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.
No, that's wrong. Self-organisation means that there is no central control.
Yes. We don't yet know what mechanism directs there behaviour. I always thought that Sheldrake's "morphic fields" sounded good though.
Again, this is wrong. The behaviour of ant colonies emerges (the technical term is in fact "emergent behaviour") from mechanical response to the pheremones of other ants. You need to do computer models to see how this works, but when you do, you see all the complex behaviours of ant colonies spontaneously arise.
Sheldrake, meanwhile, is an utter loon. His morphic fields are (a) physically impossible and (b) completely unsupported. He claims to have experimental evidence, but this claim collapses upon close investigation, as his experimental controls are hopelessly inadequate.
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.
Nick, the media watch (read, listen to) the media. They don't go out and sift the facts and produce independent and original reports when they can avoid it. And a large percentage of stories are simply taken from wire services.
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.
Evidence?
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.
That is what the media has always done, Nick. Since the first newssheets were being sold in the coffeehouses of London.
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.
Uh-huh. A grand meeting, and then no-one bothers to do anything. That's how the world works, Nick. Always has, always will.
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.
Evidence of this?
Now, I didn't read the British newspapers at the time, but I did get news from the ABC (Australian equivalent of the BBC), the BBC itself, and the New York Times, and the narrative presented in the opening days of the war was persistently negative across all three. So much so that it didn't make sense from one day to the next: We were presented with a story of failure on Tuesday, with allied troops hopelessly bogged down and no chance of reaching Baghdad, and then on Wednesday we'd be told that the troops were still hopelessly bogged down... just outside the city.
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.
No, no it doesn't. Specifically by your choice of simile you destroy your own argument: There is no central control in a school of fish. The group behaviour arises spontaneously from the individual behaviour of the fish. Fish and newspapers alike are aware of what the others of their kind are up to, and seek to maximise their own benefit from the situation.
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.
Bretton Woods is history, Nick. You're right that the World Bank has promoted projects that aren't what third world countries actually needed. So (very much so) did the Soviet Union with their client states.
But what you can't do is hold up the World Bank as a covert global government when it is, on the scale of the world economy, just one small fish.
It's miniscule compared to the reductionist approach.
It
is a reductionist approach. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
It's the way drugs and reductionist science are portrayed, by the media and by the pharm companies, that concerns me.
Claims for the benefits of drugs are often overstated, and the side-effects understated, though there's only so much the pharmaceutical companies can get away with. The situation is much, much worse when you look at "CAM" - complementary and alternative medicine - where outright fraud is rampant.
And I'm not sure what you are talking about here with regards to "reductionist science". There's no "reductionist science"; there's just science, a system of testing and rejecting hypotheses.
They demonise on one level and block effective treatment on another. The pattern is to keep addicts down and addicted.
Down? Down where?
And as I noted earlier, there aren't that many drug addicts. As a means of controlling the population, this is hopelessly ineffective.
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?
Any good history of the Weimar Republic will cover this. Germany's economy suffered terribly in the years following WWI, started to recover in the mid 1920's, got knocked down like everyone else in the Great Depression, and then recovered again in the 1930's.
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.
You miss the point. There is no reason to assume central control, because individuals acting on their own beliefs produce the same results.
