Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

For sure, nevertheless it's interesting how that which is symbolically portrayed on the reverse side of the Great Seal is pretty much precisely manifesting before our eyes.

Really ? Evidence ?

Hi Belz,

I discuss the Qabalistic/Masonic interpretation of the symbols found on the reverse side of the US Great Seal here and in subsequent posts. It essentially tells of the age-old desire to pursue globalisation, and to create the Novus Ordo Seclorum or New Order of the Ages. It's been around certainly since Alexander, who some believe to be the father of Freemasonry, and his ill-fated though nevertheless exceptional attempt to achieve it himself.

Viewed from this perspective, the USA is an attempt to create a prototype world culture. Once this is done, it is necessary to expand that culture across the globe, thus finally fulfilling Virgil's prophecy (see linked thread above) and the Masonic vision.

I'd say it's proceeding fairly smoothly.

Nick

 

[8den]

I'm not commenting on ibogaine's legal status. It's not relevant.

What's relevant is that the media, gov, and pharma all keep well away from a drug that would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. If you want to check the current thread here.
there is more debate. Perhaps it's more OnT to discuss this here.

Nick it's been pointed out to you that several countries allow Ibogine as treatment for addiction. That you refuse to see that is your problem.

I did not claim that the media did not report the anti-war protests. Check back. I did claim that their editorial position, at the beginning of the war, was jingoistic and very similar paper to paper.

And you offered nothing substantiate that claim.

The looming war has plunged Britain into a crisis of sovereignty as well as of democracy. But even if it's sharpest in Britain, because of Blair's role as senior cheerleader for the US, that crisis is also a global one. Across the world, public opinion is now overwhelmingly opposed to war on Iraq, as measured in countless opinion polls, including in those states - such as in eastern Europe - hailed by the Bush administration for supporting US war plans. With the shaky exceptions of Israel and the US itself, there now appears to be no country in the world where a majority backs war on Iraq without UN authorisation. As the established international institutions buckle under the weight, we are witnessing an unprecedented globalisation of public opinion. Those who defy it may find they pay a far higher price than expected.

Guardian Editorial March 13 2003

Throughout the region, the streets and markets are seething. There are almost daily demonstrations in Jordan and Egypt. In Afghanistan, the Taliban, utterly vanquished more than a year ago, have begun to mount sporadic attacks. Their long-silent leader, Mullah Omar, has called for a jihad against American troops and Afghans who work with them. And the Qatar-based television station, al-Jazeera, beams out its 24-hour reports from the war zone, more graphic, more culturally accessible, less apologetic than anything the BBC or CNN provides.

The alliance ranged against Iraq may, as US officials insist, be more numerous than the one that fought the Gulf War 12 years ago. But the Arab countries that supported that war are now conspicuously absent. Those, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia that are assisting the so-called coalition, are doing so with utmost discretion. Among the entirely predictable effects of their involvement will be to strengthen conservative, theocratic elements at the expense of the very democratic reforms the US and Britain insist they are hoping for.

All the omens suggest that Mr Mubarak is right. When the war is over, the consequences will indeed be disastrous. It is hard to see how American and British relations with the countries of the region can be mended during our lifetime.

Leader Comment the independent April 01 2003

Would you describe either of these editorials as "jingoisitc?"

Again you're flat out wrong about the editorial stances of British Papers pre and during the invasion

The evidence I offered is that the pattern of activity in media reporting every now and again, or on key issues such as drugs, resembles a large body under centralised control.

You cited one case, which you were forced to admit you had made basic factual errors about, thats not a "pattern"

I take it you disregard Professor McCoy's book as well.

This is the same McCoy who I quoted earlier

, the CIA's role in the Southeast Asian heroin trade involved indirect complicity rather than direct culpability

Complicity is not the same as your lurid claim that the CIA fund black OPs through heroin. Do you have anything else?

Inadequate reporting in the media. Time and again the media report drug issues in a largely uniform and uninformed manner. Uniformly uninformed!

You're a hair's breath from the old Bill Hick's routine about "no postive drugs stories".

Actually, you yourself claimed they have a sinister hidden agenda in this post here. I'm merely stating that they have a subtly different sinister hidden agenda.

Nick don't misquote me.

No you're suggesting that they have an actively malevolent agenda and are out to harm the developing world. You've not presented a shred of evidence to support this.

You're getting there, albeit slowly

Nick

Nick I'm not agreeing with you, I'm just trying to clarify your worldview and the flimsy evidence upon which it's based.

 

[funk de fino]

Hi Belz,

I discuss the Qabalistic/Masonic interpretation of the symbols found on the reverse side of the US Great Seal here and in subsequent posts. It essentially tells of the age-old desire to pursue globalisation, and to create the Novus Ordo Seclorum or New Order of the Ages. It's been around certainly since Alexander, who some believe to be the father of Freemasonry, and his ill-fated though nevertheless exceptional attempt to achieve it himself.

Viewed from this perspective, the USA is an attempt to create a prototype world culture. Once this is done, it is necessary to expand that culture across the globe, thus finally fulfilling Virgil's prophecy (see linked thread above) and the Masonic vision.

I'd say it's proceeding fairly smoothly.

Nick

And I'd say v...........e..........r............y s..........l...........o.......w.....l.....y

We'll be long gone by that time nicky boy

 

[Belz...]

They're creating public opinion on drugs.

Non sequitur. You haven't shown any of this to be true. I don't care much for speculation.

Given that the WB and IMF were most definitely not set up to conquer the so-called "third world" for the benefit of the G7 nations, I would say that, in 8den's eyes, they clearly have followed a sinister hidden agenda.

You are disputing this?

I believe it was clear that I was, yes.

I discuss the Qabalistic/Masonic interpretation of the symbols found on the reverse side of the US Great Seal here and in subsequent posts. It essentially tells of the age-old desire to pursue globalisation, and to create the Novus Ordo Seclorum or New Order of the Ages.

From that translation, I don't see how you draw such a conclusion. "New order" can mean any number of things. That you and your ilk construe it as sinister is of no importance to me, unless you can substantiate that claim.

It's been around certainly since Alexander, who some believe to be the father of Freemasonry

Do you even know what freemasonry is ?

Viewed from this perspective, the USA is an attempt to create a prototype world culture.

And is, as usual with the NWO, completely inept at reaching that goal. If this group of yours has been at work for 2400 years, they have to be as awfully incompetent as Zorg, or as unlucky as the Black Adder.

I'd say it's proceeding fairly smoothly.

Then you're not much a student of history.

 

[8den]

It's been around certainly since Alexander, who some believe to be the father of Freemasonry

Someone's either been reading too much Kipling or watched the Man Who Would Be King once too often.

 

[Nick227]

Non sequitur. You haven't shown any of this to be true. I don't care much for speculation.

I submit that the prejudicial attitude that many people have towards drugs like Ecstasy and Ketamine results primarily from the media attitude towards the drugs. Note that I'm not supporting E or K use, merely saying that the reason that the public have a prejudicial attitude is because of the way the media have portrayed them. Personally, I'd say this was bloody obvious. You may disagree.

I believe it was clear that I was, yes.

You agree that 8den's position did reflect that of a sinister hidden agenda?

From that translation, I don't see how you draw such a conclusion. "New order" can mean any number of things. That you and your ilk construe it as sinister is of no importance to me, unless you can substantiate that claim.

I'm not construing it as sinister! Where did I say it was sinister? I support the Novus Ordo Seclorum. I'm a Qabalist. I said I was concerned about some of the techniques being used to forward it.

Do you even know what freemasonry is ?

I consider that I do.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

I submit that the prejudicial attitude that many people have towards drugs like Ecstasy and Ketamine results primarily from the media attitude towards the drugs. Note that I'm not supporting E or K use, merely saying that the reason that the public have a prejudicial attitude is because of the way the media have portrayed them. Personally, I'd say this was bloody obvious. You may disagree.

Uh-huh, that's not what you were saying. You said the media CREATED said opinions. That's not the same thing as being the primary factor.

You agree that 8den's position did reflect that of a sinister hidden agenda?

What ??? You asked me if I disagreed with you. I said I did. Do you even read what I post ?

I'm not construing it as sinister! Where did I say it was sinister?

See your quote right above mine, in BOLD.

I support the Novus Ordo Seclorum. I'm a Qabalist.

Okay, now, what the hell is that supposed to mean ?

I consider that I do.

Humour me.

 

[8den]

You agree that 8den's position did reflect that of a sinister hidden agenda?

Nick I'd appreciate you desisting from telling people what my position is, I'm perfectly capable of explaining my opinion myself.

I'd really appreciate it in this instance because you are consistently twisting my words and misrepresenting me.

You hold forth that the world bank and IMF are following an malevolent agenda and are actively and intently harming the developing world. I insist that the harm these bodies do is more to do with bad economy policies, entrenched economic philosophies, combined with a habit of looking out for the best interest of the developed world.

There's a world of difference between our separate world-views and I intensely dislike you claiming that I'm agreeing with you, when I'm doing nothing of the sort.

 

[Nick227]

Nick it's been pointed out to you that several countries allow Ibogine as treatment for addiction. That you refuse to see that is your problem.

It is not a question of whether ibogaine is legal to possess or not in any particular country. It is to do with developing it as a medication. The drug's legal status has some but not so much bearing on this. Govt, Pharma, and Media are doing nothing to further the development of this treatment for addiction, which is widely noted to be the most effective known. There are a few people offering it as treatment, frequently without any form of medical qualifications or license to do so. There are a couple of clinics offering the treatment in Mexico, and a few others scattered around the world.

Guardian Editorial March 13 2003
Leader Comment the independent April 01 2003

Would you describe either of these editorials as "jingoisitc?"

Fair enough. I agree I have overstated the case. However, this is merely two articles. I wouldn't personally consider it much of a rebuttal.

You cited one case, which you were forced to admit you had made basic factual errors about, thats not a "pattern"

I made a factual error that wasn't central to the point. It was tangential, not that this excuses it.

The pattern of activity in media reporting of the Leah Betts case resembled that of a body under centralised control having the specific intention to utterly demonise the drug in the public's eyes.

This is the same McCoy who I quoted earlier

Complicity is not the same as your lurid claim that the CIA fund black OPs through heroin. Do you have anything else?

Was it not the case that, in the Iran-Contra affair they were funding black ops through complicity in the cocaine trade?

Nick don't misquote me.

No you're suggesting that they have an actively malevolent agenda and are out to harm the developing world. You've not presented a shred of evidence to support this.

Are you saying that your claim that the WB and IMF are exploiting the so-called "third world" on behalf of the G7 nations does not represent an "actively malevolent agenda." I would say it clearly does.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick I'd appreciate you desisting from telling people what my position is, I'm perfectly capable of explaining my opinion myself.

I'd really appreciate it in this instance because you are consistently twisting my words and misrepresenting me.

You hold forth that the world bank and IMF are following an malevolent agenda and are actively and intently harming the developing world. I insist that the harm these bodies do is more to do with bad economy policies, entrenched economic philosophies, combined with a habit of looking out for the best interest of the developed world.

There's a world of difference between our separate world-views and I intensely dislike you claiming that I'm agreeing with you, when I'm doing nothing of the sort.

8den,

You may intensely dislike it, yet I would like to remind of just what you actually wrote...

Big first world countries exploiting the developing world for their own benefit. Gosh, thats a completely new phenomena never before seen in human history. Except for the Industrial revolution. And the Colonistation of Africa and India in the 19th century. Oh and the Spanish conquest of central America. Oh and the western expansion of the United States. And the entire British Empire. In fact any empire. Right back to the Romans.

Are you still saying that this above does not represent a "sinister hidden agenda" on behalf of the WB and IMF?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Uh-huh, that's not what you were saying. You said the media CREATED said opinions. That's not the same thing as being the primary factor.

I actually said creating.

What ??? You asked me if I disagreed with you. I said I did. Do you even read what I post ?
See your quote right above mine, in BOLD.

I said that the WB and IMF had a sinister hidden agenda. I said that 8den's account for their activities represented to me a sinister hidden agenda. I did not say that the Novus Ordo Seclorum was sinister. Far from it. It's an admirable objective in my opinion.

Okay, now, what the hell is that supposed to mean ?
Humour me.

Check the Reverse Side of the Great Seal thread, linked a few posts back.

Nick

 

[8den]

It is not a question of whether ibogaine is legal to possess or not in any particular country. It is to do with developing it as a medication. The drug's legal status has some but not so much bearing on this. Govt, Pharma, and Media are doing nothing to further the development of this treatment for addiction, which is widely noted to be the most effective known. There are a few people offering it as treatment, frequently without any form of medical qualifications or license to do so. There are a couple of clinics offering the treatment in Mexico, and a few others scattered around the world.

Nick governments over the world offer treatment for heroin addiction.

Lets not forget you raised Ibogaine because in your own words "Governments hate ecstasy and love heroin"

You've now been reduced to a point where you cite that because they don't offer one particular treatment as evidence of this. It's pretty tenuous at best.

Fair enough. I agree I have overstated the case. However, this is merely two articles. I wouldn't personally consider it much of a rebuttal.

Nick considering the fact that you've posted not a single one of these "pro war jingoistic" editorials you claim the papers were full of in the run up to the war, I think your sneering at the "not much of a rebuttal" more than a tad rich.

If you search the archives of either paper you'll find dozens of similar articles I just picked two at random. Maybe you could point me in the direction of one of those "wah we're all going to war" articles while you're back there.

Again this goes back to your point about centrally controlled media, you claimed that the media was jingoistic pre war, the above destroys that claim.

I made a factual error that wasn't central to the point. It was tangential, not that this excuses it.

That fact that you claimed the drug was demonised and driven underground in the light of the fact it was made illegal when she was an infant.

The pattern of activity in media reporting of the Leah Betts case resembled that of a body under centralised control having the specific intention to utterly demonise the drug in the public's eyes.

You can keep bleating on about centralised control. Look Nick there was a new drug and social phenomenon, that older people didn't understand. A child died after taking a supposedly safe drug, her parents were willing and wanted to pubilise her death as a warning.

What so hard for you to understand about that?

Tell you what Nick, lets play a little game.

If I go onto google news and type in

dangers of the drug ecstacy I get
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=dangers+of+the+drug+ecstacy&btnG=Search+News

41 hits

If I type in dangers of the drug heroin I get

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=dangers+of+the+drug+heroin&btnG=Search

81 hits

And I type in dangers of binge drinking

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=dangers+of+binge+drinking

84 hits.

So your centralised controlled media is nearly twice as concerned about the dangers of heroin to ecstacy. And they are even more concerned about the dangers of legal taxable drug.

Does this really sound like a centrally controlled media? A media that's more interested in warning about taxable drugs, and a drug you claim governments love? A media that was vocal aganist a war you claim they jingoisitcally wanted?

Was it not the case that, in the Iran-Contra affair they were funding black ops through complicity in the cocaine trade?

Nick you're the one making the claim the onus is on you to support it. Again the agency funded organisations that had ties to the cocaine trade it does mean the CIA used heroin to fund "black Ops"

Are you saying that your claim that the WB and IMF are exploiting the so-called "third world" on behalf of the G7 nations does not represent an "actively malevolent agenda." I would say it clearly does.

Nick

Thats your opinion, kindly stop from stuffing words into my mouth. No Nick I'd call it the depressingly business as usual. The west has exploited and abused the developing world and traded on double standard for millennium.

Do I think that the G8 leaders puff on cigars and gleefully and purposefully shatter economies and ruin countries because they like to, no.

 

[8den]

8den,

You may intensely dislike it, yet I would like to remind of just what you actually wrote...



Are you still saying that this above does not represent a "sinister hidden agenda" on behalf of the WB and IMF?

Nick

Nick look alot of the time the world bank and IMF genuinely think and try do good in world. Alot of the time their hands are tied because of trade restrictions developing world countries have. Or vested interests. The IMF and World Bank aren't actively out there to ruin economies, and destroy lives.

You really need to read a couple of even mediocre economics books before you start commenting on global trade.

 

[gumboot]

Are you still saying that this above does not represent a "sinister hidden agenda" on behalf of the WB and IMF?

It's not really very well hidden is it?

-Gumboot

 

[Nick227]

Nick look alot of the time the world bank and IMF genuinely think and try do good in world. Alot of the time their hands are tied because of trade restrictions developing world countries have. Or vested interests. The IMF and World Bank aren't actively out there to ruin economies, and destroy lives.

Well, I don't know, 8den. According to you, one moment they're evil colonialists raping the so-called "third world," and the next they're tragic philanthropists unable to do good through having their hands tied by trade regulations. I think I will stick to Synarchy in an attempt to at least introduce a little consistency here!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick governments over the world offer treatment for heroin addiction.

Crap treatment. My point with ibogaine is that it is effective, highly so. Gov, Pharm, and Media all ignore it completely. They are simply not interested in developing what pretty much every commentator who's studied it regards as a substance that would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. I posted this point also onto a more pharm-related threat the other day on JREF. Zero rebuttals.

Nick considering the fact that you've posted not a single one of these "pro war jingoistic" editorials you claim the papers were full of in the run up to the war, I think your sneering at the "not much of a rebuttal" more than a tad rich.

I remember reading through the front pages at the time. It was bloody awful, considering how everyone knew just how little support for the war there was.

If you search the archives of either paper you'll find dozens of similar articles I just picked two at random. Maybe you could point me in the direction of one of those "wah we're all going to war" articles while you're back there.

Again this goes back to your point about centrally controlled media, you claimed that the media was jingoistic pre war, the above destroys that claim.

A month or so in it started to change, as I recall. Suddenly it wasn't so much "here we go off to war, boys."

That fact that you claimed the drug was demonised and driven underground in the light of the fact it was made illegal when she was an infant.

I claimed that the pattern of activity in the media at the time was consistent with a body under centralised control.

You can keep bleating on about centralised control. Look Nick there was a new drug and social phenomenon, that older people didn't understand. A child died after taking a supposedly safe drug, her parents were willing and wanted to pubilise her death as a warning.

What so hard for you to understand about that?

I was not even discussing the politics originally, actually. I was discussing a multitude of media orgs all leaping simultaneously overnight on one case and reporting it in an utterly uniform manner. It was a loaded and primed gun, awaiting the first remotely suitable ecstasy-related incident on which to descend from on high and blast the drug with negative publicity. They didn't even wait for the coroner's report, just as well as their case would have looked pretty bloody stupid. Leah Betts died from over hydration - drinking too much water in conjunction with other drugs found in her system, a policy recommended by the UK Gov's own health dept. If she hadn't followed the gov advice she would have lived. Instead we had a billboard campaign reading "One tab of Ecstasy took Leah Betts. Sorted" - even before the inquest. The whole thing was co-ordinated in advance, personally I have no doubt. And it was an utter disgrace, educating nobody whatsoever.

Nick

 

[funk de fino]

Crap treatment. My point with ibogaine is that it is effective, highly so. Gov, Pharm, and Media all ignore it completely. They are simply not interested in developing what pretty much every commentator who's studied it regards as a substance that would revolutionise the treatment of addiction worldwide. I posted this point also onto a more pharm-related threat the other day on JREF. Zero rebuttals.

selective reading again?

I remember reading through the front pages at the time. It was bloody awful, considering how everyone knew just how little support for the war there was.

rubbish, there were deep rumblings about going against the UN and the rest of europe and the intel behind the iraq thing

A month or so in it started to change, as I recall. Suddenly it wasn't so much "here we go off to war, boys."

bollocks again, the papers will always support out boys even if they do not support the war, do not get these two things mixed up

I claimed that the pattern of activity in the media at the time was consistent with a body under centralised control.

and again provided no evidence of this

I was not even discussing the politics originally, actually. I was discussing a multitude of media orgs all leaping simultaneously overnight on one case and reporting it in an utterly uniform manner. It was a loaded and primed gun, awaiting the first remotely suitable ecstasy-related incident on which to descend from on high and blast the drug with negative publicity. They didn't even wait for the coroner's report, just as well as their case would have looked pretty bloody stupid. Leah Betts died from over hydration - drinking too much water in conjunction with other drugs found in her system, a policy recommended by the UK Gov's own health dept. If she hadn't followed the gov advice she would have lived. Instead we had a billboard campaign reading "One tab of Ecstasy took Leah Betts. Sorted" - even before the inquest. The whole thing was co-ordinated in advance, personally I have no doubt. And it was an utter disgrace, educating nobody whatsoever.

Nick

they did not tell people to drink copious amount of water, she died because she took e and overheated and had to drink water, she took too much water and died, she would not have died if she had not taken E, if she had not drunk the water she may have overheated and died you cannot say she might have lived

she was not the first and not the last, and E was demonised long before this, i have already posted links to this info and you could not even get right when it was banned

campaign pushed by her parents not the media or the govt

you have made schoolboy errors in this thread and now look very silly, give it up or at least get some education on things that you post about and come back when ready

 

[thesyntaxera]

Nick look alot of the time the world bank and IMF genuinely think and try do good in world. Alot of the time their hands are tied because of trade restrictions developing world countries have. Or vested interests. The IMF and World Bank aren't actively out there to ruin economies, and destroy lives.

You really need to read a couple of even mediocre economics books before you start commenting on global trade.

I can suggest a few good ones that might disagree with this statement:

confessions of an economic hit man...full text on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nJ...oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

and

A brief history of neoliberalism by David Harvey:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283265

Neoliberalism - the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action - has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Its spread has depended upon a reconstitution of state powers such that privatization, finance, and market processes are emphasized. State interventions in the economy are minimized, while the obligations of the state to provide for the welfare of its citizens are diminished. David Harvey, author of 'The New Imperialism' and 'The Condition of Postmodernity', here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage. While Thatcher and Reagan are often cited as primary authors of this neoliberal turn, Harvey shows how a complex of forces, from Chile to China and from New York City to Mexico City, have also played their part. In addition he explores the continuities and contrasts between neoliberalism of the Clinton sort and the recent turn towards neoconservative imperialism of George W. Bush. Finally, through critical engagement with this history, Harvey constructs a framework not only for analyzing the political and economic dangers that now surround us, but also for assessing the prospects for the more socially just alternatives being advocated by many oppositional movements.

Not only should one read a few average books on economics, but also on such subjects as the politics of development, the effects of globalization on developing nations, and the many various papers in the human geography field that dissect and analyze the situation in depth...of which the list is too long to provide.

The picture is much too bureaucratic, convoluted, and bleak to state with any reasonable amount of confidence that the WB and IMF are just innocent bystanders.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I think I will stick to Synarchy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_corporate_assets#Media_companies

 

[Belz...]

Are you still saying that this above does not represent a "sinister hidden agenda" on behalf of the WB and IMF?

The quote is very clear, to me. It isn't sinister, nor hidden. You are making stuff up.

I actually said creating.

Holy hell! My deepest apologies. "Creating", something completely different from "create". Obviously, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S THE SAME VERB.

Check the Reverse Side of the Great Seal thread, linked a few posts back.

I said humour me. A short summary, please.