Replies

I can find lots to disagree with him about. I identified what he was because like all globalist, their world is perhaps much better, while the majority of humans lives get much worse.

While they have much greater access, many more people are losing accesses that they once enjoyed.

So it is all relative. From his vantage point it is better, because he has the capability to enjoy the advances that he touts,

To others, the picture is not as rosy as they slide down the slope toward greater insecurity. Those who have seen their income stagnate, while prices for essentials rise. In addition their freedoms are being attacked left and right, and their right to even vocalize their concerns are being threatened with retribution. Their rights to freely live up to their believes concerning religion are being denied, and are again being threatened by laws criminalizing them, or placing financial burdens upon then for their beliefs.

So, while all of his statements may be true facts, his overall argument is false, because he does not weigh his positive factual evidence against factual negative evidence. By focusing solely on one side of the coin his conclusion is at best incomplete, because there are always two sides to every coin.

It's a kin to touting the miracles of antibiotics, while ignoring sauperbug strains that are becoming impervious to those antibiotics.