Interview 1097 – Ground Zero: Strong Cities and Global Goals
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
The Psychology of Killing and the Origins of War
And Now for the Robot Apocalypse…
Filed in: Interviews
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Not yet had time to digest the 2030 bluster properly but seems to me much of what you are saying certainly is inconsistent with history and the basic truth. In 1820 there were roughly 1billion people living in extreme poverty. Today there are aprx 1billion people living in extreme poverty. Over that period global population has increased by over 6billion people to stand currently at 7.4billion individuals. So today aprx 84% of people are NOT considered in extreme poverty. This figure was reversed in 1820 when the number of extremely impoverished individuals was 86-92% of the global population.
So while poverty persistently grips a steady number of people when adjusted for all other factors the percentages are quite remarkable in their positive improvement in the lot of the average man. Which is, I know, scant comfort to the slum dwellers of Sub Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America who have remained the poorest throughout. Though the lack of acknowledgment of the real victims of poverty in this segment is largely typical of affluent white men in both mainstream and our alternative media platforms.
But I digress from the point I want to make, my apologies for remembering the real victims.
By every metric and in perhaps the biggest “no shit Sherlock” of them all, the undeniable fact is there has been a consistent upward trend in the purchasing power of the average person in the post Darwin era. And that is because the scientific method came to serve mankind. From steam engine to nano 3d printing technology has reshaped mankind and allowed him the mass education to ponder existential angst like this ad nauseum and to absurdity.
Any an all UN mention of poverty is near meaningless. Why you try to pick it apart for proof of FEMA camps and other freeform jazz of idle speculation being our future baffles me. There is no end of evil shit happening, I’d be the first to admit, but trying to turn observational reality on its head is frankly ridiculous. Perhaps you need to find a cave somewhere and live in extreme poverty, then consider it against the life ‘everyone’ you know lives.
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.
Then you have a well developed cognitive bias. I often applaud and agree with James. But facts are facts are facts. You can’t change them. I come from the city of David Hume who arguably gave birth to rationalist atheism and the adoption of the scientific method for observation as the best informer in decision making. Just because your NWO uberlords use its fruits too does not make the principles evil. Equally in debate a critique is equal to a postulation, which is what that interview was. Once we had got past the now ubiquitous back slapping that is. I’m sorry I’m not a fawning fan type of a person. If you don’t like what I say ignore me.
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.
I find the US particular fascination for using the words Jesus and God everything from stupifying through hypocritical to downright dangerous. However I’m a 3rd generation atheist so I feel that way about religion in general in any country. The most fascinating thing about people who actively use the meme of their choosing is they all think their gnosis gives them the right and privilege of being fit and able to speak for others.
“However I’m a 3rd generation atheist so I feel that way about religion in general in any country. The most fascinating thing about people who actively use the meme of their choosing is they all think their gnosis gives them the right and privilege of being fit and able to speak for others.”
You’ve never done this.
No never. Well hardly ever. OK…occasionally I might have….
I know the conditioning that 3rd generation Atheism (with a capital A) can instill in an adherent, so I’ll just here post a few quirky facts about the All seeing, Never blinking eye:
A little weird even to an ‘objective’ type person: https://aamichael666.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ppp-pyramid-and-the-marriage-of-the-earth-and-moon-simple-maths.png
The mathematical basis for it: https://aamichael666.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/the-three-ppp-pyramid-angles-phi-14-11-pi.png
And the threshold due to Earth flattening still hugs the ratios (I like to call this ‘error analysis’ if in fact a mathematical model threshold can be called an ‘error’): https://aamichael666.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/graph-visual-earth-moon-ppp-pyramid-analysis-at-all-latitudes-due-to-earth-flattening-pyramid-of-giza-lunar-standstill-shown.png
Even the Egyptians (at least the 4th Dynasty) knew it?: https://aamichael666.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/great-pyramid-of-giza-ppp-pyramid-lunar-standstill-moon-married-to-earth-1x2x3x4x5x6x7-5040-and-equatorial-5043mile-config-small.png?w=739&h=261
And the distance between the two and their size exhibit a 666 signature: https://aamichael666.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/earth-moon-system-orbital-architecture-700-day-moon-distance-graph-and-earth-moon-solar-666-connection.png
Could it be . . . and I’m just throwing it out there to be cute in the essence of debate . . . that Atheists are actually in the future going to be seen as the new flat Earthers? Or would it be heretical for me to even suggest this?
Turns out all that time, the ‘Eye in the Pyramid’ – which most people identify as a ‘religious’ symbol – had a hard core mathematical and scientific meaning. Hey, maybe even a Spinozist would find that interesting, but they’re all just ‘sexed up atheists’ right?
Why would these mathematical curiosities, for that’s all they are, make atheists the new flat earthers? That’s just silly.
It is plain to see that the architects of the great pyramids around the world knew their triangles and used them. It’s hard to see how you can make a case against a disbelief in deity based on that.
Similarly there are no end of surprising and even stunning numbers generated when you want to find them. Not just in Earth/Moon ratios but in just about anything compared to anything. That’s why people love maths.
Personally what I found curious was the infinities they generate. Which is also the measure of the relationship between belief and hubris so far as I can tell.
@candideschmyles
I was just testing your ability to be objective.
If you can’t see the importance of a grand design in the Earth-Moon system, and why it could be conducive to aiding carbon based life to originate in the first place, then even Darwin would question your ability to be objective. Even Darwin was aware that complex evolution of such components as the eye seemed to follow a design rather than being the product of successive rejection of unworkable models.
I will posit that there would be no life at all on Earth without the Moon, and that there is something special about the Earth-Moon system which is revealed through that special pyramidal relationship between them both. Phi, Pi, and 14/11, are a very special small threshold that in scientific logic should arouse enough curiosity to take an intellectual person further into a thought process. Yours seemed to stop with your conditioning barrier – and plausible deniability – and this is what I was referring to as ‘flat-earth’.
Ever wondered why the Sun and Moon are the same angular diameter from Earth? Ever wondered if the singular face of the Moon which always faces the Earth, if considered a capstone, could also symbolically represent an all-seeing-eye? Ever wondered if the people who created the Great Seal of the United States all that time ago understood the importance of what I just showed you, but that they even knew they could put it on the back of the most published piece of propaganda on Earth ($1 FRN), and still everybody would ignore its real meaning and importance. Darwin was correct, this is the planet of the apes.
>>>Why would these mathematical curiosities, for that’s all they are, make atheists the new flat earthers? That’s just silly.
EVERY great discovery starts with a curiosity. I believe it was a curious Darwin that brought forward the hypothesis that carbon based life developed in stages. Perhaps the Intelligent Design component lacking from his hypothesis (the other half of the story) might be provable by looking at the Human Environment as a WHOLE (Earth + Moon), to work out why the current system was so conducive to allowing and developing carbon based life.
If the Earth-Moon INTERPLAY has within it a particular force yet to be identified, which allows carbon-based life to develop and flourish, perhaps it could be used to progress our understanding of how to prolong human and animal life? Or who knows what rewards such an understanding could garner? I believe it starts with curiosity, and that mathematical curiosities are the best place to start being that maths is the universal ‘language’.
>>>Similarly there are no end of surprising and even stunning numbers generated when you want to find them.
That would be like saying to Isaac Newton that his theory of gravity was nothing special because one can find number patterns and ratios in anything. Remember, most great discoveries are ridiculed as unimportant by the mediocratic status quo.
What is the measure of the relationship between mediocrity and innovation? I would think a person without their brain in a box would be a good start. Here’s some good advice: let it swirl around in your head for a while, THEN form an opinion. And you can have that for free! You are most welcome!
At least you pay to support the Corbett Report despite your now repeated and confirmed globalist-technocratic outlook.
The scientific method in and of itself is not anything wrong or evil. It is, as always, how it is used, to what ends, and the intent of the user.
I would say that to the extent science behaves like science, then it should be lauded. However, once it acts as extremely as the same things it supposedly preaches against (religious irrationalism) then it goes into the cult of scientism. What was that quote by Nietzsche about gazing into the abyss?
Science is definitely used to steer forth a social agenda. The results and the method itself can and are manipulated to fit an agenda. Scientists do not begin their lives as scientists, but as social beings, immersed in whatever the social zeitgeist prevails at the time. To hold fast to their careers, titles and grants, they will (whether consciously or not), push that agenda.
I believe what I see and know to be true. The contribution Science has made to humanity has changed it forever. It has made possible the lives of over 6 billion more brothers, sisters, mothers, father’s and lovers. That fact can’t be fudged. Science is still better at making peoples lives possible than killing people.
“Science” just comes from the Latin word to mean “knowledge” so lets not esotericize this too much. “Science” has been with us since humans were endowed with consciousness. The process and method by which one acquires “science” is what has changed. Since this process is employed by humans and requires human will and intellect to wield it, means it is also subject to manipulation. That manipulation, in turn, hinges on the agendas the wielders may have whether malevolent or benevolent. This bias then influences the data they choose to use, not use (omit), exaggerate, or de-emphasize.
This again goes to my point – scientists do not begin their lives as scientists, but as social beings, immersed and socialized in the dominant ideological paradigm of their era. The environment in which they develop greatly influences their outlook, and how they use the process by which man acquires “science.” That socialization can be both conscious or unconscious, based on various limitations and influences, and can be financial, or even the fear of career ostracism (we see this in journalism as self-censorship).
You indicate you “believe” what you “see” (implying all knowledge is based on sense percetion) and “know to be true.” Those are loaded words and propositions and seem confusing. I don’t want to assume what you mean there, but to “believe” is not to “know.” So unless you’re admitting that there is a realm of faith in some of what we perceive, then you shouldn’t use the word “believe.” I’ve also noticed that you use various fallacies of non-sequitur in most of your responses, perhaps I’m wrong. Better yet, I would highly recommend this to you:
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Thanks for your thoughtful response, without any irony I do appreciate what you say.
I very very rarely use the word believe in such a context. I would say “I believe the Earth to be a sphere”. This is because the overwhelming evidence for such an assertion should be obvious to anyone likely to read what I had written. The evidence for science having changed mankind, which is what I stated I believe, is no less of a no shit Sherlock statement than the Earth being a sphere. I am entirely justified, without invoking extreme pedantry, to use the word belief in such a context. Unless of course you have some compelling evidence that science has had no effect in the recent evolution of mankind?
Formal logic is wonderful I agree and was pivotal in the development of this scientific method of which we speak. So I ask you, where in this interview did we see any formal logic applied to what the UN says on poverty? I have no support for any UN policy statement, less – I feel its utterly empty rhetoric. At least that is the history of UN statements on poverty policy.
I called this interview a freeform jazz of idle speculation and in my opinion that is what it was. And it was full of non sequiturs. And it grossly misrepresented the true nature of poverty as a phenomenon in global society. Which is an issue too serious, IMHO, to treat with such laziness. So in essence it was two middle class white guys in self congratulatory mode totally ignoring any facts and speculating on eventualities without any rational evidence. Others may not share that view but it is mine and I stand by it.
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”.
Why do I have to be responding to a “single” thing you said James? I did not see this interview in isolation. I saw it as another interview with American weirdness that exemplifies just how deep rooted the sense of American exceptionalism is even in altmed. At least the first response to my original post got that. But I admit my initial comment was extremely tangential. The truth about poverty deserves highlight and that was my purpose.
“Play your ethnicy Jazz to parade your snazz on your five grand radio” does not cut it here, you are right. You mention the world’s poorest and downtrodden way too seldom to be called a jazzist of that ilk. Which is my point.
These recent interviews with fringe loons and paid climate denying shills have all followed a self congratulatory intro on “the great, the go to man” that laudit you in the most obsequious manner. Is getting called great by someone who thinks we are being farmed by aliens a compliment? You decide.
On second listening I did note you did try to keep it real and avoid getting dragged into affirming certain loaded questions and focussed on the real scary stuff, the drones. Well done! But this guy is somewhat of a nutter and exemplifies the loony fringe of altmed. I know you need subscriptions to make your work possible but you will lose as you gain if you don’t keep it real. Where do you want to be…a university guest speaker or a segment between aliens and silver enemas?
Notes:
I listen to every audio file you produce at least once.
I never called anybody a racist, can I invoke non sequitur and ad hominem please?
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.
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.”
It’s good to know that “cognitive infiltrators” must still pay to support the Corbett Report LOL.
You believe what you WANT to see, and reject the rest.
Truth is relative to personal bias.
Everyone has a bias known as a paradigm, and the most heavily entrenched of all human bias is the refusal to recognize this fact. You sound as if you almost want to capitalize ‘Science’ just as ‘enlightenment’ deists capitalized ‘Nature’.
As perhaps Stanley Kubrick would say …
“Step forward and touch the monolith.”
Is touching the monolith Science or Religion?
Truth is relative to personal bias … and words are putty!
Yesterday someone sent me an article from the controlled opposition media organ called Rue89 whose self-righteous title blared:
“Come on, stop! Let’s stop inviting climato-sceptics to speak!” (“just before the COP21 summit in Paris” the article stated!)
It was the usual combination of frat-boy style bullying and corn-syrupy sweet condescension. Frightening if it weren’t so predictable.
Everyone should of course have their say.
NOW for my question:
Is Candidschmyles saying that because abject poverty levels have proportionally gone down since technology has crept into our lives we shouldn’t dissect the rhetoric or question the motives of international bodies with a known record for murdering men, women, children and babies in the name of terror and imperialism or who purport to combat extremism of a brand they or those they’re working for probably helped to create?
I think that CandideSchmyles should just piss off and pray for a climate stable Jesus of his choice.
Which of course is a total non-sequitor and in no way addresses my question which was not a rhetorical one.
To conflate my admiration for man’s stepping into a world of science and technology with support for a NWO agenda is simply ludicrous. The reason I am here at all is that I have a great respect for James work on shining light on the players and machinations of these deep state uberlords. To know how to fight them you need to know who they are and how they operate. But when we do fight them if we do not use science and technology we stand no chance. We can’t let them own that. And we can’t abandon it either for some neo dark age nostalgia of simplicity. We cannot move backwards.
>>>shining light on the players and machinations of these deep state uberlords.
Who on Earth do you think runs the bloody UNelected United Nations bureaucracy??? Do you think Carbon Trading and Carbon Derivatives are actually part of raising the third-world poor out of poverty? I’m utterly amazed at the amount of people with a ‘social justice warrior’ bent, who cannot see that a mandated carbon trading market will DESTROY the bridge out of poverty (you know, the benevolent fruits of science).
It’s Population Control 101, and Imperial Fascism 101.
And ‘climate denier’ … what does this even mean?
It is nonsensical NewSpeak … or perhaps UNspeak!
The Strong Cities Network is clearly just another part of the bottom-up scheme of technocratic feudalism, whereas the mandated carbon trading is the top-down method of control over every economic transaction.
As for Clive Lewis, who cares what his other opinions are when the discussion at hand was about UN interference in a sovereign nation? Isn’t difference in opinion what makes the Human race so special and interesting, and isn’t it required in order for debate to take place? But no, no debate allowed at the UN … the debate is over, Al Gore and Lord Blood have spoken … $cience, with a capital and authoritarian ‘$’ have spoken. Wake up please.
But Candideschmyles, I can’t seem to pinpoint when exactly in the Clyde Lewis/James Corbett conversation above anyone even suggested we should move backwards or abandon science??
Now you are going in circles. Did you forget ‘you’ asked a question?
Actually I’ve now asked two questions both of which have been countered by non-sequitors.
Reading through I feel I clearly defended my position without any logical trickery. The use of analogy does not a non sequitur make.
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.
See my above reply that answers this in its opening sentance.
nonsense
Candideschmyle writes:
“I listen to every audio file you produce at least once.
I never called anybody a racist, can I invoke non sequitur and ad hominem please?”
I think we can throw in one huge ‘straw man’ in the form of an incoherent anti anti-science rant… and a surprisingly wide palette in ‘appeal to emotion’, an attempt at the “association fallacy” and then there’s just your common garden variety smugness…
Wow! You did get a lot out of it.
I have plenty respect for formal argument. When I see it observed as de rigour here and not used as a club to quell a voice then I will use it too. I am not a supporter of NWO technocracy, never have been and never will be. This podcast turned from Global poverty to blue helmet Nazis on the streets of Portland in an insane way. I remembered what was forgotten at the outset and tried to provide contextual argument about who is really affected by UN dictate. If you have no appreciation for the effort then fine. I am used to people thinking my apparently and superficially contradictory opinions are illogical. I think otherwise.
To borrow the term of a perspicacious and eloquent poster on this board:
nonsense.
Was Russell brand here….? Damn I missed him.
James Corbettt “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”
I made no confession that I was wrong. My post was about the true nature of poverty. The topic pertinent to the opening segment. I do listen to what you say though I sometimes wonder if you do.
I should be flattered that you ‘beg’ the trust of others against my rhetoric. But the only thing I feel is sadness.
Here’s an interesting piece from the Telegraph (take it for what it’s worth), about judges proposing to outlaw “climate change denial”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11924776/Judges-plan-to-outlaw-climate-change-denial.html
It’s kind of like statism – ideas so good, you need threats of violence to enforce them.
And now, a “climate scientist” claims the world will indeed have a cooling in the near future right at the time where Agenda 2030 is said to culminate:
“Dr David Evans, a former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, says global warming predictions have been vastly exaggerated in error.
The academic, from Perth, Australia, who has passed six degrees in applied mathematics, has analysed complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change and is predicting world temperature will stagnate until 2017 before cooling, with a ‘mini ice age’ by 2030.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down
$cience, with an authoritarian and capital $.
It’s Galileo all over again, except at least the Catholic Church eventually put people out of their misery at the stake, the UN will probably setup a reeducation institute for the DENIERS, or a concentration camp where you get a green triangle loaded with a D so that the other prisoners know to stay away.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!’
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Five! Five! Five!’
‘No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?’
‘OK I GIVE UP! A .04% TRACE GAS IS THE MAIN DRIVER OF WARMING!!!’
Yes, an October 12th article from a French (or Canadian? Too tired to look right now) site called Reinformation.TV (that I know nothing about) confirms the info in your link. It also mentions that on September 22nd of this year it had already reported on an initiative to use the American RICO law (that allegedly targets organized crime) to combat what it calls climate “negationism”.
http://reinformation.tv/climatosceptiques-loi-rico-contre-crime-organise-romee-42707-2/
http://reinformation.tv/penalisation-internationale-negationnisme-climatosceptiques-dolhein-43894-2/
good grief.
and good night…
Ah yes, the politics of science versus religion – a total red herring (that’s from an atheist materialist here, quite committed to the scientific method, including as applicable to the social sciences, not just the natural sciences – and political science is a social science, as I understand it, a subset of sociology).
My guess is James does not adhere to many of Clyde Lewis’ views (been tuning-in to Corbett a few years now), but skepticism about what would amount to a domestic R2P program (Blue Helmets) to be implemented by globalists on American soil seems to be sufficient common ground for this interview.
James seems to have been invited by Lewis to appear on Lewis’ show and has taken the opportunity to discuss this important perspective with Lewis, disseminating this info to Lewis’ audience, rather than being too snooty to even consider the idea.
World poverty – that would be an analog to all the deceptive excuses for other R2P excursions abroad.
Regarding the subject of poor people, the French Revolution comes to mind. The NWO folks are neither stupid (well, there’s stupid and there’s stupid), nor ignorant (well…), but anyway, I’m sure they remember the French Revolution from their school days too. Since one out of every two people in America live in or near poverty, the globalists have likely been giving their options a review – as they so often say, “All options are on the table.â€
Blue Helmet policy will be like getting a little of our own medicine since as Americans we on the whole complained little in the past when it was done elsewhere in our name, almost always to the benefit of Empire.
It seems like a sound assumption that Blue Helmets would, as foreigners, be more likely to treat Americans (and I suppose the problem here is that one may actually be referring more to white Americans), just as American soldiers treat Iraqis – a pretty bad shift in things from this view unless you’re already a target of law enforcement (that would include black people in racist America).
Poverty, like racism, like American Exceptionalism, is a constructed reality. So why should we trust those that have constructed it, or at least gone along with the construct, to fairly and honestly solve the problem?
And the idea that “it couldn’t happen here†is an attitude in line with Exceptionalism.
“Candide…,†your energies would be better spent not lamenting that James disseminates his news analysis to as broad a population as possible (and I cringe at a lot of fringe too), but in refraining from spinning everyone’s wheels unproductively by waging guilt-by-association campaigns – perhaps a bit high-falutin in my wording. However, implying endorsement where it does not exist is indeed a straw man argument.
Also, to come full circle on the religion v. science theme, frankly it’s just irrelevant in political ethics. If it is not, then account for a real hero like Stephen Jones – a devout Mormon who had the fortitude of character to expose the 911 bldg. collapses from the stand-point of modern physics. His very publically stated conclusion was that they were obviously controlled demolitions, and he has paid for his honesty dearly (COINTELPRO is alive and well).
I also seem to remember (but not sure) that Stephen Jones (like Newton vis-à -vis his own Christian faith), also devoted his energies to trying to bridge Mormon doctrine with many of the laws of physics – something, having been around the block a few times, I shouldn’t find too surprising either.
Maybe we would spend our efforts more diligently if we pestered more mainstream alt-medias about their policy of not covering 911 Truth for instance (because, god forbid, they give credence to such silly fringe people!).
Very lucid and enlightening post. I agree the “religion vs. science” debate is a pointless diversion. Unfortunately, I suspect your appeals to a rational approach to this discussion is lost on someone like “candide.” This is an inference based on reading several of the interactions between him/her and other posters. The common theme in his/her responses are red herrings, straw men, and unsubstantiated assertions bordering on character assassinations. Consequently, this tells me said individual is not interested in a discussion when called upon to substantiate assertions he made.
Very true. There’s only a certain amount of fallacies I can take before I give up on someone, and the accusations of Corbett not caring about the poor were bizarre and gross to the point of being completely over the top.
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
What do Cass Sunstein and “Strong cities” have in common?
“…Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled “Conspiracy Theories,” dealing with the risks and possible government responses to conspiracy theories…They go on to propose that,
“the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”
,[35] where they suggest, among other tactics, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”[35] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as “extremist groups.”
The authors declare that there are five responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: “We can readily imagine a series of possible responses.
(1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help.” However, the authors advocate that each “instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5).”…
…On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married Samantha Power, professor of public policy at Harvard,
now United States Ambassador to the United Nations,
whom he met when they worked as campaign advisors to Barack Obama, their friend and his former colleague at the University of Chicago Law School…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
That’s Right! They’ve got the Power!
A more complete phrasing would be:
“They’re both wedded to the UN and seek to control what you say and think.”
which would seem to be linked to AoC’s above article speaking of a project to outlaw “Climate change denial”.
Gives pause.
Another tactic is to draw the sane voices into the loony fringe and taint them and their words for the rational.
VoltaicDude,
Thanks for your well considered words. Nice of you to try and bring this down to Earth. Funny that it takes an atheist to do a Christian gesture. And how the Christians fight to outcondem with not a glimmer of wit nor sense of their own hypocrisy.
You are right. I should be painting my pictures with a finer brush. And I accept that a wise voice among the, erm, more fantastical has to help more than no voice at all. However it remains sad that James cannot take a criticism without behaving like my mother in law on her period, However I choose to view this as a positive signal that he is aware of the dangers of straying too far into the big market in the Fringe Looney territory. Also known as the USA. II hope I struck a nerve in the ‘keep it real’ part of his brain. James best work has no trace of them. Century of enslavement or his recent 9/11 piece on the money trail for example deal with facts. Speculating on blue helmets in Portland is as mad as speculating on bishops hats in Mecca.
It’s also obvious that my sardonic impatience with bullshit suffers a profound lack of appreciation round here. I am used to that from those that are not familiar with Scots humour. Though they do come out with side splitters themselves, it seems the accusation has now been made that I am a shill!! I am going to print and frame that! It’s priceless!!
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.
Perhaps you should read the first post again. What it does is set the facts on the table on global poverty. The purpose of this was to demonstrate any UN “plan” is bogus, irrelevant and not worth discussion, and especially not worth getting dragged into insane speculation on. But you twist that somehow into me being in support of the UN smoke and mirrors. That’s a remarkable bit of cognitive gymnastics. Congratulations.
The science bit is important to me. I admit. I see a real danger for the integrity of James hard work and skill in disseminating facts if he sails with pirates on pirate ships. I give credit where credit is due but I don’t do gurus. Given the nature of James replies to me however, even he is not above shooting the messenger.
Ahhh… It is indeed the best of all possible world’s.
Aside from appeals to various fallacies, what is the purpose of you on these boards? If you act like a “cognitive infiltrator,” if you type like a “cognitive infiltrator,” if you respond and quack like a “cognitive infiltrator,” then you may as well be a “cognitive infiltrator.” And lest you confuse disagreement with sowing discord, please note that many people here routinely debate and disagree but few stir up such discord of the negative kind. Unfortunately, I would not hold it outside the realm of possibility nor probability that such agents can fork over 3 bucks a month to “infiltrate” any number of said networks, and sow dissension and distraction.
There was no coherent thought or substance in any of your posts only bumbling rants.
the ladies do protest too much, methinks…
bring on the heavy artillery!
It would seem that concerning this site Cass Sunstein is in a phase that the French call “save the furniture” when the house is burning…
Careful, your strings are showing…
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?
Indeed, When the house is burning,
what is Smoke without Mirrors??
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
Now it makes sense. These videos of excessive police force here in Melbourne, some of which appear to be staged, are creating “defund the police” sentiments. This in turn, will cause the blue helmets to replace the local forces, ushering the city into utter chaos. Victoria itself is a member of the Strong Cities Network. https://strongcitiesnetwork.org/en/city/victoria-australia/ Resistance is necessary, but at the same time, this will give police the excuse to arm themselves more, as they have already done against the defenceless protestors…