Experts: a tool of Communist narrative enforcement

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:

Growing up in Canada, cabinet members in government once upon a time were usually experts in their own fields based upon very practical standards. I have attended lectures by former ministers of agriculture who were in fact, successful farmers. They were able to set policies which assisted farmers and the production of food. Made food more available and less expensive, and made sure famers could make a living doing it.

So that would be experts in the way we all expect them to be.

Some months ago, watching a video on Soviet communism, it may have been James Lindsay or TIK History, a brief explanation was given on how the Soviets would appoint a “panel of experts” to allegedly represent the people, but in fact, really enforce government narratives by cloaking them in the language and rhetoric of science to make them appear as if the narratives are in fact empirical truths. This is known as “Scientism”. The cloaking of narrative in the language of science to make it more authoritative and thereby saleable.

I have never been able to find that video since, but inspired by a conversation with a friend this morning, I checked the concept with Chat GPT and hit the motherlode:

Me:

I saw a video once, I believe it was on the New Discourses channel by James Lindsay, where he briefly discusses how the Soviet Union createdd a panel of experts, allegedly to represent the people, but actually to affirm state narratives from a scientism PoV. Can you find either the video and time it is at, or any documents which explain the Soviet Council of Experts?

GPT:

I couldn’t locate a specific video on the New Discourses channel where James Lindsay discusses a Soviet “Council of Experts” established to represent the people but actually used to affirm state narratives from a scientism perspective. However, the concept aligns with known Soviet practices where the state employed panels of experts to legitimize its policies under the guise of scientific authority.

For instance, the Soviet Union often utilized scientific rhetoric to support state narratives, a practice sometimes referred to as “scientism.” This approach involved presenting political and ideological decisions as scientifically validated truths, thereby discouraging dissent and promoting conformity. Such strategies were evident in various aspects of Soviet governance, including the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions and the promotion of state-approved theories.?

While I couldn’t find a direct reference to a “Council of Experts,” the broader strategy of using scientific authority to bolster state narratives is well-documented. For more detailed information, you might explore archives such as the Hoover Institution’s Soviet State Microfilm Collection or the Wilson Center’s Digital Archive, which house extensive records on Soviet governance and propaganda strategies.?

If you’re interested in a deeper exploration of how the Soviet Union employed scientific authority to support its narratives, I can provide more detailed information or suggest specific resources.

See if that changes your perspective on all the above and below:

Now it may be worth revisiting excellent works of actual science debunking Canadian government scientism which set the policies during Covid. The book, Fisman’s Fraud for openers. And maybe a fresh look at the diktats of people like Anthony Fauci and a look at Kennedy’s book, The Real Anthony Fauci. And suddenly the various stories that appear to show hypocrisy by all those who set Covid and Vaxx policies become clear. It was not incompetence. it was Malice. They all knew masks didn’t work and took them off the second the cameras stopped rolling. The Ontario Science Table was a panel of experts who gave cover to state diktats that took the lives of enormously large numbers of people as compared to actual Covid deaths. The British equivalent of Fizman and Fauci, Neil Ferguson, whose models caused the lock downs and other polices but didn’t stop him from racing across town to have sex with his married lover. Or the Governor of California, who was one of the most draconian governors in the US but had no problem booking a private restaurant for a large number of his friends to party in with no masks while everyone else in LA was forbidden from eating out or being in groups. Nanci Pelosi and the hair salon.

They knew. But that isn’t the point. The panel of experts that force policies based on narratives is the point. And with Carney on the horizon, the climate line of operation based on CO2 is gonna be huge.

Today at a presentation to the Canadian branch of the Club of Rome, the speaker, Madeline Weld, was presenting on the Century Initiative. The quasi illegal NGO/Lobby group that is arranging for Canada to have a population of 100,000,000 people by the year 2099, One of the participants pulled a fairly classic dialectic attack on the presenter. He asked a question that sounded somewhat related to immigration but was really trying to force consensus on climate change due to anthropogenic CO2, as a main priority. When he failed to get it from the presenter, he accused her of denialism.

Denialism is a dialectic attack. It is not science. The essence of science is to deny consensus. In fact, if a theory is not falsifiable, it isn’t even science, or a theory at all. Consensus is also not science. Religion is done by consensus. It kinda has to be. But science is a method for obtaining models which are closer and closer to objective reality, usually as determined by the predictive value of the model itself. And Global Warming has failed in every prediction.

And this is now the world we live in. Awareness of how it works will help us individually navigate around some of these policies. At least mentally. But we cannot escape the very real consequences of policies which will create scarcity and destroy what little individual rights we have left if we don’t stand up for those rights and refuse to accept the consensus of scientism. It’s not rocket science after all. In fact it isn’t science at all.

Source: https://vladtepesblog.com/2025/04/23/experts-a-tool-of-communist-narrative-enforcement/