There is intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. It's not strictly related to intelligence, but it is about information, "intel." I consider them opposites in what they do and how they approach things. My definitions deviate from the common dictionaries which are generous in making them equally reasonable, because that in itself is bullshit. Let me define it:
***Intellectualism*** is about bringing information to people, to simplify concepts, to increase understanding, to break through taboos and censorship, to seek debate and truth. It is the opposite of listening to someone due to his authority, it opposes logical fallacies. People who pursue intellectualism ask questions, most notably "why." They do not get emotionally unstable, as if a false word can trigger them to detonate. If you don't understand his points, ask away, and it will be explained, if necessary even to the very axioms of logic. Intellectuals abhor labels, propaganda, indoctrination, advertisements.
***Anti-Intellectualism*** is about obfuscating, to complicate, to reduce understanding of concepts. It pursues censorship and taboos, it seeks to avoid debates, it seeks to convince through indoctrination and propaganda. People who pursue anti-intellectualism cite their credentials to show how credible and smart and intellectually superior they are to you. If you do not understand something, it is your fault for being too stupid, so just trust them, because they are smarter than you. They are emotionally unstable, words can trigger them and go wild. They will gleefully smile as you say a taboo word or idea and they are able to remove you and smear you in front of an audience. Anti-intellectuals throw around labels as if they are meaningful, and need to be used with care ("are you sure you aren't a little racist?"). They do not openly address that they seek to take over media and education for propaganda and indoctrination, being secretive and not open about it is kind of the point.
There is another vector I'd like to address, and that's the relation of intelligence (IQ) to being either of it. I use roughly estimated values, the point is the idea anyway. This is about Whites only:
IQ 90-: People are quite simple minded. While they avoid education systems, they are likely to adhere to overarching norms like race, culture and religion. Indoctrination via education systems does not work much on them, so they are not ideological, but more grounded in reality. They are no intellectuals or anti-intellectuals, because they physically lack the ability to be either. That doesn't stop them from saying and doing stupid things of course.
IQ 90-110: Most people are here. They are normal people, who tend to be neutral, but may be ideologically captured to some degree. Their views and their personalities are rather tied together - a whore with a body count higher than the jews have with 9/11 won't be a feminist because she believes in it - she does it because she likes being railed and doesn't think into the future. A conservative man won't be conservative out of conviction, but because he is no filthy degenerate, or a male feminist cuck - because he is likely Christian and understands the concept of consequences. Principles are not strong in people in this range. Here you don't find actual intellectuals and anti-intellectuals, they still lack the capability to be good public talkers.
IQ 110-140: This is the range where intellectuals and anti-intellectuals generally are. This is where they have the possibility to be public talkers and be propagandists, high-level bureaucrats, politicians, "debaters", "teachers", "professors", judges. Siding with anti-intellectualism is generally materially rewarding, especially when all you have to do is sit there, do a job repeatedly in secrecy, and people are forced to tolerate whatever you do - or don't even know about it. This is where you can make coherent arguments, non-arguments and points. All the public persons you like or hate are here.
IQ 140+: This is quite a wild area. Generally people become smart enough that they can't escape acquiring the rationale of all sides. They can't just ignore facts, evidence and arguments, because that would require them to force themselves to be less rational. It is inescapable that you become an outcast, a dissident to the system, different from common people. Either because you know things you know you can't just say easily, or because you accept that it is futile, or you don't want to put up with dangers to your life as a dissident. Thus your options are really just to be neutral or an intellectual. But there is another option: The malicious path. You peddle nonsense you yourself do not believe in. You seek to manipulate people for selfish reasons or collective-selfish goals. As such you are the height of an anti-intellectual, and you know that you cannot prevail in fair, real debates, so you do something where your advantages lie, for example in supporting the system that upholds anti-intellectuals. An ideologically possessed teacher doesn't have to convince anyone, nor does a politician who pushes for censorship and mass surveillance. Or you have public speaking events where everybody agrees with you no matter what you say. You know that optics matters most, so you play the optics game. You need to appear smart, say dumb things smartly, and have full approval of everyone in the room clapping for you.
I think we all understand that this points strongly at jews. They are a primary force behind anti-intellectualism, because ruining our countries does benefit them (or they believe so). Normally it would make no sense to worsen your own country, unless you are a foreign entity and aren't negatively affected by it anyway. If I'd have a high position in israel, I'd contemplate how I can have those idiots vote for me (or keep me in power) while seeking the destruction of israel by whatever means necessary. I'd shout "remember the holocaust!" as I'd let jews jump into the meat grinder of war. I'd pretend to be incompetent or have "another view" and do 90%+ of times the thing that leads to their destruction, just like those in the EU magically know what the worst decision for Europe is every time.
And nobody could prove what I am doing, because I'd always have plausible deniability. The ONLY clue is that I am not a jew being in charge of jews. That and maybe that I don't want to fuck muslim POWs, babies or children. Or that I'd be filthy rich and be disconnected from the tolls the population has to go through, so oh boy, this applies to many, so it would be a perfect excuse - which I'd avoid explicitly saying, so it's sufficient if they'd just believe that as a timid-cynical "conspiracy theory."
