Thanks. The problem is, you are talking about events that you think show signs of central control.
Yes, this is the case.
PM said:
There is no actual evidence of central control, and in fact, the ways in which such systems can and do self-organise is a subject of considerable scientific and mathematical study.
Well, I think you have to consider what you call "evidence" here. I don't have any smoking gun type evidence, as I've happily stated throughout. I would say that there is considerable circumstantial evidence of centralised control
and that other explanations also exist.
Self-organisation is an interesting subject, for sure. I don't think however the phenomena necessarily indicates one way or another as to whether Global Synarchy exists, as you can as equally have self-organisation with malicious outcome as much as not. Self-organisation merely implies that the organising factor is not yet known or unconscious.
How different individuals come to form different interpretations of similar events can also relate to self-organising phenomena. I would say that it is clearly the case that more and more people are nowadays drawn to the CT version of history and there could well be organising factors in this of which we are unaware, though I could take a stab at one likely major one.
PM said:
Take ants, for example. There is no central control in an ant colony. The queen is no smarter than the other ants; she's just a big ant that lays eggs. All the complex behaviours we observe in ant colonies - farming, construction, wars, and so on - arise from the interactions of individual insects that are all but mindless.
Yes. We don't yet know what mechanism directs there behaviour. I always thought that Sheldrake's "morphic fields" sounded good though.
PM said:
I can't speak specifically to the first, though I know of the event. I don't know what the second is about at all. As to the third, your claim is laughable; no such thing happened.
Well, the Leab Betts/Ecstasy case in the UK showed a sudden broad-spectrum mass media "swoop" onto this case. It clearly looked co-ordinated in advance, with someone or some body deciding that they didn't like the look of E and that it should be demonised in the media at the first opportunity. It wasn't subtle! Many people felt it was political, there were other interpretations. Note that Ecstasy was having a considerable cultural effect in the UK at the time on a large scale. It's a heart-opening drug and gangs of youths, who previously spent a lot of time fighting each other, were not doing so any longer. It affected millions. The whole thing looked acutely political and co-ordinated, begging the question, who has the power to direct some many mass media orgs simultaneously. Note that the media swoop didn't bother to even wait for an autopsy to go into full demonisation mode.
The second relates to events I would consider to be of significance the media simply refuse to cover, such as UNDCP head Pino Arlacchi's 10 Year Plan to eradicate heroin and coca production. World leaders from all over attended his grand meeting. Precious little happened, very little funding, and virtually zero media attention whilst drugs carry on being demonised as usual and people are told there's very little we can do about the situation. Of course, these sorts of things are harder to prove, given it's something that isn't taking place rather than something that is.
The third relates the unified editorial stance taken by main UK newspapers following our moves back into Iraq. There was limited reporting of demonstrations but all the major newspapers suddenly toed the line with considerable jingoistic nonsense as well. Again, it's not so much the case, but the pattern of organisation suggested. Most of the time the UK media behave like a group of little fishes, all swimming hither and fither, every now and again they become one big fish. It points to centralised control.
PM said:
There is, and has always been, constant jockeying for influence between nations. This reached new heights during the Cold War, and has persisted beyond that. It is not in any way evidence of any central covert agency.
Jockeying for influence!! Have you actually examined the activities of the World Bank and it's Bretton Woods partner the IMF? It's effectively one organisation with about as clear a covert global agenda as you can have.
PM said:
That is a simple falsehood. Systematic causation of ill health - whether of specific diseases or of less well-defined syndromes - is the subject of considerable long-term scientific study.
It's miniscule compared to the reductionist approach. You can make out a case that this is an inevitable side-effect of the development of scientific thought in the West, it's true, but again it comes out to me as a little too serendipitous.
PM said:
What cause? People are unhappy and anxious. People have always been unhappy and anxious. Psychotherapy can help sometimes. Drugs can help other times. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's advisable to take those drugs; that's a more complex question. What it certainly isn't is a purely capitalist issue, a deliberate failing of the pharmaceutical companies or of science. After all, what do you want - a drug that you take once and you're never unhappy or anxious again? That scares the hell out of me.
It's the way drugs and reductionist science are portrayed, by the media and by the pharm companies, that concerns me. A good 90% is bs. It's a dumbed down science driven increasingly by the market into just one sector of research. There's good stuff that comes out of it too, but there's such an overfocusing on Pharm Fantasy Island it's a disgrace. Science is becoming increasingly under Media and Market control, see the work of the US based Union of Concerned Scientists. The pattern is consistent with Synarchy. There are other explanations too. I maintain that people should be concerned about this stuff, particularly because the media barely report it.
PM said:
This is actually incorrect, but I don't disagree with it in the way you might suspect. The US government has gone out of its way to demonise drugs, not just heroin and cocaine, but marijuana as well. Oh, and there was this thing called Prohibition a while back. It's not tacit or covert, it's overt puritanism, and is and has always been counter-productive.
They demonise on one level and block effective treatment on another. The pattern is to keep addicts down and addicted. For an example see the case of
ibogaine. I mention it in an earlier post
here
PM said:
Nick, World War I happened. World War II happened. The Japanese really did bomb Pearl Harbor. The Soviets really did occupy Eastern Europe, and point missiles at the West. None of that is made up.
Well, as you may have guessed, I'm none too convinced of the historical version of some of these events either! I never followed it up enough, but what is the accepted explanation for how Germany got the money to build so many weapons for WWII? I thought we'd bankrupted them after WWI but most admit I haven't looked for recent historical analyses. Do you know?
PM said:
It simply doesn't hang together.
For you clearly not. For me, I'm concerned by these things. Maybe those self-organising patterns of yours will sufficiently motivate enough people to create a stir about these things that it can be dealt with behind the scenes.
Nick
