For years, a meme has been promoted by institution-occupying liberals who pretend to be “political scientists”: liberals care about fairness, whereas conservatives value authority and purity. At face value, the idea seems to be only that liberals and conservatives are different political tribes, who love and value different things.
The meme, however, has an important implicit content. It could be summed up this way: liberals are enlightened, conscious of universal values, have a wider range of feelings and experience, and are more “humane.” They are more intelligent and more fully human. Conservatives, on the other hand, are narrow-minded, more partial, more selfish and less intelligent. Strangely, liberals have no problem using IQ and SAT scores to cast themselves as superior whereas they spent decades shrieking at them and partially outlawed them when they indicated racial differences.
The meme has been repeated countless times on institutional outlets. A MSM outlet used it to dwell on how to manipulate Trump voters into espousing liberal sympathies through a narrative supposed to take their moral preferences into account. There are studies backing the idea, yet they are mostly if not only drawn up by liberals who steer their respondents where they want to through clever questions. The idea goes completely in the sense of typically liberal ideas, worldview and values-judgment: it is too perfectly liberal to be true.
Are liberals caring more about justice and fairness?
First of all, what is justice? In the academia, Plato or Aristotle’s classical answers tend to be considered as little more than a formality before entering into modern-leftist theories, mostly inspired by utilitarianism or John Rawls. These are well tucked into the usual narrative. Utilitarianism goes along with an abstract, rootless view of individuals, is used as an excuse for managerialism—as the great calculators are supposed to know how you can contribute to the “greater good” more than you do—and “widening the circle”—reshaping your identity and social norms whether you want it or not.
Allegedly against utilitarianism one can find John Rawls’ moral theory, which uses a different procedure but also goes along with abstract individuals and special policies for whoever gets acknowledged as “unprivileged.” As for virtues, they are scarcely considered aside perhaps as an enabler for modern-Leftist theories.
No matter if you choose “socialist Aristotelianism” with (((Martha Nussbaum))), “anti-specist”—a fancy word for vegetarian—utilitarianism with (((Peter Singer))), or another of the officially available brands, all accept the same dogmas from the start and lead to the same conclusions. Namely, to “social justice” as the left appropriated the notion, to a stance that goes well with liberal feel-goodism and pro-“minorities” stance.
Behind the brands, “justice” in the SJW-stolen academia means pushing their narrative, taking more from the dispossessed majority, excluding and disenfranchising it evermore, rewriting history so that our ancestors who built, created and sustained pretty much everything in the West are either cast as villains, omitted as creators, or reframed as mere predecessors of leftism.
Of course the seemingly abstract, vernacular-riddled theories of justice that are taught in the academia are never confronted to reality outside of the narrative. Said reality is only evoked through omissions and distortions. When these are hard to do, reality is dismissed as “their worldview”—non-leftists are the real Other these days—reduced to ridiculous theories. If you want to “explain Trump vote”, why don’t you just ask voters?
Many whites have noticed how they were led to work more for less, to throw themselves into a tiresome competition that was designed for them to lose, and were hated by “minorities” unless they went SJWs themselves. This is a very common observation amongst people who perceive outside of the blue pill.
Former workers, former nice guys, legitimate heirs of the Western civilization… are deprived, defamed and sidetracked. Simultaneously, urban minoritists go power cultish, MSM drove into their own hysteria, Hillary clearly showed how greedy and careless she was, and the wealthy, powerful liberals boast about running or reshaping the world, no less. Where are justice or fairness here?
Theories appear mere tools in their deadly power plays. To know about justice, throw John Stuart Mill, Rawls and all the official garbage literature aside—read Plato and Aristotle instead.
Are liberals more sympathetic?
Leftists want very much to believe so. They portray themselves as caring about the fashionable victims of the day and love to point out how self-absorbed “the wealthy” are, how “repressive” patriarchs were, or how “autistic” the alt right would be. Curiously, they have no problem stigmatizing people who were born with autism, and will shift from mocking the ten-year-old Barron Trump to celebrating the allegedly Aspie icon Mark Zuckerberg if called out for their callousness.
Liberals may be sometimes truly sympathetic, but their sympathy is by no way universal or based on explicit rules. The so-called bleeding hearts have a very selective and arbitrary policy. I remember a time when the Che was cool and South America fashionable, because of all the revolutionaries there, but now the whole thing has fallen out of fashion and I know of bourgeois bohemians who despise the poor and middle classes south of Mexico.
Liberals “love” unwomanly women and have no problem with propelled careerists telling people to vote them merely because they have a vagina but will choose that, say, Marine Le Pen does not represent feminism women. Liberals will grant pussy passes but harm their own children because they see them as too white, “privileged” or guilty of being born with balls.
The same craziness can be found in girls shrieking for their “right” to kill their own children with the taxpayers’ forced help, or in these women who, instead of being caring and nurturing as their own nature wants to, turned into self-absorbed capitalists managing their social capital. Ayn Rand wouldn’t have gone that far in her lack of kindness.
On the other hand, only the dissenters, those made evil by the System, show kindness and warmness towards the dreaded white-cishet-male-this-and-that. And we know of the hypocritical, uncaring, double-faced leftist authority. No, liberals are definitely neither sympathetic nor caring outside of their own virtue-signalling shows. If they had a heart, they would care about us instead of giving passes to invaders and criminals.
Do conservatives care more about loyalty?
Plausibly, both purported political tribes are loyal although not to the same things. Liberals have a sense of loyalty and identification to their own party, to the “cultural” institutions they took over, to their ideology, to their networks. Confusing their own minoritists with the social categories these pretend to embody, they have often accused of “false consciousness” or stupidity by those belonging to these categories yet refusing to worship minoritarians.
There is also a lot of liberal hostility to those who were once liberals then joined a non-liberal party—no matter how obedient to leftism this party actually is—or took their independence. As a friend of mine once said, the left looks for traitors whereas the right courts converts.
Conservatives, of course, have their sense of loyalty too. In a normal society, this should be a quality, not an euphemism for “ha, you inferior chauvinist!” However, I would contend that genuinely prosocial conservatives should sense loyalty for something else than Founding Fathers, a flag that separates them from other whites, purported rights or fuzzy values.
Also, more than a few conservatives have a very real loyalty to leftist values, which is why they make such ridiculous efforts to pander to “minorities” and suffer when tagged “racists”: they really want not to be “racists” but considered respectable by culture-controlling leftists. Ultimately, these conservatives should understand that leftist pseudo-values have been tailored to disenfranchise them—or they will remain dominatrix-worshipping cucks indefinitely.
Does anyone still care about individual rights?
Some libertarians, scattered between conservative niches and remote corners of the Internet, still do. Others have understood that the very framework of abstract individuals and rights is but a fiction and that what is going on is something else: a battle between two mighty powers, the system-controlling left that radicalizes itself all the time, and we the people who keep struggling for our survival against the Hydra.
Abstract individualism has always been used for political ends—from destroying throne and altar in the eighteenth century to anti-white, misandric, family-phobic “social justice” now. True individuals always come from particular families, have a specific temperament, a sex, a race, and at least for some a particular calling.
“Rights” bestowed to individuals no matter who and what they are is more of an absurdity than of an ideal, and the left itself stopped pretending to believe in this as it was working tirelessly to deny us any right. Believing the Hydra should be tolerated or kept alive because “free speech” seems misplaced loyalty and idiocy. Fortunately, righters have been pushing well beyond this obsolete scheme.
The polar opposites have shifted
Thomas Sowell famously theorized that liberals had an “unconstrained” mindset. Liberals would be more unrealistic but also more creative and able to perceive potentialities, whereas conservatives would be “constrained”, thus more prudent but more limited. Now, what we are going through is the exact opposite.
Liberals have stiffened into their own anti-white, anti-male radicalization. Many of them have become unable to think about their SJW box, spouting pseudo-sophisticated sneers wherever they go, and drowning into hysteria if their pretension is exposed. We on the other hand benefited from being deprived of the cucks’ hobnobbing with Democrats, and having much less to lose or fear, we’ve been able to go past the Leftist engineered walls.
We are the side of potentialities, of creativity, of experimentations. We have much less means and firepower than liberals, for they are the system. We are also those whom liberals should consider valuing less—not more—authority, as they pretend to cultural and normative authority and cannot stand serious criticism.
Justice is ours. Fairness is ours. “Social justice” as they have come to use it is a monstrous illusion, an ideological bludgeon borne out of the sheer will to destroy the creators and sustainers of the Western civilization.
Liberals have an impressive intellectual and metapolitical history, although acknowledging the second aspect already implies a critical perspective from their dogma that drifting leftwards equals “progress.” Yet they undermined themselves through arrogance, hysteria, ideological stiffness and intolerance, and denying realities dozens of millions of Westerns go through daily. We can ground ourselves on both the reality principle and creativity to flip all their vacuous talking points and expose them.