Another list of sincere insults

 Pseudo-intellectuals first seek to convince themselves that they are true intellectuals, especially when they are unaware of what they are or what they are not, and they usually are not. This theater or performance of appearance begins in the mirror itself.

The problem is not that bad art exists, but that it is elevated to the heights that should be reserved exclusively for high culture.

Ideologically fanatical individuals are at similar levels of insanity to untreated psychotic individuals. Perhaps the biggest difference between them is that, while typical psychosis causes subjective discomfort, atypical psychosis, generated by ideological indoctrination, has the completely opposite effect and, therefore, can perhaps be considered even more dangerous...

Regarding the mimicry of opportunistic or parasitic strategies in nature and extrapolation to the human geopolitical context:

The same situation, of one species deceiving another, posing as itself, invading its living space, usually that of a social species, and taking advantage of this deception to benefit. So, this opportunistic mimicry also occurs in the Western world, where a certain tribe of "chosen ones" poses as "native whites" to do exactly what is perceived in the natural environment...

Deception, usurpation, exploitation, even the destruction of the host species...

But make no mistake, because this type of parasitism has been characteristic of every complex society or civilization...

The example of this tribe was only used because it is an accurate manifestation of this type of mimicry in a human context.

If the right produces constructive shit and the left destructive shit, it is because the right's shit is more moral than structural, while the left, in trying to deconstruct this structure, ends up destroying it—the only structure that exists.

How to think rationally with an example:

First, ask fundamental questions about the topic. For example, "racism."

Who is defining these or those concepts?

(Who is defining the concept of racism? Ans: Ideologically biased individuals and/or groups...)

How objective and precise are these definitions?

(Ans: The concept of racism has not been defined in the most objective way because it has been done so vaguely, leaving room for confusion with other types of behavior or tendencies, for example, the confusion between personal taste and racial prejudice, or between negative opinion and negative generalization.)

But how do we define objectivity when it comes to an abstract construct?

(Ans: Precisely because it is an abstract construct, the concept of racism should be as strict as possible, the most objective way to define an abstraction. For example, my concept of it, as a generalization between behavior and race or ethnicity, "everyone in group X is like that," for example.)

The level of subjectivity in an aesthetic judgment depends on what is being compared. For example, comparing French (standard or Parisian) with Polish will inevitably result in the conclusion that the former is more aesthetically pleasing than the latter, if Polish seems to have a constant hissing sound, while French sounds more elaborate and, therefore, more sophisticated. It would be like comparing a beautiful flower to a blade of grass on the ground...

It seems common for those who define themselves as "independent" to be essentially stingy individualists.

"There is no absolute truth"

The denial of the existence of absolute truths is a declaration of absolute truth...

The vast majority of moral arguments are essentially emotional blackmail. But some blackmail is "better" or fairer and more objective than others.

Those who leave the "flock" of a traditional religion—that is, those who leave a typically religious ideological indoctrination but end up becoming very ideologically biased "progressives"—have merely exchanged one indoctrination or brainwashing for another...

The influence of the environment on human intelligence is only more significant, but never absolute, during the first formative years, of immersion in basic education, while biological or genetic influence becomes progressively significant the higher the level of complexity of knowledge, as it expresses more purely vocational aspects. It's basically the difference between learning to read and write and directing one's own interests at a much more complex and/or specific level.

The right is more about aggression and homicide, and the left is about immolation and suicide. If the traditional right has historically been a force of oppression and destruction, it has been more about attacking those it considers threats, but never, or primarily, itself.

While the left, especially the identitarian left, currently dominant in Western nations, has acted as a self-destructive or implosive force.

Culture is not the cause of human behavior, but one of its effects.

Old-school or classically trained actors (obviously) resemble classical dancers more than modern actors because they are also products of a system that prioritizes (or prioritized) talent over appearance. Currently, the most talented actors tend to be those who work in theater, precisely because it is a remnant of their profession's past, since theater continues to prioritize talent over appearance...

On expressions or statements that have aged poorly

"Class consciousness"

It has progressively become synonymous with hypocrisy and ideological fanaticism.

Indoctrination has a neutral or essential meaning and a pejorative meaning. In a neutral sense, it is any doctrine followed by an individual or group. Every culture has its indoctrination, its modus operandi, if no culture survives without a doctrine. Indoctrination, in a pejorative sense, is the opposite of education, because the former consists of transmitting information according to the wishes of the authorities who hold the power to transmit it, and not based on more objective, impartial, or rational criteria. Education, ideally, is the practice of wisdom itself.

Much of what is commonly called "the left" boils down to emotional blackmail and supposed good intentions.

Those who put "kindness" before knowledge also put ignorance before it.

Kindness without knowledge is no different from evil with knowledge.

The rational artist is a rare bird. Most artists are rationally idiots.

Intellectually pedantic and politically fanatical individuals are literally insufferable.

A narrative is an event, situation, or phenomenon described in the language of feeling. And therefore, it tends to be expressed imprecisely or even as a distortion of the facts.

New daring

 "Ridiculous (expensive) branded clothes and accessories"

For capitalism to work, there always needs to be a sucker;

A misfit is not the same as a sick person;

The cowardly "right", but also any kind of very soft opposition, sugarcoats the pill so much to criticize the "left", that it ends up swallowing the pill

Since the conservative "right" lost its cultural hegemony to the identitarian-bourgeois "left" in the Western world, "right-wing wimps" have become increasingly common, types that come to partially endorse the predominant beliefs and thoughts (which turn into behaviors) typical of the other side, as a reflection of ideological submission to the current holders of power, via culture//morality, in turn induced by a more deep-rooted impetus, of this group, to adapt to the environment. Some examples: "defending a country (Israel) and a people (Jews) in a completely uncritical manner, that is, the same "people" (without generalizing) that have led the structural destitution of conservatism in the core of Western culture...; endorsing so-called "progressive" beliefs, such as denying the existence of human races and, along with that, endorsing "anti-racist fallacies" ("whites cannot suffer racism"; "blacks are always the victims"; "being in favor of preserving human races and ethnicities is racism"...)

The cowardice of the "left": talking about "white racism", "white supremacy" or "Nazism", today (2025), disregarding the real "Nazism" perpetrated against the Palestinian people. Because doing so is the same as "kicking a dead dog"...

It seems that the "left" is not "holding the Palestinian hand" enough...

The most literal aspect of emotional maturity is the ability to recognize one's own limits and mistakes, and to seek to improve or, at least, not worsen in what is lacking

When a massacre occurs against an innocent people (like the Palestinians) and the "world" remains silent (or is silenced by those who took it over), it is inevitable to reach the conclusion that nothing or very little has changed morally in human society since the first civilizations...

Political corruption is, first and foremost, political, and not economic or financial. Therefore, it is, first and foremost, ideological and moral. Its clearest example is the imposition of an ideological indoctrination (always based on lies) as a political method

It is common for there to be a big difference between thinking and being

About a big difference between the most rational and the most emotional:

The most rational can separate their personal life from the objective and impartial truths that they accumulate and absorb, while the most emotional tends to confuse them

As a result, a truth can become offensive and therefore falsifiable to the latter, while the former learns to control his most primitive impulse of wanting to adulterate his perception of reality so that it fits his emotional demands

Irrational people tend to literalize what is abstract. Religion itself is exactly about this literalization. Of treating as real what is not seen, not known, in fact...

Of despicable people

Spirits of pigs: superficial, selfish creatures, ignorant of everything that matters most in life, a more traditional type of pervert, of course it is the "right" that is most full

Of the most perverse...

...are those who use kindness to achieve shady goals

It is the feeling that the belief one adopts is false that also contributes to reinforcing the belief itself

If Christians were mostly kind, every country with a Christian majority would be the materialization of paradise on earth. But...

Perfection, in in its pure state, does not exist. Harmony is the only possible perfection

Certain defeatists typically believe that the systematic and political application of reason is an absolute impossibility, also because they are only projecting their own prevailing irrationalities, that is, justifying themselves in advance

But it may also be because they have adopted a mistaken, excessively idealistic concept of reason

In this case, the realism of knowing that the full application of reason is a probable practical impossibility is no better than the idealism of believing, even with all the evidence corroborating the most realistic and pessimistic scenario, because it helps to not abandon reason as a guide for life, even though it is also recommended to be realistic

Belief is what one believes in and which may or may not be a fact

It is not prejudice, when it is correlativism

It is not prejudice, often, it is stupidophobia

The correlation between toxic masculinity and limited intelligence is not a parallel correlate. Toxic masculinity, as a specific expression of narcissism, is also an expression of irrationality or stupidity in its most qualitative aspect

"Scientists cannot have an ideological bias"

But every serious scientist should have a philosophical bias (which leads/to a scientific bias)

The academy should select based on two criteria: technical or specific competence and philosophical or the ability to understand and adhere to the principles or values ​​of science, such as objectivity and impartiality

Idealism is more a question of distance than perfectionism

The weight of others may be an entirely personal issue, but it is also entirely a health issue

About that classic comparison between a random Nigerian individual and a Norwegian as an argument for the denial of the existence of human races: "a pure-race black Nigerian may be more genetically similar to a pure-race white Norwegian than to another Nigerian of the same racial status..."

A type of fallacy?? Of biased or biased comparison??

Like comparing, genetically, two individuals based on traits or aspects that are not relevant for a certain comparison, to convey a relativist idea of ​​insufficient difference??

The identitarian "left" is a combination of the morality of the Care Bears (in the belief that evil is fought with love) and Power Rangers (in which they take the lead in the fight against evil, in which they treat all their opponents as monsters and in which they have an obsessive belief in "representation"). 

Why does civilization cause intellectual dysgeny? 

And how can it be solved? It is not necessarily or only the relative comfort of a civilized society that reduces the selective pressure for intelligence, in its purest state, of the search for knowledge and its systematic application, but also because, in an environment that does not offer immediate dangers to life, this selection becomes more optional or is diverted to functions more secondarily related to intelligence, such as social adaptation. So, if the more complex a society becomes, the less directly necessary intelligence becomes in its purest state, as a solution to this problem, it would be necessary to create artificial means to promote the fertility of the most (genuinely) rational individuals. However, the problem of negative selection of rational intelligence in complex societies seems much deeper or more difficult to fully combat and resolve, given the enormous power of human irrationality throughout our history...

Human beings are the only animals that have evolved their intelligence to its purest state, of factual perception or the search for knowledge, considering it as an end in itself and not only or solely as a means to an end.

Rational intelligence is basically the application of emotional intelligence to intellectual matters

Naivety is a very undervalued type of stupidity

Anyone who sincerely or deeply believes in the current "identity activism" of the "left" suffers from a pathological naivety (a type of stupidity)

This seems to be the case for many white people

And then there are those who tacitly adopt this belief system for completely personal reasons, for social favoritism and also as an emotional crutch that ratifies their narcissistic tendencies

This seems to be the case for many black people

... Because, if the "leftist" doctrine preaches self-flagellation in the first group, it preaches the opposite for the second

The ease and historical and practical constancy with which a majority of "white" people are convinced or indoctrinated about fallacies and lies is literal proof that the so-called white supremacy has been limited to a minority of European Caucasians. From the belief in talking snakes to the dogma of absolute human equality...

"Self-knowledge is always wonderful"

Those who really don't know what self-knowledge means say: understanding one's own limits or knowing how limited one really is...

O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum?/What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

 O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum? 

A priori, nada. São apenas duas localidades distantes uma da outra, uma no norte da Inglaterra e outra na região do Levante, no Oriente Médio. No entanto, coisas perturbadoras têm acontecido nessas regiões. Só que a "mídia tradicional", pelas mesmas razões, tem evitado a todo custo falar abertamente sobre cada caso, se convertendo mais uma vez naquilo que sempre foi, em um dos tentáculos do poder, acobertando crimes graves por causa de sua submissão à diretrizes "politicamente corretas". 

No primeiro caso, de 1997 a 2013, foram cometidos milhares de estupros seletivos, especialmente de adolescentes brancas de classe trabalhadora, por gangues de paquistaneses muçulmanos. E não é apenas a mídia que tem dado uma cobertura insignificante ao caso, mas também grupos que supostamente deveriam estar denunciando esses crimes, como as "feministas", que ficaram calados ou dando pouquíssima importância. Novamente, a desprezível indignação moral de muitos autodeclarados "de esquerda", em que parece que um crime só é digno de indignação se for cometido por seus inimigos políticos ou por indivíduos dos grupos que transformaram em bodes expiatórios, como os brancos. Então, para não serem vistos como "politicamente incorretos", se calaram por todo esse tempo e continuam... E ainda tem os que tentam abrandar a gravidade da situação... 

Pois, na Palestina, também tem acontecido atrocidades, cometidas contra civis pelo exército do estado de "Israel", pela desculpa de perseguir membros do grupo terrorista Hamas depois dos atentados de outubro. Algumas estimativas falam em mais de duzentos mil mortos com direito a todos os tipos de crimes de guerra possíveis. Mas... Porque a "mídia" ocidental está literalmente nas mesmas mãos sujas que estão exterminando inocentes naquela região...

Esses dois casos apenas reforçam as evidências de que a mídia nunca trabalhou para o bem comum, mas para o poder. 

What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

At first glance, nothing. They are just two distant locations, one in the north of England and the other in the Levant region of the Middle East. However, disturbing things have been happening in these regions. But the "mainstream media", for the same reasons, has avoided talking openly about each case at all costs, once again becoming what it has always been, one of the tentacles of power, covering up serious crimes because of its submission to "politically correct" guidelines.

In the first case, from 1997 to 2013, thousands of targeted rapes were committed, especially of White working-class teenagers, by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. And it is not only the media that has given the case insignificant coverage, but also groups that are supposed to be denouncing these crimes, such as "feminists", who have remained silent or given very little importance. Once again, the despicable moral indignation of many self-proclaimed "leftists", who believe that a crime is only worthy of indignation if it is committed by their political enemies or by individuals from the groups they have turned into scapegoats, such as White people. So, in order not to be seen as "politically incorrect", they have remained silent for all this time and continue to do so... And there are still those who try to downplay the gravity of the situation...

Well, in Palestine, atrocities have also been committed against civilians by the army of the state of "Israel", under the pretext of persecuting members of the terrorist group Hamas after the October attacks. Some estimates speak of more than two hundred thousand deaths, including all types of possible war crimes. But... Because the Western "media" is literally in the same dirty hands that are exterminating innocent people in that region...

These two cases only reinforce the evidence that the media has never worked for the common good, but for power.

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.

O nazismo disfarçado e inverso do anti branquismo/Disguised and inverse nazism of anti-whiteism

 Nazismo

Um grupo de brancos supremacistas que:

- Culpou os judeus por todos os males do mundo, por narrativas de demonização generalizada desta população;

- Quando chegou ao poder, na Alemanha dos anos 30, começou a discriminá-los abertamente, expulsando-os de cargos públicos, universidades e escolas; boicotando suas empresas; incentivando a hostilidade contra os mesmos; prendendo dissidentes e reativos às suas políticas hostis e por, fim, praticando limpeza étnica, expulsando-os de suas antigas localidades, para enviá-los a campos de concentração//extermínio.

Teoria da vingança via "cavalo de Tróia"

Então, temos o "anti racismo" que, na verdade, é um "anti branquismo", em que os algozes são os judeus supremacistas (sionistas) e as vítimas, os brancos europeus e seus descendentes da diáspora, vulgo "arianos". 

Vejamos:

O anti branquismo consiste na imposição de narrativas ou doutrinação (lavagem cerebral) e de políticas que têm como principal objetivo oprimir e até mesmo exterminar as pessoas brancas. Só que não acontece de maneira explícita e rápida, como aconteceu durante o regime nazista dos anos 30 do século passado, mas implícita e lentamente, sem que suas vítimas percebam do que se trata. Primeiro, tem a imposição de narrativas de demonização generalizada dos brancos e inculcação nos mesmos de auto ódio, como se todos fossem responsáveis pela escravidão africana ou pelo holocausto judeu (por exemplo). E essa imposição só tem sido possível com a infiltração de anti branquistas (sendo que, os mais importantes ou proeminentes têm sido muito desproporcionalmente de judeus) nas principais instituições do mundo ocidental: educação, mídia, governo... Segundo, também a partir de uma lavagem cerebral, baseada em manipulação emocional, brancos têm sido doutrinados a acreditar que raças humanas não existem, que suas diferenças são produtos de diferenças do meio e não de si mesmas, ou que suas diferenças não são mais intrínsecas, e que por, supostamente, serem culpados por todos os males da humanidade, precisam ser generosos com as "suas vítimas" do passado (e do presente), por exemplo, apoiando políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo. Eles também devem aceitar, de bom grado, políticas que os excluam ou os discriminem no mercado de trabalho e em outras áreas relevantes, como na educação superior. Pois essas medidas são análogas às que foram impostas pelos nazistas contra os judeus (e seus aliados gentios) durante o governo de Adolf Hitler. A mesma discriminação, a mesma narrativa de demonização e também a mesma limpeza étnica, só que por meio de um método indireto e legitimamente conspiratório: de políticas de imigração em massa nos países de maioria branca, incentivo ao auto ódio, à miscigenação racial e ao individualismo... Isto é, além da imposição de uma doutrinação de ideologias que incentivam a destruição dos valores tradicionais e o anti natalismo, como o feminismo e o individualismo, também incentivam à mistura de raças, especialmente dos brancos com outros grupos, enquanto demonizam o oposto, por exemplo, alargando em demasia o conceito de racismo e, a partir disso, classificando como tal qualquer defesa pela auto preservação racial, principalmente se for defendida por brancos. E como os brancos caucasianos apresentam fenótipos muito recessivos, os efeitos de uma miscigenação generalizada deste grupo representa o seu próprio desaparecimento ou de suas expressões fenotípicas mais autênticas, mas não apenas em aparência física, pois a mistura de raças também costuma ter os mesmos efeitos quanto aos traços mentais, se também são primariamente hereditários e mais recessivos (dos brancos bem como de outros grupos, como no caso de indivíduos de alto QI) , pelo que se percebe dos padrões de miscigenação...

Eu já comentei sobre esse tema nesse texto (Genocídio branco patrocinado pela "judiaria organizada": 'teoria' conspiratória ou realidade??),mas achei melhor voltar a falar sobre isso depois que cheguei a essa conclusão de que, o anti branquismo, primariamente orquestrados por judeus supremacistas ou sionistas, e amplamente adotado por seus "aliados" de outros grupos étnico-raciais, especialmente por muitos brancos ditos "de esquerda", se expressa exatamente como uma espécie de nazismo inverso (contra os "arianos", organizado e praticado principalmente por judeus*) e disfarçado: de justiça, correção histórica, empatia, amor, solidariedade, abnegação...

* Sempre deixo explícito que não pretendo generalizar grupos, como se todos os judeus estivessem plenamente conscientes dos planos de suas "elites" (ou máfias) em relação às outras populações humanas. 

Novamente, também tenho chegado à mesma conclusão que a do outro texto, de que se comporta ou se trata de um caso de "vingança" de um grupo sobre outro, diga-se, muito injusta, se também se baseia em uma generalização negativa de um grupo por outro(s). 

E no que isso tudo vai dar?? 

Em merda, é claro. 

Especialidade da espécie "mais inteligente"... 

Nazism

A group of white supremacists who:

- Blamed the Jews for all the evils of the world, through narratives of widespread demonization of this population;

- When they came to power in Germany in the 1930s, they began to openly discriminate against them, expelling them from public office, universities and schools; boycotting their companies; encouraging hostility against them; arresting dissidents and those who reacted to their hostile policies and, finally, practicing ethnic cleansing, expelling them from their former locations and sending them to concentration/extermination camps.

Theory of revenge via the "Trojan horse"

So, we have "anti-racism" which, in reality, is an "anti-whiteism", in which the executioners are the supremacist Jews (Zionists) and the victims, the white Europeans and their descendants from the diaspora, aka "Aryans".

Let's see:

Anti-whiteism consists of imposing narratives or indoctrination (brainwashing) and policies that have as their main objective the oppression and even extermination of white people. However, it does not happen explicitly and quickly, as it did during the Nazi regime in the 1930s, but implicitly and slowly, without its victims realizing what it is. First, there is the imposition of narratives of widespread demonization of white people and inculcation of self-hatred in them, as if every-White were responsible for African slavery or the Jewish Holocaust (for example). And this imposition has only been possible with the infiltration of anti-whiteists (the most important or prominent of whom have been disproportionately Jewish) into the main institutions of the Western world: education, media, government... Second, also through brainwashing, based on emotional manipulation, Whites have been indoctrinated to believe that human races do not exist, that their differences are products of differences in the environment and not of themselves, or that their differences are no more intrinsic, and that because they are supposedly to blame for all of humanity's ills, they need to be generous with "their victims" of the past (and present), for example, by supporting mass immigration policies or multiculturalism. They must also willingly accept policies that exclude or discriminate against them in the job market and in other relevant areas, such as higher education. For these measures are analogous to those imposed by the Nazis against the Jews (and their gentile allies) during the government of Adolf Hitler. The same discrimination, the same narrative of demonization and also the same ethnic cleansing, only through an indirect and legitimately conspiratorial method: mass immigration policies in countries with a white majority, encouraging self-hatred, racial miscegenation and individualism... That is, in addition to imposing an indoctrination of ideologies that encourage the destruction of traditional values ​​and anti-natalism, such as feminism and individualism, they also encourage the mixing of races, especially of Whites with other groups, while demonizing the opposite, for example, by overly broadening the concept of racism and, from that, classifying as such any defense of racial self-preservation, especially if it is defended by Whites. And since Caucasian Whites have very recessive phenotypes, the effects of widespread miscegenation of this group represent their own disappearance or their most authentic phenotypic expressions, but not only in physical appearance, since the mixing of races also tends to have the same effects on mental traits, if they are also primarily hereditary and more recessive (of Whites as well as of other groups, as in the case of individuals with high IQs), from what can be seen in the miscegenation patterns...

I have already commented on this topic in this text (White genocide sponsored by "organized Jewry": conspiracy 'theory' or reality??),but I thought it would be better to return to this after I came to the conclusion that anti-whiteism, primarily orchestrated by supremacist or Zionist Jews, and widely adopted by their "allies" from other ethnic-racial groups, especially by many so-called "left-wing" Whites, expresses itself exactly as a kind of reverse Nazism (against the "Aryans", organized and practiced mainly by Jews*) and disguised as: justice, historical correctness, empathy, love, solidarity, selflessness...

* I always make it clear that I do not intend to generalize groups, as if all Jews were fully aware of the plans of their "elites" (or mafias) in relation to other human populations.

Again, I have also reached the same conclusion as the other text, that it behaves or is a case of "revenge" of one group over another, let's say, very unfair, if it is also based on a negative generalization of one group by another(s).

And what will all this lead to??

In shit, of course.

Specialty of the "more intelligent" species

O anti branquismo do ativismo "anti racista" pode ser inteiramente resumido por uma (nova) falácia/The anti-whiteness of “anti-racist” activism can be entirely summed up by a (new) fallacy

 Falácia de atribuição indevida 

De culpar contemporâneos pelos crimes dos seus 'antepassados" ou de culpar cidadãos comuns pelas ações dos "seus' governos ou de "suas elites' e/ou de culpar indivíduos por ações de grupos específicos com base em uma relação vaga de identidade ou associação...

Misattribution fallacy

Of blaming contemporaries for the crimes of their 'ancestors' or of blaming ordinary citizens for the actions of 'their' governments or 'their elites' and/or of blaming individuals for the actions of specific groups based on a vague relationship of identity or association. ..

Um exemplo de empatia seletiva e falácia moral-histórica de ''esquerda'': política insensata de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo/An example of selective empathy and moral-historical fallacy of the ''left'': senseless policy of mass immigration or multiculturalism

 Eles, os autodeclarados juízes da moralidade pós moderna, ensinam que devemos sempre ter empatia pelos "mais necessitados", diga-se, especialmente se eles são de uma certa raça, gênero, sexualidade ou classe social... Então, temos a situação da imigração em massa, uma política insensata que tem sido imposta por partidos centristas e "de esquerda" em vários países e que tem causado muitos problemas aos mesmos. Então, temos esses juízes da moralidade pós moderna "ensinando" que os nativos de 'primeiro mundo" devem sentir empatia pelos imigrantes de "terceiro mundo", de recebê-los com generosidade, de defender por essa política, afinal, temos que nos colocar nos lugares dos outros, ainda mais se forem de grupos historicamente (auto) marginalizados. No entanto, não é tão simples assim, já que muitos desses imigrantes e refugiados que têm desembarcado nas regiões costeiras e cidades de primeiro mundo, no mínimo, não estão bem intencionados. Ou são muçulmanos com desejo de impor suas crenças e colonizar novas terras. Ou são qualquer outro tipo com ficha criminal ou apresentando comportamentos reprováveis. E não são apenas suposições, mas estatísticas de criminalidade e percepção variavelmente anedótica de padrões de comportamentos. Mas isso os juízes da moralidade pós moderna omitem ao máximo, chegando até a culpar os nativos por "racismo" ou "xenofobia". Além disso, quem é que sentirá empatia pelos nativos?? E por que não sentir?? Afinal, eles estão recebendo ondas cada vez maiores de estrangeiros com culturas níveis cognitivos e tipos de personalidade, em média, diferentes, em suas próprias terras e sem terem escolhido ou aprovado se submeterem a isso. E são especialmente os mais pobres, a classe trabalhadora nativa, que está recebendo o grosso dessa imigração, já que ricos e classe média se encastelam em seus bairros seguros, sendo que são esses dois grupos os que mais defendem por essas políticas. Pois sentir empatia dentro de um contexto também significa sentir por todos os que estão envolvidos. Não apenas empatia, mas também associada a uma análise racional, ponderada, sensata... Então, se é verdade que se deve ser solidário com refugiados fugindo de conflitos armados, também é importante entender que sua cidade, estado ou país infelizmente não pode resolver todos os problemas do mundo. Que, se acontecem tais conflitos, a culpa definitivamente não é sua, apenas se tiver participação direta. Nem mesmo se o governo do seu país tiver participação, porque você não tem controle sobre o que os seus governantes decidem fazer. Portanto, por mais triste possa ser um conflito armado, como uma guerra civil, um país sozinho não é capaz de receber todos os refugiados que estiverem fugindo desse conflito. Além disso, o status de refugiado não deve conferir imunidade total de comportamento a ninguém. Pois ninguém deve ser absolvido pelo cometimento de crimes, como o estupro, só por ser um refugiado. Nem faz sentido que um indivíduo genuinamente fugindo de uma opressão a cometa com outras pessoas. E se fizer, deve ser exemplarmente punido. Também é importante saber diferenciar refugiados verdadeiros de tipos que estão se passando ou se aproveitando para obter os benefícios sociais que o status tende a conferir. Uma dica: refugiados verdadeiros tendem a vir acompanhados de suas famílias... Já em relação à imigração, nenhum país é obrigado a manter suas fronteiras abertas para grandes fluxos de imigrantes. Nenhum país deveria ser forçado ao multiculturalismo, como tem acontecido. Ainda mais sabendo que costuma causar mais problemas do que melhorar a qualidade de vida de uma cidade, região ou país. O histórico do multiculturalismo definitivamente não é favorável ao mesmo. 

"Mas vocês já foram imigrantes no passado. Não podem reclamar dos imigrantes atuais"

Um juiz da moralidade pós moderna pode usar esse argumento para convencer italianos ou irlandeses, por exemplo, a não oferecerem qualquer resistência à políticas de imigração em massa ou multiculturalismo. Porém, todavia, contudo, nenhum país deveria servir ou se tornar uma espécie de albergue permanente para o mundo. Nem mesmo países historicamente de imigrantes como os EUA ou o Canadá. Nem eles. Porque não existe nada de imoral ou irracional que os impossibilite de decretar moratória da imigração ou diminuição significativa da recepção de fluxos de estrangeiros. Eles podem. Não o fazem porque boa parte de suas classes políticas estão mancomunadas com esse projeto de destruir suas culturas e suas maiorias demográficas de brancos de origem europeia e não, não é por um mundo melhor, disso tenha certeza, porque, mais uma vez ou como sempre, é pelo poder. Uma nova maneira de continuar oprimindo e dividindo o povo, de continuar criando bodes expiatórios ao invés de se responsabilizarem por suas próprias ações de agora e também do passado, tal como de se responsabilizarem, as "elites" ocidentais, pelo colonialismo, sem responsabilizar "brancos" ou povos de origem europeia, se forem pessoas "de elite" que organizaram, patrocinaram e protagonizaram as grandes navegações e os projetos "colonialistas'... Mas isso os juízes pós modernos supostamente contrários à opressão não enxergam ou fingem que não está acontecendo. Talvez porque não são tão perfeitos assim como pensam para julgar moralmente os outros, mais do que a si próprios...

They, the self-declared judges of postmodern morality, teach that we should always have empathy for those "most in need", so to speak, especially if they are of a certain race, gender, sexuality or social class... So, we have the situation of mass immigration, a senseless policy that has been imposed by centrist and "left-wing" parties in several countries and has caused them many problems. So, we have these judges of postmodern morality "teaching" that natives of the 'first world' must feel empathy for immigrants from the 'third world', to welcome them with generosity, to defend this policy, after all, we have to put ourselves in other people's places, even more so if they are from historically (self) marginalized groups. However, it is not that simple, since many of these immigrants and refugees who have landed in coastal regions and first world cities do not have good intentions. They are Muslims with a desire to impose their beliefs and colonize new lands. Or they are any other type with a criminal record or exhibiting reprehensible behavior. And these are not just assumptions, but crime statistics and anecdotal perception of behavior patterns.

But the judges of postmodern morality omit this as much as possible, going so far as to blame the natives for "racism" or "xenophobia". Besides, who will feel empathy for the natives? And why not feel it?? After all, they are receiving increasing waves of foreigners with different cultures, cognitive levels and personality types, on average, into their own lands and without having chosen or approved to submit to it. And it is especially the poorest, the native working class, who are receiving the bulk of this immigration, as the rich and middle class are nestled in their safe neighborhoods, and these two groups are the ones who most defend these policies. Because feeling empathy within a context also means feeling for everyone involved. Not just empathy, but also associated with a rational, considered, sensible analysis... So, if it is true that one must show solidarity with refugees fleeing armed conflicts, it is also important to understand that your city, state or country unfortunately cannot resolve all the problems in the world. That, if such conflicts occur, it is definitely not your fault, only if you have direct participation. Not even if your country's government has participation, because you have no control over what your rulers decide to do. Therefore, no matter how sad an armed conflict, such as a civil war, may be, a country alone is not capable of receiving all the refugees fleeing that conflict. Furthermore, refugee status should not confer total behavioral immunity on anyone. Because no one should be absolved of committing crimes, such as rape, just because they are a refugee. Nor does it make sense for an individual genuinely fleeing oppression to commit it to other people. And if he does, he must be exemplarily punished. It is also important to know how to differentiate true refugees from types who are impersonating or taking advantage to obtain the social benefits that status tends to confer. A tip: real refugees tend to come with their families... Regarding immigration, no country is obliged to keep its borders open to large flows of immigrants. No country should be forced into multiculturalism, as has been the case. Even more so knowing that it usually causes more problems than improving the quality of life in a city, region or country. The history of multiculturalism is definitely not favorable to it.

"But you were immigrants in the past. You can't complain about current immigrants"

A judge of postmodern morality can use this argument to convince Italians or Irish, for example, not to offer any resistance to policies of mass immigration or multiculturalism. However, no country should serve or become a kind of permanent hostel for the world. Not even historically immigrant countries like the USA or Canada. Neither do they. Because there is nothing immoral or irrational that makes it impossible for them to declare a moratorium on immigration or a significant reduction in the reception of foreigners. They can. They don't do it because a good part of their political classes are in league with this project of destroying their cultures and their demographic majority of white people of European origin and no, it's not for a better world, that's for sure, because, once again or as always , it's for power. A new way of continuing to oppress and divide the people, of continuing to create scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for their own actions now and in the past, as well as holding Western "elites" responsible for colonialism, without holding them accountable." whites" or people of European origin, if

were/it has been the ''elites'' who organized, sponsored and led the great navigations and "colonialist" projects... But postmodern judges supposedly opposed to oppression do not see this or pretend that it is not happening. Maybe because they are not that perfect. how they think to morally judge others, more than themselves...