Atlanta, GA
March 26, 2022
Since at least the Enlightenment, and perhaps back to Bacon, the wolf of politics has disguised itself as a sheep of science. It fleeces its putative shepherds by cloaking its commands in the wool of “Reason”.
After the French Revolution, the exaltation of the “expert” replaced the preeminence of the priest. Particularly in the fields of economics, medicine, science, and law, the use of philosophy, deduction, perspective, and common sense has yielded to an obsessive collection (or concoction) of numbers, then torturing them into contrived models till they’re forced to confess.
Technological advancement and scientific experiments were supposed to expand horizons and widen perspectives. And in many ways, they have. But in public discussions, the scepter of “science” is usually used less to beckon discovery than to bludgeon dissent.
Particularly over the last few years, people are regularly asked…like showing an ID to buy a drink…to flash their credentials before offering an opinion. For instance, during the Covid hysteria, unless we were doctors, we weren’t permitted a perspective, even regarding our own unique circumstances and particular priorities in response to that virus.
The use of confected credentials to stifle debate has only expanded, intensified, and gotten more insane. A potential Supreme Court justice…nominated in large part because of her sex…claimed last week that she was unqualified to define what that sex is.
Apparently, according to the esteemed jurist, one must now be a biologist to recognize a “woman”. If that’s the case, as one wag put it, how can the president who promised to nominate a woman be sure that he did? Next thing you know, we’ll need to be meteorologists to recognize rain, or botanists to describe a dandelion.
Only a degenerate, over-educated population could be this dumb. But when people think that without credentials they’re incapable of making obvious distinctions or basic decisions, they are easily controlled by the elite caste that presumes to choose.
This unquestioning deference to anointed “experts” has nothing to do with “science”. It is more the ritual of a religion…the cult of credentials, and the sect of Scientism. It’s the malevolent idea that only the decrees of “science” and the purveyors of its principles should shape “societal” values and guide personal priorities.
This notion is particularly prevalent among those who (superficially) seem the “smartest”. These are sort who went to the right schools, attend the cool cocktail parties, and read the proper papers. They follow the “science”, trust the “experts”, and do what they’re told. And they disdain the rubes who don’t.
While it may seem strange that people who appear so smart often act so stupid, it actually makes sense. As Michael Malice put it, a smart dog is easier to train than a dumb one. And it was for this purpose that so many of our compliant poodles were deliberately groomed.
Communist sympathizers praised Castro because most Cubans could read. Likewise, US education advocates extol our system because so many kids are enrolled in school. But that’s like commending a contaminated feeding tube for sustaining a coma.
Why was Castro so eager for Cubans to read? Was it to expand their minds, or merely to fill them? And with what? It wasn’t simply that his people be able to read. It was that they were required to.
But only prescribed things, and nothing else. I’d assume few in Castro’s Cuba applied their literary skill to Greek philosophy, the Spanish scholastics, or the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American devolution has been more subtle, but as persistent. Since the Progressive Era, and particularly the last few decades, as schooling increased, education declined. The government has long compelled universal attendance till high school. It now encourages most kids to continue thru college.
Why should this be? It’s obviously not to attain a classical education. That’s not only ceased; it’s shunned. The religious, philosophical, and literary canon that built the West has been disparaged and dispatched for being “oppressive”, “racist”, and “insensitive”.
To rectify and reverse these “systemic“ outrages, elite universities offer more “inclusive” curriculums that exclude Western works while producing loud-mouth morons with high self-esteem. Whereas students used to learn Greek and Latin in High School, they now require remedial English in college. They may not be able to reason, but they can rant.
But who cares? What kids want from college isn’t wisdom, or even knowledge. It’s credentials. And who can blame them? As the last couple years have shown, even if you know nothing, the appropriate piece of parchment permits you to pretend that you do, and prohibits others from contesting your claims.
After all, who are we to challenge our esteemed “experts”? We’d think that recent events would’ve provided a clue.
During two years of rampant Fed counterfeiting, unprecedented government spending, and oppressive restrictions on personal liberty, our superiors assured us that supply shortages were “temporary” and price inflation “transitory”. As both persisted…and worsened…the story changed.
The pedigreed “experts” next told us that these government-induced calamities were actually beneficial, a sign of the strong economy produced by our wise leaders. When that fable failed, everything became Putin’s fault. The sanctions he “forced” our government to impose would, the president assured us, result in “real” food shortages for the American people.
These “explanations” and excuses are so preposterous that we’d think only a PhD economist could believe them. And plenty of them did, along with most of the regular rubes. After a two-year clinic on the intrinsic incompetence of government intervention, many Americans robotically dropped their doubts, got in line, and are rallying round the road to war.
Last week, down the road at our Alma Mater, an NCAA womens’ swim championship was won by a man. Apparently, we weren’t supposed to notice. Or, at the very least, we were expected to pretend we didn’t. Long hair, a one-piece suit, and his own proclamation that he’d changed his sex were all that was needed to confirm “her” claim, and to silence the “skeptics”.
During the meet when this guy was making a mockery of his female competitors, a sensible woman was frustrated by the farce. She was filmed discussing the situation with a condescending young man, a masked acolyte of the Scientism sect.
She expressed the controversial view…held by essentially everyone from the dawn of time till about last Tuesday…that the “female” swimmer with two testicles and an Adam’s apple was in fact a man. Her disputant, presumably trying to show how sophisticated, subtle, and nuanced he was, wondered how she could be so certain the male in the pool was actually a man.
“Are you a biologist?”, he asked.
“Oh, my God”, she replied, understandably annoyed at the imbecility of the question. “Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a vet, but I know what a dog is.”
Perfect. Not only was that an ideal response to that idiotic argument. But it also punctured the arrogant idea that a scientific background is required to make common sense assertions.
We realize that to a great degree these ludicrous debates are orchestrated distractions, encouraged by a corrupt elite to keep us arguing while they rip us off. That’s doubtless true, yet still sinister.
We’re being trained to believe that we can’t make basic decisions or obvious observations, unless we’ve been officially certified to do so (or merely repeat the points-of-view of those who are).
But when such decisions are taken from us, they don’t disappear. They simply go to new deciders. We have a pretty good idea who that will be, and should have no illusions about what they will choose.
JD
Fantastic article! Nailed it.