“Experts: a tool of Communist narrative enforcement”

Her er en fantastisk god video om hvorfor politisk korrekte “eksperter” altid tager fejl !

Som et eksempel har du “eksperterne” fra New York “Slimes” prognose fra 2016 dagen før valget …

Det fortæller Thomas Sowell her 🙂

Taget herfra

There are at least three ways of considering what an expert is, and what it means.

Here we will look at 4 of them.

The first, is psychological. According to some studies, there is a thing called “The 10 year rule”. Ten years of dedicated practice results in what we would call, expertise. This definition relies on our general and intuitive understanding of an expert though, which would be the second. Someone we accept has knowledge and experience in a field to the extent that we might accept their opinion as fact or practical advice on the strength of their expertise as we perceive it. The first is really a drill down on what it takes to be the second. An expert as we commonly understand and use it. Sometimes that expertise is codified with some sort of certification. Ay there’s the rub. The third kind. Someone with paper that declares them an expert.

But then there is the abuse of the power, we give to those who are presented to us as experts. If someone wears medals they did not earn or pose as veterans of the military, it is called Stolen Valour and in the US is an actual crime. But the abuse of the reputation and belief in experts is not. In fact, it’s “more”, as Shakespeare said, “honoured in the breach than the observance”. And nowhere is this more true than in government.

In the following video made of Thomas Sowel’s view on the abuse of the concept of expertise, we see what this site often refers to as colour commentary in the sports event sense of the term. This isn’t a bad thing neccesarily. Colour commentary as we see it, is the description of something we all know is going on and is bad, and presenting it as it really is on the surface, but not the strategic level of the events or processes behind the events. Calling out the vaxx as not safe or effective, but not talking about the actual intentions behind it, or that those who foisted it on us never intended it to be either. Or calling out Islam as not the religion of peace but in fact what it really believes, but not explaining how the left uses Islam as an attack vector on Western civ is colour commentary. Colour commentary can be even controlled opposition, as Stephen Coughlin might say, albeit usually unwittingly so.

In this case Sowell presents the experts’ presentation of reality as near accidental or a product of corruption which led to catastrophic results as a by product. We believe the catastrophic destruction in many cases is in fact the intended result, which cases an entirely different light on the use of experts by the state. Viewing it as accidental, incompetence is Hanlon’s Razor. A ruse to avoid the knowledge of the real intention by writing it off as stupidity or incompetence.

Colour commentary is better than no opposition perhaps, but it’s incomplete. Failure to understand the actual strategic use of, in this case, experts as a concept, means failure to be protected from that form of dialectical attack.

Here is the Thomas Sowell video. Well worth watching:

Taget herfra, hvor du kan læse/se resten