Refusing to "get into the weeds" of my critique, Cook opted instead to make "a few general points" about why my critique "should not be taken seriously".
Fantastic, and perhaps even more of a 'tour de force' than your original rebuttal. I felt considerable frustration - and a significant amount of pity - on reading Cook's 'keeping out of the weeds' and attempted ar5e-covering response, so I'm very glad that you took the time to reveal it as the head-in-the-sand, half-hearted reply that it evidently was.
In fact, I commented to that effect on his piece. I did this only because I am, by and large, a great admirer of his writing and analysis - especially when it comes to matters pertaining to Palestinian oppression. So it's even *more* important, in my view, that he is made to fully engage in the arguments around Covid and the ongoing climate narrative, so that he can hopefully lift himself out of the quagmire that the rest of the supposed 'Left' have somehow found themselves floundering within.
His voice and talents are too precious to be lost to the ideologically-driven and groupthink-dominated 'consensus' that seems to have engulfed some of our supposedly greatest 'leftie' minds in relation to these most vital of issues: Chomsky, Pilger, Caitlin Johnstone - to name but three.
Thanks for your comment. I am not optimistic about Cook and his fellow leftie ideologues doing a u-turn anytime soon, if at all. They are intellectually dishonest and that, by definition, precludes the possibility that they can admit they might have been wrong about many things. I think they believe in weaponising narratives, regardless of the integrity of the narrative, and that makes them no better than the forces they purport to be fighting. Which is precisely why those forces have successfully outsmarted and co-opted them.
The damage done by supporting scams like the pseudo-pandemic is so great that they can't bring themselves to admit they were accomplices to that crime. Cook wasn't as bad as the others on this one but he couldn't bring himself to admit the total horror of it. There's more hope for Cook than the others but don't hold your breath.
Yes, I completely agree. Very well put. In his case, it may be a forlorn hope, but it's still a hope worth having, I think - which is why your challenges on this subject are so valuable and important. Thanks again.
I started to wake up to how we're ruled a decade ago but it is only in very recent times that I've finally woken up to the AGW scam. At least, I think I have. I really felt at the time that I first became aware of AGW that I gave both sides a fair hearing - it wasn't like other things I've woken up to where it simply never occurred to me to doubt them - I looked at both sides and "climate emergency" clearly won ... but now it doesn't. I guess knowing covid was a psyop from Day One and then learning more widely that viroliegy and vaccinology are cons made me realise how dishonest and unscientific "science" can be. I swallowed the AGW propaganda that all the naysayer scientists were motivated by fossil-fuel funding where now I see they aren't but in any case you always need to judge primarily by content over other considerations.
Fantastic, and perhaps even more of a 'tour de force' than your original rebuttal. I felt considerable frustration - and a significant amount of pity - on reading Cook's 'keeping out of the weeds' and attempted ar5e-covering response, so I'm very glad that you took the time to reveal it as the head-in-the-sand, half-hearted reply that it evidently was.
In fact, I commented to that effect on his piece. I did this only because I am, by and large, a great admirer of his writing and analysis - especially when it comes to matters pertaining to Palestinian oppression. So it's even *more* important, in my view, that he is made to fully engage in the arguments around Covid and the ongoing climate narrative, so that he can hopefully lift himself out of the quagmire that the rest of the supposed 'Left' have somehow found themselves floundering within.
His voice and talents are too precious to be lost to the ideologically-driven and groupthink-dominated 'consensus' that seems to have engulfed some of our supposedly greatest 'leftie' minds in relation to these most vital of issues: Chomsky, Pilger, Caitlin Johnstone - to name but three.
Thanks for your comment. I am not optimistic about Cook and his fellow leftie ideologues doing a u-turn anytime soon, if at all. They are intellectually dishonest and that, by definition, precludes the possibility that they can admit they might have been wrong about many things. I think they believe in weaponising narratives, regardless of the integrity of the narrative, and that makes them no better than the forces they purport to be fighting. Which is precisely why those forces have successfully outsmarted and co-opted them.
The damage done by supporting scams like the pseudo-pandemic is so great that they can't bring themselves to admit they were accomplices to that crime. Cook wasn't as bad as the others on this one but he couldn't bring himself to admit the total horror of it. There's more hope for Cook than the others but don't hold your breath.
Yes, I completely agree. Very well put. In his case, it may be a forlorn hope, but it's still a hope worth having, I think - which is why your challenges on this subject are so valuable and important. Thanks again.
Great analysis just like your first rebuttal.
I started to wake up to how we're ruled a decade ago but it is only in very recent times that I've finally woken up to the AGW scam. At least, I think I have. I really felt at the time that I first became aware of AGW that I gave both sides a fair hearing - it wasn't like other things I've woken up to where it simply never occurred to me to doubt them - I looked at both sides and "climate emergency" clearly won ... but now it doesn't. I guess knowing covid was a psyop from Day One and then learning more widely that viroliegy and vaccinology are cons made me realise how dishonest and unscientific "science" can be. I swallowed the AGW propaganda that all the naysayer scientists were motivated by fossil-fuel funding where now I see they aren't but in any case you always need to judge primarily by content over other considerations.