Great post and extremely accurate. Neo- liberalism is in fact in a state of crisis, and if left to its own devices it’s on the path toward collapse, at least in the US, it should crumble and collapse and be replaced by something more robust and more closely oriented to the federal republic America was built on. The danger here is that the neoliberals will not give up power without a fight, and they are extraordinarily vicious because they have no core principles that would cause them to exercise any sort of restraint. They are at their core totalitarians and utopians. And inside any utopian and or totalitarian is a mass murderer, struggling to get out.
And inside any utopian and or totalitarian is a mass murderer, struggling to get out. And inside the totalitarian mass murderer is an elite globalist. And inside the elite globalist is a universalist depopulate. And inside the depopulator is a ....
We have good reason to be skeptical of expert consensus—ideological bias, government overreach, media manipulation, and corporate collusion have all made it clear that "expert opinion" isn't neutral or trustworthy.
Douglas Murray’s position is interesting because he’s always been anti-woke and highly critical of institutional capture, but he also has a certain old-school respect for expertise and tradition—especially when it comes to Western civilization, classical liberal values, and the Enlightenment ideals that gave rise to the scientific method in the first place.
So when Murray was arguing for ‘following the experts’ on Rogan the other day, I think what he might have meant was: “don’t throw out the concept of expertise altogether”. He probably wants to recover a vision of science and academia ‘as they were meant to be’—rigorous, independent, grounded in truth-seeking—rather than reject them entirely because they’ve been captured by secular humanists.
The key, then, is to distinguish the ideal of expert knowledge from the present reality of compromised institutions. As you’ve pointed out, that distinction is only possible if we return to strong moral foundations. Murray may be trying to preserve the ideal, but when the foundations have decayed, and the rot just goes too deep, it becomes wiser to trust one’s own discernment of truth rather than defer to a corrupted credentialed consensus.
Expert credentials are essentially an IOU, declaring that a person is capable of marshalling facts and argument concerning a particular topic. If the 'expert' fails to make good on this promise and demands assent based on his credentials alone, then he deserves to be ignored and mocked. Unfortunately, credentials are backed by political power, and the war on 'misinformation' etc, is an attempt to make experts the sole source and arbiters of truth.
I admire and support Douglas Murray, but I think he crossed a line into credentialism on Joe Rogan when he insisted that only those who had actually been to the Israel/Gaza border were qualified to speak on the matter. He could legitimately have used that experience to make his arguments more credible, but not to silence his opponent.
No, it is more like criticising the concepts of 'racism,' 'ableism,' etc, because credentialism works in the same way. When a leftist brands you with a woke epithet, they are assuming unearned moral superiority at your expense, which gives them and their allies permission to attack while demoralising you into being incapable of defending yourself. So, if rude names are a kind of moral laundering, credentialism is a form of epistemological laundering, a demand to be believed and to punish unbelievers without actually providing reasons to believe.
Great post and extremely accurate. Neo- liberalism is in fact in a state of crisis, and if left to its own devices it’s on the path toward collapse, at least in the US, it should crumble and collapse and be replaced by something more robust and more closely oriented to the federal republic America was built on. The danger here is that the neoliberals will not give up power without a fight, and they are extraordinarily vicious because they have no core principles that would cause them to exercise any sort of restraint. They are at their core totalitarians and utopians. And inside any utopian and or totalitarian is a mass murderer, struggling to get out.
And inside any utopian and or totalitarian is a mass murderer, struggling to get out. And inside the totalitarian mass murderer is an elite globalist. And inside the elite globalist is a universalist depopulate. And inside the depopulator is a ....
It's like those russian dolls ...
Insightful as always, thank you.
We have good reason to be skeptical of expert consensus—ideological bias, government overreach, media manipulation, and corporate collusion have all made it clear that "expert opinion" isn't neutral or trustworthy.
Douglas Murray’s position is interesting because he’s always been anti-woke and highly critical of institutional capture, but he also has a certain old-school respect for expertise and tradition—especially when it comes to Western civilization, classical liberal values, and the Enlightenment ideals that gave rise to the scientific method in the first place.
So when Murray was arguing for ‘following the experts’ on Rogan the other day, I think what he might have meant was: “don’t throw out the concept of expertise altogether”. He probably wants to recover a vision of science and academia ‘as they were meant to be’—rigorous, independent, grounded in truth-seeking—rather than reject them entirely because they’ve been captured by secular humanists.
The key, then, is to distinguish the ideal of expert knowledge from the present reality of compromised institutions. As you’ve pointed out, that distinction is only possible if we return to strong moral foundations. Murray may be trying to preserve the ideal, but when the foundations have decayed, and the rot just goes too deep, it becomes wiser to trust one’s own discernment of truth rather than defer to a corrupted credentialed consensus.
Expert credentials are essentially an IOU, declaring that a person is capable of marshalling facts and argument concerning a particular topic. If the 'expert' fails to make good on this promise and demands assent based on his credentials alone, then he deserves to be ignored and mocked. Unfortunately, credentials are backed by political power, and the war on 'misinformation' etc, is an attempt to make experts the sole source and arbiters of truth.
I admire and support Douglas Murray, but I think he crossed a line into credentialism on Joe Rogan when he insisted that only those who had actually been to the Israel/Gaza border were qualified to speak on the matter. He could legitimately have used that experience to make his arguments more credible, but not to silence his opponent.
Criticizing "credentialism" sounds as woke as the libtards decrying "ableism," "sexism," "racism," 😭😂
No, it is more like criticising the concepts of 'racism,' 'ableism,' etc, because credentialism works in the same way. When a leftist brands you with a woke epithet, they are assuming unearned moral superiority at your expense, which gives them and their allies permission to attack while demoralising you into being incapable of defending yourself. So, if rude names are a kind of moral laundering, credentialism is a form of epistemological laundering, a demand to be believed and to punish unbelievers without actually providing reasons to believe.
Sure. Have some more masturbatory verbiage with your persecution complex.
The projection! Leftists confess through accusation. A bizarre mental quirk.
Back at you, Projector ...