I quite like understanding – and perhaps even learning – the meaning of words, especially those that are thrown in my face. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say – a site whose «neutrality» is well known to everyone.
A conspiracy theory, also referred to by the neologisms ’conspirationalism« or »conspiracy theory’, is a hypothesis that seeks to explain an event through the concerted and secret actions of a group of people. According to Peter Knight of the University of Manchester, it is a theoretical narrative that claims to be coherent and seeks to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy, understood as the fact that ‘ a small group of powerful people are secretly coordinating to plan and carry out illegal and harmful actions that affect the course of events’”.»
This definition strikes me as particularly absurd and even childish, as it seeks to deny that groups of people can come together to defend their interests and seek to exert political or societal influence. Yet, since the dawn of history, it has always been particularly exclusive groups that have governed every country. Examples abound; the first that springs to mind is that of the Republic of Venice, where a sumptuous parliament of notables sat in session, whilst all decisions were taken behind closed doors in the basement of the parliament building, amongst a dozen or so people. This can still be visited today. The contrast between the small, squalid and dingy room where the real government operated, and the splendour of the vast, magnificently decorated hall of the parliament, speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of our leaders. Balzac wrote, moreover: «Hypocrisy is, in a nation, the lowest form of vice. It is therefore the duty of a citizen to oppose this Tartuffery, under which one’s excesses are concealed. » This means that nothing has really changed; on the contrary, conspiracies have regularly influenced the course of history, from Caesar to Robespierre, to mention but a few. What was the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire if not a conspiracy, financed by the private bankers who propelled Bonaparte to power, who in turn went on to establish the «Banque de France», a private institution (see Henri Guillemin’s lecture on the subject).
Naturally, the powerful and the wealthy tend to gather together, marry amongst themselves, work amongst themselves and support one another. When a single family ingeniously decides to control the entire money supply of nations, the situation is even worse, for it is then merely a small group bound by blood ties that holds virtually absolute, yet hidden, power. In this regard, I strongly recommend reading *The Currency War*.
America lost the war waged against it by this financial elite, a fact of which its presidents were well aware:
«I believe that banking institutions are a greater danger to our liberties than entire standing armies.» Thomas Jefferson
«The bank is trying to kill me, but I’ll kill it.» Andrew Jackson.
«I have two great enemies: the Confederate army facing me and high finance at my back. Of the two, the latter is the more dangerous…» Abraham Lincoln.
Everyone should have listened to the President Eisenhower’s farewell address which warns the nation of nothing other than the conspiracy of the military-industrial complex, now known as the Deep State.
Who’s talking about all this?
The most ironic thing is that governments themselves are literally plotting against their own citizens; to quote John Maynard Keynes himself:
«Through constant inflationary measures, governments can secretly and imperceptibly confiscate a significant portion of their citizens» wealth. By this method, they do more than merely confiscate: they confiscate arbitrarily, and whilst the system impoverishes many people, it actually enriches a few.« -»Lenin was certainly right. There is no more subtle or surer way of undermining the current foundations of society than by corrupting the monetary system. This process harnesses all the hidden forces of economic laws towards destruction, and does so in a way that not one man in a million can foresee.“ Excerpt from ”The Economic Consequences of Peace”
With the advent of the industrial age, organisations have become ever larger, monstrous, with ever-increasing power. It is only now that people are beginning to talk about the «Milner Group», comprising, amongst others, Lord Grey, Lord Balfour, Rothschild and Cecil Rhodes. Who has heard of them? Not many people, yet it was indeed this secret group that orchestrated the Boer War to seize the fabulous riches (gold and diamonds) of Rhodesia in order to finance its subsequent projects, namely a world war against Germany, which had become a threat to the British Empire. The details of the operation are clearly set out and documented in « The Secret Origins of the First World War », by Gerry Docherty, a disciple of the great historian Carroll Quigley, whose essential work « The Anglo-American Establishment ».
As a possible successor to the Milner Group, which manipulated the entire world to bring about the outbreak of war in 1914, the Bilderberg Group also raises questions due to its almost total lack of transparency and because it brings together numerous individuals who wield immense resources and power (heads of state, ministers, bank executives, CEOs of multinationals (such as Bill Gates and others), military figures, international security experts, academics, representatives of international organisations (e.g. the IMF, the World Bank) and journalists. Candice Vacle writes on her blog : «It is anti-democratic for our political leaders to be part of these secret meetings or any other secret organisations seeking power, because citizens – the people – cannot hold them to account. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that these leaders are playing a double game by working for a secret group against the state and the people.» The presence of Henry Kissinger, one of the group’s key figures, should also give cause for concern and unease. There is no longer any doubt about his direct responsibility for the unjustified prolongation of the Vietnam War and its extension to Cambodia and Laos, nor for the campaigns of assassination and subversion of democracy in Chile, Cyprus, Greece and Bangladesh, nor in his complicity in the genocide in East Timor.
The tobacco industry has done everything in its power to conceal the health effects of smoking, using so-called «science» and other «studies». Similarly, the effects of asbestos were known as early as 1906; Eternit was fully aware of the deadly effects of its product, and once again the industry enlisted all manner of «experts» to sell its product for almost a hundred years!
As for the medical field in general, and homeopathy in particular, I shall simply point out that the 2015 Australian study, which made headlines around the world and claimed to prove the futility of homeopathy, was found by a Senate committee to be a pathetic manipulation. Although no denial has ever been issued, nobody wants to know that the first version, which complied with the scientific specifications, validated homeopathy.
But let’s return to the definition to gain a better understanding of the meaning attributed to the term ‘conspiracy theory’:
From the perspective of social science observers, conspiracy theories tend to be immune to refutation; indeed, any attempt to prove that no conspiracy is at work will be interpreted as yet another attempt to deceive the conspiracy theorist, who will continue to search for what is happening behind the scenes, and what they are not being told. Official or scientific explanations put forward by the authorities and relayed by the mainstream news media will be structurally discredited.
In short, since all paranoid individuals, by definition, exhibit a conspiracy-type interpretative delusion—a delusion that resists any attempt to alter it—, so Anyone who has the audacity to talk about conspiracies or, more broadly, the existence of organisations operating behind the scenes, must simply be paranoid.
And Wiki concludes with a truism of such unspeakable naivety that it will make any serious historian laugh:
The conspiracy theory approach seeks to attribute established facts to a single culprit, often following a single-cause narrative logic. In this respect, it differs from the historical approach, which implies multiple causes.
This is an example of circular reasoning or a pseudo-syllogism, which seeks to cloak manifestly erroneous premises in a veneer of pseudo-medical legitimacy:
- Conspiracy theories do not exist; history is shaped by a multitude of factors
- Paranoid people imagine conspiracies
- So those who talk about conspiracies are paranoid
Such an approach is typical of an already totalitarian society that seeks to stifle all critical thinking by applying disparaging or pseudo-scientific labels. The system has long since realised the immense credibility that can be derived from the seal of a science that can be falsified at will, since it is now owned by large industrial groups. This explains the profusion of various «-isms» and other «-phobias», which dismiss deviant discourse with a mere stroke of the pen.
Since conspiracies – organised by more or less secret societies and other interest groups, especially when they are on a colossal scale – have always existed, the term «conspiracy theory» should quite simply be banished from the vocabulary, as using it has become a sign of compliance with the dictatorship that is taking hold. On the other hand, the diagnosis of paranoia in a patient prone to conspiracy theories should remain within the medical sphere, and particularly within homeopathy, for, as Hahnemann wrote more than two centuries ago, mental illnesses will always be a lamentable failure of allopathic medicine.
“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is an act of resistance”
This quote, falsely attributed to Orwell, sums up the situation in which we find ourselves through no fault of our own, for this war declared against homeopathy from the very outset was not started by us, but by the pharmaceutical industry and, by extension, the financial sector.
Ever since the days of Rockefeller and the takeover of medicine by the oil trusts in the 1910s, homeopathy has represented the ultimate threat to the prosperity of a system that was being established under the guise of «philanthropy» and «scientific medicine» in order to distribute petrochemical-based drugs. Yes, homeopathy frightens them because, by freeing people from the shackles of illness, it restores them to a state of uprightness – people who think for themselves and therefore do not submit. It leads us to question the very conceptual foundations of our society by fully appreciating the ravages of the materialist and reductionist worldview. The revolutionary potential of the medicine of the future touches on absolutely every field:
- Medical with the prospect of genuine cures – that is to say, the restoration of health rather than merely providing meagre support whilst the illness persists. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, we have demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of homeopathy at every stage of the disease, using two remedies – Ammonium carbonicum and Bryonia – but nobody seems keen to pass on this information,
- Economical because medicines could be distributed free of charge by the state, which would enable prescribers to be properly remunerated, thereby enhancing the role of the doctor as a master of the art of healing rather than a mere servant of the healthcare system,
- Social because the large-scale treatment of chronic illnesses would significantly alter human behaviour, which is becoming increasingly erratic as allopathic treatments affect the mental and emotional spheres,
- Culture because by restoring the harmonious functioning of the human being, that person would be reconciled with nature and with the thirst for curiosity and discovery inherent in every healthy human being,
- Philosophical, by enabling everyone to exercise their freedom of thought and to strive towards the lofty purpose of our existence by rediscovering the eternal values upheld by Greek thought and Christian civilisation.
For some time now, the increasingly organised and coordinated attacks we have been facing have pointed to a global organisation that has every reason to be called a conspiracy. There’s nothing more I can do for those who haven’t realised that a global strategy is needed to launch an appeal like the one by those 124 clowns in *Le Figaro* – which was picked up absolutely everywhere in the press, on the radio, on television programmes, and then very conveniently backed up by the Australian meta-analysis, which we now know was grossly manipulated. Clearly, homeopathy strikes fear into people’s hearts, and this global campaign can be seen as the starting point for the series of events that led us to the Covid-19 crisis. Throughout the media, and particularly online, we are inundated with the same messages of hatred and the repetition of the same mantras. Through these excessive means, democracy is now little different from the herding of sheep, guided and manipulated by the most primitive fears and emotions. We have no means of resisting the usual tactics of mental manipulation, the two-point formula for which has remained unchanged since Edward Bernays and his famous The Manufacturing of Consent :
- Rehearsal from the message until it is accepted as true; this amounts to genuine «brainwashing» or «indoctrination». Thus, it is repeated over and over again that no scientific study has ever validated any effect of homeopathy, or that it is nothing more than water and sugar.
- Focus focusing on a synecdoche, that is to say, a single detail that represents – or rather caricatures – the whole of the target on its own. The Eiffel Tower epitomises Paris, sex tourism epitomises Thailand, and so on. In advertising, this is the «air conditioning for 1 euro» gimmick, for example. In homeopathy, potentisation clashes with the preconceptions of a public steeped in materialism. Consequently, this aspect of homeopathic medicine becomes the only thing people remember about it. In the case of the coronavirus, all the talk is of the deaths, and so on.
Consequently, to be a homeopath is to fight for the Truth, to devote oneself to it body and soul. More than ever, there is no place here for sentimentality, and what the situation demands of us is total commitment. In this regard, we have been endlessly reaping the poisoned fruits of a policy of ‘quack’ homeopathy pursued by Boiron, which is now also ending in disarray – the culmination of collaboration.
That is why we are naturally called upon not to remain silent at a time when we see the entire planet sliding towards a form of totalitarianism with a medical-scientific slant, which no longer even bothers to hide itself.
What is the reality of the viral infection? How could measures so out of proportion to a very poorly defined threat have been adopted in unison, when it usually takes years of negotiations between countries to agree on a single clause of a treaty? Given that even in times of war the economy keeps turning, how could the decision have been taken to lock down a third of humanity, condemning us to a recession as inevitable as it is catastrophic? The only example that springs to mind is setting fire to one’s own house because of a mosquito in the living room.
We are living in extraordinary times. COVID-19 has brought the whole world to a standstill. Fear is the primary emotion that the media constantly stoke. Cognitive dissonance is rife. We are entitled to question the official narrative at a time when censorship of dissenting views is on the rise. In this regard, one need only look at how Professor Raoult has been treated by a united front of hatred and stupidity, which bears a striking resemblance to the treatment we have long been subjected to. He known as the Scientific Council «I refuse to debate with people whose level of knowledge is too low.» Above all, however, he criticises the close ties between the said Council and Inserm and the Pasteur Institute, which sit on its board, stating, «This group operates within a shared ecosystem with the local branches of the pharmaceutical industry.» « The Professor, though no stranger to the system, exclaims: »What is worrying is that the Scientific Council’s advisory team, which reports data on Remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine, is at best clumsy, or at worst, manipulated «. (…) »There is a very fundamental problem of conflicts of interest concerning medicine in this country; it seems difficult to be both the recipient of massive funding and to make reasonable judgements on therapeutic choices concerning drugs produced by a pharmaceutical company.’
He continues: «At the onset of an epidemic, as many people as possible must be tested immediately. This was not done, particularly because, for a certain period, the National Reference Centres (both of which are represented on the Scientific Council) considered that diagnostic tests posed a particular challenge (which is not the case) and that they alone were capable of carrying them out. » How did the 6th Didn’t the world’s largest economy have the resources to provide masks and tests quickly?
There is still so much more to say, and there is no shortage of questions:
Was a nationwide lockdown justified? Is lockdown the only option?
Did the modelling experts make accurate predictions, and if not, why not?
Why is a vaccine so strongly recommended as the only solution, whilst potential treatments – both pharmaceutical and natural – are dismissed? Why do public health authorities not talk about supporting the immune system, when they know that lockdown severely undermines our natural defences?
Which are the main organisations and individuals shaping the narrative and driving the government’s response to the Covid-19 crisis? What role does Bill Gates play in this story? He features in the pandemic simulation at Johns Hopkins University during « Event 201 », he tells anyone who will listen that we must impose ever stricter lockdowns, and that he will invest whatever it takes to develop a vaccine. And, still in a spirit of immense philanthropy, he also funds the newspaper Le Monde and its ‘Decoders’ section.
What are the risks to civil liberties and rights now that new COVID-19 laws are being passed without debate?
Quelles sont les implications des géants de la technologie et de l’IA – censurer la liberté d’expression sous le couvert de « fausses nouvelles » tout en travaillant avec les gouvernements pour mettre en place des systèmes de surveillance ?
What about the plan to introduce digital certificates for every citizen, which will be required for travel?
The situation is changing very rapidly, and these concerns are at the heart of what is happening in the wake of COVID-19, particularly the implementation of 5G mania. What sort of world do we want to live in, and what are we prepared to sacrifice for the illusion of security?
If we do not take proactive action, the decision will be made for us.
And what do you choose to do?
