As I watched Joe Rogan attempt to broker a debate between Dr. Peter Hotez and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr) on the subject of whether RFK Jr is promoting vaccine "misinformation," I was of course taken back to the COVID-era (is it really over?) when phrases like “you must trust the science” and "I trust the science" were being thrown in the faces of people who weren’t buying the regime’s narrative. When someone says, “I trust the science,” what I hear them saying is, I trust the “experts.” Which raises the question, “What is an expert?” The modern Oxford Dictionary definition of “expert’ is:

a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. “a financial expert”

When I consult my favorite dictionary, Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, for the definition of "expert," a noticeably different tone is encountered:

Properly, experienced; taught by use, practice or experience; hence, skillful; well instructed; having familiar knowledge of; as an expert philosopher.

In modern translation, an expert has "comprehensive" knowledge of a particular area. When you look up the definition of "comprehensive" in the modern Oxford Dictionary, you find this listing:

complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.

Now let’s take a look at the modern definition of authoritative:

able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

I don’t believe I have to point this out, but I will: dictionaries are written by men and women. With the growth of the managerial state, and especially the Nuremberg/New Deal regime, the definitions of words must be precise so that what you believe in no way interferes with the aims of those in charge. When you compare the definition of the word "expert" almost 200 years apart, it is impossible to miss that not only has the meaning become unassailable, but it has also become more authoritarian.

The definition of expert presented by Mr. Webster in 1828 could almost be described as warm. He is in no way trying to convince you that an expert is not to be questioned. In fact, his example of an expert, the philosopher, operates in an environment in which debate is the default. The philosopher expects to be challenged on his opinions. The modern definition mentions the "financial expert," the person you’re supposed to hand your earnings over to because they are the authority. Which, properly understood, is true because a managerial state designs the financial system so that only managers and experts can properly navigate it. They are the authorities, and they know the rules and how to get around them.

When you witness the regime, their apparatchiks, and the public who have been educated by them throwing around phrases like "I trust the science," their inability to question the “experts” didn’t happen by accident. As the US switched from an agrarian, frontiersman culture to one of experts and managers, it was essential for those same managers and experts to imprint in the public’s mind that their word is final and anyone who questioned them was to be attacked as, at best, a pseudo-intellectual, and at worst, a threat to public safety and order. That is the thought process which has been implanted into your fellow Americans’ minds. When you accept the realization that most people are not going to have their minds changed, you begin to understand that the time for conversation is over and you need to start looking for a new way forward.