I made this divide:
If you think in a scientific way, you will generalise—you will say “they’re all like that” (male/right).
If you think in an artistic way, you will particularise—you will only see the individual (female/left).
But doesn’t the left generalise about the right—doesn’t it write off “all white men” or “all right-wing extremists”?
It’s like the yin-yang symbol, you can shrink the white in the black to a tiny point but you can never extinguish it altogether—the black depends on the white within it, even if to a tiny amount.
So what the left does is to only think about the individual in almost every case—as noted, it will point to individual peaceful Muslims or Muslim sects, but neglect the fact Muhammad was a prophet of war and that the general tenor of Islam is war.
But you can’t dispense with generalisations altogether, even if you’re individual in almost every other dimension—so what do people who “only see individuals” generalise about?
They generalise about people who generalise—otherwise known as “bigots” or “right-wing extremists”.
In the same way, the right generalises but it cannot do without the individual.
So what does it do?
It just has one individual.
It has Hitler, Napoleon, Franco.
The leader of a pack of generalists is allowed to be totally individual and idiosyncratic “the genius”.
But everyone else has to be uniform.
The argument would be that there are only very few true individuals in the world, not everyone can be an individual (as the left believes).
So it’s the same dynamic reversed—because no generalist can do completely without the individual, and no individualist can do completely without the general.
The hermaphrodite understands it is so—because he is both and neither.