Time & Thoughts - (My Blog)

At a time when information seems to be available in unlimited quantities, one would think that truth and science would be valued more than ever. But the opposite is true: we live in a post-factual era – an age in which objective facts have less influence on public opinion than emotions, personal beliefs or ideological narratives.

In this context, anti-intellectualism does not merely refer to scepticism towards academic institutions or experts. As early as 1980, Isaac Asimov described a ‘cult of ignorance’ that feeds the idea that ignorance is just as valuable as knowledge. This way of thinking has been reinforced in recent decades by the media, political movements and economic interests. It is a deep-seated rejection of thinking, education, science and critical debate – often coupled with the feeling that ‘simple truths’ are more valuable than complex, scientifically based explanations.

At the end of the 20th century, Prof. Carl Sagan warned of a situation in which the public no longer understands the technologies it uses – a situation that is now a reality. Scientific facts such as climate change or evolution are systematically denied, often for ideological or economic reasons, think neo-Darwinism, vaccination deniers, ethno-nationalism, state bourgeois nationalism or climate change deniers and the expansion of fossil fuel power plants. This makes the population susceptible to manipulation and authoritarian tendencies. The consequences: social division, nationalism, and a public that distrusts real scientists while blindly following demagogues and conspiracy theorists.

Very old historical examples, such as the persecution of scientists under Stalin or Mao Zedong, show (among other things) where anti-scientific ideologies can lead. Something similar threatens to happen today when political leaders delegitimise science and promote pseudoscience instead. Projects such as ‘Project 2025’ reveal concrete plans to transform the US zeitgeist into a Christian-ethno-nationalist autocracy – with dramatic consequences for science, education and regulation.

In this context, the close relationship between Elon Musk and the Trump administration cannot be ignored. There is evidence that Musk may have used political influence during this period to weaken regulatory agencies such as the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) – just as Tesla was launching its extremely limited and staged robo-taxi beta version. The dangers of such deregulation are enormous when economic interests are placed above the safety of the population.

As reports from the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND), among others, show, Russia is actively interfering in democratic elections – including in Germany. Similar developments can be observed in Poland, where Mr Nawrocki, who pursues an EU-critical, populist agenda, was recently elected. Similar tendencies can also be seen among political actors such as the currently inactive Marine Le Pen, who is embroiled in scandals involving the misuse of EU funds.

But we can look even further back into the past: after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, it became clear how dangerous it can be to polarise society into ‘for or against’ camps. The rhetoric of then US President George W. Bush – ‘If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists’ – created a binary world order in which any critical or moderate voice was marginalised.

This black-and-white logic was deliberately promoted by extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS in order to further divide society and thereby gain support. This pattern was repeated in later events – such as the assassination attempt on President Trump or after the Hamas attack in 2025 – with violence often targeting the social centre while the extremes grow stronger.

In such emotionally charged contexts, any new social measure quickly becomes a projection screen for ideological camp formation – with dangerous consequences. According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) and the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI), the number of politically motivated crimes in Germany rose from 60,028 in 2023 to 84,172 in 2024 – an increase of 40.22%. Of these, 47.83% had a right-wing extremist background.

All of this plays into the hands of those who deliberately seek to divide and escalate our society – Russia, China, Iran and their networks of influence. In this way, we ultimately undermine ourselves.

At the same time, we are experiencing the harmful effects of anti-science narratives in health policy. The anti-vaccination movement, originally started by Andrew Wakefield – a discredited doctor who earned considerable sums of money with deliberately false claims – has led to deep social division, especially during the coronavirus pandemic.

Today, we are seeing the consequences: in the United States, for example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an avowed anti-vaccinationist, is being touted as a possible candidate for key positions in the healthcare system. Such developments undermine confidence in centuries-old medical achievements – such as the groundbreaking work of Edward Jenner, who saved millions of lives with his smallpox vaccination in the 18th century. The fact that the very idea of vaccination is being questioned and actively opposed is an alarming sign. We are talking about the same medical practice that led to the complete eradication of smallpox in 1980 – a disease that claimed an estimated 300 million lives in the 20th century alone. And this does not only apply to smallpox: vaccinations against measles, diphtheria and polio (poliomyelitis) have also saved countless lives throughout history. Today, these achievements are once again under ideological attack – with dangerous consequences for public health.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we are in the midst of a political circus – and many of the actors around us are behaving like trained monkeys in the ring. Of course, many good things have happened in the world that deserve to be recognised. But as you probably know yourself, negative narratives unfortunately always sell better than positive ones.

Anti-intellectualism is essentially fuelled by three main sources: religious anti-rationalism (emotions instead of facts), populist anti-elitism (distrust of educational institutions) and pure utilitarianism (knowledge is only valued if it brings economic benefits). These tendencies lead to active opposition to science and favour authoritarian structures. These aspects can be explored in greater depth, for example with reference to Max Weber – the founder of sociology – who described in detail in his notes the importance of charismatic legitimacy, which populists exploit to their advantage.

As you can see, there is still a lot to be said on this subject – but this is by no means an exhaustive treatment.

‍

There is much more to tell, but be advised and see it for yourself:

https://kacper-patryk-sobczak.webflow.io/blog/blog-1

‍