Politics

The Myth That Liberals Are More Fair And Less Authoritarian Than Conservatives

105 Comments

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

“Yeah, we’re all about care and fairness, only conservatives are all about authority. Now SHUT UP AND RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!”

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.

Read Next: 5 Cultural Milestones Where Leftists Assume Zero Responsibility For Their Choices

105 thoughts on “The Myth That Liberals Are More Fair And Less Authoritarian Than Conservatives”

  1. Virtue signaling lies at the heart of it. Most liberals are govmt employees, welfare cases, in college or young. They are insulated from personal responsibility. As such, they can point fingers, make more demand from those who are responsible, curry favor with the “oppressed “, all to justify their existence as somehow a good thing.

    1. By having the government take money from people, and redistribute it, they can feel good for next to nothing.
      Conservatives, when they want to be altruistic, spend their own damned money.

        1. “People think Gandhi accomplished so much with all his nonviolent rhetoric, his sit-ins and peace protests. No, it was none of that. It was the smell. The man constantly smelled of old, ripe, curry-laced diarrhea. He utterly reeked of it, like a little noxious, nauseating cloud of curry ass funk that followed him around. People would do anything to get him to go away — anything. And that’s the story of how Gandhi’s nasty, curry-stank ass freed India from British rule.” — Pluto (Plato’s gay little brother).

    3. Jim let’s not forget to add tenured college professors to the list. As you point out these classes are in many ways insulated from responsibility, but especially by the fact that they don’t have to compete on the free market for their livelihood. Once these non-essentials who “work” for a living (and I use that term very loosely) are hired into in a big bureaucracy, they dig in like a tick on a dog. They essentially don’t have to do much to keep their “job”, which leaves them plenty of time for activism, virtue signalling, blog posting, etc.
      Consequently, when I post a comment that suggests we reduce taxes, cut government, restore individual liberty and let the free market work, they scream bloody murder. It’s the same with huge corporations. They get fat, lazy and don’t want to compete. When you speak up and tell them that free market competition and individual liberty are good for the economy and for society as a whole, it’s no surprise they not only go on the defensive, but openly attack you. Parasites almost never willingly dislodge from their host, they must be removed by force.

    4. The problem with the term “virtue signalling” is that it implies that there actually is a modicum of virtue in modern “liberal” values – there is none.

    5. They are also union members and they have plenty of government sponsored organisms to protect them. It means they can express whatever they want and are still protected. With time, I notice most of my conservative friends work in the private sector. I’ve even know a business owner who got threatened by a boycott if he did not shut his mouth and he had too, and his case is not unique.

    6. Many leftists want a society where there are no consequences for bad behavior and poor choices.

  2. I hereby call for the retirement of the nonsense words “liberal” and “conservative.” Both are meaningless, now.
    Of the two, “conservative ” is the most meaningless in my opinion, because it does not describe any kind of philosophy or opinion. Literally any perspective can be considered conservative. The most strident communists of Stalinist Russia were “conservative.” The most luxuriously deluded theocrats of ISIS are “conservative.” It describes nothing about core beliefs, only one’s orientation towards a paradigm. Similar criticism applies to the term “liberal,” but I think the examples are less colorful.
    The only meaningful terms that I would apply towards political ideology in the current year are “authoritarian,” and “libertarian.” These are not descriptions of attitudes towards an existing philosophy– they are discrete philosophies unto themselves.

    1. If you think about it, liberal was never a good counter for conservative. By the words themselves, they don’t contradict one another inherently – one can conserve liberty, or one can conserve non-liberty; one can fight for new freedoms or conserve the old.
      I would speak of the philosophies that supposedly underlie these groups. The “liberals” are, in point of fact, authoritarian socialists. The “conservatives” are, at least in theory, dedicated to Christian and British political theory (more generally, Western values). This rebranding is essential, for it exposes the totalitarian fascists for what they truly are and takes the West off the back-foot by removing an inherently reactionary label from their position.

      2. So, if we want some terms for these people, we could go with some of the following:
        “Liberals”:
        – Scheming Fascists
        – Screaming Socialists
        – Authoritarian Whiners
        – Black Shirts (to parallel the Brown Shirts)
        “Conservatives”:
        – Western Advocates
        – Individualist Liberationists
        – Political De-escalationists
        – MAGA (hell, not like there’s a good reason to deny it)

      3. “Liberal” was a perfectly good word before it was utterly co-opted by the Communists.

      1. The political spectrum has shifted so far left that anything slightly skewed to the right from the hard left these days is branded ‘Right wing’ in a negative connotation.
        I don’t like to fall into Left/right dichotomy trap. In an ideal world the correct answer is probably somewhere in the middle leaning to the right.

        1. I really like the badassery of the word right-winger. I’d rather identify myself as a right-winger than conservative , nationalist , White Nationalist or such. It’s the least cucked term of all.

    3. Call them what they are, commies! Democratic socialists, leftists, SJWs,progressives, income redistributionists, all the same- dirty commies.

    4. There are always two questions to ask:
      What are conservatives trying to conserve?
      What are progressives progressing to?
      Neither answer is freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

    5. That is quite correct. When we use the term “conservative” it has a popular meaning that has come to be associated with the so-called “right”, but what is it that they are actually “conserving”? Traditional Classical Liberal values like some of the founders espoused? Hardly.
      They seem to be more interested in maintaining a form of republican mercantilism of the mid 19th century (think subsidized rail-roads, canals and protectionist tariffs), the early 20th century takeover of our economy by international banksters, the 1930’s welfare / warfare state and the 1960’s warfare / welfare state. Now, they champion their own brand of free healthcare.
      Modern conservatism seems to be more focused on “conserving” all those things brought to us by the socialists of yesterday than presenting a distinct agenda of their own. Most “conservatives” sell out shortly after arriving at the District of Criminals to preserve their position and power, and never look back. Cuckservatives indeed.

    6. To go further with Liberal, it just means someone who holds liberty as a core value. Thats it. Just about every modern westerner is a “liberal”, so it’s completely pointless to use when discussing sovereign politics.

  3. [Trigger Warning: This Trigger Warning may be uncomfortable to those who despise the concept of Trigger Warnings.]
    I am pleased Big Red has made an appearance here. I am reminded that during my recent involuntary leave of absence, I discovered a way to make her even more repulsive. It was originally meant as an undoubtedly clever reply to an article or other comment that I was sadly unable to make.
    But we can still enjoy her now…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/31165a917f5c1b5e85f2eb881c29c18672ce9b0652936acecf8e11206db47c51.jpg

    2. Porcer, you bastard. And to think I campaigned to get your ban lifted. This is the thanks I get?

      1. Ah yes! I’ve been meaning to have a nice little chat with you and appropriately thank you for the cannibalist necrophiliac thing. Please accept the above as a token of my gratitude!
        (Funny in itself, but the best part was once some people started to think maybe it might be true!)

        1. Oh, my bad. I, uh, must have accidentally, er, confused you with, uh, with someone, er, maybe another poster, or, uh, an article, uh, er, like something I saw somewhere, er, so, yeah. Good talk.

  4. Proof that liberals are more authoritarian and less fair than conservatives is how they make mountains out of molehill situations. For instance, how bad words or “thought crimes” are worse than actual crimes.
    A white family, peacefully sitting at their dinner table, and on the topic of complaining about high black crime rates or occasionally throwing the N-word into their private speak, would be considered a bigger public enemy worthy of god-like scorn than an ACTUAL black criminal robbing a liquor store.
    The punishment does not fit the crime. Liberals will go to great lengths to dox people with right-wing opinions on the internet, and render them jobless and penniless, while defending or censoring actual crimes with actual consequences.

    1. I now believe that liberals have ALWAYS been authoritarian. Have always lied, always distorted, have always been egregious suppressors of speech, have always instigated, etc.
      It’s just that in past decades the left’s image was carefully managed by a professional media class.
      (e.g. in the 60’s we saw policemen using firehoses on blacks but not the reason those hoses were brought out to begin with. But the left wants you to think those hoses were arbitrarily turned on an assembly of blacks minding their own business singing “We shall overcome” )
      But nowadays the left simply no longer has that monopoly over the media.
      And so now, for the first time, we see them in action the way they have always been.
      On YouTube and elsewhere we now see them on the streets acting as the insufferable cretins they always were.

  7. They are masters of projection. They attribute to their enemies all of their greatest faults and failures, and attribute to themselves all good things. They hope that, if they project fast and hard for long enough, they will convince Winston that love is hate and white is black.
    They are able to accomplish this because we have so long failed to fight back. The tide is not easily turned, but we have discovered recently that they’ve gotten soft. They want to push too fast, and they believe that their half-assed rhetoric cannot be overcome.
    As we are learning, they have lost their knack for this game. We are smarter (statistics generally bear this out), we are more numerous, and we are decentralized. CNN crumpled under the weight of a single WWE meme from a pseudonymous nobody online (and again they crumpled under the online backlash at their attempted blackmail).
    Let us create our own killer branding. Let us drive the memes forth. Let us expose them for the liars, terrorists, and sociopathic monsters that they are.

    1. So, basically, on the one side you have men, and on the other side you have women and queers.

      1. lol, women and queers. I remember when it used to be women and children.
        Just imagine what the next remake of the Titanic will be like

        2. I was trying to break it out by who favors sensible policies vs. who prefers Marxism/authoritarian socialism.

        4. The “aloha snackbar”, largest of the post nuclear winter built fleet of the new caliphate, had first class open to muslim men, second class for their goats, steerage for the women, and a large plank off a tall tower for anyone found to be gay. Unfortunately it exploded minutes into its maiden voyage due to a clerical error resulting in the delivery of 500 suicide vests of peace instead of Life jackets.

        5. well I’m sure leo dicaprio will agree to play Sheikh Omar if Kate Winslet is prepared to play favourite goat no. 1

      2. I don’t know about the queers but I do believe that conservatives consistently ignore the primary cause of liberalism…women.
        Not dykes or even feminists per se. Just ordinary everyday women. They can SAY they’re conservatives but who really knows what the do in that voting booth?

        1. Some of my best friends are carpet-munchers. Gaplappers, even. They all vote commie, but when the shit gets thick, they have to come to me. Funny how that works.

    2. The problem is that the projection works socially and facts and reasoning do not work except on the rational thinkers who don’t need to be convinced because they’ve already reasoned it out more times than not.
      Argue facts and they project their evil on you. The best I can do is call them out on their tactics. Calling their projection what it is. This gets me the asshole label but so be it. I won’t get defensive as they want, I will simply point out their tactic and restate the facts and reasoning.

  9. “Liberal”
    They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

    1. The left has commandeered the word “liberal” (just like “gay”) and a whole host of other formerly useful words. I use the term commandeer because we are clearly at war and they weaponize our language in an effort to control the narrative. This is one of their methods of frame control. I routinely turn it around on them by declaring myself a Classical Liberal right before I start in on them about the progressive income tax being theft and conversion, the importance of “freedom of expression” and how the 2nd Amendment protects it, the right of the states to secede, etc.
      I use any inflammatory subject I can to get the particular left-tard I am fencing with to use a straw man argument, a non sequitur or (my personal favorite) an ad hominem attack. But any logical fallacy will work. Then I clearly point out what they are doing, call the subject what it is (“gay” is now “homosexual”, “progressive” becomes “Marxist” or “communist”, etc.) and politely tell them to try again. It is up to each of us to engage them with their own words, turn them back on the commenter politely and reclaim the correct use of our language. That’s usually when they start in with profanity and personal attacks, lol! It makes it clear to whoever is reading our cross posts who the asshole is and the left-tard loses credibility.

  10. ‘Also, more than a few conservatives have a very real loyalty to leftist values,….’
    This does not make sense.
    The writer is using these political terms far too loosely.
    ‘……which is why they make such ridiculous efforts to pander to “minorities”……’
    Ah, now we see.
    This writer doers not understand the basic situation.
    ‘…..and suffer when tagged “racists”: they really want not to be “racists” but…..’
    No.
    This writer is confused in regard to the basics.
    When Decent People are called greedy, racist, callous etc, they stop and reflect. They consider the accusation on it’s merits and, as they are self aware; they know that they MIGHT be wrong in some way.
    This is what the writer confuses with ‘suffering’. It is not ‘suffering’ to consider an accusation against yourself.
    It’s called decency and self respect.
    ‘….considered respectable by culture-controlling leftists.’
    No.
    Completely wrong.
    This is an important mistake by the writer.
    Decent People do not wish to bow before these ‘controlling leftists’.
    Decent People don’t care what THEY (‘controlling leftists’) think of them.
    They care what they think of THEMSELVES.
    They care about racism or equality or whatever because they have a high regard for themselves and never to court ‘public acceptance’ or ‘social capital’.

        2. Windmillsofhismind Ainigmaris Thales • 17 minutes ago
          See above.
          •Edit•Reply•Share ›
          Avatar
          Ainigmaris Thales • 16 minutes ago
          What?

  12. Liberals were fair and nice only when they feel they were getting what they wanted but whenever they found resistance to their ideas Force, Coercion and less than legal practices have always been part of their behavior. Woodrow Wilson routinely resorted to force to achieve his ends. During FDR’s administration Force and Coercion were routinely employed on those who dared question the power of the government to ‘improve’ things even on fellow leftists who dared screw things up and get in the way of the New Ideas, as the left has become more irrational and more reactionary not to mention their whole house of cards has begun to fall apart they have resorted to nothing but Coercion and the judiciary to get what they want. Their base is now the dregs of society, the parasites and reprobates and the unproductive, they don’t care, look at the insanity going on in Venezuala and other Latin American countries south of our border.

  13. Liberals / progressives rarely have a clear idea about what kind of justice they are advocating, namely because it is a kind of justice – social justice – which is antithetical to any common-sense variety of fairness. Ordinarily people think of social justice and individual justice as being entirely compatible, which it may well be in a sane world. However it is only possible to believe this as a liberal / progressive if one fails to see that by social justice one must always think in terms of a redistributive justice between classes, whether women, gays or blacks (etc). This means that although it is rarely acknowledged explicitly the liberal / progressive idea of social justice means something like ‘historical fairness’: an oppressor class dominated, and raped and exploited or whatever, and then a band of justice minded people (useful idiots) came together to lobby for social justice for the oppressed classes. Any concept of individual justice or fairness outside of this schema of historical justice through class struggle (marxism) can exist only in tension (and competition) with it. This is why feminists etc for instance can be completely hypocritical without exploding (for reasons other than cake fatigue): double standards in the here and now, where wimmins get all the good stuff, get priority under the law, special treatment etc … is not unfair because it is (in their hive minds) historically (redistributive) justice.

    1. They are exactly like Muslims. There’s no deviation in the thought process, therefore nullifying supposed diversity.

    2. Both are equally authoritarian. The left is just more vile and more often murderous because it claims its for our own good.

    1. Fuck this Nazi shit.
      1- It gives SJW’s ammunition against the Red Pill movement;
      2- Hitler was part of the problem, not the solution. He was backed by the same fucking Banking system that is making our lives miserable today.

      1. Nothing wrong with standing with your own kind, son. If you refuse to acknowledge your own people then the SJW’s have already beaten you. Besides, the artist here is trolling with style.

        1. You have to be smart about it.
          We’re the good guys. The leftists are the assholes. The tide seems to be turning in our favor as the kooky behavior of the left is turning off the moderates. People posting “Hitler was cool” BS is not helpful (or accurate).

  16. Fascists are scum on either wing, thing is though the left wing fascists are more pathetic, incompetent and have a weird predisposition to hair dye, piercings and compulsive genital mutilation.

  17. I’ve often said this. Liberals and especially SJWs have no argument on anything, because each is hypocritical or circumstance-based. They can never get their little crusades in line to be consistent.
    Not to mention the projection. They are the masters of doing exactly what they accuse others of. It’s the classic “watch my right hand” trick while the left does what it accuses the right hand of doing. Pretty sure this is a mass form of schitzophrenia.

  18. I’m number one on the lefts hit list, white, conservative and especially southern.
    Until the internet came along, I simply was indifferent to the left. They didn’t make any sense to me but, as long they weren’t at my house bothering me I didn’t really care. After I discovered chat rooms, message boards then social media I realized just how much those mother fuckers really hated me for a bunch of things I had nothing to do with. Over time my indifference turned to a loathing for them that I have a hard time describing.
    Almost every hallmark of the left is something that I find to be distasteful if not completely unacceptable.

    1. Lock and load. When shit gets real break out the Rebel Flag and pass the ammunition.

        1. I would tend to agree with you as long as we’re talking about gold and silver money. But paper? No, ammo is far more valuable. In fact, when it comes to protecting your money, no matter what kind, ammo and the means to deliver it are key. So you make a valid point, which is why I’ve been known to trade of quite a bit of paper money for brass, copper jacketed lead and nitro-cellulose. 😉

        2. I will trade paper for ammo in a second. Been known to do to much trading sometimes.

      2. Although I am a strong proponent of and allegedly (by the “left”) an “apologist” for Southern secession, I don’t recommend breaking out the Confederate Battle Flag. You paint a target on your back. Unfortunately the Stars & Bars has been stigmatized by it’s misuse by the vocal few and is now the kissing cousin to the swastika here in the USSA. When the shit gets real, pass the ammunition and break out the ghillie suit…

        2. Agreed. No need to show the enemy where you stand. I’m more comfortable leaving them guessing.

    2. I am in exactly the same demographic as you. Coming to understand what they really think has made it easier for me to ignore them. I just keep my powder dry and go about my business.
      As I have told several “Progressives” who insist on bringing up political matters, “My political philosophy is very simple: I will kill anyone who fucks with me.” That tends to quiet them right down. And then I don’t have to deal with them anymore.

      1. They are continually harping about “stereotyping” but it’s ok if they do it to us. That’s just one of many hypocritical views of the left, everything about them is assbackwards.
        Speaking of the south, it’s so hot and muggy here this morning that simply standing in place will make you sweat.

        1. No fooling. I’m about to go out and start clearing fencelines until it gets intolerable. Which will probably be after about 20 minutes.

        2. Clearing fence lines will be sure to bring out some sweat. I’m spreading fertilizer this morning so I get to ride with the AC going lol

        3. How many acres do you work?
          BTW, I got about 45 minutes into the task this morning before saying “Fuck it.” Old man. Bloody but unbowed.

        4. Zero lol. I work for a fertilizer company. I spread for customers among other things. I don’t even have a garden anymore because I don’t have time to fool with it in the spring and summer, I’m too busy with work.

        5. Sounds okay to me. I don’t have a garden, either. My neighbors feed me well in exchange for tractor work. Or welding, or whatever.

    3. Note how leftists implicitly claim the right to build categories and ratiocinate everything out of them but deny you the same agency. They will lump you together with their wildest dream of “white oppression”, cishetarchy and other stuff, any white person in the past who did something wrong should be enough for you to feel extremely guilty, and yet no Muslim or black now should ever be associated with ISIS, rapists or the like.
      Leftists reconstruct everything in order to have you charged and everyone else acquitted, but don’t dare to ever think for yourself.

      1. They don’t want you to think for yourself so they or government can do it for you.

      2. As I said to one recently, “But how will you bring me another beer while the Somali muzzlers are gang-fucking you?”

  19. The left and right are artificial constructs to divide the people such that they fight each other while heading towards the same goal. They are two forms of authoritarianism that have very little difference beyond their advertising slogans. The slogans attract some people to one and other people to the other. The end result of both is that a parental state has full power to manage everyone’s life and that we serve the collective.
    WRT the idea of individual rights, any disciplined libertarian will find himself attacked by both the left and the right. Because this is the real divide. The rulers and the ruled. The individual and the collective.

    1. America seems to be full of whackjob histrionics of all types who want to feel they’re fighting for something. Who knows what “it” is exactly, or what they would do with “it” if they got it.
      All I know for sure is this probably isn’t the place for me anymore. Hopefully I’ll be able to afford a nice little piece of beachfront property somewhere far away before this lunatic asylum completes its natural evolution into a second world failed state.

      1. America seems to be full of whackjob histrionics of all types
        I’ve considered the same, and figured that it’s a positive feedback mechanism at work. Say, one side does X. The other side responds with X+1. The first side does X*2 in response. The opposition responds with X*3. Then someone thinks up something seemingly clever, but neglects the consequences of committing X*27.
        And here we are in modern America. X now equals 94,584,933,269,432 and everyone forgot long ago what “it” was originally about.

        2. I don’t feel like I need to work my ass off to defend White masculinity. My own belief is that traditional White masculinity is intrinsically appealing for a variety of reasons and there will always be women of all types willing to play for the team. SJWs and blue-haired histrionics can say this and that (well, publicly at least), it may wax and wane in popularity over time, but I don’t think it’s at all in danger of being truly “out of style” any time in the near future. You know, like everyone on ROK or RVF is brand new and never banged a college leftist or hippy feminist chick before.
          I don’t think it should feel like a fight. If you’re living your life right as whatever kind of neomasculine man there should be people practically begging to be on the team. IMO. Real white masculinity doesn’t need a PR firm. The product will sell itself just fine.

    2. Individual rights? Hah! What you’re saying is absolutely correct. When I appeal to the Constitution, limited government, individual liberty and the like I do indeed get attacked by both camps. It would be funny if the brainwashing on both sides wasn’t so bad. If I point out that the so-called “right” supports a warfare / welfare state and wants to preserve a worldwide empire, then I’m un-American for failing to wave the flag and hail the returning body bags. If I say that direct taxation is theft and that redistributing other people’s money is conversion, then I am selfish and don’t want to share what this country has “given” me.
      I even had one response recently that basically stated me getting off my ass, going to work every day and making a good wage based on my skills and experience, was like going to a buffet and filling up my plate. That I needed to pay for that “privilege” and all these services the government provides, because of the “social contract.” I asked him to show me this supposed “contract” with my signature on it. Then I pointed out that the country was supposed to run on imposts, excises, duties and tariffs which are largely avoidable and don’t force anyone to pay for things they don’t agree with. He doubled down trying to claim that the Constitution is the social contract and if I didn’t want to pay income tax I should just move. Frankly from his flaming response I couldn’t tell whether this moron was left or right (or more than likely) some kind of socio-political hermaphrodite.

      1. The social contract is the constitution? Well that’s easily put down by Spooner’s constitution of no authority.
        The right wants a warfare/welfare state and the left a welfare/warfare state but we’re supposed to think they are different.

        1. Man am I ever glad someone else can see that too! It gets tiresome dealing with both sides on the left / right false dichotomy. I equate it to the government coming full circle: The dragon eating its own tail. The “swam creatures”, of whom Trump is one, go to the same restaurants, the same country clubs, rub shoulders in the same cloak rooms and halls of power and even send their children to the same private schools. I put as much stock in a real difference between them as I do the contenders in championship wrestling. It’s a good show, but at the end of the day they are all still on the same tax feeding team. The real conflict is between those of us who are productive and the tax feeder class, from the welfare recipients clear up the politicians.

  21. Um, neither Martha Nussbaum nor Peter Singer are ((())). In the former’s case, Nussbaum is name of her former husband.

  22. While it seems true that liberals are more creative (how many artists lean right?), creativity only gets you as far as your work ethic takes you. And sadly most on the left completely lack the latter.

  23. That graph at the top….the sum of the areas under each of those curves show that conservatives have a greater adherence to all those values, but with different levels of prioritisation.
    Liberals, frankly, don’t just prioritise those values differently, but really, they more or less completely disregard them.

  24. I’ve seen too many leftists who seem to live in their own little fantasy world and who have no idea how the real world works. They want the benefits of a totalitarian/statist society, but they don’t want any of the restrictions on their freedom. They love it when the government gives them other peoples’ money, but they hate it when they are required to follow the law. Socialist/Marxist societies demand that you follow the social norms. You can’t be on the public dole and think that you can run wild.
    I’ve heard radical SJWs say that the government should tax all “rich” people at 90% of their income.
    When you mention that these so-called “evil rich people” are the ones who create jobs and spend money, the SJW gives you the tired line “well the rich aren’t paying their fair share”. Ask them what qualifies as “their fair share” and they don’t have an answer.
    When an SJW says that the government should give everyone wanting to start a business a million dollars, I ask what happens when that business fails, or the owner can’t pay back the loan? The typical answer usually is “well there is more than enough money to go around in this country”.
    When the left whine about “income inequality”, I ask them why should the high school drop out flipping burgers make the same as a doctor who went to school for many years and went into $100,000.00 of debt for their education? They always give me an emotion driven answer such as “we need to take care of the poor”.
    I’ve met too many leftists who want to live in comfort and security at the expense of other people.

Comments are closed.