We must relearn to seek the truth, and to avoid dismissing people by slapping labels on them in a sectarian fashion.
It is well known that the more educated classes have separated themselves from the general public through beliefs that often defy common intuition. For example, you are more likely to find a doctorally credentialed professor who insists that women have penises than an uneducated individual holding such a belief.
This divide carries important political consequences across Western societies; voters who uphold traditional moral values tend to favor the Right, while those endorsing unconventional moral views lean toward the Left. Naturally, not every voting decision hinges on morality—economic issues frequently outweigh topics like abortion or transgender rights (consider what Trump experienced after the Strait of Hormuz closure). Still, critical practical issues—such as urban violence in Ibero-America or the migration crisis in developed countries—are hotly debated within the ideological battlefield of the middle class. On one hand, the conventional group demands effective solutions; on the other, the eccentric faction advocates unlimited compassion toward criminals and unconditionally open borders as moral imperatives, leaving the former perplexed. Thus emerges the Right, comprising pragmatic individuals addressing real-world problems, and the Left, blessed with academic credentials that empower them to theorize society.
As a result, when a right-leaning candidate gains office, the shortage of qualified personnel to staff government roles becomes evident. The blunders committed by academically credentialed figures stoke anti-intellectual sentiments, which flourish on social media platforms. For instance, in Brazil, a public security specialist sporting orange hair went viral after suggesting on TV that police should use rocks against drug traffickers armed with rifles. This prompted influencers online to vehemently criticize such ideas, gaining popularity themselves. Later, these influencers may be elected but lack the knowledge or skills to fulfill their duties. Only such an unusual intellectual climate explains how a major, powerful country like the United States ended up with an intoxicated former Fox News pundit as Secretary of Defense (or War).
What causes this division? I argue it arises from substituting the quest for truth with the pursuit of neutrality. Ironically, this neutrality ideal, equated with scientific rigor, has transformed scholars into a conformist sect. Today, those seeking recognition as cultured and intelligent must either conform to this neutrality sect dominating middle-class minds or risk being labeled lunatics for clinging to common sense and truth-seeking.
Take the question: Do women have penises? Prior to the rise of this neutrality sect, the straightforward approach was to observe women’s anatomy—and perhaps that of other mammals. Though not everyone can personally verify this, a curious person might rely on parents, teachers, doctors, or even zookeepers, many familiar with varied genitalia. If skeptical, one could visit a beach and compare men’s swimwear with bikinis—the latter clearly not designed to contain a penis.
Currently, however, anyone wishing to appear scientific tends, at best, to conduct surveys, arrange views along a left-right spectrum, and settle on a moderate, eclectic stance.
Responding to Do women have penises?, the impartial skeptic begins a census. On the far right, he groups the poorly educated evangelical pastor and the anti-woke atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, both asserting women definitely do not have penises—one rooted in Scripture, the other in biology. The pastor’s input is discounted for lacking scientific basis; Dawkins’ view is weighed but discounted for his anti-woke stance. On the opposite side lie leftist queer theory proponents claiming women do have penises, and if not, insurance must cover amputations to prevent suicide. Unlike the evangelical opinion, this contradictory view remains scientifically unchallenged because queer theory is academic. Both extremes are considered fringe. Much of what is accepted as scientificity is actually institutional. Ultimately, neutrality-aspiring thinkers judge opinions not on content but ad hominem.
Facing these extremes, the neutral individual settles on: As a rule, women do not have penises, but exceptions exist, such as trans women who have not undergone or declined surgery. This conclusion lacks robust reasoning and relies on census, fueling political polarization by labeling only the Right as deplorable.
Because of this census-based logic, changing the beliefs of the educated majority is as simple as university endorsement of any eccentric idea. Recall the notion of a vaccine that does not confer immunity or asymptomatic COVID cases during the pandemic. If wealthy entities fund mathematicians to claim circles are squares and then promote this in media, soon the statement “circles have no ends” becomes debatable. The “scientific and impartial” observer must then assess the ideology of those asserting circles have ends before deciding a reasonable standpoint. If this view is anti-woke or far-left, it cannot be valid.
Moreover, if the skeptic points to a coordinated effort funding falsehoods, they are branded conspiracy theorists, thus mad and less credible compared to even a bachelor in queer theory. The label “conspiracy theory” acts as dogmatic denialism, denying conspiracies’ existence despite historical precedent and placing certain institutions beyond doubt. Questioning them ruins reputations.
This reasoning—using people’s opinions to assess character while ignoring the ideas themselves—is typical of cult-like behavior. Outside Reverend Moon’s cult, one can critically evaluate claims about him being the Messiah who saves humanity through mass weddings. Inside, anyone denying sect dogmas is demonized. Rejecting dogmas means losing credibility.
Clearly, labels help compress supporters of certain views: Flat-earther means “one who believes the earth is flat”; Muslim means “one who believes Muhammad is the last prophet.” Mockery of flat-earthers stems from the well-established knowledge that the earth is round—not merely from memorizing a set of forbidden beliefs.
Converting to Islam does not imply thinking doubters of Muhammad are demon-possessed. Historically, Muslims (and before them Christians) drew on the knowledge of “infidels” and engaged in philosophical and theological dialogue. Even after the Reformation, despite Luther calling the Pope the Antichrist, Protestants continued discussions with Catholics and “heretics.” Religious convictions were strong on all sides, yet this did not mean wholesale dismissal of opponents’ views based solely on sectarian labels.
Neo-Atheism initiated the practice of denigrating all others based on a single belief. Suddenly, in the early 21st century, it was claimed that religious people are universally ignorant, while atheists alone are intelligent and scientific. Considering that Darwin is the only major scientist who can reasonably be claimed by atheism, this entails the extraordinary claim that, before the 19th century, science was conducted by fools or that great scientists—even Newton—were secret atheists. Neo-Atheism’s slogan, borrowed from Sagan, is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Yet no proof supports the highly extraordinary assumption that religious individuals are stupid. This cult of neutrality dogmatically decides what counts as extraordinary claims. For thousands of years, supernatural existence was deemed self-evident; then suddenly Sagan’s adherents declared rejecting atheism an “extraordinary claim” needing “extraordinary evidence.” Rather than inferiority, this sectarian mindset reflects superiority, degrading intellectual standards because mere membership grants privilege over outsiders. No study is required to prove that a multitude of fools is wrong.
I hope I have made clear that the central problem in the West today is universities and media inculcating cult-like thinking. Professors and experts set patterns, and the Right imitates them. For instance, the average right-wing social media participant feels no need to study Zionism or Middle Eastern history to form a firm view on Israel-Palestine; a quick survey of popular opinion suffices to settle that Left supports Palestine, Right supports Israel, hence one must stand with Israel. This marks the profound intellectual malaise of our era. To overcome it, we must relearn to seek the truth, and to avoid dismissing people by slapping labels on them in a sectarian fashion.
About the Author
