Tag: Experts

We’ll Tell You What to Think. Just Don’t Worry Your Pretty Little Head About It

I’m starting a new tag for TDE blog posts: Great Reset Watch.

When I read an article, op-ed, or essay that proposes something that smells like it’s part of the insidious Great Reset idea, I’ll post it here with, of course, with as much vituperative commentary I can muster while still claiming to be spreading the love incumbent on a Catholic.

The most-recent story I saw that triggered this idea? An op-ed in New York Times that urged people not to use critical thinking and, instead, rely on the experts. The writer apparently argues that, in this age of short and captive attention, the unwashed simply don’t have the time or mental acuity to form valid opinions, so instead of thinking about information fed to them by the experts, they should just accept the experts’ opinions, then move on to the next NASCAR race.

I’m not kidding.

My favorite Jewish anti-Semite, David Cole, wrote about it just yesterday.

“In ‘Don’t Go Down the Rabbit Hole‘ BuzzFeed technology writer Charlie Warzel argues that ‘critical thinking, as we’re taught to do it, isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation.’ Relying on the work of Professor Michael Caulfield of Washington State University, Warzel declares that the traditional belief that people should be ‘taught to evaluate and think critically about information’ is ‘fundamentally flawed.’

“Caulfield insists that people should not be encouraged to ‘use reasoning,’ because ‘that strategy can completely backfire.’ Go by the source, not the information. Good source? Accept the info. Wikipedia-unapproved source? Reject the info. But don’t think about the info.

“‘People learn to think critically by focusing on something and contemplating it deeply—to follow the information’s logic and the inconsistencies. That natural human mind-set is a liability in an attention economy,’ Warzel argues. So don’t do … Read the rest

Prohibiting Things with the Experts

Question: What do government COVID lockdowns and Prohibition have in common?

Answer: They were both advocated by “the science” and “the experts.”

That’s Jeffrey Tucker’s point in a great essay he just published: The “Expert Consensus” Also Favored Alcohol Prohibition.

Tucker hits on quite a few points, including the extreme tact that anti-Prohibitionists had to use when questioning the Establishment on the merits of Prohibition, for fear of coming off as a crackpot.

He also paints this short portrait of Irving Fisher, a man whose bust probably ought to grace the Self-Righteous Hall of Villainy:

The most influential pro-Prohibition economist of the next generation was the rock star academic and social progressive Irving Fisher, whose contributions to making economics more about data than theory are legendary. So was his push for eugenics. No surprise if you know this period and such people, but he was also a passionate opponent of all alcohol. It was he who made a decisive difference in convincing Congress and the public that a complete ban was the right way.

And even as Prohibition was giving rise to speakeasies and organized crime, the experts didn’t back off, urging just more enforcement. Here’s Fisher himself:

Although things are much better than before Prohibition, with the possible exception of disrespect for law, they may not stay so. Enforcement will cure disrespect for law and other evils complained of, as well as greatly augment the good. American Prohibition will then go down in history as ushering in a new era in the world, in which accomplishment this nation will take pride forever.

Tucker also points out that opponents of Prohibition were ridiculed as bootlegger fans and drunks, just like people who question government lockdowns are derided as fools who wear tin hats and believe in conspiracy theories … Read the rest

Seven Days Make One Weak

Covid, Wikipedia, Experts, and Other Flotsam

Sidney Powell made unequivocal and strong statements this week, claiming she has the proof that Trump won in a landslide and fraud prevented it.

I don’t know the woman, but John Zmirak and Trey Trainor vouch for her.

Wikipedia doesn’t. It says she’s a “supporter” of the QAnon conspiracy theory. It also has other unflattering things to say about her.

Although I’m a fan of Wikipedia, her entry is why you can’t trust it. As of this typing (7:45 AM, 11/21/2020), her entry has been revised 75 times already today. (By comparison, the entry on QAnon, which is a reasonably “hot” subject these days, has been changed three times over the past three days.)

For active stories, Wikipedia strikes me as reliable as a slobbering drunk at the bar or a group of sorority sisters gossiping the morning after a party.


Call me “renegade.” I started a Parler account, Gab account, and MeWe account.

Well, I started the Parler account this week. I’ve been on MeWe since 2018 and Gab since 2017. Click those links and follow me. I’ll follow you back. I don’t exercise much discretion in such things.

The practice has gotten me a huge number of social media friends, like “Me So Horny in Seoul,” “See My Naughty Pics,” “Me Like to Free Your Hong Kong.”

I even met a girl from ancient Rome named “Text Me for Latifundia.” I’ve never visited an ancient senatorial manor from the 4th century, but if I ever get to Tuscany . . .


Not dazed and not confused: Matthew McConaughey says he hasn’t ruled out a run for Texas Governor.

I’d support him. He strikes me as a right-of-center Christian (possibly a Catholic symp), with … Read the rest