I like to understand and eventually learn the meaning of words, especially those thrown in my face. Here's what Wikipedia, whose "neutrality" everyone knows, has to say.
A conspiracy theory, also known by the neologisms conspiracism or conspiracy theory, is a hypothesis that proposes to explain an event by the concerted and secret action of a group of people. According to Peter Knight, of the University of Manchester, it is a theoretical account 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 coordinate in secret to plan and undertake an illegal and harmful action affecting the course of events".
The definition here seems to me particularly absurd and even childish, since it aims to deny that groups of people can form to defend their interests and seek to exert political or societal action. And yet, since the dawn of history, it has always been particularly closed groups that have ruled every country. Examples abound, the first one that springs to mind is the Republic of Venice, where a sumptuous parliament of notables sat, while all decisions were taken behind closed doors in the basement of the parliament, by a dozen or so people. You can still visit it today. The contrast between the small room of the real government, squalid and one-eyed, and the splendor of the immense and magnificently decorated hall of the parliament speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of our rulers. Balzac wrote: "Hypocrisy is, in a nation, the last degree of vice. It is therefore an act of citizenship to oppose this tartufery under which one covers one's excesses", which is to say that nothing has really changed, and on the contrary, conspiracies have regularly affected the course of history, from Caesar to Robespierre to name but a few. What was the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire if not a plot, financed by the private bankers who propelled Bonaparte, who in turn created the private "Banque de France" (see Henri Guillemin's lecture on the subject).
Naturally, the powerful and the wealthy gather, marry each other, work together and support each other. When a single family brilliantly decides to control all the nations' currency production, then it's even worse, because it's just a small, blood-bonded group with almost absolute, but hidden, power. In this respect, I highly recommend reading "La Guerre des Monnaies".
America lost the war waged against it by this elite group of financiers, of which the presidents were well aware:
"I think banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than whole armies of active." Thomas Jefferson
"The bank is trying to kill me, but I'll kill it." Andrew Jackson.
"I have two great enemies: the Southern army positioned in front of me and high finance at my back. Of the two, the latter is the more dangerous..." Abraham Lincoln.
Everyone should have listened to President Eisenhower's farewell address warning the nation against nothing less than the conspiracy of the military-industrial complex, now called the Deep-State.
Who's talking about all this?
The most comical thing is that governments themselves are literally plotting against citizens, I quote John Maynard Keynes himself:
"Through constant processes of inflation, Governments can confiscate in a secret and unnoticed way a notable part of the wealth of their nationals. By this method, they don't just confiscate: they confiscate arbitrarily, and while the system impoverishes many, it actually enriches a few." -Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler and surer way of overturning the present basis of Society than by corrupting the circulation of money. The process arranges all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and that in a way that not one man in a million can foresee." Excerpt from "The Economic Consequences of Peace".
With the industrial age, organizations have become ever more enormous, monstrous, with power ever more multiplied. It's only now that we're starting to hear about the "Milner Group", which included Lord Grey, Lord Balfour, Rothschild and Cecil Rhodes, among others. Who's heard of them? Not many, yet it was this occult group that presided over the Boer War to confiscate Rhodesia's fabulous wealth (gold and diamonds) in order to finance its later plans, i.e. a world war against Germany, which had become a danger to the British Empire. The details of the operation are clearly documented in " The Secret Origins of the First World War ", by Gerry Docherty, a disciple of the great historian Carroll Quigley, whose indispensable " The Anglo American Establishment " is a must-read.
A possible successor to the Milner Group, which manipulated the entire world to produce the conflagration of 1914, the Bilderberg Group also raises questions because of its almost total opacity and because it brings together many people with immense resources and power (heads of state, ministers, bank bosses, CEOs of multinationals (Bill Gates and others), military personnel, international security specialists, academics, representatives of international organizations (e.g. IMF, 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 organizations interested in power, because the citizen, the people, cannot control them. What's more, we can legitimately assume that these leaders are playing double games by working for a secret group against the state and the people." The presence of Henry Kissinger, one of the group's pillars, should also be perplexing. 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, or for the campaigns of assassination and subversion of democracy in Chile, Cyprus, Greece and Bangladesh, or for his complicity in the genocide in East Timor.
The tobacco industry has done everything in its power to conceal the health effects of cigarettes, using "science" and other "studies". Similarly, the effects of asbestos were known as early as 1906, and Eternit was well aware of the deadly effects of its product. Once again, the industry took advantage of all the "experts" to sell its product for almost a hundred years!
As for the medical field in general, and homeopathy in particular, I'll just point out that the 2015 Australian study that went round the world and claimed to prove the inanity of homeopathy turned out to be a shabby manipulation before a Senate committee. While no denial was ever circulated, no one wants to know that the first version, which complied with scientific specifications, validated homeopathy.
But let's go back to the definition to better understand the meaning attributed to the term conspiracy:
From the point of view of social science observers, conspiracy theories tend to evade refutation; indeed, any demonstration designed to prove that no conspiracy is at work will be interpreted as a further attempt to deceive the conspiracist, who will continue to seek out what is going on in the shadows, and what he is not being told. Official or scientific explanations established by public authorities and relayed by the major news media will be structurally discredited.
In short, since all paranoiacs by definition present an interpretive conspiracy delusion, one that resists any attempt at alteration, then anyone who has the audacity to talk about conspiracies or, more broadly, the existence of organizations working in the shadows can only be paranoid.
And Wiki ends with an unspeakably naive truism that will make any serious historian laugh out loud:
Conspiracy theorists seek to pin responsibility on proven facts, often using a uni-causal narrative logic. In this respect, it differs from the historical approach, which is multi-causal.
This is circular reasoning, or pseudo-syllogism, designed to cover manifestly erroneous premises with a pseudo-medical endorsement:
- There's no such thing as conspiracy, history is multifactorial
- Paranoids imagine conspiracies
- So anyone who talks about conspiracies is paranoid.
Such an approach is typical of an already totalitarian society that seeks to abolish all reflection by attaching dishonorable or pseudo-scientific labels. The system has long since realized the credit that can be derived from the seal of a science that can be falsified at will, since it now belongs to major industrial groups. This explains the plethora of various "isms" and other "phobias" that disqualify deviant discourse at the stroke of a pen.
Since conspiracies, organized by more or less secret societies and other groupings of interests, have always existed, especially when they are colossal, the term "conspiracy" should simply be banned from the vocabulary, as using it becomes a mark of compliance with the dictatorship being established. On the other hand, the diagnosis of paranoia in the face of an interpretive patient should remain in the medical domain, and above all in the homeopathic one, for as Hahnemann wrote over two centuries ago, mental illness will always be a lamentable failure of allopathic medicine.
"In Times Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Is An Act of Resistance"
This quotation, falsely attributed to Orwell, sums up the situation in which we find ourselves, in spite of ourselves, because this war declared against homeopathy from the outset was not started by us, but by the pharmaceutical industry and thus finance.
From the time of Rockefeller and the confiscation of medicine by the oil trusts in the 1910s, homeopathy represented the ultimate danger threatening the prosperity of the system that was being set up with "philanthropy" and "scientific medicine" to distribute petrochemical drugs. Yes, homeopathy frightens them, because it frees us from the shackles of disease, allowing us to re-establish ourselves as thinking, non-submissive people. It leads us to criticize the very conceptual foundations of our society, fully appreciating the ravages of a materialistic, reductionist vision. The revolutionary potential of the medicine of the future touches absolutely every field:
- Medical, with the prospect of real cures, i.e. the restoration of health rather than the miserable accompaniment of disease. In the current epidemic of COVID-19, we have demonstrated the brilliant action of homeopathy at all stages of the disease, with two medicines, Ammonium carbonicum and Bryonia, but no-one wants to pass on this information,
- Economic, because drugs could be distributed free of charge by the state, which would enable prescribers to be properly remunerated, thus enhancing the role of the doctor as a master of the Art of Healing and no longer as a servant of the healthcare system,
- Social, because large-scale treatment of chronic diseases would considerably modify human behavior, which is becoming increasingly crazy as allopathic treatments affect the mental and emotional spheres,
- Cultural: by re-establishing harmonious human functioning, we can reconcile ourselves with nature and the thirst for curiosity and discovery that is the hallmark of every healthy human being,
- Philosophical, by allowing everyone to use their thoughts freely, and the need to reach the higher purpose of our existence by rediscovering the eternal values that are the guardians of Greek thought and Christian civilization.
For a long time now, the increasingly organized and coordinated attacks we have been suffering have been the work of a global organization that has everything it takes to be called a plot. I can do nothing more for those who haven't understood that it takes a global strategy to launch an appeal like that of the 124 jokers in Le Figaro, relayed absolutely everywhere in the press, on the radio and on television, and then opportunely served up by the Australian meta-analysis which we now know was grossly falsified. Clearly, homeopathy is scary, and this worldwide campaign can be seen as the kick-off in the series of events that led to the Covid-19 crisis. Everywhere in the media, and particularly on the Internet, we are inundated with the same messages of hatred and repetition of the same mantras. With these disproportionate means, democracy no longer differs much from herding sheep guided and manipulated by the most primal fears and emotions. We have no means of opposing the usual processes of mental manipulation, whose two-step recipe has been the same ever since Edward Bernays and his famous The factory of consent :
- Repeating the message until it's accepted as true is a form of "brainwashing" or "indoctrination". It's repeated over and over that no scientific study has ever validated the slightest effect of homeopathy, or that it's just water and sugar.
- Focusing attention on a synecdoche, i.e. a single detail that represents, or rather caricatures, the entire target. The Eiffel Tower sums up Paris, sex tourism Thailand, etc. In advertising, it's the "1 euro air conditioning" trick, for example. In homeopathy, dynamizations clash with the prejudices of a public fed on materialism. So, this aspect of homeopathic medicine is the only thing to remember. In the Cornavirus affair, all that's talked about is the dead, and so on.
To be a homeopath, therefore, is to fight for the Truth, to devote body and soul to it. More than ever, there's no room for complacency here, and what the situation demands of us is total commitment. In this respect, we are still reaping the poisoned rewards of Boiron's policy of homeopathic bobology, which is now ending in failure, the apotheosis of collaboration.
This is why we are naturally called upon not to remain silent at a time when we are witnessing the entire planet being tipped towards a medico-scientific totalitarianism that no longer even bothers to hide.
What is the reality of viral infection? How could measures out of all proportion to a very ill-defined danger have been taken in unison, when it usually takes years of negotiation between countries to agree on one line of a treaty? Knowing that even in times of war, the economy still runs, how could we have taken the decision to seal off a third of humanity, condemning us to a recession as inevitable as it is catastrophic? The only example that comes to mind is setting your house on fire because of a mosquito in the living room.
We live in extraordinary times. COVID19 has frozen the entire world. Fear is the primary emotion, constantly stirred up by the media. Cognitive dissonance is omnipresent. We are entitled to question the official narrative as censorship of dissenting opinions increases. In this respect, it's worth noting how Prof. Raoult has been treated by a common front of hatred and imbecility that bears a striking resemblance to the treatment we've been getting for a long time. He says of the Scientific Council , "I refuse to debate with people whose level of knowledge is too low". But above all, he attacks the Board's consanguinity with Inserm and the Institut Pasteur on the board, declaring "this group evolves in a common ecosystem with the local management of the pharmaceutical industry." The Professor, however used to the system, exclaims: "What's worrying is that the team advising the Scientific Advisory Board, which reports data on Remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine, are at best clumsy, or worse, 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 give a reasonable opinion on therapeutic choices concerning the drugs of an industrial company that produces them."
He continues: "In the early stages of an epidemic, you need to test as many people as possible right away. This was not done, in particular because for some time, the National Reference Centers (both present at the Scientific Council) considered that diagnostic tests were a particular difficulty, (which does not correspond tò reality), and that only they could do them." How could the world's 6th largest economy not have had the means to quickly supply masks and tests?
There's so much more to say, and there's no shortage of questions:
Was a global shutdown justified? Is containment the only option?
Did the modelling experts make correct predictions and, if not, why not?
Why is a vaccine so strongly recommended as the only solution, while potential treatments, both pharmaceutical and natural, are rejected? Why aren't public health services talking about supporting the immune system, knowing that confinement seriously damages our natural defenses?
What are the key organizations and individuals that influence the story and motivate the government's response to the Covid-19 crisis? Where does Bill Gates fit into the story? The character is present in the pandemic simulation at Johns Hopkins University during " Event 201 ", declaring to anyone who will listen that more and more must be contained, and that he will invest any amount of money to develop a vaccine. And, in his usual philanthropic spirit, he also funds the newspaper Le Monde and its decoders.
What are the risks to civil liberties and rights as the new COVID19 laws are passed without debate?
What are the implications of tech and AI giants - censoring free speech under the guise of "fake news" while working with governments to set up surveillance systems?
What about the intention to introduce digital certificates for every citizen and necessary for travel?
History is moving very fast, and these concerns are at the heart of what's happening after COVID19, and in particular the relentless implementation of 5G. What kind of world do we want to live in, and what are we prepared to sacrifice for the illusion of security?
If we don't actively mobilize, the decision will be made for us.
And what do you choose to do?
