Former conspiracy believer here

[Belz...]

"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.

Wow. If someone said it it MUST be true.

I like your avatar, by the way, but you mispelled "CT".

 

[Nick227]

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?

Actually, I should amend this really as neither heroin nor ecstasy are so dangerous medically.

Maybe number of articles / danger to health or society?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

And that is................?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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

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

 

[thesyntaxera]

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.

Yes, the paper is one persons perception of events based on the research of others, and in that sense it(the paper) is opinion...good job in pointing that one out...under these guidelines nearly all things could be considered opinion in the social research spectrum of the sciences.

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.

Do you really believe that the theory on paper even comes close to matching the theory in practice? Because we are a nation of great economic influence we can flex that influence to bend the rules and sidestep the actions that the theory would dictate when it's beneficial to us, and we with our influence can deny that ability to others in the world telling them "...thats just the way it is.."

Economics doesn't drive anything. Economics describes (and, with any luck, predicts) the flow of goods, services, and capital.

Sure if thats the definition that you chose to use...then so be it. However there are more than your prefered way of looking at things, such as economics being a blanket term to describe the financial forces that move the world.

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.

Hardly.

What seems to be missing from your perception of these matters is that it is not a choice between the two options you describe, there are a host of possibilities that are never explored. Regardless of all of this, whats lacking is some safe guard to prevent those with economic power from exploiting those without it. In the neoliberal model this is just accepted as the way it is...adherents believe that it is unavoidable and thus acceptable. A truly free market system may be great for those that are in possession of the economic clout(money) while it would infringe upon the freedoms of others and their ability to maintain a basic equilibrium of human rights.

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

No. What it boils down to is that it is supported by corporations because it is efficient at increasing the profit margins for them at the expense of those who are economically compromised by the neoliberal theory in practice.

Then perhaps you could tell me what they are.

Sure, read this book on the subject and then we can talk:
A brief history of neoliberalism:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gh...oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

 

[Nick227]

"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!

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

Just sayin'.

Very likely so. However, the esoterica that we are told Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle investigated and taught to their students largely seems to have disappeared with the loss of Alexandria. Personally, I think it's valid to say that this strengthens further the case for examining the possibility of Synarchy, for the presence of a secret level of esoteric wisdom hidden from the masses is a metaphysical prerequisite of the same.

What remains, what is given creedence these days, is the objective pattern of relationships in the outside world that manifests around us. The attempt to formulate the same we call "science." But, to the philosophers of antiquity mentioned above, this was merely half the story. They were equally concerned with their inner world of subjective experience, with the ideas and ideals of divine archetype, and other concepts that could only be verified through subjective self-examination. The loss of the body of knowledge from this area, and the dismissal of its significance by the majority of today's scientists, does, I submit, leave a vast chasm in our awareness. A chasm from which a synarchy could operate without anyone, unknowing of just how vast it is, becoming any the wiser. Indeed, most would simply ridicule the notion without giving it another thought.

Nick

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm

A Short History of Neoliberalism
By Susan George

Conference on Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World
March 24-26, 1999

The Conference organisers have asked me for a brief history of neo-liberalism which they title "Twenty Years of Elite Economics". I'm sorry to tell you that in order to make any sense, I have to start even further back, some 50 years ago, just after the end of World War II.

In 1945 or 1950, if you had seriously proposed any of the ideas and policies in today's standard neo-liberal toolkit, you would have been laughed off the stage or sent off to the insane asylum. At least in the Western countries, at that time, everyone was a Keynesian, a social democrat or a social-Christian democrat or some shade of Marxist. The idea that the market should be allowed to make major social and political decisions; the idea that the State should voluntarily reduce its role in the economy, or that corporations should be given total freedom, that trade unions should be curbed and citizens given much less rather than more social protection--such ideas were utterly foreign to the spirit of the time. Even if someone actually agreed with these ideas, he or she would have hesitated to take such a position in public and would have had a hard time finding an audience.

Edited by chillzero: 

Rule 4 breach removed

Synarchy? Yes, no?

 

[Mobyseven]

Nick:

The World Bank has only been around since 1945. This means that they could not have been involved in the colonisation of Africa or India, or the Spanish conquest of Central and South America.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Nick:

The World Bank has only been around since 1945. This means that they could not have been involved in the colonisation of Africa or India, or the Spanish conquest of Central and South America.

Could you please point out where he stated that the WB was involved with the colonization of africa, india and central/south america?

 

[Gravy]

thesyntaxera, please

1) Refer to the forum rules regarding lengthy quotes of copyrighted material, and modify your post 767 accordingly.

2) Start a new thread rather than continuing this derail. If you wish, ask the moderators to split the relevant posts to a new thread.

 

[dudalb]

Ms. George sound like she wants the State to have total control of the Economy to bring about utopia.
That sure worked great in the Soviet Union.
Please note she is a poltical scientiests,not a economist.

 

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, please

1) Refer to the forum rules regarding lengthy quotes of copyrighted material, and modify your post 767 accordingly.

2) Start a new thread rather than continuing this derail. If you wish, ask the moderators to split the relevant posts to a new thread.

1. Sure.

2. Not likely, considering I am NOT the one single handedly derailing this thread. In the current discussion I feel that my posts regarding neoliberalism are pertainent to the disscussion at hand as they related directly to what is being currently discussed. I am not even aware of where the conversation got derailed to be honest, as I jumped in toward the end. If the consensus of those participating in the current discussion in this thread is to start a new topic and continue there I will gladly move my posting to that thread, until then as long as a conversation on these topics continues in this thread, I will direct my posts here.

Don't single me out just because you find issue with whats being discussed.

 

[thesyntaxera]

thesyntaxera, please

1) Refer to the forum rules regarding lengthy quotes of copyrighted material, and modify your post 767 accordingly.

2) Start a new thread rather than continuing this derail. If you wish, ask the moderators to split the relevant posts to a new thread.

Back to question 1...it seems my ability to edit the post you are referring to has expired. Is there some way around this?

 

[Mobyseven]

Could you please point out where he stated that the WB was involved with the colonization of africa, india and central/south america?

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 what you are describing is what has happened since trade began. Or indeed man wondered what was in the next valley.

Hi 8den,

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.

Nick

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.

I'm not touching that infantile sub Dan Brown nonsense with a bloody barge pole.

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

Bolded for emphasis.

 

[Bell]

Back to question 1...it seems my ability to edit the post you are referring to has expired. Is there some way around this?

Beside proofreading your post? Nope! And that is not a conspiracy against just you.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, the paper is one persons perception of events based on the research of others, and in that sense it(the paper) is opinion...good job in pointing that one out...under these guidelines nearly all things could be considered opinion in the social research spectrum of the sciences.

Real economists use mathematics. Show me the numbers and I'll pay attention.

Do you really believe that the theory on paper even comes close to matching the theory in practice? Because we are a nation of great economic influence we can flex that influence to bend the rules and sidestep the actions that the theory would dictate when it's beneficial to us, and we with our influence can deny that ability to others in the world telling them "...thats just the way it is.."

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

Sure if thats the definition that you chose to use...then so be it.

That's what it is.

However there are more than your prefered way of looking at things, such as economics being a blanket term to describe the financial forces that move the world.

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.

Hardly.

What seems to be missing from your perception of these matters is that it is not a choice between the two options you describe, there are a host of possibilities that are never explored.

Like what?

Regardless of all of this, whats lacking is some safe guard to prevent those with economic power from exploiting those without it.

Like what?

In the neoliberal model this is just accepted as the way it is...adherents believe that it is unavoidable and thus acceptable.

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.

A truly free market system may be great for those that are in possession of the economic clout(money) while it would infringe upon the freedoms of others and their ability to maintain a basic equilibrium of human rights.

In what way does one person's having money infringe upon the freedoms of those who do not have money?

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.

No. What it boils down to is that it is supported by corporations because it is efficient at increasing the profit margins for them at the expense of those who are economically compromised by the neoliberal theory in practice.

"Economically compromised"?

Sure, read this book on the subject and then we can talk:
A brief history of neoliberalism:
(snip)

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

 

[PixyMisa]

Very likely so. However, the esoterica that we are told Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle investigated and taught to their students largely seems to have disappeared with the loss of Alexandria. Personally, I think it's valid to say that this strengthens further the case for examining the possibility of Synarchy, for the presence of a secret level of esoteric wisdom hidden from the masses is a metaphysical prerequisite of the same.

What evidence do you have for this supposed "secret level of esoteric wisdom hidden from the masses" of yours? What do you think Plato knew that we don't? If you read his writings, Plato was, by the standards of the modern world, appallingly ill-educated and hopelessly deluded. We consider him a remarkable man only because he didn't live in the modern world.

What remains, what is given creedence these days, is the objective pattern of relationships in the outside world that manifests around us. The attempt to formulate the same we call "science." But, to the philosophers of antiquity mentioned above, this was merely half the story. They were equally concerned with their inner world of subjective experience, with the ideas and ideals of divine archetype, and other concepts that could only be verified through subjective self-examination.

Science works, Nick. Philosophy for the most part (as measured by page count) does not. That's why Whitehead could say what he did. I personally see it as a scathing indictment on philosophy as a whole, not a compliment to Plato.

The loss of the body of knowledge from this area, and the dismissal of its significance by the majority of today's scientists, does, I submit, leave a vast chasm in our awareness.

What loss?

We know what Plato thought. He thought there were five elements, which matched up somehow with the five regular polyhedra. He thought that things in the physical realm were reflections of some mystical ideal. Plato rejected democracy as unworkable. Plato was wrong.

A chasm from which a synarchy could operate without anyone, unknowing of just how vast it is, becoming any the wiser. Indeed, most would simply ridicule the notion without giving it another thought.

Most would ridicule it because it is ridiculous. What exactly is this irrecoverable insight that allows our infinitely ineffective masters to fail to rule us from deep within their impenetrable penumbra?

 

[PixyMisa]

Synarchy? Yes, no?

No.

Freedom.

 

[Belz...]

There's only one SOUND explanation.

And that is................?

Nick

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

Evidence is what separates the sound explanation from the other valid ones.

Ergo, before you claim the big bad NWO exists, you might want to gather some evidence. Not stuff you can interpret as evidence. Actual evidence.

 

[Belz...]

No. What it boils down to is that it is supported by corporations because it is efficient at increasing the profit margins for them at the expense of those who are economically compromised by the neoliberal theory in practice.

I don't think the "at the expense of" bit enters into the equation.