They are so innocent and do everything to improve humankind’s well-being. Unlike dirty, corrupt, lying, and self-centered, egomaniacal, narcissistic politicians, they are devoid of these characteristics. I want to prove it wrong. Scholars and politicians are on the same level.
Academia is not only a world just like showmen have (with their own rules), but it is grossly immoral, based on patron-client systems.
Society is ridden with clientelism, academia is no excemption
A friend of a friend has a friend and he or she will get you a job. This goes without saying. Well, when the super-rich want their share of a politician, it is a problem no matter that we are the same (of course, clientelism in politics is heightened).
There are many forms of clientelism that academia is ridden by.
Excessive adulation clientelism
The Shakesperian language posesses many words for this, but I am highly suspicious I cannot find a polite one.
Excessive adulation and clientelism in academia involve behaviors such as constantly praising influential individuals regardless of genuine alignment, seeking approval through excessive flattery for preferential treatment, suppressing dissent or criticism to maintain positive relationships with those in power, and endorsing ideas without critical evaluation solely based on the reputation of the source. These practices undermine academic integrity by prioritizing personal relationships over merit-based evaluation, potentially stifling innovation and diversity of thought within academic institutions.
Religious clientelism
Are you a Jew or a Christian? The doors may be closed or opened for you. It may sound silly since the scientists should be the last to be guided by religion in the world of science. But it is the way it is.
Funding opportunities, research grants, and access to resources within academic institutions may be disproportionately allocated based on religious affiliations or associations, rather than on the quality or potential impact of the research.
Religious networks and communities outside academia may exert influence over academic decisions, collaborations, and opportunities, creating a form of clientelism where personal or group affiliations impact professional advancement.
Conformism
Are you deviating a bit (in your work or behavior)? It is over. You must obey their rules. Academia claims to value originality, but conformism dominates. Scholars follow trends, fearing isolation. Funding, publishing, and career advancement depend on aligning with prevailing views. Challenging mainstream theories risks rejection. Even peer review enforces ideological boundaries. Dissent is punished, not debated. The result is intellectual stagnation. Ideas repeat in cycles, with minor modifications. Innovation happens within strict limits. Academics compete for approval, not truth.
Universities reward compliance. Research must fit accepted narratives. Departments expect ideological loyalty. Risk-taking is rare. Safe topics secure grants. Radical ideas remain unpublished. Careers depend on fitting in. Even students conform, fearing grades. Critical thinking is praised in theory, suppressed in practice. Prestige matters more than discovery. True breakthroughs come from outsiders, not institutions.
Scholars and politicians: Other kinds of clientelism
Academia is built on clientelism, and funding dictates research at every level. Scholars do not freely pursue truth; instead, they follow money because their survival depends on it. Grants always come with conditions, whether from governments, corporations, or NGOs. Corporate sponsors fund projects that align with their business interests, ensuring that research does not threaten their profits. Meanwhile, governments allocate funding to studies that support their policy agendas, subtly shaping academic discourse.
Even NGOs, which claim to promote independent inquiry, fund only the research that reinforces their ideological narratives. As a result, researchers must adjust their focus, not out of curiosity, but because their careers depend on it. Consequently, independent inquiry suffers, and radical ideas rarely receive financial support. Moreover, unpopular findings often remain unpublished, not because they lack merit, but because they do not fit within the accepted framework. In the end, money does not merely influence knowledge; it outright controls it.
Name favoring
Furthermore, publishing is a closed circuit where only insiders thrive. Journal editors favor familiar names, giving preference to established scholars, regardless of the actual quality of their work. As a result, younger or independent researchers struggle to get published, even if their findings are groundbreaking. Additionally, the peer review system, which is supposed to ensure academic rigor, often functions as a gatekeeping mechanism.
Reviewers tend to belong to the same ideological and institutional networks, making them more likely to reject papers that challenge dominant perspectives. In many cases, papers that question mainstream theories face harsher scrutiny, not because they lack validity, but because they disrupt the status quo. At the same time, citation cartels further distort academic credibility. Groups of scholars strategically cite each other’s work, inflating their impact factors and creating an illusion of widespread influence. Because of this, prestige determines a scholar’s success far more than originality does. Even when a piece of research is revolutionary, it struggles to gain recognition without the right connections. Therefore, the most cited ideas are not necessarily the best; rather, they are simply the best positioned within the academic hierarchy.
Moreover, hiring in academia follows the same pattern of clientelism, reinforcing institutional loyalty over intellectual merit. Universities overwhelmingly favor candidates with strong connections rather than those with truly independent thought. In most cases, departmental politics determine who gets hired, rather than genuine scholarly contributions.
Clientelism: Connections
Additionally, graduates from elite institutions enjoy a significant advantage in the hiring process, regardless of their actual ability. Hiring committees often select candidates who fit their intellectual and ideological preferences, ensuring that dissenting perspectives remain on the margins. Similarly, promotion is not about pushing boundaries but about reinforcing existing structures. Junior faculty members quickly learn that their career progression depends on pleasing senior academics rather than challenging them. Because of this, tenure, which should be a mark of academic excellence, instead becomes a test of loyalty. Those who challenge mainstream narratives find themselves sidelined, regardless of the validity of their arguments. Ultimately, academic careers depend on compliance rather than brilliance, further entrenching intellectual conformity.
In addition to hiring biases, entire departments function through patronage, further consolidating control over research agendas. Rather than being driven by curiosity, research priorities are dictated from the top down. Senior academics, who have spent decades cementing their influence, determine what topics receive attention, ensuring that certain fields remain dominant while others are neglected. Consequently, younger researchers have little room for intellectual exploration and must conform to these predefined structures. Furthermore, the same scholars dominate major academic conferences year after year. Invitations to these events depend less on merit and more on personal networks, making it difficult for new voices to be heard. As a result, visibility in academia follows influence rather than genuine discovery. The gatekeepers of knowledge carefully protect their own, while alternative perspectives are ignored or dismissed. Consequently, dissenting voices struggle to gain traction, reinforcing an environment where only approved narratives can thrive.
Theories persist
Beyond personal networks, academic favoritism extends into publishing, research priorities, and public discourse. Textbook monopolies play a significant role in shaping entire disciplines, as leading scholars ensure that their works become the standard reading material. By doing so, they cement their perspectives as the dominant narratives while effectively suppressing competing ideas. Similarly, retractions, which should serve as a corrective mechanism for academic errors, are often weaponized for political reasons. Research that contradicts mainstream theories faces disproportionate scrutiny, while flawed studies that align with dominant views are left unchallenged.
Meanwhile, NGOs, political groups, and think tanks further manipulate academia by funding research that supports their ideological goals. As a result, academic discourse becomes a tool for advocacy rather than independent inquiry. Additionally, the media plays a crucial role in this process by amplifying the voices of scholars who reinforce popular narratives. In doing so, they create the illusion that these academics represent the consensus, when in reality, their influence is manufactured rather than earned. Furthermore, wealthy donors exacerbate this issue by establishing research centers that push their ideological agendas under the guise of objective scholarship. Because of these dynamics, academia increasingly functions as an echo chamber rather than a space for genuine debate.
No controversial ideas
At the same time, universities promote a superficial form of diversity that masks deep intellectual conformity. While institutions claim to foster critical thinking, they actively suppress those who challenge established views. Controversial ideas are not engaged with but dismissed as dangerous or inappropriate. Alternative perspectives are ignored, regardless of their merit. Consequently, students are trained not to question but to follow.
This problem is particularly evident at the PhD level, where young scholars quickly learn that their survival depends on conformity rather than originality. If they challenge dominant views, they risk being ostracized or failing to secure a future in academia. Because of this, grades become more important than actual learning, and safe opinions are rewarded over bold insights. Prestige overshadows truth, as scholars prioritize their reputations over genuine discovery. In the end, academia does not nurture innovation—it suppresses it. The system rewards those who master its rules, not those who seek to break them. As history has shown, true breakthroughs do not come from within these rigid structures but from those who reject them entirely.
Stealing from students
Plagiarism and idea theft are common. Senior scholars sometimes steal ideas from their students or younger colleagues. They publish them as their own, knowing the victims cannot fight back. The power imbalance makes it nearly impossible to call them out without career suicide.
Academia is full of gatekeeping. The most prestigious institutions control what gets published, who gets cited, and who gets funding. It is not always about merit. It is often about connections, institutional prestige, and political alignment. A brilliant researcher from an unknown university has less chance of being heard than a mediocre one from Harvard.
Academic conferences are often a scam. Many exist just to make money from registration fees. Some accept laughable submissions. There have been cases where joke papers, or even AI-generated nonsense, got accepted. The goal is not knowledge but profit.
The peer review system is broken. Reviewers can be biased, lazy, or outright hostile. Some block papers that challenge their own work. Others delay reviews to prevent competitors from publishing first. Some give vague rejections just because they do not like the author or their institution.
Scholars in some fields act like a mafia. They protect their own, promote each other, and blacklist outsiders. Some journals are controlled by small groups who decide what gets published. If you are not in the club, you will struggle to get recognition.
There is also arrogance. Many scholars think they are above everyone else. They dismiss non-academics as ignorant, even when those outsiders have real-world experience that scholars lack. Some become so specialized that they lose touch with reality, locked in their tiny niche, convinced of their own brilliance.
US scholars: Overseeing destruction of other academia systems overseas
When you are not aware of disgusting internal political affairs (and 98 % happens in the shadow), you must think I have gone mad. So first, we have evidence the US is controlled by extremely wealthy power networks. America, undoubtedly, wants to be technologically the most advanced. This assures it has the best military, so the super-rich groups can exert more influence overseas. However, having the best universities doesn’t get the job done. You must ensure the others perform badly.
There is the CIA which has an unlimited budget and has its scholar power networks overseas which ensure that foreign universities are bad. And then we have the Western interconnected banking system the US rules in, therefore the constellations politicians listen to are made in a way that foreign universities are bad (yes, politicians listen to the big money).
The US doesn’t destroy systems that are connected to its power network (the UK, Australia, and so on).
What does an average scholar have to go through?
He must enter academia believing it is a pursuit of truth, a refuge for free thought and discovery. He quickly realizes he is wrong. From the very beginning, success does not depend on merit but on connections. Finding a job is not about proving intellectual worth. A friend of a friend must recommend him. A former professor must pull strings. Without the right network, he remains invisible. People condemn political clientelism as corruption, yet in academia, it is simply how things work.
Once inside, he must prove his loyalty. He sees that the system rewards not intelligence but obedience, watches colleagues rise by flattering the right people, praising senior academics regardless of whether they deserve it. He learns that criticizing powerful figures, even respectfully, is dangerous. Questioning dominant theories can end a career. He sees brilliant thinkers disappear into obscurity, while others, skilled in excessive adulation, climb the ranks with ease. It is not about producing original thought but about reinforcing existing power structures.
Long live religious clientelism
He must also navigate religious clientelism, though academia claims to be secular. Certain networks subtly control funding, hiring, and promotions. If he belongs to the right group, doors open. If not, opportunities disappear. He might think science should be independent of religion, yet he quickly learns that affiliations matter more than ideas. Institutions that pride themselves on objectivity still operate through hidden loyalties, much like in politics.
As his career progresses, he must chase funding. Research is not driven by curiosity but by financial survival. Grants always come with conditions. Government funding flows to studies that support policy goals. Corporations back projects that align with their business interests. NGOs promote research that reinforces their ideological narratives. He must align his work with these expectations, or he will not be funded at all. Independent inquiry does not pay the bills. If his research challenges powerful institutions, it will not see the light of day.
Favoritism
Publishing is the next barrier. He must submit his work to journals where editors favor familiar names. Peer review, meant to uphold academic rigor, instead functions as an enforcement tool for intellectual conformity. Reviewers belong to the same networks, ensuring that dissenting views do not get published. If his research challenges mainstream ideas, it faces harsher scrutiny. Meanwhile, citation cartels inflate the reputations of insiders, making it seem as if certain ideas are universally accepted. Prestige, not truth, determines success. Even groundbreaking work remains invisible without the right connections.
He must also survive the politics of hiring and promotion. Universities value loyalty over independent thought. Departmental politics dictate who gets a position. Graduates from elite institutions enjoy an advantage, regardless of ability. Hiring committees select candidates who fit their intellectual and ideological preferences. If he conforms, he advances. If he deviates, he is cast aside. Tenure, supposedly a safeguard for academic freedom, becomes a test of obedience. Those who please the right people are rewarded. Those who think for themselves are not.
Patron-client system just like in politics
Beyond his own career, he must accept that entire departments function through patronage. Research agendas are dictated from the top. Senior academics, who have spent decades cementing their influence, decide what is worthy of study. The same names dominate conferences, reinforcing each other’s authority. Invitations depend on personal connections. Young scholars struggle to be heard. Only approved narratives are allowed to thrive. Dissenting voices remain on the margins, unheard and irrelevant.
Even outside the university, academia is ruled by clientelism. Textbook monopolies shape entire disciplines. Leading scholars promote their own works, ensuring their perspectives define the field. Retractions, meant to correct errors, instead become political weapons. Research that contradicts mainstream theories is discredited, while flawed studies that align with dominant views remain untouched. NGOs and political groups fund research that supports their interests, turning academia into an advocacy machine. The media amplifies voices that reinforce accepted narratives, while alternative perspectives are silenced. Wealthy donors create research centers that push ideological agendas under the guise of objectivity.
Dangerous ideas
At the same time, universities promote superficial diversity while enforcing deep intellectual conformity. They claim to foster critical thinking, but he must never challenge their assumptions. Controversial ideas are dismissed as dangerous. Alternative perspectives are ignored. Students are trained not to question, but to follow. PhD candidates quickly learn that their survival depends on obedience. Their future rests in the hands of senior academics, making true independence impossible. Just as politicians must follow party lines, scholars must follow institutional orthodoxy.
Ultimately, he must accept that scholars and politicians operate on the same level. Both navigate systems of clientelism. Both must secure patronage to survive. Success depends not on merit but on connections, loyalty, and financial backing. Academia presents itself as a space for free thought, yet it functions like a political machine. It rewards conformity and punishes dissent. In the end, it does not produce thinkers; it produces careerists who learn to play the game. Those who refuse to play are left behind. True innovation, like true political revolution, comes from those who reject the system entirely.
Nobel Prizes and clientelism?
A lot of people wrote about the possibility (I wrote this in a way they cannot sue me) of clientelism in the awarding of Nobel Prizes. The scientists create complex influence cliques that are selective (for example by prestige, the kind of specific research). These cliques dominate nominations, ensuring that those within elite institutions and networks have a higher chance of recognition, while outsiders, regardless of merit, struggle to be acknowledged.
Also, international cliques based on money and religion influence everything. Funding politics shape which research is visible, which scientists gain prominence, and ultimately, who is considered for the prize. Wealthy donors and ideological power structures have an unspoken role in reinforcing certain narratives. The Peace and Literature Prizes, in particular, have often aligned with geopolitical interests, favoring figures who fit into Western ideological frameworks.
And, of course, society is ridden with clientelism. The Nobel Prize system is no different. Prestige, institutional backing, and networks matter as much as, if not more than, true groundbreaking achievement. It is not just about recognizing the best—it is about legitimizing those who have successfully navigated the power structures of academia and global influence.
And you will have your mouth shut
One wrong word, one misplaced idea, and everything crumbles. Years of work, endless research, all gone in an instant. A scholar’s career is not built on truth alone but on walking the tightrope of what is acceptable. Challenge the wrong narrative, offend the wrong people, and the machine turns against you.
They will not debate you. They will not prove you wrong. And they will ignore you, discredit you, and make sure no one hears you again. Journals will reject your papers. Invitations to conferences will disappear. Your funding will dry up. Students will be warned to stay away. You will become a ghost in your own field.
Protests? They will be silenced. The academic world mirrors politics, where loyalty to the system matters more than principles. Speak against it, and the doors close. The power is not in knowledge but in controlling who gets to speak and who does not.
This is not the pursuit of truth. It is control, dressed up in the robes of intellect.
Conclusion: Politics is worse. But academia is somehow just like mafia
Scholars and politicians operate on the same level, driven by patronage, clientelism, and self-preservation. Academia markets itself as a noble pursuit of truth, but it is just another system of power, gatekeeping, and silent corruption. It functions not as a community of independent thinkers but as a hierarchy where influence dictates success. It is a world of flattery, ideological obedience, and exclusion for those who refuse to conform.
Like politicians, scholars must secure their place through loyalty, alliances, and calculated silence. They flatter those in power, suppress dissent, and manipulate truth when necessary. Also, they do not serve knowledge; they serve their own survival. They do not debate opposing views; they erase them. Scholars do not reward the boldest thinkers; they reward the safest. They do not act as guardians of intellectual progress; they act as enforcers of their own interests.
The entire structure is riddled with clientelism. Hiring is not about ability but about connections. Publishing is not about truth but about approval from the right networks. Funding is not about merit but about alignment with political or corporate agendas. A scholar’s career depends on pleasing patrons, just as a politician’s survival depends on serving donors. Independent thought is tolerated only when it is harmless.
Homo sapiens lust for power
Academia is not a space of open inquiry; it is a power game. It operates like a mafia, with insiders protecting their own, eliminating threats, and ensuring that only those who follow the rules can rise. There is no real justice in academia, just as there is none in organized crime. Prestige is built on connections, not truth. Reputation is manufactured, not earned. Gatekeeping is ruthless. Dissenters are crushed. The game is rigged from the start.
Scholars pretend to be different from politicians. They pretend to be above corruption, above influence, above human flaws. They are not. Their world is built on the same foundations of deceit, power struggles, and hidden loyalties. Academia is disgusting, not because of what it claims to be, but because of what it truly is—a refined, intellectualized version of the very corruption it claims to stand against.
They should be helping the world, but it is just like professional charity. They are paid for it but don’t help. We are just Homo sapiens.
Richard Dawkins said that he didn’t get that the US had two bad candidates for the presidential election of 300 million people. He must have known what kind of clientelism it had been in politics (they choose the most clientelist-friendly) since he is nothing but a product of clientelism himself. It is like saying I have been a coke-head but I have never had any experience with recreational drugs.
So next time you praise those who improve our quality of life, don’t omit the fact these people are morally defective even by our current morality.
Leave a Reply