"Where have all the good men gone, and where are all the gods?"

The haunting refrain from Bonnie Tyler’s Holding Out for a Hero captures a deep, collective yearning for figures of strength and guidance. In an era shaped by uncertainty, societal divisions, and the overwhelming influence of social media, this question resonates as much today as the first time it was sung. It reflects todays cultural crisis: the search for modern heroes. Unfortunately, figures like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson have emerged to fill the role of the streetwise Hercules - ironically even Kevin Sorbo to some extent, drawing millions of followers—particularly young men—into their orbit.

Their appeal lies in their confidence and promises of simple solutions to complex problems, as people are longing for someone "larger than life." Yet, the rise is not accidental. Social media algorithms, designed to prioritize engagement over substance, amplify their voices and embed them deeply in public consciousness. I will argue that the societal fascination with such figures stems from a combination of the promotion of anti-intellectualism, algorithmic amplification, and a desperate search for direction. More importantly, it will explore what can be done to break this cycle and offer healthier alternatives to those seeking heroes.

The Appeal of Dominance and Certainty

In a world filled with uncertainty, people long for figures who appear to have all the answers. The allure of confidence and decisiveness often blinds society to a more insidious reality: many of these so-called “heroes” are false prophets. Charisma and narcissism often been common draws perpetuate in personalities who position themselves as champions of a now lost masculinity, this is not only among influencers, even business moguls like Elon Musk, who claim to defy the establishment, are not saviors—they are manipulators. They exploit the vulnerabilities of their audience, packaging self-serving ideologies as universal truths.

These individuals thrive by offering a seductive blend of certainty and rebellion. They craft narratives that resonate with young men who feel disenfranchised, promising them a roadmap to success, power, and respect. But behind the veneer of their charismatic delivery lies a darker reality: their primary goal is not to uplift but to profit. They sell courses, books, and ideologies, capitalizing on the desperation of their followers. Tate's promotion of hyper-masculine success, for example, isn't about genuine empowerment—it's about monetizing insecurity. Peterson’s intellectualized self-help often veers into reinforcing harmful societal structures, all while expanding his personal brand.

The danger lies in the blind trust these figures cultivate - a culture where despite Shapiro's claims feelings don't care about the facts. Like the false prophets of old, they lead their followers down a path that ultimately serves their own interests. Social media amplifies their reach, turning them into larger-than-life figures. Yet, as society dances to their tune, it risks falling deeper into division and disillusionment. These men aren't the heroes we've been holding out for—they're grifters in the guise of saviours.

The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism

Beneath the success of figures like Tate and Peterson lies a broader cultural trend: the rise of anti-intellectualism. This movement dismisses experts and scholarly discourse, favouring simplistic, emotionally charged narratives over nuanced understanding. In this environment, the loudest voices often overshadow the most informed ones, creating fertile ground for 'grifters' to flourish.

Anti-intellectualism thrives on the perception that traditional institutions—academia, science, and mainstream media—are out of touch with everyday people. This distrust has been fuelled by years of political polarization and widespread misinformation. Figures in the manosphere and alt-right pipeline exploit this skepticism, positioning themselves as brave truth-tellers who challenge the "elitist" consensus. They claim to offer clarity where intellectuals provide complexity, framing their rejection of expertise as a form of rebellion against a corrupt system.

British politician Michael Gove captured this sentiment during the Brexit campaign when he proclaimed, “People in this country have had enough of experts.” This statement, far from being an offhand remark, reflected a deep-seated frustration with institutions that rely on data and evidence, positioning expertise as out of touch with the "common man."

Similarly, U.S. President Donald Trump openly embraced anti-intellectual rhetoric, famously declaring at a rally, “I love the uneducated.” This wasn’t merely a gaffe—it was a calculated appeal to those who felt marginalized by a system that seemed to prioritize academic and professional elites. By positioning himself as a champion of the average person, Trump reinforced the notion that traditional education and expertise were not only unnecessary but potentially harmful. In doing so, he legitimized ignorance as a political stance, further eroding trust in intellectual authority. The latest exit polls suggests 65% of people with no education voted Trump.

However, their messages are often riddled with logical fallacies and cherry-picked evidence. Jordan Peterson, for instance, wraps his ideas in the language of academic rigor, but his arguments often simplify or misrepresent complex social issues. Andrew Tate rejects intellectual discourse entirely, opting instead for bombastic proclamations about wealth and power. In both cases, they offer their followers not intellectual growth, but a sense of superiority over those who "don’t get it."

This trend has been amplified by the media. Comedian Dave Gorman once used the Comments Section as a satirical device, highlighting the absurdity of giving serious consideration to the unfiltered, often irrational opinions found in online forums. What was once comedic fodder has now become a disturbing reality. Today, news outlets frequently elevate these voices, presenting viral tweets or inflammatory comments as though they carry the same weight as expert analysis. Entire segments are built around the reactions of random internet users, effectively democratizing opinion to the point where the informed and the ignorant are given equal platforms.

This anti-intellectual stance is dangerous. It not only undermines trust in essential institutions but also leaves followers ill-equipped to critically evaluate the information they consume. As society turns away from intellectual rigor, it becomes more susceptible to the sway of charismatic manipulators who exploit ignorance for personal gain.

The danger is clear: as anti-intellectualism gains traction, society becomes increasingly susceptible to manipulation. Without a trusted foundation of expertise, public discourse devolves into a battle of opinions where the loudest voices—not the most informed—prevail.

Protecting Young Boys from Harmful Influences

In the current digital landscape, anti-intellectualism is not only perpetuated but actively weaponized. Social media platforms are rife with influencers who argue that traditional education is a tool for indoctrination. Prominent voices in the manosphere and alt-right pipeline frequently advocate for homeschooling as a way to shield children from what they see as the homogenizing forces of public education. They frame colleges as factories that produce “automatons,” incapable of independent thought and programmed to adhere to politically correct ideologies.

This narrative appeals particularly to parents and young men who are already sceptical of institutional authority. By suggesting that traditional education suppresses critical thinking, these influencers position themselves as champions of true intellectual freedom. However, their version of "freedom" often involves isolating young people from diverse perspectives, instead funnelling them into echo chambers that reinforce their own ideological agendas. Podcasts where it promotes the idea that they are victims of a cruel society intended solely to bring them down.

The push for homeschooling and rejection of college aligns perfectly with their larger anti-intellectual framework. By promoting these ideas, influencers effectively cut off their followers from the critical thinking and analytical skills that higher education aims to foster. Instead, they offer a curated worldview, where questioning their authority or ideology is discouraged. The very tools that could help young men resist manipulative rhetoric are framed as threats to their autonomy.

Social media algorithms amplify these messages, creating a digital ecosystem where these ideas gain traction. Parents searching for alternative education methods are quickly led to communities promoting homeschooling as the only way to escape the so-called tyranny of public schooling. Young men, frustrated with the traditional academic path, are drawn to content that validates their disillusionment and positions them as enlightened rebels against a corrupt system.

This phenomenon poses a serious challenge to efforts aimed at protecting young people from harmful influences. By undermining trust in education, these figures not only entrench their own influence but also deprive their followers of the opportunity to develop the critical faculties necessary to navigate an increasingly complex world.

Conclusion

"Where have all the good men gone, and where are all the gods?" This question, immortalized in Holding Out for a Hero, reflects a timeless societal yearning for leaders who embody strength, integrity, and wisdom. However, in the digital age, this search has often led us astray. Figures promoted as 'alpha', who rise to prominence through the amplification of social media algorithms, are not the heroes society needs. They are false prophets, skilled in the art of manipulation, who exploit societal anxieties for personal gain, and often make the situation worse. Their rise is fuelled by a broader rejection of expertise and a growing cultural shift towards anti-intellectualism, where the loudest and most provocative voices overshadow thoughtful, informed discourse.

Social media plays a crucial role in this dynamic. Platforms designed to maximize engagement inadvertently elevate harmful figures by rewarding controversy and sensationalism. As society focuses more attention on these individuals, their influence grows, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates their power. This environment, combined with a deliberate attack on traditional education systems, leaves young people particularly vulnerable. Calls to reject public schooling and higher education in favor of homeschooling and self-directed learning may seem empowering but often serve to isolate followers from diverse viewpoints and critical thinking.

The solution lies in breaking this cycle.

1. Promote Critical Thinking and Media Literacy

Educating young people to critically analyze information is key. Schools and communities must prioritize media literacy programs that teach how to evaluate sources, identify biases, and understand how algorithms shape the content we see. Finland, for example, has incorporated media literacy into its curriculum, leading to high resilience against misinformation.

2. Encourage Diverse Role Models

We need to elevate a wider range of voices—mentors who model empathy, collaboration, and intellectual curiosity. These role models should come from various fields, emphasizing that leadership and heroism don’t require domination or exploitation. Fleetingly Marcus Rashford The English footballer has leveraged his platform to combat child food poverty and advocate for social change. Rashford’s dedication to using his influence for the greater good demonstrates leadership rooted in compassion and action. But alas these moments are fleeting.

3. Algorithm Accountability

Tech companies must take greater responsibility for the content their platforms amplify. Policies that demand transparency in how algorithms function and incentivize quality content over engagement-driven sensationalism could reduce the spread of harmful rhetoric. Regulatory frameworks like the EU’s Digital Services Act are steps in this direction.

4. Foster Community Engagement

Isolation makes individuals more susceptible to harmful ideologies. Strengthening local communities, offering mentorship programs, and creating spaces for open dialogue can provide the support systems young people need. Programs like Big Brothers Big Sisters have shown how mentorship can positively impact youth development.

5. Reframe the Narrative Around Education

Combat the narrative that formal education "creates automatons" by highlighting its role in fostering creativity, critical thinking, and personal growth. Encourage lifelong learning, emphasizing that education is a tool for empowerment, not conformity.

6. Hold Influencers Accountable

There should be a cultural push to hold public figures accountable for spreading harmful ideologies. Media and public discourse should focus less on giving such figures platforms and more on dissecting and debunking their rhetoric.

7. Parental and Mentorship Support

Parents and mentors play a crucial role in shaping a child’s worldview. They should be equipped with the tools to engage in discussions about online content, question harmful narratives, and provide alternative perspectives.

By tackling these areas simultaneously, we can break the cycle of harmful influence and create a society that values thoughtful, ethical leadership over manipulative self-interest.

The search for heroes will continue, but we must ensure that our focus is on those who truly deserve the mantle. Only then can we build a society where the longing for leadership leads to growth and unity, rather than division and deceit.