dispassionately discuss issues, but rather employs character assassination, belligerence, threats or violence etc. Since there isn’t any objective truth or God, the heuristic seeks Power.

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?