Why does the right wing have a reputation of anti intellectualism when the most extreme anti intellectual in history...

Why does the right wing have a reputation of anti intellectualism when the most extreme anti intellectual in history was a left winger?

Bump

Because everyone knows you're on the wrong side of history, like I just can't even... I'm done! Get an education.

Anti-Intellectualism is a good thing tho

How?

Propaganda. Literally propaganda.

this
"intellectuals" produce nothing of value
>b-b-b-b-but muh art and m-m-m-m-muh l-literature
lol fuck off kid

lol if you can't figure it out then you're too stupid to comprehend the answer

because the leftists think they're still the good guys

No, but knowledge and education are weapons to be controlled and used, not left on the ground for others to pick up. Those who beat their swords into plowshares do the plowing for those who didn't.

Anti-intellectualism =/= anti-intellect

Reagan gwb trump

>Why does the right wing have a reputation of anti intellectualism

Because almost all of the information people are exposed to is leftist propaganda now

>let's critically think about this
>oy vey, how am I supposed to make profits off of dis?

>muh propaganda
Not an argument.

Because the right wing is associated with Protestant Christianity, who innately detest logic and critical thinking.

>endless self-fellating intellectual exercises
>"critical thinking"
No

>I don't understand it so I am going to call it self-fellating

No one asks for objective evidence and requires arguments to be based on logic more than intellectuals.

Because the left is merely implementing the logical conclusion of Enlightenment ideals, so of course when people are educated along these lines they reach a sort of liberal political view. Exceptions are bankers/financers (who vote Right for looser regulations and less taxation) and STEM who lack empathy.

And yet when you look to philosophers who wanted a radical break from the path of history, they are right-wing or useful to right-wing thinking: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Deleuze, Ortega, etc.

>wanted pure race
>wanted foreigners out of homeland
>wanted return to glory days of Khmer, golden age of his nation
""Left"" in the sense of sharing literally every political goal with Sup Forumsacks?

Because the word "anti-intellectualism" is a catch all term that Jews coined to describe American goyim who resisted Jewish hegemony over high culture in the U.S., a control which was established in the late 1950's going forward. It doesn't have any intrinsic meaning other than ingroup-outgroup politics. Any goyim who wants to think or work independently of any Jewish influence is technically considered to be "anti-intellectual" according to common use. Most of those people are on the right wing.

>the most extreme anti intellectual in history was a left winger

Pol Pot and the rest of the Central Committee had largely been students at French universities in the 1950s, so I don't know why you would say they were anti-intellectual.

A lot of propaganda came out in the US about Cambodia until 1979 (the propaganda missed mentioned the invasion of carpet bombing of the Cambodia by the US). In 1979 the US began arming Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and fighting in the UN for the KR to keep control of Cambodia's seat in the UN. They made up wild stories about the KR in the mid 1970s, then turned around and began arming them in 1979.

This If you call propaganda intellectualism then critics can be demeaned.
KILLING people who are supposed intellectuals is anti-intellectual.
Questioning the intelligentsia is mandatory.

What about scientific progress?

>when the most extreme anti intellectual in history was a left winger?

He was just a statistical outlier.

Because Jews want to make White right-wingers look stupid, as a pretense to enslave and exterminate our race by making us look worthless and useless.

this

well said brother

>b-b-b-b-but muh art and m-m-m-m-muh l-literature
Good job they did protecting those huh.

>b-b-b-but the kids won't understand Shakespeare unless we dumb down the language.
They would, if you taught it to them.

What scientific progress? Everything already exists cause God created it. It only seem like progress cause dumbasses just barely figure out it exists. No one actually invents anything. The technology we have today is eerily similar to technology that existed several thousand years ago. The only things that changed are the aesthetics.