Signs that the "left" is behaving like a religion

Despite considering itself a secularized political ideology, which is not based on beliefs about deities and/or metaphysical dimension, the "left" has structurally behaved like a kind of religion and I will demonstrate this through a list of indicative signs:

1. It tends to be based on narratives rather than facts

Narratives are preconceived (and typically simplistic) interpretations of phenomena, situations or events, generally closed to criticism or intellectually honest updates. An example of a "left" narrative is that of "white guilt", which states that especially white people of European origin should be collectively held responsible for crimes committed in the past and present, omitting bad actions of other racial groups, including against whites, a narrative that expresses a fallacy of suppressed evidence, in which "half a story" is told.

2. Tends to present a dogmatic style of thought

Because it presents a narrative structure, this structure is also constituted by dogmas, which are statements or thoughts considered as absolute truths within a certain system of beliefs and which, characteristically, do not correspond to facts or objective truths. The dogma of human equality is an example widely adopted by those who identify with the "left", that there are no intrinsic or more pronounced differences between human groups (sex, race...).

3. Tends to be based on beliefs without true or forged evidence

In other words, it tends to be based on faith, on blind belief in certain postulates, generally based on forged or false evidence. The blind belief that there are no human races or that their differences are only superficial, of "culture", is an example of a "leftist" belief without true evidence or with false evidence (fallacious arguments).

4. Tends to base itself on emotion/subjectivity rather than reason/objectivity

Although not "everything" it defends or believes is untrue (it is much more complex than that), it often uses appealing methods, such as emotional blackmail, to convince or defend its points of view. Although it is not always intellectually dishonest to appeal to emotion, the "left" tends to show an unhealthy preference for this route, indicating that it does not have a strong enough rational foundation to prioritize objectivity and impartiality in its approaches.

5. Prefers language that is more abstract or metaphorical than literal

For example, the "left" obsession with certain terms, such as racism, clearly an abstract term, a human fiction that is taken as a fact as solid or real as a physical element of nature, and which, on top of that, has been used to promote the silencing of dialogue or criticism of its definitions and applications. Because, like a typical religion, it abuses metaphorical language, treating it as if it represented something beyond the abstract dimension. This type of intellectual conduct contributes to poor judgment. For example, attributing blame for violence to weapons, and not to those who use them to commit violent acts, is an example of poor judgment because there is an inversion of factors, attributing causality to an inanimate element. 

6. It presents a mythological pantheon

With leaders or political figures, artists and other types of "illustrious" people who stood out historically and were raised by the "left" as their untouched myths. The biggest difference is that they are not Greek gods from Olympus or Catholic saints, but flesh and blood humans, and full of contradictions...

In addition to a pantheon of "admirable" people, it also presents a "black list" of "execrable" people (true or not, or more exaggerated) that "leftists" love to hate, their pet "goldsteins" (according to the representation of the "personification of evil" in the classic of universal literature, "1984" by George Orwell, and which faithfully shows all the traits of indoctrination and fanaticism of totalitarian political regimes).

7. It is proselytizing and irrationally intolerant

Very similar to most traditional religions, followers of the "leftist" religion also seek attract new converts, often in an aggressive manner, in addition to contributing to keeping other followers strongly indoctrinated, always aiming to impose their opinions and beliefs through all means they can dominate, legally, culturally... instead of tolerating a broader spectrum of ideological diversity or ideas and thoughts, especially those who are more sensible (regardless of their origin in the political-ideological spectrum), and seeking to honestly criticize their own beliefs.

Speculation about the geographic, ethnic/racial, sexual distribution... of the human types defined by the author of "The Fundamental Laws of Human Stupidity"

 Carlo Cipolla, an Italian economist who wrote this book and who I have already commented on and criticized in some of my texts. In this text, I will speculate on how these types or phenotypes/archetypes are distributed...

First, let's look at them:

The intelligent: whose actions benefit themselves and others

The bandit: whose actions benefit themselves at the expense of others

The naive: whose actions benefit others at their expense

And the stupid: whose actions harm themselves and others

I have already written a text criticizing these laws and what he wrote about them. For example, I criticized the restricted definition of the stupid type, as if the naive and the bandit could not also be considered as categories of stupid. Although I consider my criticism valid, it is not important to emphasize this point here, since it will be based on the definitions proposed by Cipolla that I will work on my speculation about their distribution among human groups.

Cipolla also wrote about what happens (obviously) in a society when there is a growing predominance of stupid people, in his fifth fundamental law of human stupidity. I include a relevant excerpt from this text to illustrate his specific thoughts on this topic, below:

Fifth law

5. The stupid person is the most dangerous person there is.

''And its corollary:

A stupid person is more dangerous than a criminal.

We can't do anything about the stupid. The difference between societies that collapse under the weight of their stupid citizens and those that transcend them is the composition of the non-stupid. Those that progress despite their stupid people have a high proportion of people acting intelligently, those who offset the losses of the stupid by bringing gains to themselves and their fellow men.

Declining societies have the same percentage of stupid people as intelligent ones. But they also have high percentages of defenseless people and, Cipolla writes, “an alarming proliferation of bandits with connotations of stupidity.”

“This change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the [stupid] fraction and makes decline a certainty,” Cipolla concludes. “And the country goes to hell.”

(I also criticized what he pointed out in this excerpt, in this text: “Critically analyzing the 5 laws of human stupidity”).

Speculative proposal on the distribution of types or categories of people defined by Carlos Cipolla

Intelligent, naive, criminal/bandit and stupid

* These types seem to be summarized definitions of compositions of personality traits and intelligence in which one of the characteristics tends to stand out more, for example, naivety.

* Between the intelligent and the stupid, the naive and the criminal/bandit can also be considered mixed types that combine traits of these phenotypes that would be more regular, precisely the first ones mentioned.

In ascending order, from the most common types to the most unusual, based on the current context, the year 2024, and considering the individual and social perspectives.

It is worth mentioning that I will not take any further risks, speculating percentages of how these types would be distributed and that therefore, even the least common type for a given population, according to my speculation, is not explicitly stated to be much less common than the others. 

By geographic distribution:

Americas:

North America

USA: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Canada: naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Mexico and Central America: naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Brazil and South America (excluding Argentina and Uruguay): naive/criminal/stupid, intelligent

Argentina and Uruguay: naive, criminal/stupid/intelligent

Haiti(?): criminal/stupid, naive, intelligent

Comment: a constant in many countries is the possible predominance of the "naive" type, whose actions benefit others at their expense, mainly due to the social context, since there is no country that is not socially structured in a way that produces a hierarchical pyramid of parasitism of the upper classes, at the top, in relation to the other classes, differing only in the how unequally and explicitly this parasitism is expressed, less significant, but existing, in first world "social democracies", such as the Scandinavian countries, and more significant in underdeveloped countries.

In the case of the Americas, I perceive a great difference in this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla, in which the only two first world American countries, and which are not Caribbean tax havens, Canada and the USA, would present a less problematic distribution, even with differences between them: the first more similar to a European country, and the USA in a more singular distributive situation, due to its own internal and idiosyncratic diversity, resulting from its superlative dimensions of territory and demographics, as well as its unparallel history. My speculation also highlights something that, for many, especially Latin Americans, is considered an inconvenient truth, that it is their/our own people who, on average, contribute to keeping their/our countries in a state of underdevelopment, not only the historical guilt of the European colonizer or their political and economic "elites", if these also tend to express a lack of common character in the populations of these countries, of being representative of them. Hence the greater proportion of the "bandit"/criminal type.

I highlighted Haiti, because it is the poorest country in the Americas: half of the island of Hispaniola, marked by a history of civil wars, bloody dictatorships and predominant poverty. For a country as chaotic and precarious as this one, is it by chance the product only of its troubled history or also of its own population? (Except for its "intelligent" fraction, which definitely does not seem to consist of a majority). Furthermore, its status as a social and political pariah state, which has been going on for many decades, may also be contributing to empowering the most selfish types of its population, very abundant in its spaces of power and typical of dictatorships or authoritarian states. In any case, it is also possible to speculate whether this type is more common in this country than in others (something more intrinsic) and whether this factor would be an important part of explaining its very problematic situation. 

Europe:

Eastern Europe: naive, criminal, intelligent, stupid

(Countries like Slovenia and Estonia would do better, at least according to their socioeconomic indicators)

Western Europe: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid

Northern Europe (Scandinavia): naive, intelligent, stupid/criminal

Southern Europe: naive/criminal, intelligent, stupid

Comment: Stereotypes being confirmed??

Are Southern and Eastern Europeans, on average, more corruptible and, therefore, with more criminals, proportionally?

Are Northern Europeans, on average, more naive?

Perhaps reflecting the distributions of personality types themselves, in which introverts would be more common among the naive and intelligent types (more common in the north of the old continent), and extroverts among the bandit and stupid types (more common in southern Europe).

However, introverted types also seem to be more common in Eastern Europe. For a possible difference in relation to Northern Europe, which would also explain its cultural and political differences, would be the variation in personality traits, for example: melancholic types, more naive, more common in Scandinavia and choleric, more likely to be bandit, more common in Eastern Europe (based on the personality typology of the four temperaments, which I have already suggested ratifying as valid, excluding only the hypothesis related to health that was also developed in classical Greece and from which the four temperaments derive); beyond historical-contextual differences, although ethnic differences* between Nordic//Germanic and Slavic peoples seem to be deeper than exclusive results of their respective histories.

* Correlatives with variations in mental traits, personality (intensity, types) and intelligence (levels, types...)

It is even interesting to think about how these proposed types can be more comprehensive as definitions of intelligence than other ways of approaching and comparing it, such as through IQ testing, if it is not expressed only through typically considered cognitive abilities, of a technical nature, such as linguistic and mathematical abilities, but also through creativity, rationality and emotional intelligence, that is, of a contextual nature, manifesting itself in all contexts, in which the participation and influence of personality traits, considered "non-cognitive", is as important as the "cognitive" ones.

It would also be important to think about how intrinsic these types are: to what extent are they reactive reflections of the environments in which we live, of more specific contexts, and to what extent do they reflect ourselves, or our deepest dispositions...

If, for example, individual X is more naive for structural reasons or also genetic/biological/hereditary??

I would bet that it is a combination of these influences and more, in which intrinsic factors, of the individual himself, would be more influential or determining, although extrinsic factors, of the environment, also have an influential role, but more in the sense of contributing to channeling pre-existing tendencies and never of forging them without a previous context of predisposition, so that, if someone is more naive, it is not exclusively because of his environment, but also because he already has this tendency or predisposition and that it was exacerbated by his interactions in the environments in which he finds himself. Therefore, this thought suggests a constant crossing or intersection between the individual and contextual perspectives, once again, the example of the possible predominance of naive people in most countries, not only due to intrinsic disposition, but also as a reflection of how societies are organized (in a variably parasitic way that involuntarily places the majority of the population in the position of deceived or exploited subordinates).

Africa:

North Africa: bandit/naive, stupid, intelligent

Sub-Saharan Africa: bandit, stupid/naive, intelligent

Comment: forgive me all those good Samaritans who only cultivate sweet thoughts about our species, especially about certain groups that have a history and a present of poverty and civilizational backwardness (although there is a certain relativity in determining what is civilizational progress or backwardness, which can easily be problematized, such as highlighting the typically parasitic character of complex societies, excessively verticalized, in social terms). I know that this is not the habit of "left-wing" moral puritanism, but we must prioritize the facts so that we can seek truly effective approaches to combat the social, economic and/or moral problems of our species, and this will not be done by embracing beautiful but fallacious narratives... Because if it is a social environment of wars, violence and poverty that incites our most selfish side, it is still unlikely that we will all react in the same way if or when subjected to similar circumstances. The evidence corroborates my statement... It may also be, and it is very likely that it is, that a very problematic social environment primarily reflects the actions of the populations themselves, such as pointing fingers at the people who live in a neighborhood for the dirtiness of their streets rather than looking for other culprits. So, the social problems of countries that were once colonies of European metropolises, especially African and Latin American countries, are not the exclusive result of European colonialism, but mainly of their own actions, of their "elites" and of their own populations, of course, not of all, but of a potentially non-negligible part, unfortunately. An example of this is urban crime in cities like Lagos, in Nigeria, and São Paulo, here, in Brazil; in general, in the endemic lack of solidarity and respect among the inhabitants of many underdeveloped countries, even more so than in the "developed" ones, which contributes to complicating their socioeconomic situations. Always emphasizing, once again, that this is not the entire population, whether in Africa, Nigeria or São Paulo, but that it is also not a tiny minority, and even in certain cases one might think that it is a majority. And even if it is a situation that is impossible to correct or improve, but not in the politically correct, simple and cute way that many believe.

Consequently, if there is no generalization (absolute association) of causality between racial or ethnic group and behavior, then there is no genuine or objectively determined "racism" in these statements.

In the case of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, it is even possible to think of a less harsh explanation, still inevitably non-victimizing. That the human populations that live in this part of the African continent would be, for the most part, descendants of hunter/gatherers (and not of farmers or peasants), which would explain the cultural and cognitive mismatch between their average capacities for administration and social organization and the level of civilization that the colonizers imposed and left, after they passed their colonies back into the hands of their original "owners". In this sense, it can even be said that this perceived inability to manage complex societies by the majority of these populations is perfectly understandable, more understandable than in relation to populations that have evolved historically, for centuries, in civilized environments, and also do not present true civilizational excellence, which are far from it, which includes even many so-called first world countries (whether as a result of a gradual or punctual loss of this capacity, or even a chronic inability to develop it). Another relevant point that should always be emphasized is that, in addition to the proportion of these types, the way in which they are distributed hierarchically can also contribute to developing or delaying societies, such as, for example, in the case of countries in which their political and economic "elites" are definitely not composed of a large majority of intelligent individuals, but rather of criminals, even if their populations have many intelligent individuals, that is, if they are being underutilized. So, it is not enough to just know whether there are more of this or that type, but whether the worst type has predominated in spaces of power, as has been the case in practically all human societies and especially in the most chaotic ones, such as those in Africa.

Asia:

Northeast Asia: naive, intelligent/criminal, stupid (excluding China: criminal/intelligent/naive, stupid).

Southeast Asia: naive/criminal, intelligent/stupid

Indian Subcontinent: naive, stupid/criminal, intelligent

Middle East: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent

Comment: also based on what I have noticed, types that contribute more negatively than positively, socially, seem to predominate in the less developed Asian regions, and, of course, also maintaining the high prevalence of naive people, based on the logic commented above, especially from a social context, of structural dominance of parasitism of the upper classes (especially of certain sectors) over the lower ones, in which a majority submits to the economic exploitation of a minority, literally working to enrich it, instead of there being a more egalitarian distribution of the wealth produced.

My observations:

Japan would stand out more positively in the entire Asian continent, more similar to the developed countries of the West;

China and the rest of East Asia would present a pattern more similar to the Asian continent;

Again, the underdevelopment of most Asian regions (but not only Asia) does not reflect only their historical-social context, but also the psychological and cognitive composition of the human types in their populations, such as those proposed by Carlo Cipolla, from the top to the base of their hierarchies. In fact, this composition of human types would be a more causal factor at the level of social and economic development, while the historical and social situation would be more of a dynamic reflection of this factor over time.

Social class

Rich: criminal, intelligent/naive, stupid

Middle class: naive/intelligent, criminal, stupid

Poor: criminal/naive, stupid, intelligent (?)

Comment: without wanting to "pull the wool over my eyes" for the social class in which I, theoretically and vaguely, fit, but it seems that, based on the possible perception that those in the middle class tend to have a relatively more balanced temperament, less greedy or impulsive, and also an average level of intelligence sufficient to be able to work in professions that pay reasonable salaries, that is, that they tend to express less extreme mental characteristics and that would end up reflecting in their positions in the social hierarchy, the same can be said about the other classes, however, with different tendencies: the "rich" being more prone to greed and, therefore, unscrupulous, in fact, their material wealth as a result of this, and as for the "poor", a greater disposition for impulsive behaviors and that are both respectively related to tendencies towards high and low cognitive abilities, explaining, in large part, but not all, their social situations (poverty is also a historical and arbitrary imposition of the "elites").

Religiosity

Atheist: naive, intelligent/stupid, criminal

Religious: naive, intelligent/criminal/stupid

Comment: based on what I have noticed about self-declared atheists, and disregarding those individuals who declare to have some religious belief, but it seems to be more a matter of pragmatics and/or social conformity than of a genuine disposition, this distribution of human types proposed by Cipolla for this group seems reasonable to me, with more naive and intelligent people and fewer criminals, but with a not so modest proportion of stupid people, especially due to the correlation with ideological fanaticism. In the case of self-declared religious people, it seems to me that this distribution is more balanced, especially because it is a much larger population than that of atheists, logically deducing that it contains more diversity of types. But also due to the psychological and cognitive nature of atheists, especially, a more homogeneous group, culturally, ideologically and intellectually. In any case, perhaps it would be more appropriate to compare them with religious fundamentalists. Because, for this group, I bet on a great parity between the naive, criminal and stupid types, which would not change much in relation to religious people, in general.

It is worth noting that this definition of intelligence by Cipolla seems to focus more on individual actions than on the quality of the intentions that lead to these actions and that is why I included the social context, since there is no way to separate them completely, especially based on this concept that was worked on by him.

Race:

Whites: naive/intelligent, bandit/stupid

Orientals: naive/intelligent/bandit, stupid

Jews (ethnicity): bandit/intelligent, naive, stupid

Blacks of African origin: bandit, stupid, naive/intelligent

Comment: possibly the most controversial comparison of all, but a necessary one, and one that has already been made above, indirectly, by nationalities. But since I do not submit to ideological filters to signal "canine loyalty" to biased narratives and discourses,including thinking that the only way to, in fact, understand a situation and seek the most effective means to begin to solve it, even more so when dealing with a situation that can be considered problematic, then, there is no way I can abstain from this battlefront against totalitarianisms, especially the "good" ones, based on emotional blackmail and/or moral fallacies and that have ulterior, third, or fourth intentions... Because here, once again, I only apply this typology to what can be perceived in the reality of human populations, categorized by racial or ethnic criteria, in which white Caucasians, especially those of European origin, and Northeast Asians, present the most favorable distributions or proportions of Cipolla's human types, with more intelligent and less stupid people, although they also present not at all modest proportions of naive people, who tend to be predominant, and of criminals, who tend to predominate at the top of their social hierarchies. What happens or has happened, until now, in this last century, especially, is a greater activity of the intelligent types that are already more abundant in these populations, compared to others. However, this relatively favorable pendulum has been regressing, particularly in Western societies, with the ideological or cultural hegemony of "wokeism", a kind of "virus" whose infection destroys the immune system of the affected society, destroying its most important bases ("social harmony", ethno-cultural cohesion...) that keep it functioning at a high level.

Sex

Men: bandit/intelligent, naive/stupid

Women: naive, intelligent/stupid, bandit

Comment: this distribution of Cipolla's human types, also according to my observations, would be more favorable to men intellectually, but not emotionally and morally. Because it is that situation that has been perceived, of there being more men among geniuses, but also among criminals, and the opposite pattern for women, of presenting less extreme statistical tendencies.

Sexual orientation

Heterosexuals: naive/bandit/intelligent, stupid

LGBTs: naive, stupid/intelligent/criminal

Comment: heterosexuals represent the human average, as they are the majority. Therefore, with a possible tendency for greater parity between naive, criminals and intelligent, although this does not mean that the proportion of chronically or predominantly stupid human beings is small. LGBTs, on the other hand, would present a greater incidence of stupid types in relation to heterosexuals.

Politicians: criminal, stupid, intelligent/naive

Artists (the group, in general): naive, stupid/intelligent, criminal

Businesspeople: criminal, intelligent/stupid, naive

Comment: three examples of professional classes and their stereotypes, if these types of Cipolla are applied, will be reiterated: both the political and merchant classes, with an abundance of criminals or chronically selfish people, while the artistic class would have a prevalence of naive types. Also note that the profile of artists would be opposite to that of businessmen.

Leftists (followers, not their political "elites" and which also applies to those below): naive/stupid/intelligent, criminal

Rightists: naive/criminal/intelligent/stupid

Comment: "conservative" rightists and "progressive" leftists, despite presenting some average differences in beliefs and behaviors, would be relatively similar in this distribution of types, with a predominance of naive people and a more equal distribution of types. They would differ in the proportion of criminals (greater among those on the right) and stupid people (greater among those on the left). And always emphasizing that the type considered less common is not necessarily insignificant in statistical terms, as it also depends on the representation of the other types in the same group or population.

Scientists: smart/criminal, naive, stupid

-- Academics: naive, smart/stupid/criminal

Teachers: naive, smart/stupid, criminal

Activists: naive/stupid, smart, criminal

4 or 3 intellectual classes and ½, the most intelligent of which would logically be that of genuine scientists, which is why I separated them from academics, a category that is vaguer in terms of the definition of science in the sense of a profession.

Teachers would be in a more intermediate position in this ranking, while activists would occupy the lowest position. It is also notable the increase in frequency of the stupid type concomitant with the decrease of the bandit type, from the highest level to the lowest, a possibly high incidence of bandits among scientists and of stupid people among academics (the vast majority of times represented by university professors and undergraduates), which seems illogical in theory, but not in reality, especially if we base ourselves on the weak criteria that have been used in the evaluation and selection processes of both groups, for example, that there is a tacit disregard for the assessment of capacity or qualitative proficiency for scientific work, essentially including adherence to and respect for the most basic principles of science, such as intellectual honesty and impartiality.

"É a falta de religião a principal causa para as baixas taxas de fecundidade"/"The lack of religion is the main cause of low fertility rates"

 É verdade que o problema também é cultural, além de também ser econômico (custo de vida alto, insegurança financeira, falta de recursos para sustentar uma família...). Também é verdade que a crença religiosa se correlaciona com maior natalidade. Mas a atual crise demográfica não está unicamente relacionada com a falta de religião, ainda que também possa ou pareça estar tendo um efeito, porque outros fatores, como o domínio de uma ideologia muito individualista e materialista*, também tem contribuído para inibir iniciativas natalistas em larga escala, afinal, são muitos os que estão mais preocupados em acumular bens materiais e preservar ou aumentar o status social do que ter filhos biológicos.

* Uma ideologia associada ao materialismo e ao individualismo "modernos" é o feminismo, com o diferencial de estar diretamente direcionado às mulheres, pelo qual acontece um incentivo praticamente unilateral a um modo de vida "independente" ou "não-tradicional", cuja máxima satisfação estabelecida é a realização profissional e pessoal, não incluindo a constituição familiar, o matrimônio e/ou a maternidade, enquanto que seria mais adequado se fosse primariamente enfatizado como feminismo o direito de escolha da mulher, inclusive por um modo de vida mais "tradicional" ou ao menos sem associá-lo ao oposto de autonomia ou independência feminina. 

It is true that the problem is also cultural, in addition to being economic (high cost of living, financial insecurity, lack of resources to support a family...). It is also true that religious belief correlates with higher birth rates. But the current demographic crisis is not solely related to the lack of religion, although it may or appears to be having an effect, because other factors, such as the dominance of a very individualistic and materialistic* ideology, have also contributed to inhibiting natalist initiatives in large scale,after all, there are many who are more concerned with accumulating material goods and preserving or increasing their social status than having biological children.

* An ideology associated with "modern" materialism and individualism is feminism, with the difference of being directly aimed at women, through which there is a practically unilateral encouragement of an "independent" or "non-traditional" way of life, whose biggest established satisfaction is professional and personal fulfillment, not including family formation, marriage and/or motherhood, whereas it would be more appropriate if women's right to choose, including a more "traditional" way of life, were primarily emphasized as feminism. " or at least without associating it with the opposite of female autonomy or independence.

A contextualized example of highly rational thinking

 Be more critical of Islam and/but side with Palestine in the conflict with Israel

If this religion, like the vast majority of religions, has a long history of atrocities that, in fact, continue to be perpetuated, as does the true oppression against women and sexual minorities.

And if, regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Palestinian cause is the most morally justifiable, in the sense of rationally defensible, for the independence of these people, even more so given the arbitrary seizure of their lands by the Jews, after the partition of the territory , with the officialization of the state of Israel at the end of the 40s of the 20th century.

Because placing yourself completely on the side of Israel and declaring yourself anti-Islam or the opposite is practically the same thing, because they are excessively tribalistic points of view, but also because they both turn a "blind eye" to the crimes committed by their over-protected groups. In other words, it is possible to declare oneself pro-Palestine without becoming a fanatic about Islam, to be able to analyze and judge contexts separately, that is, in a more considered way.

About the "pseudosciences of good", "leftist", and the most serious

 Pseudosciences are scientifically unproven theories and techniques, with remote to zero potential for proof and which aim to pass themselves off as science. Homeopathy, astrology, Freudian theory, the anti-vaccine movement and flat earthism are examples of pseudosciences. Pseudoscience is a common type of pseudo-intellectualism, that is, a false philosophy, a supposed love for wisdom or knowledge, but which, in fact, expresses itself as its falsification.

An example of pseudo-intellectualism, relevant to this text, which is also expressed as pseudoscience is that of radical egalitarianism.

Although individuals from across the political-ideological spectrum adopt pseudosciences or "pseudo-intellectualisms" as primary references for interpreting reality, these types of intellectual deviations seem to have been adopted more frequently by those who declare themselves "on the left".

Finally, there is a third deviation from wisdom, anti-intellectualism, in which, instead of passing itself off as knowledge, it denies it by appealing, generally explicitly, to the emotional, instinctive and subjective. A classic example of anti-intellectualism is religion, especially religious fundamentalism. The latter is adopted more frequently by individuals who declare themselves "right-wing".

Religion, as it has historically developed and constituted, can also be considered a false philosophy.

The difference between anti-intellectualism and pseudo-intellectualism is the same between a religious priest and a priest posing as a scientific authority.

So, despite the unprecedented advances in science/technology in recent centuries, pseudosciences continue to perpetuate themselves through the constant renewal of followers, also because the majority of human beings are more irrational than rational.

And, if thanks to relative secularization, primarily in Western societies, anti-intellectualism, particularly religion, has diminished its cultural influence, it seems that it has only been to replace it with pseudo-intellectualism within the main institutions, as in education, in the media and even in governments, passing off as knowledge and/or legitimate rational/philosophical judgments, being adopted as references for public policies and, from this, causing even more (serious) problems than solving existing ones.

I like to call these pseudosciences that are more ideologically aligned with the "left" "pseudosciences of good" because, in addition to behaving illegitimately like sciences and/or philosophy, they are also based on the prioritization of morality or moral discernment, than if considers as right or wrong, above rationality or intellectual discernment, of what is perceived as true or false, clearly an inversion of the "golden" order of wisdom in which, first, facts or evidence are prioritized and, then, judgment (moral) of how to act based on them. This is the same order of justice in its most appropriate practice, of impartial and objective thinking in search of truth, because the most fair is also what is most true or factual.

An example of the very negative impact of these "good" pseudosciences deeply infiltrated in the most important institutions in Western countries has been the imposition of a policy favorable to mass immigration and "multiculturalism" because it has altered the ethnic-racial composition of these countries, in addition also cause a large increase in crime and cultural conflicts. This policy has been based on the following assumptions*: the belief that the environment has a more determining influence on human beings than biology, informally called the "blank slate"; that human races do not exist and/or that their differences in behavior and intelligence are absolute reflections of their cultures and not also or mainly of their biology, that is, that they are only superficial; the same denialism also applied to differences between the sexes; and the adoption of anti-racist fallacies, particularly the narrative of "white guilt" as the dominant moral code, in which only white people of European origin who, in general, should be held morally responsible for the social and historical ills of other ethnic-racial groups, especially black people of African origin, which consists of a highly biased or distorted interpretation of historical facts and with implications that are opposed to true social justice, by placing all the blame on a vaguely defined group category and which, in fact, is of a "scapegoat", for not being the group most directly responsible for human ills throughout our history, the political-economic "elites".