Answer

Hello,
Thank you very much.
I read the article. Interesting, although the indications of deceit do not seem entirely conclusive to me. That is a serious accusation, and I’m not sure that as a judge I would convict him. Maybe you’re right, but I’m not sure.
Beyond that, even if you are right, I don’t think Descartes the rationalist acted against the principles of rationalism. Rationalism as a philosophical position is the opposite of empiricism, but the question of integrity remains open on both sides. A rationalist can be honest or dishonest, and an empiricist can be honest or dishonest.
It is true that a rationalist is more inclined to think that his truths are certain, and sometimes to reject observations and facts in their favor. But by the same token, empiricists too can suffer from similar failures. For example, seeing observation as the whole of reality, and everything that is not observational as speculation (logical positivism).
I hold a moderate rationalist position, according to which reason is indeed a means for knowing the world (and not only observation), but its conclusions or assumptions are not certain. They absolutely need to be combined with observations, and neither of these two tools is absolute. I have elaborated on these topics in many places, and here I am only making a brief comment.
All the best, good luck,