Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

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 count two, at least.

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.

You have not demonstrated anything of the sort. You have pointed out that there exist a number of large media conglomerates. And?

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.

Is that supposed to mean anything?

No you don't. There is a clearly established and some what transparent synarchy already functioning in the world of economics.

Really? Where? Your evidence of this?

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?

Globalisation is nothing more than trade (many thousands of years old) plus improved technology. No plots, no theories, no ill-defined "synarchy". Just trade.

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.

Since the 1970s BC? That's plausible. Hard evidence only tracks this back as far as the Roman Empire, though.

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.

Oh, you can argue the point. You'd have to produce evidence if you want anyone to listen to you, though.

It's not irrelevant at all. It is the way the world economy works.

What is? Trade? Self-interest? Competition? Duh.

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"....

Again I ask, is that supposed to mean anything?

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, in my experience working in the medical field

And this experience is?

Since ibogaine is a natural substance it cannot be copy written

That's not even wrong.

no one can get paid

Not even wrong.

thus there is no incentive to explore it as an option.

Not even wrong.

Someone could make a formulation of it and copy write it...

Ditto.

but then one has to consider that a hardcore psychedelic such as ibogaine will produce results that are unpredictable on a mass scale.

Yes! Well, I don't know whether ibogaine is justly called a "hardcore" psychedelic, but it is certainly psychoactive.

All it would take is for a person to sue due to unsafe treatment.

Indeed.

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...

They work for some patients; not so well for others.

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

Yes. There are indeed. But Nick is claiming conspiracy.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Of course they have little control over the global marketplace. It's a global marketplace.

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.

Yes, because trade is so much worse than subsistence farming.

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

Yes, you keep saying this. You have yet to present any evidence, though.

 

[PixyMisa]

How many agencies feed them news?

The major global general news agencies are UPI, AP, AFP and Reuters. There are hundreds of regional and specialised ones, of course, and all of those corporations, all of their subsidiaries and outlets, do some original reporting.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Globalisation is nothing more than trade (many thousands of years old) plus improved technology. No plots, no theories, no ill-defined "synarchy". Just trade.

Are you an economics expert? Not that I'm aware. Have you researched the implications and effects of this innocuous "trade" that you speak of? I doubt it. Have you ever read any of the plethora of academic publications that contradict this very statement? Obviously not.

Since the 1970s BC? That's plausible. Hard evidence only tracks this back as far as the Roman Empire, though.

Neoliberal economic theory has only been in swing since 1970ish...and since that is what I was talking about I guess it makes sense then doesn't it.

Oh, you can argue the point. You'd have to produce evidence if you want anyone to listen to you, though.

Listen....this isn't something that can really be debated in the sense that you think it can. Neoliberal based corporate monopolies are discussed heavily in development theory, human geography, economic theory, political science....to name a few....there are hundreds of books on the subject...I referenced two in this very thread.

It has everything to do with synarchy, because that is what it is...

 

[PixyMisa]

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!

Hey, Nick! You know how we know that Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth? Because he wrote it down. In a book. Which was never lost. It didn't take "the best part of two thousand years" to discover this in Europe, because educated people knew this all along.

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.

The loss of the Library of Alexandria was great, but not nearly so great as you imagine. And you'll be happy to know that philosophy has advanced somewhat since Plato.

 

[thesyntaxera]

And this experience is?

I work in the field of psychiatric nursing, in an inpatient psychiatric setting at what I am told is the 3rd largest research and teaching hospital in the united states which is also affliated with a certain big ten university....which means little I suppose to you, but thanks for asking.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you an economics expert? Not that I'm aware. Have you researched the implications and effects of this innocuous "trade" that you speak of?

Yes.

Goods and services are exchanged.

I doubt it. Have you ever read any of the plethora of academic publications that contradict this very statement? Obviously not.

Have you read any of the plethora of plethoras of academic publications that contradict your plethora? Start with, oh, The Wealth of Nations.

Neoliberal economic theory has only been in swing since 1970ish...and since that is what I was talking about I guess it makes sense then doesn't it.

Not unless you demonstrate that neoliberal theory took over the world.

Listen....this isn't something that can really be debated in the sense that you think it can. Neoliberal based corporate monopolies are discussed heavily in development theory, human geography, economic theory, political science....to name a few....there are hundreds of books on the subject...I referenced two in this very thread.

And?

It has everything to do with synarchy, because that is what it is...but please continue to attempt to be witty with your one sentence answers...it makes for easy reading.

Synarchy: Joint rule or sovereignty.

Synarchism (from Greek words meaning "to rule together" or "harmonious rule", in Spanish Sinarquismo) is a word that has been used to describe several different political processes in various contexts.

So what do you mean by "synarchy"?

Is there an omniincompetent omnicovert global government as Nick seems to believe?

Has Time Warner conspired with Bayer to corner the market in aspirin advertising?

Or is it just "people doing stuff I don't like"?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Yes.

Goods and services are exchanged.

If thats all you see in the globalization picture then I doubt the first assertion here.

Have you read any of the plethora of plethoras of academic publications that contradict your plethora? Start with, oh, The Wealth of Nations

Sure, probably not as many as you. Does that invalidate the negative consequences of globalization. No.

Not unless you demonstrate that neoliberal theory took over the world.

Well a theory is an idea, and incapable of doing anything on it's own. However:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10467/Neoliberalism-Effects-Neoliberal-Policies.html

Neoliberalism has also fostered a value chain that begins with theoretical activity in academia and various research institutions and feeds into various institutional vehicles that uphold and promote particular aspects of the neoliberal paradigm, right up to the production and reproduction of policy advisors and implementers who attempt to sustain and implement the policy implications of the paradigm at national and international levels. Neoliberalism has benefited from the support of key national and global-level corporations whose influence is exerted through their ability to shift funds instantaneously across the globe in response to changing environmental conditions, through financing various activities in the value chain and influencing policy in the government of developed countries, and through key multilateral and bilateral financial, trade, and development agencies.

The neoliberal agenda has had a tendency to effectively close out any competing ways of looking at economics and economic policy. At the political level, the promotion of neoliberalism approached tyrannical levels with some governments, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, seeing any challenge to neoliberalism as a challenge to a national way of life—and, indeed, to the protection of this way of life. This has been used as a justification to initiate campaigns for regime change in some countries. More generally, fairly effective sanctions and incentives are deployed throughout the value chain to ensure compliance with, or promotion of, the neoliberal agenda. However, neoliberalism has negatively affected large numbers of people though retrenchments, degradation of work, misuse of the environment, increased poverty, and marginalization of nationalities and households, particularly those in the non-formal sectors of the developing world, while the net social gains have been spurious and remain quite open to debate. It is clear, however, that some financiers and corporations (and some countries in the developed world) have benefited immensely.

This isn't something that you can doubt, pixy, it's just the facts. It's not something that can be invalidated just because you disagree, it's the facts.

And?

And...?

Synarchy: Joint rule or sovereignty.

Synarchism (from Greek words meaning "to rule together" or "harmonious rule", in Spanish Sinarquismo) is a word that has been used to describe several different political processes in various contexts.

So what do you mean by "synarchy"?

This is the exact definition I used. To requote the previous quote:

Neoliberalism has benefited from the support of key national and global-level corporations whose influence is exerted through their ability to shift funds instantaneously across the globe in response to changing environmental conditions, through financing various activities in the value chain and influencing policy in the government of developed countries, and through key multilateral and bilateral financial, trade, and development agencies

I would assert that economics is the chief driving force of the world, so in a sense they co-rule with governments that they hold monetary sway over.

Is there an omniincompetent omnicovert global government as Nick seems to believe?

Maybe..who knows...do you know there's not?

 

[PixyMisa]

If thats all you see in the globalization picture then I doubt the first assertion here.

Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming to be an economics expert; I'm not, and never meant to give that impression. I was answering yes to the third sentence that I quoted, not the first. I apologise for any confusion there.

Sure, probably not as many as you. Does that invalidate the negative consequences of globalization. No.

Then perhaps you could tell me what they are.

Well a theory is an idea, and incapable of doing anything on it's own.

A good point.

However:
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10467/Neoliberalism-Effects-Neoliberal-Policies.html

This isn't something that you can doubt, pixy, it's just the facts. It's not something that can be invalidated just because you disagree, it's the facts.

Neither in the text you quoted, nor in the full linked web page, is a single fact presented. It's entirely opinion, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

And...?

Yes.

You said there are books on the subject. What of it? I can go to my local bookstore and purchase a copy of Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book. I do not thereby assume that either fairies or Lady Cottington are real.

This is the exact definition I used.

Okay.

To requote the previous quote:

Neoliberalism has benefited from the support of key national and global-level corporations whose influence is exerted through their ability to shift funds instantaneously across the globe in response to changing environmental conditions, through financing various activities in the value chain and influencing policy in the government of developed countries, and through key multilateral and bilateral financial, trade, and development agencies.

From Wikipedia, we find that the principal tenets of Neoliberalism are:

Fiscal rectitude
Competitive exchange rates (i.e. floating currencies)
Free trade
Privatization
Undistorted market prices
Limited intervention

What this set of principles describes is nothing more nor less than the freedom of people to exchange goods and services without undue government intervention.

So your quote boils down to Neoliberalism is supported by corporations because it works.

I would assert that economics is the chief driving force of the world, so in a sense they co-rule with governments that they hold monetary sway over.

Economics doesn't drive anything. Economics describes (and, with any luck, predicts) the flow of goods, services, and capital. All you can contend is that if you don't have a totalitarian communist government seizing everything and destroying the economy, individuals are, how shall I put this... Free. In a sense, people co-rule with their governments, because otherwise they kick the governments out and install new ones.

Maybe..who knows...do you know there's not?

The problem is not that I can't disprove it. The problem is that it's stupid. It's an invisible dragon that breathes undetectable flame.

 

[volatile]

I think the problem here, PM, is that whilst there are legitimate concerns with certain aspects of both theoretical neo-liberalism and its real-word application, TheSyntaxEra and Nick are completely unable to enunciate their concerns due to the blinkering effects of the conspiracy mindset.

What's happening here is the conflation of certain problematic consequences of unrestrained neo-liberalism (sweatshops, for example, or media hegemony) with a deliberately orchestrated, Machiavellian plan by a secret cabal of ne'er-do-wells. It's actually easier, simpler and more seductive to ascribe the negatives of globalisation to Evil than to actually do the philosophical, political, ethical and economic spadework that shows that these kinds of effects are by-products, and not the goal, of certain types of economic practice.

 

[8den]

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 sorry patronising attitude aside you're assuming that the western world has had a consistent worldview and moral and social philosophy over the time period you mention. Its not and it hasn't. For example;

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

That's a quote from Abraham Lincoln

The west's attitude to the developing world has changed radically over the time period. Suggesting that the west should have a "consist" foreign policy over the same time period is patently absurd.

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.

Weirdly you want people to comment an a substance they don't know about as proof of a conspiracy, please Nick. Look the points you ignore is that Ibogine can cause heart problems, and is a powerful hallucinogenic. Leaving aside the fact that many addicts have mental and physical health issues, and giving them such a substance could affect both, the substance would have to be given in a controlled medical environment under supervision, and simply put the resources aren't there at the moment. Hospital places and NHS resources for heroin addicts are at a premium. And giving extra resources at the expense of ordinary people isn't exactly a vote winner.

So Nick in summary just because you think Ibogaine is the answer doesn't mean it is.

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.




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."

Get a grip, honestly. Your memory has been shown to be at fault on this thread on several points. You've been shown articles from the run up and during the war. You've yet to provide a single example of these "here we go to war" articles. You've been shown articles that directly contradict your worldview.

Do you honestly think you have a shred of credible evidence that the media was under "centralised control" and "pro war" in the run up to the Iraq war? You don't.

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

You keep claiming that without a shred of evidence. It's getting tiresome.

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

God this is tiresome. Did the media wait and hold back when Jessica and Holy went missing? Did the media Hold back when Sarah Payne disappeared? What about Jamie Bulger? What about Rachel Whitear the heroin addict who's gruesome photo was splashed across newspapers. Remember Nick you claim that governments "love heroin" and "centraly control media" explain how the death of Rachel Whitear was featured so prominently in the media.


Also Nick you dropped the section on "CIA use heroin to fund Black OPs" I ask again what evidence do you have to make such a bold assertion.

And finally you ignored my whole point about there being more articles in your "centralised controlled media" critical of heroin and alcohol than there are articles about the dangers of ecstasy, I'm disappointed that we didn't get to hear your thoughts about that. Y'know because governments "love heroin and hate ecstasy"

 

[8den]

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 ?

Stout its a valid point, again one only needs to look at the example of medical marijuana. Here was a substance that had a wide range of medicinal values, that there is a struggle to gain social acceptance for. Because of entrenched public perception of the drug.

As to heroin, the reason methadone is the prevalent treatment is that it can be prescribed on an outpatient basis. Meaning it does not regularly tie up doctors and other valuable resources.

Ibogiane as a hallucinogenic is something I imagine ethical doctors wouldn't dare administer unless under controlled circumstances as in a hospital. It also can cause heart problems, and I imagine again considering the health situation of the average addict, doctors would maybe want to ensure addicts are in better health before administrating the drug on a weakened person.

In short Ibogaine would tie up resources. There's an immensely entrenched public perception about "wasting" resources and hospital beds on addicts.

I'll give you an example. Earlier in the year I worked on a documentary for the Salvation army. A Salvation army center in Scotland was working on a harm reduction program alongside it's soup kitchen. The harm reduction concept, seems like common sense to me, but is quiet radical in the real world. The concept is simple, provide addicts with food, needle exchange, medical advice, and social services under one roof. The philosophy is simple, the only person who can really make an addict quit is the addict themselves, and when they're ready to quit they know that theres a place they can go, to get the help they need. For the Salvation army as an organisation this was quiet a difficult concept to get widespread consent.

Progressive logical common sense drugs policy is very difficult to gain wide-stream support. Some people feel that allocating any resources to these "wasters" is a waste of public money. It's not a vote winner. Even communities riddled with drug addicts, the general public will resist having drug treatment center based there.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think the problem here, PM, is that whilst there are legitimate concerns with certain aspects of both theoretical neo-liberalism and its real-word application, TheSyntaxEra and Nick are completely unable to enunciate their concerns due to the blinkering effects of the conspiracy mindset.

What's happening here is the conflation of certain problematic consequences of unrestrained neo-liberalism (sweatshops, for example, or media hegemony) with a deliberately orchestrated, Machiavellian plan by a secret cabal of ne'er-do-wells. It's actually easier, simpler and more seductive to ascribe the negatives of globalisation to Evil than to actually do the philosophical, political, ethical and economic spadework that shows that these kinds of effects are by-products, and not the goal, of certain types of economic practice.

Yes.

Mind you, neo-liberalism is simply sound fiscal practice accompanied by common human rights, and it's not nearly as neo- as Nick and thesyntaxera suggest, given that it differs little from what Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century. "Globalisation" is simply, well, globalisation. It's just what already happened in the advanced nations running at fast-forward in the rest of the world. So all the bumps we hit over the past two, two and a half centuries, they're hitting at three-four-five times the speed.

You can only smooth out the bumps so much before you run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. Better to work in a sweatshop and have your children complete high school and their children earn PhD's than, say, what's happening in Zimbabwe. It's not ideal, it's just better than anything else we've managed to work out.

As you say, there's no grand conspiracy. Just six and a half billion little ones.

(And now that we have this "internet" thingy, media hegemony is the least of our worries. I'm busy building a little hegemony of my own.)

 

[volatile]

Yes.

Mind you, neo-liberalism is simply sound fiscal practice accompanied by common human rights, and it's not nearly as neo- as Nick and thesyntaxera suggest, given that it differs little from what Adam Smith wrote in the 18th century. "Globalisation" is simply, well, globalisation. It's just what already happened in the advanced nations running at fast-forward in the rest of the world. So all the bumps we hit over the past two, two and a half centuries, they're hitting at three-four-five times the speed.

Exactly. And bumps they are - let's not forget that and see liberal economics as a panacea. Nevertheless, it bears repeating for Nick and Syntax that these bumps are side-effects of a dogmatic adherence to the liberal economic system and not the intended goal.

You can only smooth out the bumps so much before you run afoul of the law of unintended consequences. Better to work in a sweatshop and have your children complete high school and their children earn PhD's than, say, what's happening in Zimbabwe. It's not ideal, it's just better than anything else we've managed to work out.

Agreed, especially with the last sentence. The second one's a slightly false dichotomy, of course, but I know what you meant. There's an interesting thread on sweatshops and liberal economics (with no reference to conspiracies, thankfully) elsewhere on the Forum at the moment.

(And now that we have this "internet" thingy, media hegemony is the least of our worries. I'm busy building a little hegemony of my own.)

Of course that's true, but things like net neutrality are under threat from corporate interest. Not a conspiracy, of course, but one logical conclusion of unrestrained liberal economics... that's another thread, of course, so let's not derail.

Suffice to say - you're right, in principle.

 

[Belz...]

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

Of course it's a valid explanation. As I said, there are a million possible valid explanations.

Who cares ? There's only one SOUND explanation.

 

[funk de fino]

Hi Funk,

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

Sorry mate, i think i misunderstood what you were meaning, i retract the statement

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.

nick, on the day the population stance was generally pro war, sure there were demos and quite large ones but these were reported and so were the misgivings associated with going against the UN and the rest of europe

That could well be a valid point.

one we must always consider when looking at editorial stances, a paper will never rail against our boys and this could easily be conceived as pro war

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.

There is always a tipping point for things. The campaign was motivated by the parents and three private companies IIRC. The govt had nothing to do with it. See the earlier post about Bulger, Payne, Huntley etc etc to see common tipping points that have occured in the UK in recent years. This is not due to central control. How do you figure in the regional papers in Scotland, Wales and Ireland into this? The Scottish based daily paper likes nothing better than crucifying the english based Sun newspaper and the racist buffoon McKenzie who writes for them.

Any central core reporting you see is for one reason only, it sells papers.

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

If she had not drunk the water she MAY have died anyway, she MAY not have. Her death was caused by over hydration which caused a reaction in her body, something to do with the blood sodium content I believe, she drunk the water because she was overheating. She was overheating due to the fact she had taken E. So what caused her death? Would she have died without taking the E? I know people who have died from overheating caused by taking E.

I think you need to check again when the campaign was launched because it was after the cause of death was known, this was shortly after her death and i believe after the inquiry which was short. It is also an urban myth that it was her deathbed photo on the billboards IIRC.

 

[Nick227]

Nick sorry patronising attitude aside you're assuming that the western world has had a consistent worldview and moral and social philosophy over the time period you mention. Its not and it hasn't. For example;

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).

Weirdly you want people to comment an a substance they don't know about as proof of a conspiracy, please Nick. Look the points you ignore is that Ibogine can cause heart problems, and is a powerful hallucinogenic. Leaving aside the fact that many addicts have mental and physical health issues, and giving them such a substance could affect both, the substance would have to be given in a controlled medical environment under supervision, and simply put the resources aren't there at the moment. Hospital places and NHS resources for heroin addicts are at a premium. And giving extra resources at the expense of ordinary people isn't exactly a vote winner.

So Nick in summary just because you think Ibogaine is the answer doesn't mean it is.

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.

Also Nick you dropped the section on "CIA use heroin to fund Black OPs" I ask again what evidence do you have to make such a bold assertion.

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.

And finally you ignored my whole point about there being more articles in your "centralised controlled media" critical of heroin and alcohol than there are articles about the dangers of ecstasy, I'm disappointed that we didn't get to hear your thoughts about that. Y'know because governments "love heroin and hate ecstasy"

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

Nick

 

[Nick227]

And you'll be happy to know that philosophy has advanced somewhat since Plato.

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." - Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality, 1929.

There is, to my mind, an interesting point here to be made with regard to subjective study, equally the mainstay of the Greek Philosophical tradition as much as the objective evaluation of relationships in the outer world. I'm a bit pushed for time to try and articulate it at the minute though!

Nick

 

[volatile]

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." - Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality, 1929.

There is, to my mind, an interesting point here to be made with regard to subjective study, equally the mainstay of the Greek Philosophical tradition as much as the objective evaluation of relationships in the outer world. I'm a bit pushed for time to try and articulate it at the minute though!

Nick

There's been whole new sections of thought since 1929, Nick.

Just sayin'.