Douglas Murray, Dave Smith, and the Troubling Rise of Wokespertise

by Logan Lancing

The recent “current thing” between author and journalist Douglas Murray and comedian and

cultural critic Dave Smith, which took place on the Joe Rogan Experience, revealed the devastating blow Leftists have dealt to our civilization in recent years. Expertise is out, and “just asking questions” is in. The TL; DR version of the story goes a bit like this–

Murray appeared on Rogan’s podcast, ostensibly to discuss his new book On Democracy and Death Cults. But, rather than do that, Murray was asked to have a conversation with Smith (debate, really) about the war between Israel and Hamas. Murray rushed in swinging, taking issue with the fact that Smith, admittedly, does not wield expertise of the relevant facts and details of the conflict. Smith (and Rogan) defended himself, using Murray’s arguments from previous years about “experts,” “expertise,” and gatekeeping to apparently reveal the incoherence and irony of Murray’s current attack vectors. The narrative following the interview was “Murray has gone Woke, using the same BS arguments he has spent a career destroying! WE DON’T TRUST EXPERTS!”

Well, should we? As all three—Rogan, Smith, and Murray—pointed out correctly, we have been badly lied to and misled by our “experts” and their institutions in recent years. Their “credentials” were revealed in so many cases not to represent competence and expertise but willingness to push the Party Line. As Murray argued, our experts failed us catastrophically, but expertise itself must still matter.

In the wake of this conversation lay bad actors, grifters, cringy “Elucks” (X users chasing “Elon Bucks” in the X monetization program, which merely prioritizes certain types of content engagement), and, most importantly, confused and disoriented people. These people are confused by Murray’s argument that expertise matters when discussing complicated issues. Why? Because real, genuine expertise actually does matter. On the other hand, perhaps more importantly, those people just survived Covid-19. By this, I mean they just survived the largest psychological warfare campaign ever waged on the minds of men.

Therefore, people lay confused because they’ve learned that the experts were dead wrong. And not only were the experts dead wrong, they knew that we knew they were dead wrong and still skate parks were sandbagged, sons and daughters had to say their final goodbyes from the parking lot, kids were locked out of school for years, and hard-working men and women lost their jobs because…reasons. All the while, the “experts” laughed, dined, danced on TikTok, and told us from the podium of the President of the United States of America that we would face a winter of severe illness and death for not believing them.

Though people may have forgotten, Murray has largely built a career on challenging “the experts,” particularly with regard to immigration and Islam. So, yeah, people were confused by Murray’s apparent about-face on the central issue of his and Smith’s conversation. Why is Murray now supporting experts? (Think also about “gender affirming care experts” and “climate experts,” to name some of the most egregious examples.)

Enter something I’m calling Wokespertise, which is a selective favoring of outsider narratives perhaps sprinkled with a generous dash of conspiracy theorizing. Wokespertise is what you get when interpreting society through a Woke conspiracy theory about how society works to elevate the knowledge of a privileged few and a marginalized and oppressed many. Woke people therefore favor alternative knowledges and other ways of knowing. Alternative to what? Established knowledge. Other how? By methods different than those of the prevailing experts, who are deemed (rightly or wrongly) corrupt. More importantly, Woke people favor them not because the sitting experts are corrupt or wrong, as they often are, but because they’re alternative, other, and outsider-based. Wokespertise is knowing things you’re “not allowed” to know.

We can think of tons of examples, say from Critical Race Theory. In Critical Race Theory, disparate impact implies discrimination—that’s a pillar of CRT Wokespertise. So if there are proportionally fewer black people than white people who go hiking (perhaps a fact), then “hiking is racist.” This Wokespertise game can be repeated anywhere Woke lives. Consider feminists claiming the reason fewer women are computer coders than men is sexism in tech, for example. Or consider that anyone who has visited the Israeli war zone, or Israel at all, must have been given bad, Potemkin misinformation from the IDF and so understands the situation there less, not more, for having been there. Thus, alternative explanations, particularly ones that blame Israel for engaging in the conflict somehow wrongly, are preferred to journalistic accounts based in due diligence.

Here's the thing, though. Experts exist, and expertise matters. This is immediately evident when you overhear a discussion about a field you are an expert in. For instance, I know and understand Critical Race Theory deeply, and I sometimes will see people online who have started to study Critical Race Theory share conclusions that are flat out wrong, even when those conclusions contain several correct facts. This is a real problem because, when you’re not an expert in the field, and especially if you’re hearing about something that’s mostly foreign to you, any surface level, boneheaded understanding of a topic may sound and feel like expertise when you hear it. And this especially goes for boneheaded understanding that forwards facts that appear to support the narrative.

For example: “CRT is just anti-white racism! Look at this school targeting white kids!”

Expert Opinion: Technically, no, although it often manifests as “anti-white” on the ground floor, as it is designed to generate and maximize racial conflict and awaken a politically activated racial consciousness in all racial groups in various different ways. Critical Race Theory’s central stated goal is to “abolish whiteness as (bourgeoisie) private property,” which is very different from being “anti-white.” “Whiteness,” can be summarily described as “success-generating Western values,” especially those that underwrite the US Constitution.

Now, I don’t want to get too lost in the weeds here, but you can imagine how differently one would approach the fight against CRT if one thought it was “just anti-white racism” vs. anti–success-generating Western Values. One of these approaches fights CRT; the other of these approaches walks into the spells cast on racial groups throughout society by CRT.

There are two primary reasons why CRT is still running roughshod through education, I would argue. The first is that the CRT advocates are relentless Race Marxists. Another is because many Americans, especially white conservatives, fell for the more easily monetizable anti-CRT marketing package in “It’s just anti-white racism!” which CRT actually promotes. So, when parents don’t see blatant administrator-driven and institutionalized anti-white racism in schools, they imagine CRT must be gone.. Or, what’s worse, even when they do witness it, they assume a politically activated white racial consciousness must be the answer, fueling the fire. (So much to say here—maybe another time—but if you feel “it’s just anti-white racism, then why discriminate against Asians in admissions? Why say they are against “neutral principles of constitutional law”? Why is Larry Eldar “The Black Face of White Supremacy?”)

My point is, expertise matters because Truth matters, and experts are those who reliably strike closer to the Truth than others. We’re all limited, so expertise doesn’t shield anyone from criticism or error, obviously. But, in general, we blindly trust experts every single day of our lives because we must. We can’t all be roofers, undersea cable layers, cattle ranchers, IT wizards, prison wardens, or Olympic coaches. We trust that each of us develops expertise in specific domains of knowledge that we can then share with each other to make the world go round.

All that said, let’s return to the JRE debate between Murray and Smith. Smith’s performance was widely considered online (I don’t buy it, though! For those that follow me on X, think “5GW”) to be a massive double-leg takedown of the titanic Murray. Smith was not “the expert” and was “just asking questions” and stating “facts” that “the experts” suspiciously ignore, apparently. Murray was the arrogant hot-head, “hiding behind expertise” to shield himself from actually debating the issues.

These takes were boringly familiar to me. I’ve observed and read about situations like this for years now. This is how it works, which may ring familiar with you, too.

The Expert: I’m an expert on this particular subject for reasons x, y, and z, and I’m here to discuss where I believe your interpretation of reality is a faulty one.

Wokespert: I’m just asking questions. Here’s some facts, woven together as a counter-narrative to your narrative based on “expertise.” [CRT Wokespertise calls this a “counterstory.”]

The Expert: Sure, those facts check out, but the conclusions you’ve derived from them are false, and here’s why. [Deliberately misleading people with selective true statements is possible and even has an obscure name: paltering.]

Wokespert: But what about this fact? You never discuss that one. What else are you hiding or perhaps unwilling to notice? You’re supposed to be “the expert”?! You are blinded by your membership in the expert class. You’re part of the system that wants to keep this fact away from people! [Insider knowledge is corrupt according to Wokespertise and its defining conspiracy theory, which holds that it’s only considered “knowledge” for corrupt reasons.]

The Expert: You can state facts, and I may or may not agree with them, and we can discuss that. But, even if I do, a fact isn’t an argument. Sure, if we agree to your factual claim, we can move on to discussing the implications of that claim and why I think the implications you’ve derived are faulty and wrong. [Expertise isn’t just understanding facts but how they fit together into an accurate portrayal of reality.]

Wokespert: Listen, I’m not an expert. I’m just asking questions, and I find it weird that it feels like I’m not allowed to ask these questions. I find it weird that you seem unwilling to acknowledge and talk about X, Y, and Z facts. Why might that be? My ability ask the questions you experts aren’t allowing me to ask makes me more trustworthy, and actually makes me more of an expert than you! You’re blind! How could you not know about these facts they’ve hidden from you. Wake up, man! [Wokespertise claims unearned intellectual and moral superiority by claiming to stand outside the corruption alleged by the conspiracy theory at its heart.]

(Quick aside: To be completely fair, two things. Again, our expert classes are severely corrupted, but the question here is about throwing out the baby (expertise) with the bathwater (corruption and bogus credentialism). Also, there were certainly moments in the debate where Murray did himself no favors with his responses or his frustrated tone, and there were certainly points were Smith butchered facts. But, I’m not here to discuss my feelings about the “debate,” but rather pull out the phenomenon that took place and explain why it’s confusing people and where it can lead us. I’m not at all interested in a line-by-line analysis, because that misses the point entirely)

If the Wokespertise game isn’t clear yet, let’s try to rehash this example in language we’re now all familiar with.

The Expert: I’m an expert on this particular subject for reasons x, y, and z, and I’m here to discuss where I believe your interpretation of reality is a faulty one.

Critical Race Theorist (Wokespert): I’m just asking questions. Here’s some facts, woven together as a counter-narrative to your expertise. [Critical analysis plus counter-storytelling.]

The Expert: Sure, those facts check out, but the conclusions you’ve derived are false, and here’s why.

Critical Race Theorist (Wokespert): But what about this fact? You never discuss that one. What else are you hiding or perhaps unwilling to notice? You can’t be a true expert because you are blinded by your “whiteness.” You’re part of the system of White Supremacy Ideology that wants to keep this fact away from people. You’re protecting your own power and privilege. [Outsider knowledge is necessary because of the Woke conspiracy theory at the heart of their approach.]

The Expert: You can state facts, and I may or may not agree with them, and we can discuss that. But, even if I do, a fact isn’t an argument. Sure, if we agree to your factual claim, we can move on to discussing the implications of that claim and why I think the implications you’ve derived are faulty and wrong.

Critical Race Theorist (Wokespert): Listen, I’m not white, nor do I have access to whiteness, which makes me more of an expert than you! You’re blind! How could you not know about these facts they’ve hidden from you. Wake up, man! Be Woke! Give me the keys to the car or else.

This Uno-Reverse Card (dialectical inversion combined with DARVO) flips the script – I’m not an expert and I’m just asking questions, which actually means I’m more of an expert because I will ask the questions and state the facts we’re not allowed to ask and state. This tactic is one the Woke have used for decades to redefine expertise as adherence to Woke doctrine and activism (that is, Wokesptertise).

So, here we arrive at the thing confusing everyone: Expertise is real and reliable, insofar as we define expertise as deep knowledge of a particular field or subject. However, those working to subvert Liberty and Truth weasel their way into positions where they can wear “expertise” as a costume that obscures their agenda and goals. So, many of the “experts” that have been rammed down our throats in recent decades were never experts at all—they were commissars. The point, to spell it out plainly, is that we can reject commissars without adopting a counter-Wokespertise of our own!

These commissars (posing as our “experts”) were ushered in mostly by a 21st century DEI program modeled on a nearly identical program found in the early Soviet Union. They were equitably placed and included in the positions they hold because they’re politically awakened and active, holding diverse, counter-hegemonic views. They are an expert political class wearing “expertise” as a skin suit. Their credentials are entirely political, due in large part to the takeover of our educational system by Woke people, chiefly in the 80s and 90s.

So, now we arrive at a place and time where people are supremely skeptical of experts because they’ve been tricked into believing experts and commissars (Wokesperts) are the same thing. They are not.

The Woke Left has spent decades destabilizing society. Everything they do is meant to generate conflict and destabilize society until the revolution happens and Utopia arrives through years of long toil under their totalitarian control. One of their most successful attack vectors has been to convince people that no one can be trusted, and everyone must be approached with suspicion, even the pilot flying your airplane. That is, unless they have the correct political consciousness. The goal in this domain has always been to replace experts with commissars. This allows them to capture institutions that they can, while burning down those they can’t.

And here’s a neat trick. Because they’re replacing experts with commissars, they actually make their criticisms of expertise come true, wrongly. People see corrupted “experts” in one light when there are in fact two—experts and commissars—and they blame belief in expertise itself for the problem. Thus, when the Woke critique of expertise cannot fully succeed directly by its own hand, it completes itself through its enemies by getting them to abandon expertise too. At that point, all that’s left is power struggles between the expert-free factions, which they hope they’ve positioned themselves to ultimately win.

The confused and disoriented people I’ve been discussing are those left in the wake of this catastrophically successful attack. They are the people the Woke Left couldn’t win over—those who couldn’t be “awakened” and initiated into the Woke cult. So what do you do with them? You can’t just let them go, potentially becoming active counter-revolutionaries. So, you make sure if you can’t get them, no one can. You leave the entire game board destabilized, with any people that get away with nowhere to flee to. You create psychological casualties—people who don’t trust experts at all and only trust this claim or that because of tribalistic group belonging and feelings rather than rational and reasoned thought, to say nothing of the actual truth.

Murray has spent his career mostly challenging commissars, or Wokesperts, referring to themselves as “the experts,” not experts. He’s leveled brilliant attacks against political commissars who’ve sold themselves as “the experts,” revealing to everyone that “the experts” are in fact commissars who can’t be trusted. He knows, I presume, based on my eyes and ears, that experts are real and important, and that expertise matters. And he’s right. Now he’s facing down a new brand of counter-Wokesperts, and he’s still right. Expertise still matters. Wokespertise is still fraudulent.

We need to recover the distinction between genuine expertise and ideological credentialism. I’m not suggesting experts cannot embrace error. I’m suggesting that expertise should be judged by its proximity to truth, not by loyalty to a totalizing worldview. The people we once trusted lose credibility because they got a few things wrong. They lost it because they were captured by a religious cult that reoriented them away from reality and truth and towards activism.

If we don’t rebuild a culture that values truth over narrative and competence over credentials, we’ll keep mistaking commissars for craftsmen. And when that happens, everything breaks and we all have a bad time.