• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Former conspiracy believer here

Hi Moby7,

I will put in the post previous to 8den's reply that it makes the situation a little more clear.

Nick said:
Well, I submit that it's clear that it is the case that the WB and IMF have been the principle architects of economic and cultural homogenisation for the relatively poorer countries that they have involved themselves with. The question being debated is as to whether it was their prior intention to do this, or whether the globalising effect that has occured was due to some other force.
8den said:
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.

Nick said:
Yes, I agree. There was a hidden agenda behind the WB and IMFs so-called altruism. Though, of course, it's now not countries doing it, but relatively autonomous global orgs.

8den said:
Stop I'm not agreeing with you in the slightest.

No Nick it's not that simple. The IMF and World Bank's policies are a mixture of botched economics, and western countries that dominate these organisations looking out for their vested interests.
Nick said:
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!

I understood that 8den was claiming the WB and IMF were acting in a exploitative manner, and giving examples of former such activity to set context.

He does, to my mind, change his position midway through, which I'm fine with, though if it is so, then I would prefer it that he would state that he is doing this.

Nick
 
Last edited:
If you were following the conversation properly, you'd know that the answer to that is irrelevant.

Right, I see. It's irrelevant, though completely clear, but you and apparently no one else on the forum can state what it is!

Nick
 
Last edited:
Right, I see. It's irrelevant, though completely clear, but you and apparently no one else on the forum can state what it is!

Nick

Nick, YOU're the one who's making a statement. YOU're the one who needs to provide evidence of your claim.

THAT's what I was talking about. Your theory might "fit the facts", but so do other hypothetical theories. Whether such theories exist or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, you need evidence to prove a theory right. You can't go on to assume it's correct just because it's possible or just because it has no competition.
 
Actually, I was commenting more on the rapid changes in your apparent worldview. One moment the WB are colonialists and the next philanthropists! I'm not suggesting this is bad. I applaud your ability to overcome the rigidity of mindset common to the OT upholder (and the CTist too).

Again nick I'd have spoken sooner, but I had to go spit out the words that you were shoving in my mouth.

That is not my opinion, the west, or developed world's attitude and treatment of the developing world is a complex issue and cannot be reduced to the simplisitic duality that you seem to exist in.


For sure, there are political concerns, but the Gov say none of this stuff. I'm merely putting up ibogaine as, imo, an excellent example of where Gov, Pharm and Media have all failed people awfully, and quite possibly through design.

But you've no evidence it is by design, you want it to be by design as you are inventing proof.


Well, I have said on several occasions that I don't have hard evidence about the CIA. I'm left wondering exactly what more it is that you want here.

The point is Nick you don't have any evidence at all. Yet you have said you are "dead certain" that the CIA are funding "black ops" through the sale of heroin. I'm trying to show you how flimsy and poorly thought out your worldview is.

Why are you dead certain the CIA are doing this? What for?

Perhaps we could look at number of articles / actual risk to health ? What do you think?

Nick

Nick most of the articles on ecstasy focus on the fact that we're now seeing what the long term risk is after prolonged ecstasy use.

Again you've stated with intense certain that "governments hate ecstasy and love heroin" and that they "centrally control media". When in fact reality flies directly in the face of that.
 
Real economists use mathematics. Show me the numbers and I'll pay attention.
If we were talking about pure numbers, then sure, I would happily "show you the numbers"... In truth what I believe we are discussing are the negative impacts that favoring a certain mode of thinking have on the rest of the world, particularly the 3rd and 2nd world nations.

Theories are predictive models. They are useful insofar as they are correct. Nothing in that paragraph even makes sense.

Everything in that paragraph makes sense if you had some knowledge of this topic outside of your wallstreet journal readings into it. To repeat, because of our global influence economically we are able to dictate to others how they will operate economically...and how is that freedom again?

There's no such thing. It's as simple as that. There are no "financial forces that move the world" any more than there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

We could argue all day, and that still wouldn't change the fact that your being a little too nit picky...there are financial forces such as corporate ones, and governmental ones that do alter the way thing work out in your bizarre world of trickle down economics and thus affect the whole world.

Like what?

Read a book or two, I feel you can answer this one yourself. Or just type in economic theory into wiki and see what you get...

Like what?

Need a cracker or something? Like some government restriction on an otherwise free market.

No. They believe that a degree of economic hardship and inequality is unavoidable in any economy, and that efforts to prevent this have been amply demonstrated to do more harm than good. See: Korea, North; Germany, East; Zimbabwe, all of.

So thats basically what I said...the first part anyway. Nice list of examples though...so your saying the rationale for not preserving the basic human rights of those in countries that are being exploited is secondary because of some irrational, invisible fear that it will bring unfavorable conditions similar to the ones you have described, and that might effect their ability to gain more capital? It just sounds like a nice way to shirk your responsibility to your fellow humans to me.

Here is an interesting read on the subject entitled "The mystery of capital"...
http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capit...4140950?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194371871&sr=8-1

In what way does one person's having money infringe upon the freedoms of those who do not have money?
Again, I have already explained it. I have supplied multiple sources for your to direct your inquiry, and you still over simplify the problem and ask again. Get a clue.

Having money is not a human right. Having enough to eat is not a human right. Being able to choose with whom you trade your goods and services is.

Don't even begin to lecture me on human rights here. Your the one advocating the exploitation of thousands so that a few can make a little bit more the next year.
Here is the universal declaration of human rights as created by the UN-
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Now go down the list and see how many times the favoring of this economic practice has violated it.

How exactly do you have a choice if tomorrow the government discovered a much needed natural resource under your property and annexed your long held land under imminent domain paying you a pittance of it's actual value, and then in the bargain laid waste to your land and the ecology of surrounding lands all so that we could burn coal for an extra couple months... meanwhile your discovering spots on your lungs from all the pollution that you are now breathing...this is the basic story over and over and over....open your eyes....

"Freedom" as you think of it is destroying the world without delay. All of this freedom has put holes in the ozone, and made drinking water unsafe, has caused wars for natural resources or regional influence, and has undermined the basic human rights of people the world over....and finally...it has put the decisions in the hands of an isolated few at the expense of the many...and that isn't really freedom at all.

"Economically compromised"

Yes you know, the persons residing in the parts of the world who are having they countries literally raped by industry without ever seeing a single penny invested in their well being. Those are also the same people that make tennis shoes for you 18 hours a day without a bathroom break....you know the little people, as you might like to think of them.


I'll take that as "no", shall I?

You could, I might take it as you haven't the slightest idea or concern for what goes on in this world outside your bubble of comfort.
 
Well, the original theme to me seemed to simply be Diagoras sharing his recent conversion to the OT. I don't know that it would really constitute a topic so much. This aside, if you care to check back I have been simply pointing out that, in actuality, there is nothing so illogical in supporting the CT in several fields, most notably the covert globalisation that could be said to be going on at the hands of the WB and IMF. It is a valid interpretation of events, one of several. Does this answer your question?
Nick
You are still off topic. Just another CT with no support, not even being cured. Lack of knowledge and the ability to ignore the BS is the problem.

Still off topic, you fail to tie it to the OP. A comment on the OP would do, but you should start a WB, INF super duper CT thread if you have so many facts to present.
 
How so? I can't seem to understand this logic. Being exploitive is a virtue then? Or does in conveniently fall into some political grey area?

Other than throwing straw men at me, let me help you with what I said. I didn't say it was good.

Sinister (from dictionary.com)
–adjective 1. threatening or portending evil, harm, or trouble; ominous: a sinister remark.
2. bad, evil, base, or wicked; fell: his sinister purposes.
3. unfortunate; disastrous; unfavorable: a sinister accident.
[...]

Of course, the word "sinister" as used by Nick wasn't meant to indicate that it was "harmful", but that it was "evil" and "hidden". I said it was neither. Harmful to some, sure. But it's far from being a sinister agenda.

Oh, it does if you consider human rights to extend to all humans, not just the ones gaining from the exploitation.

I think you're having a hard time understanding English.

Let me clarify: I don't think that companies enter "at the expense of" in the equation. They're there to make a profit, not to the exclusion of following some principle or another, but I don't think it's fair to say that they actively seek to harm other people or companies, or that they will do anything for a buck.
 
Last edited:
Isn't he saying that 8den is saying that?

Except that 8den wasn't saying that, he was putting words in 8den's mouth. On top of that, he referred to WB and IMF as 'colonialist', which ties in to 8den's comments regarding the colonial era - not the WB or IMF.

However, he has since explained what he meant, so you can kindly step out of the ring, champ. He's capable of answering me himself.
 
However, he has since explained what he meant, so you can kindly step out of the ring, champ. He's capable of answering me himself.

Ok there Rocky. I was just curious to know why you wouldn't let it rest in light of him explaining himself.
 
Last edited:
Other than throwing straw men at me, let me help you with what I said. I didn't say it was good.
Well, think a second before making flippant remarks...that always helps the clarity of reading.

Of course, the word "sinister" as used by Nick wasn't meant to indicate that it was "harmful", but that it was "evil" and "hidden". I said it was neither. Harmful to some, sure. But it's far from being a sinister agenda.
Don't you think that is a matter of opinion though? I find their actions to be quite sinister, but I don't think there is some stereotypical CTesque "elite" behind it all.

I think you're having a hard time understanding English.

Perhaps, but doubtful.

Let me clarify: I don't think that companies enter "at the expense of" in the equation. They're there to make a profit, not to the exclusion of following some principle or another, but I don't think it's fair to say that they actively seek to harm other people or companies, or that they will do anything for a buck.

You may think that. What they do though IS at the expense of many thousands of peoples individual liberties if one acknowledges that they have liberties to begin with...IE the universal declaration of human rights, and as recent history has demonstrated they will do almost anything to make a buck..didn't coca cola have union members assassinated:
US: Drummond faces charge of having Colombian union leaders killed
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=1633

Here's a better telling:
The Coca-Cola Killings: Is Plan Colombia Funding a Bloodbath of Union Activists?
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0116-06.htm

I guess its all a matter of perspective.
 
Last edited:
Ok there Rocky. I was just curious to know why you wouldn't let it rest in light of him explaining himself.

Seeing as how that was my first post since he posted the explanation, it seems a bit strange that you're telling me that I "wouldn't let [him] rest".

I posted once, and received no reply. I posted a second time, and received a reply. After receiving the reply, I didn't ask again. One might ask why you are so quick to paint me as an obsessive personality type when you can so easily be proved wrong.
 
Well, think a second before making flippant remarks...that always helps the clarity of reading.

So you still don't understand ?

Don't you think that is a matter of opinion though? I find their actions to be quite sinister, but I don't think there is some stereotypical CTesque "elite" behind it all.

If it's a matter of opinion then it should be stated as such, but that's not what this thread is aboot...

You may think that. What they do though IS at the expense of many thousands of peoples individual liberties

Why ? How is selling stuff to people who want it at the expense of anyone ?

if one acknowledges that they have liberties to begin with

Now, what is THAT supposed to mean ?

...IE the universal declaration of human rights, and as recent history has demonstrated they will do almost anything to make a buck..didn't coca cola have union members assassinated:

Citing specific cases will not help your cause, because you were making a sweeping statements that coporations = anything to make a buck. I'm sure there are SOME that will, not it's not as bleak as you'd have us believe.
 
To be fair to Plato, the only form of Democracy he was aware of - the direct democracy of Athens, is unworkable.
That's true, sort of. Scaling problem. Not an insoluble one, but I can't blame Plato for not predicting the internet.
 

Back
Top Bottom