White leftists aren’t just hypocrites with false virtue; they’re masters of the moral high ground, always quick to criticize others for not being “kind enough”: “I care about the environment, I’m compassionate towards animals, I stand for minority rights, and therefore, I’m a shining moral example in everyday life.”
But as an ideologue of the Austrian School of Economics, I’d like to remind you: those who talk the most about morality are often the least moral. In short, we call them moral bitch(道德婊).
What is morality, anyway?
Morality is supposed to guide our behavior. When someone acts in a way that pleases others, we say they are “moral.” When they don’t, we call them “immoral.”
Helping an elderly lady cross the street, boycotting foreign goods (especially Japanese goods) in favor of local products—these are behaviors people label as “moral.”
Spitting on the sidewalk, littering cigarette butts, or eating dog meat—these are behaviors often deemed “immoral.”
But here’s a question: Why do we need morality when we already have laws? If we have laws and regulations to protect us and decide what’s right or wrong, do we really need morality? What’s the relationship between law and morality? If my actions don’t break the law, should I still be judged morally? And what happens when morality conflicts with the law? Or with our personal conscience?
For example, a sexy influencer wearing black stockings dances provocatively on Tiktok. For those otakus (In Chinese and Japanese they are called “宅男”), that’s a “gift to the soul” and certainly legal, but it might not align with certain politicians’ notions of “civilized, moral society.” So, what do we make of this?
The truth about morality
In reality, morality is a part of the legal system, but it’s also tied to local customs and preferences. It’s used to regulate behavior when the law doesn’t cover something in enough detail.
Let’s take a look at these behaviours: spitting in public, or running red lights. These are technically illegal, but enforcement is lax due to limited resources. Then there’s giving up your seat for the elderly on the subway or tipping waitstaff at restaurants—those are cultural norms, not laws.
But here’s the catch: these so-called “moral” preferences are limited and not always correct. Society operates on laws that 99.99% of people agree upon, such as prohibitions against murder, theft, robbery and rape. These actions violate personal safety and property rights, so we universally agree they’re immoral and illegal.
But what about the gray areas? Imagine this: one person wakes up at 6 a.m. every day and spends two hours commuting to work, just wanting to rest on the subway. Meanwhile, an energetic retiree, who is able to take the subway for free, travels ten stops just to get a five-cent discount on eggs. Who’s the “weaker” one in need of a seat?
Or what about someone smashing a Chinese-owned Nissan car to “boycott Japanese goods”—is that a moral act or an immoral one?
And in the past, it was considered moral for widows to remain chaste. Is that still the case today?
The flawed nature of morality
The inherent imperfection of morality is what fundamentally differentiates it from law. Morality is meant for self-regulation, while laws are designed to bind everyone. Humanity is diverse, and moral standards vary between people. In fact, moral codes differ wildly across different cultures and communities.
Eating pork in the Middle East is immoral. Eating beef in India is immoral. Eating any meat at a Buddhist temple is immoral. But ordering a deluxe beef-pork-lamb combo at a hot pot restaurant? Well, that’s peak morality in this situation!
Why society can’t run on morality alone
Society can’t function just on morality because moral standards differ between regions, cultures, and age groups—they’re often contradictory and conflicting. Only law can hold society together.
Extreme “saints” and white leftists make one fundamental mistake: morality is for regulating your own behavior, not for controlling others.
If you love dogs and don’t eat dog meat, and your moral superiority is off the charts, that’s fine—just follow your own principles. But why impose that on others? If you think disposable chopsticks harm the environment, does that mean everyone else has to agree with you?
If you feel bad for deliverymen in the rain, then you urge people not to order delivery……What a mess is it in your brain? You’re taking the things you support and the moral values you hold dear and demanding that everyone else—and all taxpayers—foot the bill. You expect everyone to follow your moral code, expanding it into my personal space. Why?
You have no right to call others morally corrupt. If someone breaks the law, the law will deal with them. But if they don’t break the law, there’s no higher ground for you to stand on. The white leftists, with their endless moral preaching, are the biggest moral bitch of all.