Hi PM,
We had some discussion of this over on the JREF Zeitgeist thread, beginning around [
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3025982#post3025982 here]. It may have started before but my case was basically this...
Thanks. The problem is, you are talking about events that you
think show signs of central control. 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.
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.
I don't watch so much TV these days so the cases I cited to substantiate these points were a little old. For the first - the Leah Betts ecstasy incident in the UK. For the second, things like Pino Arlacchi's 10 Year Plan to Eradicate Heroin and Cocaine Production, and Cassini. For the last, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 - jingoism and no media dissent.
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.
If you want to go deeper into these things, I'm happy to discuss more. The basic case I'm trying to present does not relate so directly to these specific cases, rather the pattern of activity in media. And, of course, the apparently covert political policy being pursued.
There are indeed patterns of activity in the media, but there is not the slightest evidence of central control, much less by some spooky NWO. Journalists are lazy, and have personal biases. News reporting is lousy across every field, and in every part of the world, and always has been.
I'm discussing the heaps of loans given to dodgy leaderships which drag the country's population into "strategic adjustment programs" aka compulsory global consumerism. More from around [
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3055415#post3055415 here]
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.
One globalised network of trade with centralised control.
Centralised control of what? By whom?
But we don't hate them now, because they're not communists.
They are not communists, their empire has collapsed, their economy is in ruins (always has been, but they were better at hiding this fact in the past), the gulags are long closed, and they are not directly threatening Western Europe with nuclear holocaust. This seems sufficient reason for no longer hating them.
Check the moves of the oil business into pharmacology around 100 years ago. The aggressive policies they applied to competition in healthcare.
A hundred years ago? A hundred years ago, pharmacology barely existed. We had, what, aspirin and laudanum? The first modern medicines, the sulfa drugs, only appeared in 1932.
100 years down the line and all there is, pretty much, is drugs and surgery.
And radiotherapy for cancer.
No one looks at holistic perspective, it's 99% reductionist science, and it doesn't keep people healthy. Scientists don't want to look for systemic causation in ill health, they just want to find something that doesn't work and try and fix it in isolation.
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.
What's more, people are healthy, certainly, far healthier than a hundred years ago.
For a majority of cases this doesn't work because the cause is not being addressed. Ergo the emergence of SSRI and other prozac-related medications. There's no addressal of cause. People just sit on citalopram or whatever the latest ssri is and that's their life. Pharma companies absolutely will not develop an effective medication because it's bad for business. This is may be purely a capitalist issue, but the underlying effect is consistent with negative synarchy.
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.
The US government has consistently refused to apply known effective policies to drug addiction, especially for drugs such as heroin, which just keeps people doped up and not voting.
And yet... people keep voting.
They have refused to back plans to terminate heroin and coca production, pretty much covertly.
They have also taken actions to destory heroin and coca crops.
they have blockaded the development of effective medications.
Evidence?
They have tacitly approved the demonisation in the media of drug addicts and drugs, (heroin is just a narcotic analgesic, a painkiller, not the work of the devil).
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.
The underlying consistent pattern is to keep people drugged up, legitimately or otherwise, and anyone who tries to change this will be blocked from doing so.
No.
The basic thing is to keep people busy, doped up, and convinced there is a serious threat to their "freedom" somewhere "out there" from which they need the protection of government. You keep people living in fear, not living out their dreams. You deprive them of their birthright and manipulate so that they vote to not have it anyway.
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.
Meanwhile, drug addicts - neglecting caffeine and nicotine - still make up a small percentage of the population. People keep right on voting. Who exactly is living in fear today? I see not fear, but mild irritation at having to remove your shoes before boarding your flight.
It simply doesn't hang together. There's a bit over here, and a bit over there, and all these boxes of stuff that don't fit anywhere.
