Criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots," for starters...
Let’s draw a parallel with Carlo Cipolla and his "Seven Laws of Human Stupidity."
I’m not referring to the text itself—which is quite good—but rather to a key component used to formulate these laws: his typology of behavioral tendencies, which categorizes members of our species into four groups: the intelligent, the criminal, the naive, and the stupid.
So, does it make any sense to keep voting for a party—or parties—that have held power for over twenty years, and whose ideologies have effectively pushed the country toward social chaos and the destruction of its cultural and intellectual foundations? An ideology that claims human life only begins at birth, yet simultaneously asserts that a man dressed as a woman can be considered a woman? Is this not a case of "2+2=5" taken to the nth degree, over and over again?
According to Cipolla, an "intelligent" person is one who contributes to the well-being of others while also benefiting themselves. It stands to reason that someone so constructive would hardly be ignorant or stupid enough to consistently believe, spread, or invent lies—especially those that are blatantly obvious—particularly when such falsehoods tend to be more harmful than beneficial to social balance and long-term progress.
Then there is the "naive" person, who contributes to others at their own expense—as opposed to the "criminal," who benefits themselves at the expense of others.
Finally, there is the "stupid" person, whose actions result in a net negative for both themselves and everyone else.
These are archetypes, and naturally, we all possess a bit of each—though some traits are more dominant than others.
In modern Western politics, how might the left and the right map onto these categories—especially the more problematic ones?
As for criminals—even though the right has an extensive history of favoring those who commit crimes while wearing suits and ties, military uniforms, or even crowns—it is the left that has increasingly attracted "classic" criminals ever since it emerged as a political and social force. After all, it is the left that labels them "victims of society"—particularly those from the lower socioeconomic classes—advocating for them to have the maximum of rights and privileges, and it is the left that most strongly believes the criminal justice system should focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Furthermore, a certain type of criminal or unscrupulous individual—the extreme hypocrite, characterized by a persistent behavioral and moral pattern of hypocrisy, or a significant dissonance between what they profess to believe and how they actually act—seems to abound on the "left." "Progressive" narratives, with their vague, subjective, and pretentiously altruistic or self-sacrificing tone, align perfectly with this type of behavior.
This is not to say that such individuals cannot also be found in abundance on the right; rather, the right tends to attract a different sort of criminal. The left, however, has gone a step further by adopting these individuals—especially those from lower social classes—as a group that is ideologically defensible.
The "chronically" naive individual also appears to be more common on the left than on the right. The left has honed its ability to act as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," espousing "benevolent" narratives, positioning itself alongside the "oppressed," and championing supposedly altruistic public policies—all while preaching self-sacrifice and submission to "oppressors." In reality, however, it is organizing itself to seize or consolidate power, ultimately becoming the new oppressors. Consequently, both the hypocritical criminal and the "profoundly naive" individual find themselves drawn to this side ...by these narratives—especially when they become hegemonic—with the distinction that the "naive" person tends to identify with the lamb on the surface, while the (consciously) hypocritical "villain" identifies with the wolf at their core.
The "naive" person also tends to be a simple-minded type who cannot see beyond appearances, believing in whatever is presented as emotion or motivation without seeking to verify its truth. This is the sort of person most susceptible to "wolves in sheep's clothing," possessing an underdeveloped capacity for moral discernment and self-defense—someone who, even as an adult, continues to think like a child in these interpersonal and psychological contexts.
Finally, there is the "intelligent" person—the most rational or wise type among those identified by Cipolla—who embodies a highly efficient model of intelligence in everyday life. This remains true even though, in the typically human realm, varying degrees of malice, naivety, and stupidity occur all too frequently.
Well, given that so-called "progressive" narratives are largely built upon lies and half-truths—and sustained by logical and moral fallacies—it is unlikely that an "intelligent" person would consistently align themselves with the Left. By the same token, I believe they would not deeply commit to the Right either, even if...It could be argued that the level of insanity on the left tends to be more pronounced, making the choice for the right less inherently irrational—or, rather, a "choice of the lesser evil," a sensible stance within highly imperfect social or adaptive environments.
Returning to the groups that most frequently vote for leftist parties and support their ideologies—criminals, degenerates, and "useful idiots"—if we map these onto the categories proposed by Carlo Cipolla in his "7 Laws of Human Stupidity," we inevitably observe a specific distribution of these types at the individual level, which then manifests collectively; certain groups of individuals will show a disproportionate representation of one type over others.
Thus, those who harm others for their own gain (criminals), those who harm themselves to benefit others, and those who harm both themselves and others—the classic "useful idiots"—emerge as the predominant types within the demographic of the left.
As for "degenerates," they constitute a somewhat parallel category; while they are likely more common among criminals, their prevalence depends on the specific nature of the "degeneration."
"Intelligent" (consistent) individuals would be exceptionally rare within these circles.
The right (in both economic and cultural dimensions) would exhibit a distribution closer to the human average, precisely because it represents—or encompasses—the more traditional, "typical" human being. In terms of the estimated frequency of these types, one might currently find: a disproportionate number of "naïve" individuals and criminals, a smaller proportion of "stupid" individuals, and a higher proportion of "intelligent" ones—or, perhaps, more balanced types, as one would expect from a typical human being.
I have previously discussed examples of public policies and their logical connections to the concept of stupidity as defined by Carlo Cipolla. Here, I conclude by providing further examples through specific public policies and proposals. Among the most stupid or naive ideas are those concerning mass immigration and the softening of criminal penalties.
The former is supposedly intended to strengthen the left-wing electorate. Yet, in the long run, replacing an electorate—part of which is already under ideological control—with one that is either religiously empowered or more socially problematic does not seem productive for those who aim to perpetuate their own exclusive hold on power. Even if the "imported" electorate were more passive, it makes little sense to replace an existing one that is already sufficiently under control—especially if such a replacement also entails a decline in average technical capacity, as would be the case, for instance, by replacing ethnic Europeans with people from Africa or the Middle East.
On an individual level, the average leftist—who is generally detached from traditionalist culture—has far more to lose from an increased presence of such groups within their own social spheres.
In any case, this policy fits Cipolla’s concept of stupidity: causing harm to others and to oneself without gaining any consistent benefit.
As for the softening of criminal penalties—with the notable exception of "thought crimes"—this increases public insecurity, making life more dangerous for the ordinary citizen by leaving them at the mercy of criminals who have been convicted, sentenced, and subsequently released after serving only a fraction of their time.
Yet, the delusions defended by those on the left—which they present as crystal-clear, absolute truths—are both numerous and dominant within their narratives. Consequently, an inescapable fact remains: systematized reason—or philosophy in its most consistent and self-coherent practice—stands in direct opposition to much of what the "left" advocates. This chasm has only widened with the deliberate emergence of a more culturally degenerate version of the left.
