Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Today James joins Clyde Lewis on Ground Zero to talk about Clyde’s new article, “You End: UNinvolved in Peace.” Topics discussed include the Strong Cities initiative and the UN Global Goals, the future of policing and autonomous weapons.
SHOW NOTES:
You End: UNinvolved in Peace
Loretta Lynch Launches the Strong Cities Network at the UN General Assembly
Agenda 2030 Translator: How to Read the UN’s New Sustainable Development Goals
Institute for Strategic Dialogue – Board of Trustees
You just keep carryin’ water for the Fabian World State, candide, that’s noble work you’re doing.
I mean, seriously, why do you even participate at all? All I ever see you comment on is your disdain for anyone who would dare question the benevolence of the Cult of the Ichthus with Feet.
I think you should have the moral courage to admit that whatever your feelings on the kakistocracy, you clearly dislike those damn right-wing religious-nutter science-denier HERETICS even more, which the body of your posting makes quite clear every time you feel the need to (yet again) plaintively ask why JC or JEP is ‘playing right into the hands of THOSE PEOPLE’ yet again, without ever addressing the substance of their actual comments or acting incredulous about how they can hold positions that they’ve already addressed quite thoroughly a dozen times before.
As you can see, I leave an extremely long leash for dissent here in the comments section and try not to intervene with these discussions, but now that you have for the second time made the extremely condescending assertion that I’m just a “middle class white guy in self-congratulatory mode” who doesn’t care about the poor (which is a truly disgusting and degrading assertion to make) please allow me to point out that you have not quoted one thing that I actually said in this interview. In fact, the fact that you raised the entire anti-science rant in relation to this interview leads me to believe that you have not even listened to it. Unless and until you quote anything that was actually said in this interview I’m going to have to assume you are here to cast assertions on silly little middle-class white guy me, an obvious racist living in Japan with his Japanese family who doesn’t know, care about or understand poverty and clearly hates science, which is so evidently what the UN stands for. Put up or shut up, “candide”.
1: “Whatever, I just don’t like you hanging out with THOSE people and that’s allll thaaaat matters.”
2: “Long, long live the centuries-old thinker I’m homering for with 1-2 decent ideas and 15-20 completely awful ones that anyone who’s ever taken a Philosophy 101 course can shred like a wet paper bag inside five minutes. But he ESTABLISHED MY TEAM so that’s alllll thaaaat matters.”
Thank you for admitting that your original comment had nothing whatsoever to do with what was actually said in this interview. I think you have officially shown that you are not a serious commenter here, and I trust the other people reading this thread will bear this in mind in your future commentary on this site.
Thank you as always for paying to keep this site up and running.
The question is extremely simple. The fact that you will not answer it demonstrates you did not listen to the interview or are not being genuine in this discussion.
To reiterate nosoapradio’s question: “when exactly in the Clyde Lewis/James Corbett conversation above [did] anyone even suggested we should move backwards or abandon science??”
A quotation would be nice, but a time stamp will do.
I mean, I can definitely relate to being so sick of a particular take / frame of discourse that it makes your brain sizzle a little to even have to start hearing it, particularly when a commentator you respect is on one end of the dialogue. My personal peeves these days are the arcana of the whole social-justice critical-studies crowd and the “but isn’t it really all those Christ-kill- I mean filthy ki- I mean Zionists! Zionists” crew. But that of course is an irrationally driven response that one ought to run a check on before attempting to critique, and in this case it’s just driven by non sequitur after non sequitur, as though candide just saw Clyde Lewis in the credits and immediately started composing an angry letter to the editor.
I for one just feel privileged to have opened the floodgates on what may well have been the saltiest James Corbett comment activity we may yet have witnessed in the history of he and his Report. =-o
No, no, no – it’s *you* that can’t take criticism and it’s *you* that can’t advance an argument. What does a bunch of woolly pontificating on the wonders of the age of science (nobody’s against rising standards of living, dude, except the very Agenda 21 / 2030-driven globalists you feel bizarrely compelled to defend in your OP) have to do with any topic that was actually under discussion in this interview? Not to mention the ‘white privilege’ insinuations to boot – the last argument of scoundrels for sure. How you deal with *your* inability to process how your opening post led to a wave of ‘wow, we are so sick of your act’ replies, including from the host of the site? And no, I don’t think you’re a shill – man is that one tired too – I think you’re extremely knee-jerk and one-note in your commentary and don’t have much going for you in the way of self-awareness. But good for you for lovin’ it.
Cannot cosign. Throwing that accusation around willy-nilly is a huge victory in and of itself for Cass & Co. It’s like throwing a golden apple into Olympus’s garden party with ‘FOR THE SHILL’ written on the side. Why can’t myopic snobs who are bad at thinking just be myopic snobs that are bad at thinking?
The City of Atlanta adopted this Climate Action Plan.
http://p2catl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Atlanta-Climate-Action-Plan-07-23-2015.pdf