Why does the "left" lie as much or more than the "right"?

 I was once a student at a Brazilian federal university. What's more, I studied at a humanities college between 2008 and 2014. I chose and passed the course that had been my passion, especially in my childhood: geography. I entered the course believing it would be more in line with how I learned to love geography: memorizing the names of capital cities, being curious to learn about other countries... But, from the first month of classes until the day I presented my final project, I was exposed to academic material absolutely biased to the "left" of the political-ideological spectrum. I could easily estimate around 90% bias, excluding technical and basic knowledge. The biggest problem isn't whether the bias is more to one side or the other, or even how much. But what it implies. And in the case of a "left-wing" bias, it has typically entailed the imposition of a majority of highly distorted narratives of reality, which are also dogmatic narratives, closed to intellectually honest criticism, and not fully based on evidence, facts, and/or rational consideration. Therefore, even if it isn't a priori a problem, it becomes one a posteriori, because of its meaning. I'm not against the application of critical thinking, unlike many on the "right." In fact, it's inevitable that a constantly updated human science pays the same attention to social critique as it does to its most basic knowledge. The most important thing is how well-founded this critique is. That's the big problem with the "left-wing" bias (as well as the "right-wing").

So, that was my experience at a university, and I don't know if I'll ever have the opportunity to be there again. But I'm not the only one who has noticed this situation, because everyone who attends or has attended knows, as I do, what's going on there. You know that, especially the faculties of the humanities and related fields, have long ago become a den of profound ideological indoctrination. But not everyone is honest about this. In fact, many lie, even blatantly, even denying that there is a scheme in place where those who demonstrate compatible ideological affinities are promoted within the academic hierarchy, and those who don't are persecuted or even eliminated from internal competition. This is without the criteria for compatibility being exclusively technical competence and full adherence to philosophical-scientific values. Of course, it is those on the "left" who lie the most about this, since they are the ones most interested in maintaining this state of affairs, whether to personally benefit themselves or, at least, in ensuring that academia continues to reiterate its ideological beliefs without the slightest self-criticism. The frequency and depth of this very problematic habit seems to be greater among them than among those on the other side of the polarization trenches. This must be because "left-wing" lies require greater elaboration than "right-wing" ones, given their comparatively more abstract nature, if this also requires a greater psychological effort to believe. But also because, despite the conservative "right" having a long history of embracing obscurantism and denialism, at least regarding some very basic facts about human nature, it has never denied them as profoundly as the "left" has. It has never denied differences between sexes, races, or other human groups, even if it has not developed these facts or has merely exaggerated them through generalization. So, this difference, which seems minor at first glance, is much more significant when we look more closely, precisely because it involves very basic facts that are primarily perceived instinctively and that are disproportionately influential in our lives. So much so that, with the cultural and political hegemony of the bourgeois-identitarian "left," entire nations under its yoke have begun to experience chronic social problems that threaten their very existence, not only as distinct cultures or ethnicities, but also in terms of civility. But there are also other likely factors that lead the "left" to lie, and more profoundly than the "right." Another factor is the great attraction that their ideas exert on individuals who exhibit deviations or disorders from the norm most consistent with the natural cycle of an organism's existence: procreation, survival... Moral, psychiatric, sexual disorders or deviations... Especially the identitarian "left" has embraced these congenital misfits, instead of doing as the traditional right has long done, condemning them for what they are. However, this "embrace" has occurred in a, let's say, excessively positive and, of course, with ulterior motives... In truth, the "left" would be more literally represented by this same mass of "mutants," as a reflection of its own nonconformist nature toward the "more natural" order. While it cannot be said that everything it defends is mistaken or untrue, it seeks to transcend this order, which is a kind of replica of a food chain embedded within human contexts, combating the social and moral problems it causes, without naturalizing them as much as the "right," itself, its greatest promoter, has done. But by treating it as intrinsically fallacious, which it is not, if it reflects innate and more general aspects of the behavior and relationships of living beings, it ends up causing more problems than it solves. For example, when it claims that the only reason for social differences between men and women is the historical and structural oppression of patriarchy over the latter group, completely disregarding their biological differences, including the mental differences between the sexes. Therefore, beyond the effort required for greater theoretical elaboration, it must constantly reinforce irrational or non-factual beliefs about these very basic facts, forcing it to delve deeper into the habit of lying than the "right." If the "left" accepted them for what they are and began to build its defense of social justice based on them, a significant portion of its denial of legitimate science would be eliminated, and then it would even be better for universities to have a significant bias on their side. But our reality is practically the opposite of this ideal...