As I watched Joe Rogan attempt to broker a debate between Dr. Peter Hotez and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr) on the subject of whether RFK Jr is promoting vaccine "misinformation," I was of course taken back to the COVID-era (is it really over?) when phrases like “you must trust the science” and "I trust the science" were being thrown in the faces of people who weren’t buying the regime’s narrative. When someone says, “I trust the science,” what I hear them saying is, I trust the “experts.” Which raises the question, “What is an expert?” The modern Oxford Dictionary definition of “expert’ is:
a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. “a financial expert”
When I consult my favorite dictionary, Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, for the definition of "expert," a noticeably different tone is encountered:
Properly, experienced; taught by use, practice or experience; hence, skillful; well instructed; having familiar knowledge of; as an expert philosopher.
In modern translation, an expert has "comprehensive" knowledge of a particular area. When you look up the definition of "comprehensive" in the modern Oxford Dictionary, you find this listing:
complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.
Now let’s take a look at the modern definition of authoritative:
able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.
I don’t believe I have to point this out, but I will: dictionaries are written by men and women. With the growth of the managerial state, and especially the Nuremberg/New Deal regime, the definitions of words must be precise so that what you believe in no way interferes with the aims of those in charge. When you compare the definition of the word "expert" almost 200 years apart, it is impossible to miss that not only has the meaning become unassailable, but it has also become more authoritarian.
The definition of expert presented by Mr. Webster in 1828 could almost be described as warm. He is in no way trying to convince you that an expert is not to be questioned. In fact, his example of an expert, the philosopher, operates in an environment in which debate is the default. The philosopher expects to be challenged on his opinions. The modern definition mentions the "financial expert," the person you’re supposed to hand your earnings over to because they are the authority. Which, properly understood, is true because a managerial state designs the financial system so that only managers and experts can properly navigate it. They are the authorities, and they know the rules and how to get around them.
When you witness the regime, their apparatchiks, and the public who have been educated by them throwing around phrases like "I trust the science," their inability to question the “experts” didn’t happen by accident. As the US switched from an agrarian, frontiersman culture to one of experts and managers, it was essential for those same managers and experts to imprint in the public’s mind that their word is final and anyone who questioned them was to be attacked as, at best, a pseudo-intellectual, and at worst, a threat to public safety and order. That is the thought process which has been implanted into your fellow Americans’ minds. When you accept the realization that most people are not going to have their minds changed, you begin to understand that the time for conversation is over and you need to start looking for a new way forward.
A strange coincidence that you discuss experts and bring up the dictionary. I watched this short documentary over the weekend about an event I had never heard of: The Beverly Hills Supper Club fire, across the river from Cincinnati in Kentucky. Horrifying event which killed 165 people because of poorly marked exits, poor wiring, no fire alarms and a facility designed like a maze. It burned right to the ground. This happened in 1977. So, after the documentary, a news report from the day after it happened was recommended. The reporter opened up with discussing the event and referred to it as a 'holocaust'. My eyes blinked, as I realized that at this point in time that particular word had not yet been made sacred to Jews during WWII. As a matter of fact, the word more accurately describes large fires with total and complete devastation and massive loss of life. I had to look it up, because in my lifetime I had never used it in any other manner than in the WWII sense, and in that vain it would be more accurate to refer to the slaughter of the residents of Dresden during that time period than any other event at the time.
Watch this mash up of Peter Hotez: https://youtu.be/Sj6-QDVYbv8
Our experts are corrupt assholes. Like the priests in 300 who made the oracle say what they got paid to make it say.
Science and Data are bullshit. Not bc the methods can't be used to find the truth, but rather because the methods can't be prevented from spewing lies. Studies, data, models and experts will tend to spit out the tlnarrative that the people who paid for them want them to.
There are plenty who stopped trusting the media who will still source their arguments to studies and data. This is clownish. THERE IS NO SOURCE OF TRUTH.
We are left following our intuitions, guided by our principles and beliefs. We live in an empire of bullshit.