Academics are typical leftists, but leftism is the most primitive, anti-intellectual teaching. How can this be?

The academics in question are not real scientists, but mostly engage in false liberal sciences. In Israel—and as far as I know, in America—many technical scientists (physicists, engineers, etc.) are right-wingers. Not all of them, but at least the proportion of conservatives among them is tremendously higher than among liberal academics. It strains credulity to call literature, ecology, or economics science. Economists—and I used to be one of them—are only good at explaining facts post factum. No economic theory has ever succeeded in successfully predicting or preventing upheavals.

In order to implant their political notions, leftists discard their accumulated knowledge. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history can see that leftist policies are unworkable. Not surprisingly, wherever they have taken power, leftists have quashed education. In the Soviet Union, Israel, Cambodia, China, and now in the United States, education is geared toward affirming uniformity. Pupils are taught to learn rather than think. Excellence is no longer a desired outcome of education—rather, compliance is praised. Governments do not need inquisitive, sharp minds—and governments manage educational systems. In democracies no less than totalitarian states, uniformity has become an ideological value: people have equal vote, thus people are similar. Multiculturalism is a logical offshoot of this approach: cultures are similar, just as people are. Bad students are good football players, or at least they must be praised for bringing cultural diversity to the campus; everyone is good in his own sense, no one is better than another. Being too smart has become unfashionable. People are ashamed to prove themselves right; they don’t want to offend others as wrong. Finding something good about everyone dooms education to the absence of a true intellectual elite. Worse, leftists praise uniformity. While they use it as a way to turn voters into a herd, civilization itself suffers because debates fuel progress. Unless people feel strongly about their opinions, they won’t press them. There is no essential difference between the Allied war on the Nazis and Einstein’s iconoclastic work: society needs extreme opinions and battles. Progress does not come about by niceness, but through intolerance to others’ opinions.

More broadly, uniformity and non-judgmental attitudes lead to an inability to tell right from wrong. Cannibalism becomes a cultural aberration, Iran and the US are described as equally oppressive regimes, terrorists and the war on them both cause civilian losses. Moral relativism ensures an absence of morality. Unwillingness to stand above the nihilist crowd transforms democracy into an ochlocracy ruled by self-proclaimed intellectuals—who, as is often the case with ecologists, lack a relevant university diploma and certainly do not qualify as intellectual leaders of the society.

Not incidentally, the Soviet Union, Israel, and Cambodia shared an important trait: pastoralism. The trend was pronounced in Israel and Cambodia, which promoted pastoral agricultural societies, and a bit veiled in Russia, which replaced peasants with no less pastoral workers—uniform, primitive, and content. Only on the background of a decidedly non-intellectual society can fake academics look comparatively intellectual and become leaders.