Coronavirus: Listening To (And Rebutting) The Critics

By  |  1 Comment

from Peak Prosperity:


Coronavirus: Listening To (And Rebutting) The Critics



1 Comment

  1. Bill

    March 27, 2020 at 9:28 pm

    I have long had great respect for Chris Martinson. However, there has always been some troubling elements to his perspectives. He is an environmental alarmist–claims there are no insects in New England. I live in Missouri. I should invite him to clean my car after a highway drive.

    Then there is the tailings of Frankist university culture. He is collectivist and sees things through the lens of improving the world by social engineering, peer pressure and technocracy. All this is quite familiar from college–where one is brainwashed into a socialist mindset beginning in the dormitories and all the other places where one must line up, hurry up and wait.

    Lastly, though I believe he considers himself an iconoclastic preacher against the corruption of mainstream economic fallacies he seems to retain a blue pill belief in such things as global warming, peak oil and unquestioned vaccine legitimacy. I find his adherence to the mainstream orthodoxy on each of these as inconsistent with the mindset of a suspicious truther.

    What I see now and that I find most troubling is that he has lost objectivity on the coronavirus issue. He rails against those who are making pronouncements against pandemic alarmism. He calls for grounding in the “data”…yet he cherry picks the data and declares what he doesn’t like as “suspicious” but accepts equally questionable data that bolsters his arguments from the same sources. When he attacks the nuance of diction of those he disagrees with as emotive or suggestive he does in diction which is both emotive and suggestive. But it is when he insists on marketing Covid 19 as “The Honey Badger Virus”–surely all can see he is no longer dispassionately analyzing the data. He has become an advocate.

    As I reflect dispassionately on perhaps the truth movement’s most articulate member, I must pose the question: Why is he advocating for the medical/authoritarian/technocratic side of this issue with little or no alarmism about the apparent NWO agenda it facilitates? Has he concluded it is the only viable path or could there be other explanations. I can only wonder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar