I've had the rather surreal experience in the last few days of having seen multiple "normies" praise the brilliant, seminal, insightful genius of, er, Chris Whitty, ever since it was announced he was to be honoured on the Queen's New Year's list.

The basic sum total of their adulation seems to be, "wow, he's really clever and went to school for a really long time, so he deserves this reward. It's just so funny that my mate Dave, who works in a call centre, thinks he knows better" - and then there is the signature classist, sexist, racist depiction of the "crazy conspiracy theorist" friend, who doesn't trust the government or want the injections, who is always depicted as a white working-class male (which is particularly bizarre when you consider many of the people pillorying 'Dave' are, themselves, white working-class males, but the proper types. The sciencey types. The types who don't drink in Wetherspoons).

This seems such a bizarre way of looking at the world, and so indicative of why we are where we are (year three of 15 days to flatten the curve) that I thought it deserved addressing. So, here's the thing: Chris Whitty may well be very clever. In fact, I have no doubt that he is, and that he would far outscore 'Dave', me, and most normies and conspiraquacks alike, in an IQ test. It is also a matter of public record that he spent a long time in educational institutes and has a lot of qualifications.

However, this bears no relationship whatsoever to what kind of character he is - to whether he is a person of ethics and integrity who will use his intelligence and education for moral causes that will benefit others. Very many clever, well-educated people don't, and, rather and instead, use their abilities to seek status, money, and other worldly trappings of success, by serving the agendas of the wealthy ruling classes who pull the world's strings. In the sciences more than perhaps any other field, people often find they have to make a choice between their ethics and their career progression, and legions of researchers have been confronted with the ultimatum to abandon certain lines of research, or to find certain conclusions in their research, or their careers will be terminated. There are myriad examples of this throughout history, and I wrote about one recent incident in detail here.

So, we can easily conclude from that that Chris Whitty is being honoured because he has made his choice, and has chosen to serve "the agenda", by participating in the current pantomime and playing a leading, star role in encouraging the lower classes to line up for their injections. That he is clever and well-educated has been instrumental in his successfully encouraging others to do something that is not in their interests. The reason he's been able to successfully do this is because our culture has been designed to teach people only to recognise intelligence and accomplishment, not character and morality. This means millions of people have a massive blind spot regarding the notion that intelligent, accomplished people could have immoral intentions. I remember many hours at school being taught about clever people and their various discoveries and inventions, but I don't remember ever being told anything about what kinds of people they were - the implication being, because they're clever and learned, they're obviously moral and good and we must do what they tell us - but in reality, intelligence and character have no particular relationship at all.

The nature of a technocracy is that you must unquestioningly obey "the experts" because, by virtue of being experts, they're better people than you - but "better" in this context simply means cleverer and more academically qualified. It doesn't mean they're better in the more traditional definition of the term, which relates to inner goodness, to morality, decency, and a powerful desire to do the right thing. After all, the essence of the characters who have formed the basis for massive religious and spiritual movements around the world, that have guided the lives of billions of people, is not that they're "clever" or have a lot of degrees (I'm not even sure all of them were literate), but that they're good, kind, moral people. That is far more important than intelligence, because intelligence can be - and very often is - misused to devious and destructive ends, whereas being guided by inner integrity and morality means you will always try to do the right thing. The reality is that, while Dave of the call-centre might have an IQ of 70, he is nevertheless far more likely to be guided by genuine integrity and a desire to help, than anyone who is benighted by the scandal-steeped, corruption-coated, ultra-wealthy Queen.

What evidence is there to support the conclusion that the wealthy establishment and its TV stars are good, moral people with the best intentions? Obviously there is no evidence of that at all, and all of human history shows that the ruling classes never ultimately have the interests of the people at heart and are always looking to do what will benefit themselves.

So when determining who to take advice from, I would pay little attention to how "clever" a person is alleged to be, and a lot more attention to what kind of character they are and what might be motivating them to do what they do. It's very easy to see that a rich, famous, "TV scientist" who is being honoured by the Queen may have all sorts of motivations that have nothing to do with helping the people.

So, when the normies scoff and sneer about 'Dave' with his lowly career and downmarket drinking habits, "thinking he knows better" than super-sciencey Chris Whitty et al, here's the thing: he almost certainly does.