The left wing have a conception of themselves as good, compassionate and kind. They have compassion for the less well-off, who suffer, while conservative people have no compassion.
What Verhulst et al. found was that being left wing is predicted by being low in agreeableness, low in altruism, low in empathy, i.e., being selfish, low in compassion, and low in conscientiousness – i.e., low in impulse control and rule following, high in neuroticism, mental instability, feeling negative feelings strongly like jealousy and anger, with the feeling that the world is an awful place, and having low self-esteem. Left wingers try to gain self-esteem by claiming to be morally superior and asserting they are left wing in order to seem morally superior. Neuroticism is associated with the feeling that the world is unfair and wrong.
Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and the Five Moral Foundations
1) Care/harm: Ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance. Dutton tends to interpret this as avoiding harm for yourself, especially for narcissists – those wishing to advertise their moral superiority.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
Haidt later acknowledged that “equality” has little to do with fairness, and fairness has more to do with getting your just desserts and proportionality, and thus righteous anger at those who take more than they contribute, or without contributing at all.
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. Feces, rotting bodies, and open sores are disgusting. Sanctity involves the opposite of this.
6) Liberty/oppression added after The Righteous Mind was written.
Chimpanzees have a dominant male who doesn’t contribute much. Humans can use weapons to equalize superior strength. They can also use language to hurt someone through gossip and they can use speech to conspire against the leader. Hunter/gatherers are intensely egalitarian, and will take down anyone who gets too high, too full of himself. Haidt describes it as freedom from oppression and hatred of oppressors, and connects it with a concern about government tyranny. Leftists see inequality as inherently oppressive. The successful must have gained their status through underhanded means – colonialism, glass ceilings, and racial discrimination.
Unconditional love involves a kind of equality; one that ignores pertinent and very real differences of intelligence, character, and abilities. This must be coupled with conditional love that pushes people to develop and grow; to become strong, capable, and self-reliant, one that recognizes the higher and the lower, the better and the worse. Only conditional love is consistent with education. “Equality” cannot distinguish between being literate and illiterate, numerate and innumerate, or whether a slave-owning culture is better or worse than a non-slave owning culture. The logic of naturalistic materialism is leveling; particularly since it cannot accommodate moral realism. So, transcendence is necessary to make striving for Beauty, Truth, and Goodness possible and to provide an intuition of the existence of the higher. The abandonment of beauty by modern culture coincides with the rejection of God.
Ed Dutton in his use of Haidt’s categories conflates fairness with equality, not because he thinks the two are the same thing, but because “equality” is the liberal obsession and is necessary for comparing leftists with conservatives. Equality gets coupled with a desire to avoid hurt feelings that might arise if someone’s superiority were to be acknowledged. Diversity, inclusion, and equity is just another manifestation of the fixation with equality, and the concomitant notion of the equality of outcome, which takes egalitarianism to a new level of pathology. This sickness hit a new height of ridiculousness when the airline Delta announced it would choose its pilots by the DIE criterion instead of by ability. The next step would be to select surgeons by the same method and to refuse to be treated by an élite white male, particularly a Jew (you know, oppressors of Palestinians) even in an emergency. There are some nonpathological applications of fairness as equality, such as the equality involved in, for instance, cutting a cake into equally-sized pieces prior to distribution. Or, perhaps that we are equal in the eyes of God, or before the law, understood as an ideal.
But, the singular obsession with equality, with harm avoidance (hurt feelings), defines the liberal hegemony that took off with a vengeance in the 1960s, with its radical emphasis on individuality rather than concern about the group. There are people whose every political and philosophical utterance can be largely reduced to “leveling;” to deny the existence of the higher and lower, and to see accepting those things as retrograde. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All cultures are equal. Morality is all a matter of perspective. Classical music is not generally aesthetically superior to pop. Men and women are not just equal, but the same, etc.
The claim by Haidt and Dutton is that the right wing are high in all five categories, including the group-oriented foundations.
- Harm avoidance
- Obedience to authority
- Sanctity and holiness
- Loyalty to the In-group
The left wing are high in the two individualistic foundations:
Equality and harm avoidance, and low in group orientation. They are low in caring for others.
This allows a liberal to focus on himself as an individual, and to climb to the top of the hierarchy, the top of the group, rather than focusing on the good of the group. The liberal hates his own group, and uses out-groups, to attack his own group. This phenomenon is called “ethnomasochism.” It could first be seen with Rousseau, who went on to inspire Karl Marx and later left-wing politics.
Leftists promote the cause of blacks, the out group, merely in order to chastise their own group for their self-serving purposes. Studies have found that leftists are no more likely to date or marry someone of a different race than conservatives, nor to have them as friends. They are as likely to look up racist jokes online as conservatives. Virtue signaling leftists have deemed people of color to be powerless and they do not wish to associate with them. They do not go to live among the people of color they supposedly love. Leftists are more patronizing of people of color than conservatives and will address them differently. Conservatives will write the same email for everyone. Leftists do not care about truth or logic, and do not worry about contradictions. Caring about truth is related to the “sanctity” category which leftists do not value. Since Leftists are more Machiavellian and interested in power, they are happy to disregard truth to achieve their goal of self-promotion. Leftists are white supremacists. They spend all their time talking about how powerful white people are. They claim white people control finance. They control the world through imperialism, colonialism, everything. She, the liberal, is white, so this means she is powerful, and that makes her feel good. By attacking her own in-group, using the out-group, she can ascend the white corporate hierarchy by being more anti-white than the next person. Each person ups the ante to be more antiwhite than thou. She can build her career by calling other people white supremacists and attacking people who will not say that they hate white people or Western culture. She will tear society apart and create social division in the process and virtue signal her way to a six-figure salary working for a multinational company as a chief diversity officer, or a lucrative career in HR. Her career will involve throwing members of her own in-group, whites, under the bus and promoting active discrimination against them. She will be a “race traitor.” This is exactly and literally what Wokesters recommend that white people do, using that actual phrase; to pretend an allegiance to the outgroup, while actually being single-minded careerists. It is instinctive to prefer the in-group. But, smart people can use their intellect to override their instincts and persuade themselves to believe something it would be very good for their career to believe. It is possible, for the smart, to self-brainwash once they have determined who seems to be “winning.” They will, of course, alter direction and affiliation as soon as conditions change.
Dutton says, if you are opposed to harm, that will allow you not to want to harm yourself and get to the top of the group by avoiding harm. Believing in equality is self-promoting if you are not at the top of group, you bring everyone down and get to the top of the group that way.
By Chien-An Lin and Timothy C. Bates who studied 251 people.
A desire for relative economic equality is not compassion.
Malicious Envy 0.26
The biggest predictor of wanting economic redistribution is being an angry person motivated by spite, who is envious of those who have more than you do. Therefore, they signal they want economic redistribution.
Selfish – they want what others have.
Neuroticism – they feel malice, anger, and envy. They are jealous of other people.
The neurotic feel negative feelings strongly; more strongly than positive emotions like joy.
Those filled with malicious envy want what other people earn to be taken away so they can individually feel of higher status compared to other people.
Instrumental Harm 0.21
This is the second highest predictor of wanting economic redistribution.
Being in favor of instrumental harm, means being happy for some people to be hurt; to experience pain and suffering for a greater good – and on their view, the greater good is an economic redistribution. This is not compassionate. This is the attitude that allowed farmers in the Ukraine to starve to death. To kill millions of people for the greater good. Their focus on equality leads them to say that it is so unfair that anyone has more than them – which is malicious envy. Utilitarianism, as the corrupt moral theory that it is, actively promotes instrumental harm.
Self-Interest 0. 19
Low agreeableness is equated with not being very nice people. It is to eschew cooperativeness and concern for others’ thoughts and feelings.
Left wing policies and signaling left wing policies allow you to get what you want. You convince yourself that you are left wing because it is in your economic interests to do that. The left wing are high in Machiavellianism and narcissism. They are power hungry. Being narcissists, they think they deserve high status.
As a side note, having millions of people go to college who should not be there, means millions of relatively unemployable people with low literacy skills, etc., who think that they have been unfairly treated. E.g., I have a BA in Women’s Studies. Where is my high-paying job and high social and economic status?
Communal Fairness 0.15
Childlike, neurotic, mind – ‘It’s so unfair.”
Compassion 0.04% – not statistically significant
The left wing are not motivated by compassion at all, says Dutton. They simply signal that they are compassionate. Being narcissists, they want people to think they are great and fantastic. Being Machiavellian they realize that signaling you are compassionate helps you reach the top of the hierarchy.
What happens when left wing regimes come to power? You might expect a highly compassionate regime, highly focused on fairness and equality, with very high levels of social mobility, as everybody is the same and are pushed into being the same, for the poor to become relatively richer, for the richer to become relatively poorer. This paper looks at upper class surnames that tend to end in “y” in Hungary, which is associated with an aristocratic heritage. Conversely, Roma are the poorest group in Hungary.
1949-1989 – Communism existed in Hungary during these years.
1989-2017 – Capitalism took over after that.
Nothing changed. The heritability of socioeconomic status is between 0.6 and 0.8 in both regimes. Gregory Clark in The Son Also Rises: Surnames and the History of Social Mobility studied England and inherited socioeconomic status from the Medieval Period until 1950 and found the same phenomenon. Inherited social status remained the same, at 0.7. In Hungary, people with high social status surnames are just as overrepresented under communism as under capitalism. The Roma have lower social mobility under communism and also today. The only real alteration is a rapid change in who constitutes the extreme elite. The general elite, for instance, the Hungarian Academy of Science, or doctors, or Prime Ministers remain the same. Twenty-nine percent of Hungarian PMs have a surname ending on “y,” meaning they are over-represented by 15x the numbers in the population that have an aristocratic surname.
Humans have two instincts: Being part of the group. And, rising to the top of the group. Those high in group instincts care about the good of the group, not themselves.
Will Storr in The Status Game, agrees that being white is regarded as high status. But that has not always been the case. The Muslims enslaved whites at one point, castrating the men and having them serve high functions in some cases. And in the UK, 69% of Chinese go to university compared with 30% of whites. In the US, Asians are the most successful group, followed by Jews, then non-Jewish whites, Hispanics, and then blacks. It makes no sense that we do not speak of Asian privilege or Jewish privilege. One tactic is to call Asians “white adjacent.” That is to conflate whiteness with success. That is white supremacist. The leftist says, white people are powerful. White people are evil. But, I’m different. They see whites as high status, and they want to be high status. The US is supposed to be racist, and so is Norway. Only about 30% of minorities feel they did not get a job because of race in those countries. In the UK and Sweden, much more left wing than the US and Norway, it is more like 60%.
 This is a rough transcription of a video, with added comments, to be found in Edward Dutton’s “The Jolly Heretic” channel, available on YouTube, Odysee, and Bitchute.
 Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. & Martin, N. (2016). Corrigendum to ‘The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes’ [Personal. Individ. Differ. 49 (2010): 306–316]. Personality and Individual Differences, 99: 378-379.
Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. & Martin, N. (2010). The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49: 306-316.
 This is an attempt to summarize some of the comments Edward Dutton makes in his video “Why We Must Fight the White Supremacy of the Woke Left.”