Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

Nick isn't suggesting that unethical multinationals are skimming money from third-world aid programs - although that is true. He isn't suggesting that a large and diverse group of publicly traded corporations control a significant percentage of US media - although that is also true.

He's claiming that there's a secret global government behind it all. He has no evidence for this. He will claim evidence, then back down when asked to present it... and then claim it again.

 

[thesyntaxera]

He's claiming that there's a secret global government behind it all. He has no evidence for this. He will claim evidence, then back down when asked to present it... and then claim it again.

I think the term he used was Synarchy, which I think was carefully chosen in place of NWO or illuminati in order to denote a seperation of contexts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/synarchy

I think it is extremely arguable that, for instance, a government filled with politicians that tend to the special interests that fund them over the people that it is supposed to represent could be viewed under that definition. Furthermore if you view the pyramidal structures of major corporations and their asset companies one may find the definition suitable as well.

Look at time warner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Time_Warner

Is it reasonable to assume that the modus operandi of those sitting at the top of this enormous pile doesn't affect the rest of the flock? The answer should be no.

There may not be some unified media front of billionares seeking to control the human consciousness, but there are individuals with massive holdings that make money from doing such, and from time to time these folks have been known to work together to make more money....thus synarchy.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thus nothing. Yes, the term "synarchy" is conveniently vague and hence popular among the conspiracy theory loons. Sure, Time Warner owns a lot of media outlets, but many of them are tiny. There's an enormous number of little newspapers, magazines and TV and radio stations, never mind web sites. Disney owns a a lot of media outlets. News Corp owns a lot of media outlets. You listed 22 major media conglomerates in your previous post, and that is not even remotely comprehensive.

If you want to claim "synarchy" you have to actually show that all these groups, with all their subsidiaries, with all their varying audiences and editorial opinions, are not simply in it for the money but actually rule the world. Just like Nick, you have no evidence whatsoever, so instead you present irrelevancies. Nick prattles about ibogaine, you list the assets of Time Warner. Whatever.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Call me crazy, but I don't think the World Bank or IMF was around when the Spanish conquered South and Central America, or during the colonisation of India and Africa...

 

[Nick227]

selective reading again?

Hi Funk,

What do you mean by this, please? I don't quite follow.

I haven't seen a meaningful or scientifically valid criticism of ibogaine as an addiction treatment over the time I've followed the drug's story, which is nearly 10 years. When introduced onto the JREF Pharm thread last week, which is a place where I would imagine someone would at least try to attempt at a challenge there were no rebuttals. To be honest, I could do a fair attempt at a rebuttal, but it wouldn't be so strong. Why, because there simply aren't any good reasons why this drug isn't being developed. There are reasons, but they're not any good. The drug is not being developed because Pharma, Govt, and Media don't like it. They don't like psychoactive tryptamines and it's immaterial how much immense human good that could come, they won't do it.

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

But, on the day, the media stance was consistently pro-war. I appreciate that I should try and dig up some front pages from the dailies to demonstrate. this, and apologise for not doing so yet. I'm not so good with google news or whatever, and am going on my personal recollection. I will check it out once I have the time.

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

That could well be a valid point.

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

I was wrong about the ban, that's true. But I lived in the UK throughout the ecstasy era and the drug might have received bad press before and the usual sensationalist tabloid stuff, but nothing like the bloodbath that was Leah Betts. It was clearly a politically motivated campaign. I will find some front pages and then we can look more.

Personally, I think the issue of interpreting the inquest results is a bit beyond the scope of this thread, but I'm happy to look deeper at this too, if you wish. Leah Betts would not have died had she not drunk so much water.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick isn't suggesting that unethical multinationals are skimming money from third-world aid programs - although that is true. He isn't suggesting that a large and diverse group of publicly traded corporations control a significant percentage of US media - although that is also true.

He's claiming that there's a secret global government behind it all. He has no evidence for this. He will claim evidence, then back down when asked to present it... and then claim it again.

What I actually said is that there is circumstantial evidence, that it's not conclusive, but that imo it is something to validly be concerned about. I submit that the "Synarchy" interpretation of the activities of the WB and IMF is consistent with events. There have been no rebuttals, merely alternative explanations offered from this forum, all of which I could just have easily come up with myself.

These things concern me. I am also capable of examining them, whereas many forum members seem far more intent on simply ramming unwanted possibilities out of awareness through any means to hand.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

In considering the possibility or liklihood of synarchy having developed over the course of modern human history it's also worth looking at the overtly non-linear way that we have accumulated knowledge over time. By 200 BC, the Greek sages in Alexandria, northern Egypt has already deduced that Sun (not the Earth) was the centre of our solar system, that the Earth was spherical (not flat), that it's circumference was about 24,000 miles, and accurately calculated its tilt related to the sun. These things would not be discovered in Europe until the best part of two thousand years later!

The destruction of Alexandria in the early centuries AD created an immense rift in our intellectual development and also rent asunder the development of our subjective understanding of our own inner world, something that the Greek philosophers studied with the same gusto as they applied to the outer realm of sensory phenomena.

Such a stratified environment of learning and inner awareness provides absolutely the ideal conditions for secret societies to develop in.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Thus nothing. Yes, the term "synarchy" is conveniently vague and hence popular among the conspiracy theory loons. Sure, Time Warner owns a lot of media outlets, but many of them are tiny. There's an enormous number of little newspapers, magazines and TV and radio stations, never mind web sites. Disney owns a a lot of media outlets. News Corp owns a lot of media outlets. You listed 22 major media conglomerates in your previous post, and that is not even remotely comprehensive.

How many agencies feed them news?

Nick

 

[Stout]

I've got to say...Nick's talk about ibogane has raised a few valid questions about why it's not being used. I'm not willing to buy into the CT theory about governments wanting to keep their "dissidents" addicted to heroin, but so far, I've yet to find a "reasonable" explanation as to why ibogane therapy isn't being more widely explored.

We have a private clinic here in Canada ( Vancouver ) but the price for therapy is beyond the reach of the "average street user" So I'm wondering, why can't ibogane be used as just another weapon in the war on drugs ?

Are it's effects limited to a certain timeline, like, say a couple of years and then it becomes completely ineffective ? Is it something that has to be re administered every couple of years for the lifetime of the patient ?

 

[Belz...]

What I actually said is that there is circumstantial evidence, that it's not conclusive

Truism. Circumstancial evidence is never conclusive.

but that imo it is something to validly be concerned about.

Why ? If you're concerned every time you have circumstancial evidence of anything, then you can believe whatever crap you happen to hear or read.

I submit that the "Synarchy" interpretation of the activities of the WB and IMF is consistent with events.

Solipsism is also consistent with events. It's also dumb to the extreme.

There have been no rebuttals

Why would there be ? Why would someone need to counter a nonsensical, empty argument ?

merely alternative explanations offered from this forum, all of which I could just have easily come up with myself.

That's the point, Nick. The other explanations are just as valid, which means you can't jump to the conclusion that your explanation is somehow more believable and therefore that the evidence is reason to be concerned.

These things would not be discovered in Europe until the best part of two thousand years later!

First, that's wrong, and second: so what ? How does this show anything ?

The destruction of Alexandria in the early centuries AD created an immense rift in our intellectual development

Yeah, because nobody but those bookkeepers in Egypt knew anything about these things.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Thus nothing. Yes, the term "synarchy" is conveniently vague and hence popular among the conspiracy theory loons. Sure, Time Warner owns a lot of media outlets, but many of them are tiny. There's an enormous number of little newspapers, magazines and TV and radio stations, never mind web sites. Disney owns a a lot of media outlets. News Corp owns a lot of media outlets. You listed 22 major media conglomerates in your previous post, and that is not even remotely comprehensive.

Where have you heard the term synarchy used by "conspiracy loons" before Nick brought it up here? I didn't realize it was a popular term. I was explaining the potential meaning implied in this thread by demonstrating that there is in FACT a synarchy amongst corporate monopolies to protect their interests which lay firmly in the field of making money. I never suggested that there was anything inherently sinister about the people involved. They probably buy the whole neoliberal agenda hook line and sinker as being the most moral method of operating in a global economy....despite the huge negative repercussions of utilizing it on the 2nd and 3rd world economies.

If you want to claim "synarchy" you have to actually show that all these groups, with all their subsidiaries, with all their varying audiences and editorial opinions, are not simply in it for the money but actually rule the world.

No you don't. There is a clearly established and some what transparent synarchy already functioning in the world of economics. I am sorry that your expertise in debunking doesn't extend to the proliferation of economic theories through the various levels of political science education, and the preference given therein to the more popular ones...like the economic theory of neoliberalism which is the preferred mode of operation in the world economy...some call it globalization, perhaps you have heard of it? It is clearly obvious as has been demonstrated by the course of history since the 1970's that there has been an agenda amongst corporate entities to spread the influence of this type of thinking to the far reaches of the world for the express interest of gaining capital. I believe it is feasible to argue that by concentrating their wealth and political influence these corporate entities operating under the status as "individuals" have done great damage to the workings of our government, and thus effected the mass of less privileged consumers whose lives are dictated by the whims of said corporate entities via there manipulation of governing bodies via money and lobbyists who get paid to convince the government to protect their interests.

It's not irrelevant at all. It is the way the world economy works. You would be hard pressed to describe it in any other way, expect to candy coat it, despite what it is and what it is doing....marginalizing the individual for the sake of the "individual"....

Whatever

Exactly.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I've got to say...Nick's talk about ibogane has raised a few valid questions about why it's not being used. I'm not willing to buy into the CT theory about governments wanting to keep their "dissidents" addicted to heroin, but so far, I've yet to find a "reasonable" explanation as to why ibogane therapy isn't being more widely explored.

We have a private clinic here in Canada ( Vancouver ) but the price for therapy is beyond the reach of the "average street user" So I'm wondering, why can't ibogane be used as just another weapon in the war on drugs ?

Are it's effects limited to a certain timeline, like, say a couple of years and then it becomes completely ineffective ? Is it something that has to be re administered every couple of years for the lifetime of the patient ?

Well, in my experience working in the medical field that pertains directly to this...it really boils down to whats FDA approved, what can be billed to insurance, what the person can afford etc. Since ibogaine is a natural substance it cannot be copy written, no one can get paid, thus there is no incentive to explore it as an option. Someone could make a formulation of it and copy write it...but then one has to consider that a hardcore psychedelic such as ibogaine will produce results that are unpredictable on a mass scale. All it would take is for a person to sue due to unsafe treatment.

But then again, psychiatrists prescribe dopamine blocking medications all the time that have been shown to increase symptoms and prolong illness instead of treat it outright...so...

Lets just say there's a lot of mitigating factors.

 

[LashL]

It is a shame that Diagoras' first thread, and a terrific one at that, has been so completely and thoroughly hijacked and derailed that it is not even recognizable.

 

[Nick227]

Why would there be ? Why would someone need to counter a nonsensical, empty argument ?

Belz,

The WB and IMF have consistently pursued policies, the result of which has been to draw poorer nation after poorer nation into a globalised financial superstate. This was not their stated objective. I submit that it is highly valid to consider the possibility that they have been operating as a Synarchy.

That's the point, Nick. The other explanations are just as valid, which means you can't jump to the conclusion that your explanation is somehow more believable and therefore that the evidence is reason to be concerned.

I have stated precisely such, over and over again.

These things would not be discovered in Europe until the best part of two thousand years later!

First, that's wrong, and second: so what ? How does this show anything ?

Are you stating that the culture at pre-Christian Alexandria hadn't achieved these things? Or that they were appreciated in Europe prior to the Renaissance?

What it demonstrates is that the conditions for Synarchy clearly exist, with one far superior level of knowledge submerged from the masses for well over a millenium. We finally caught up with Eritosthenes (c200 BC) and his exoteric endeavours around 300 years ago! In the field of interior, esoteric, subjective study, lauded by Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and even Aristotle, we have likely some way to travel to be back where we were two thousand years ago. And, the Western Mystery Traditions aside, not showing much sign of getting there!

Nick

 

[Belz...]

The WB and IMF have consistently pursued policies, the result of which has been to draw poorer nation after poorer nation into a globalised financial superstate. This was not their stated objective. I submit that it is highly valid to consider the possibility that they have been operating as a Synarchy.

Are you going to offer some evidence, at one point ? Or are we just speculating, here ?

I have stated precisely such, over and over again.

And yet you keep doing it.

Are you stating that the culture at pre-Christian Alexandria hadn't achieved these things? Or that they were appreciated in Europe prior to the Renaissance?

I'm saying that quite a few educated people knew about these things during the dark ages. It's the amount of educated people that was the problem.

It's not like the knowledge was lost then discovered anew.

What it demonstrates is that the conditions for Synarchy clearly exist, with one far superior level of knowledge submerged from the masses for well over a millenium.

I still don't follow. How is the fact that a long-dead civilisation had come up with something you just discovered mean there's a "synarchy" ?

We finally caught up with Eritosthenes (c200 BC) and his exoteric endeavours around 300 years ago! In the field of interior, esoteric, subjective study, lauded by Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and even Aristotle, we have likely some way to travel to be back where we were two thousand years ago. And, the Western Mystery Traditions aside, not showing much sign of getting there!

Nick, I have the distinct impression that you are inventing history as you go.

 

[Nick227]

Are you going to offer some evidence, at one point ? Or are we just speculating, here ?

More links! OK. Here's a good overview. The net result of the IMF's "austerity" packages and WB's "structural adjustment programmes" has been the loss of economic sovereignty for a myriad poorer nations. One after the other they have been compelled to drop self-sustaining economic policies and submit to the global marketplace, an arena over which they have little or no control. I submit that this can legitimately be viewed as enforced economic globalisation, undertaken by the WB and IMF. The original remit of these two organisations was not this.

And yet you keep doing it.

I keep saying that Synarchy is one valid explanation for the events that the WB and IMF have orchestrated, yes.

Nick

 

[Mobyseven]

Another valid explanation is that invisible donkeys from Alpha Centauri have been guiding the cultural and intellectual development of humans from day one, and that you're just here to throw us off the path to the truth.

Shill!

 

[twinstead]

Another valid explanation is that invisible donkeys from Alpha Centauri have been guiding the cultural and intellectual development of humans from day one, and that you're just here to throw us off the path to the truth.

Invisible? Heck I can see them right now sitting on the pink unicorn in my living room.

Can't you?

 

[TjW]

Another valid explanation is that invisible donkeys from Alpha Centauri have been guiding the cultural and intellectual development of humans from day one, and that you're just here to throw us off the path to the truth.

Shill!

I would have to say evidence points to them being jackasses, not donkeys.

 

[beachnut]

More links! OK. Here's a good overview. The net result of the IMF's "austerity" packages and WB's "structural adjustment programmes" has been the loss of economic sovereignty for a myriad poorer nations. One after the other they have been compelled to drop self-sustaining economic policies and submit to the global marketplace, an arena over which they have little or no control. I submit that this can legitimately be viewed as enforced economic globalisation, undertaken by the WB and IMF. The original remit of these two organisations was not this.

I keep saying that Synarchy is one valid explanation for the events that the WB and IMF have orchestrated, yes.

Nick

Are all your posts indicative of the fact you are posting BS off topic? Do you even have a clue what the topic is?