Well, quite. A good read, thanks.

A recent excellent (if thats the right word) example of this breathtakingly cynical strategy were Trudeau’s opening words concerning the trucker protests earier this year – mentioning within the first few seconds the presence of a (single) swastika and confederate flag.

With a clear low opinion as to the critical faculties of his audience, he was unambiguously tying the movement to violent extremism, while at the same time implying that anyone offering support to the protesters was guilty by association of this extremism. The clear message: ‘Do something which I find inconvenient and you’re a nazi or nazi sympathiser. And tell your friends’.

Perfectly transparent to any half intelligent onlooker of course, but a tactic seemingly invisible to almost all of the ostensibly impartial press.

And anyone who questions progressive dogma is a “fascist”, because the woke elites have no capacity for articulation; just ever weirder slogans, shrill denouncements and thuggery. The problem is what happens after they have bent the needle so far left, having destroyed all capacity for moderate public debate and the trust underpinning civil society, when the rebound eventually happens.

I was thinking of writing about how ‘diet and lifestyle experts’ started the rot of ‘expertism’… but then I realised that there have always been people who exploit ‘knowing better than the common man’.
The difference in today’s expertism is that it now commands easy access to an uncritical media. You cannot even rely on the fact that the expert has a degree in an ‘-ology’ to validate what they say. Not that ownership of a degree is any guarantee in itself.
I am not arguing that all experts are wrong or self seeking. What I am arguing is that expert opinions should be treated with caution, not automatic trust. I reflect on how first aid for burns has changed over the years, how dietary regimes are routinely debunked by their replacements, and how reports in local newspapers are often seen to be wrong if you have knowledge of the event they report.
So, are ‘experts’ often narcissists, armoured in their self-regard, and poor at presenting evidence? Yes, they are rapidly joining the political class in trustworthiness.

The mainstream US media has never used the term “far-Left extremism”. Not even to describe the gunman who opened fire on the Republican congressional softball team in 2017. The shooter was a Bernie Sanders supporter who targeted the Republicans because they’re Republicans. If CNN was ever gifted an opportunity to give the appearance of leaning even slightly to the center, that was their chance. This is how you know the term “far-Right extremism” is nothing but a cudgel, applied gratuitously by the extremists who dominate news writing.

A lot of what you’ve said is also true of modern “experts” in general, of countless varieties.

According to the FBI, the largest neo-nazi group in America has an estimated 450 members…in a country of 335,000,000.

It is very likely American society had more PhD neo-nazi ‘hunters’ than actual neo-nazis.

This is what we get with university degree hyperinflation. It’s much harder to write something new and groundbreaking on George Washington or Plato, so degree-seekers find some obscure topic with little competition to obtain that PhD.

But then they’re stuck. In order to stay employed, these PhDs must promote their area of expertise. For example, the neo-nazi movement must be massive and dangerous in America, otherwise these PhDs’ books won’t sell and a job will be out of reach, let alone tenure.

Journalists who are looking for something sensational to sell, without putting in any effort on their part, latch on to these PhD misfits…and voilà…the neo-nazi group s in America must include your brother, father and son along with half the nation. Better check under your bed and in your closet.

But the fact remains that according to the FBI, the largest neo-nazi group in America has an estimated 450 members…in a country of 335,000,000.

Facts are inconvenient and stubborn things.

The article has 10 mentions of far-right extremism plus mandatory Trump reference and swastika image (which may not be the author’s doing), versus 1 person considered far-left. The author is a senior lecturer in our universities.

In tune with this article about the extreme language in reporting news, I’ve given up on the Times and am just about ready to stop the Telegraph. According to these news outlets, everything is a catastrophe and disastrous in the U.K. and the west generally – meanwhile my mundane life of retired comfort goes on, without a ripple.
I know they have to attract eyeballs, but the sensationalism of mainstream news reporting, citing equally sensationalist experts, is just not providing any perspective or insight.
Brexit was just an overly intimate trade agreement that we left. It maybe impacted the economy, but the so called experts hysterically claim it’s been an unmitigated disaster.
Irish terrorism will never escalate again because Islamic terrorism exposed it as evil, so the GFA will continue no matter how much the media, the left wing and Tory Rejoiners rant about the risk of terrorism returning.
Covid is a bad cold for some, death for those who are vulnerable (includes me) which required a less onerous response to protect just the vulnerable. But Johnson was stopped from being pragmatic by a hysterical media.
But Ukraine is pretty bad, for Ukrainians – although it is matched in its barbarity with wars going on elsewhere about people far away. Prices go up but they went up more because of the Covid response.
Our safe and cosseted life in the U.K. goes on.

Great piece Simon! You have outlined all the reasons why I NEVER refer to myself as an ‘expert’ in (counter) terrorism. When everyone is an expert no one is. Thanks for posting!

Using fear to justify political agenda to provide safety; like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

You seem to be quite an expert on extremism expertise. I.m impressed.

“Extremism experts are the new clergy, telling us what to affirm and revere and what to fear and banish.”
Spot on! Great Article.

I agree with the main premise this article proposes however it did not address the idea the extreme conspiratorial thinking has captured much of the traditional republican base as much as wokeism has captured the left. Both these more ideological less rational ways of seeing the world are bringing the extreme into the mainstream on both sides and causing a rift that the media and political players without forsite are all to happy to magnify

I don’t understand the utility of the word “extremist”. It’s entirely subjective – the more someone’s beliefs differ from mine, the more extreme he appears to be. But this is equally true the other way round.

There are ideas which justify illegal violence. There is no need to call them “extremist”, just tell the police to do their job, and watch people likely to break the law.