• On Tuesday, November 24, the site will be down for c. 30 minutes sometime between 8pm and 10pm. That's about as precise a time as I can give. Our host is upgrading some of the software that underlies the site.

Conspiracies, What Are They ?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Messages
27,942
Reaction score
3,690
And Dr. Malthouse ... a physician who has been in family medical practice in BC for more than 40 years and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC since 1978 ... he might know more than you or I would be qualified to judge. Regardless ... he wrote a letter to a colleague ... and backed it up with references. I would be interested to read her response ... I won't be holding my breath.
He's also a homeopath.

...and patients on "rate your MD" say he misdiagnosed them.

He might be a decent small community family doctor overall, as a general practitioner. He is not more qualified to speak on epidemiology than Bonnie Henry. But, it is good that he's respectfully raising his concerns with her in an open letter - he's free to do that - and I hope she responds thoroughly.
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
He's also a homeopath.
Due to the influence of Dr Peter Fisher, (1950 – 2018) who was director of research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and served as homeopathic physician to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth ll for 17 years.

At 94, the Queen has enjoyed what many would consider as a favorable spell of good health.

That she has reached such an excellent age is largely due to her lifelong trust in homeopathy.

“The Royal Family have huge resources and access to everything medicine has to offer, yet they choose homeopathy,”
 

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,953
Reaction score
4,075
From this article ...

“There is nothing to prevent this government from prematurely declaring the pandemic to be over whenever it pleases, so this is a relatively meaningless promise,” said David Harrigan, labour relations director for the UNA.

“Stability in the midst of a pandemic won’t be achieved by short staffed hospitals and burnt out health care workers.”

Dr. Verna Yiu, president of AHS, said the pandemic is the single-greatest public health challenge the agency has ever faced.

“The pandemic is not over. It is far from over,” she said at a news conference Tuesday.

So maybe you need to explain why you posted this link. Do you support Kenney or Dr Yiu? What's your point?
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
So maybe you need to explain why you posted this link. Do you support Kenney or Dr Yiu? What's your point?
My point was that your government ... and yes it is your government because you give it legitimacy -- is not in the business of saving lives ... it is in the business of profiteering ... never let a good crisis go to waste.
 

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,953
Reaction score
4,075
My point was that your government ... and yes it is your government because you give it legitimacy -- is not in the business of saving lives ... it is in the business of profiteering ... never let a good crisis go to waste.

My government? How did I give it legitimacy?
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
My government? How did I give it legitimacy?
Political society—i.e., government—insofar as it is legitimate, represents a social contract among those who have “consented to make one Community or Government…wherein the Majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.” These two ideas—the consent of the governed and majority rule—became central to all subsequent theories of democracy.

“For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason, be received, as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make anything be the act of the whole: But such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had.” Thus no government is legitimate unless it enjoys the consent of the governed, and that consent cannot be rendered except through majority rule."

Voting is consent. I did not consent. Did you?
 

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,953
Reaction score
4,075
Voting is consent. I did not consent. Did you?

Are you suggesting I voted in the Alberta election? If so, I would suggest you look at the rules around voting. I do not qualify to vote in Alberta.

Stay in your paranoid crazy corner if you like. You spout all these catastrophic events in a very dramatic manner. I have yet to see any sort of realistic solution come from you. Is government perfect? Far from it. Sitting and pontificating on societies ills does nothing to change things. All it does it makes a person look crazy.
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
I do not qualify to vote in Alberta.
“All laws and taxes are enforced by the threat of a gun: If you refuse to pay a tax, men will come to your house. If you send them away, they’ll return with men with guns. If you tell those men to go away, they’ll kick in your door, put a gun to your head, and take you away to a cage.”
- Author Unknown

That is what you vote for regardless of which 'state' you vote in. You vote to exercise control over my freedom of choice and when I refuse to comply with your vote ... I am the crazy one.
I have yet to see any sort of realistic solution come from you. Is government perfect? Far from it. Sitting and pontificating on societies ills does nothing to change things. All it does it makes a person look crazy.
And your solution ... censorship?
 

Northwind

Still knitting. Walking the path to health.
Messages
10,953
Reaction score
4,075
And your solution ... censorship?

Where did you get that? Discussion and action are preferable. You've shown though that discussion is not possible with you. As I said above, spewing out reams of doomsday prophesies is not convincing many. All it does is make you look scared, paranoid and crazy.
 

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
17,949
Reaction score
7,968
That is what you vote for regardless of which 'state' you vote in. You vote to exercise control over my freedom of choice and when I refuse to comply with your vote ... I am the crazy one.

Problem is, rita, is that all of anthropology points to the FACT that there's a threshhold, probably about 150 persons, above which some sort of governance (doesn't have to be written, oral culture is fine) is necessary to prevent a descent into chaos.

So, if democracy is not your bag, what kind of governance system do you propose?
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
Changing social behaviour is not necessarily a bad thing.
Like maskfreeeducation-concepts-fa.png

 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
Parents For Mask Free Education is a conspiracy theory now?

So everything that the moderators disagree with is a conspiracy theory then?

I can't wait to see the response to this. I may need to use the ignore function today though.....

Go for it... I did.
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
So, if democracy is not your bag, what kind of governance system do you propose?
Voluntaryism. Fundamentals of Voluntaryism -

Wendy McElroy (one of the three original founders of The Voluntaryist) has written about the idea of boycotting here: http://www.wendymcelroy.com...

Conclusion

As political disillusionment spreads throughout the psyche, it would be prudent to remember that society -- not government -- is the true engine of social change. Losing trust in the political means does not entail the loss of an important strategy for freedom. Instead, it means eliminating an important barrier.

Unfortunately, another obstacle to freedom exists. Namely, the tendency of modern libertarianism to dismiss the voluntary strategies that were championed by its predecessors. The application of boycott in its many forms has been refined and sophisticated through centuries of use. Like any other strategy, boycott will not address every situation and it can fail. But the greatest strategic failure is to dismiss it out-of-hand.
 
Last edited:

BetteTheRed

Resident Heretic
Messages
17,949
Reaction score
7,968
I don't sort of understand that.

Takes a "governance" system to decide what to boycott. Otherwise, it's just people electing how to spend their money, and there's a gazillion permutations, so no harm to any particular company/industry.
 

Luce NDs

Well-Known Member
Messages
46,487
Reaction score
3,609
Imagine free wills and avarice in one domain ... prime for dissonance an Eris going up ... nebulæ on the horizon as a mire cloud ... matter against no matter given the space to project ET ... fossil tree? In the loger run immaterial ...

Cosmological dust?
 

Ritafee

Being Human
Messages
7,591
Reaction score
1,640
There is one major mistake in assumption that almost all people make who object to conspiracy—they assume that everyone or nearly everyone contributing to the conspirator’s agenda must know there is a conspiracy and be privy to the whole agenda.

This is not true, but conjuring up this assumption allows people to easily dismiss conspiracy with the understanding that too many knowing people would make it impossible to keep the secret.

Top level conspirators use masses of predictable yes-men, ambitious lackeys and partially knowing ladder-climbers to do their bidding—specifically so as to limit the number who have “need to know” access.

They cement together the whole conglomerate with subtle and not so subtle threats—and occasionally carry them out. Many are bought off with regular payments—like journalists and judges. Most know only parts of the puzzle.

However, almost everyone in high places does know there is “power structure” above them they dare not challenge, they also know it isn’t good for their job, advancement or health to “ask too many questions.”

Read any number of the tales by whistleblowers to confirm this general fear.

Thus, most participants rationalize it all away as some benevolent control system, or assume that “whoever they are” must control the world in order to have stability.

Others, especially in the enforcement ranks, are just too corrupt to care.

Lesser officials who are tasked to defend these lies tend to believe their own propaganda.

However, the ones at the very top, who do know how to use war to create Hegelian responses, are very, very evil—something most of the world doesn’t really 'believe' in anymore, and that is why many people can’t conceive of this horrible brand of conspiracy.

Not to discount the military-industrial complex argument, but it doesn’t explain why people that are already fabulously wealthy and who control the reigns of power are still pushing the world toward greater and greater global control.

None of this will give them any more personal power or wealth.

How much can any single person use?

Let there be no doubt—the top echelon expects to survive this—why else have they built significant bunkers (at taxpayer expense).

Somebody knows something wicked this way comes.

Many who do not 'believe' in conspiracy—at least on a broad scale try to explain things in terms of mistakes, blunders and attempts to cover for those blunders.

The basic problem I have with reliance on standard psychological and sociological models is that it breaks down with the more specific information about the detailed actions of those involved in the government’s undermining of national interests—in exchange for global interests.

An honest conspiracy debunker would have to read all the literature of all the defectors from 'black agencies'.

Virtually none of the defectors themselves sees the big picture either—but the evidence is clear that the whistleblowers all knew that the higher ups directly conspired to keep them silent.

Julian Assange.

Few witnesses immersed in the details of a whistleblower’s tragic battles with government have the talent to see the correlation and pattern of action that point to a coordinated plan of attack on global liberty.

It’s too easy to focus on the specific injustice.

Covering for blunders alone does not explain why high government officials keep making NOVEL MISTAKES in the same consistent direction and why there are more and more NOVEL EFFORTS to cover for NOVEL THREATS.

Why is it that we never see any official learn from the blunders of the past?

Why is it that the betrayals keep accelerating and getting broader?

The more diverse the agencies involved and the more people that are brought into the net of betrayal, the less possible it is that they are all acting only to cover for mistakes.

There has to be some other explanation that keeps generation after generation of government officials moving toward a single direction.

Cover-ups are the best evidence for conspiracy—simply because of the interconnectedness between disconnected officials and agencies that happens in a conspiracy.

While admitting that cover-ups exist, how can one at the same time claim that there is no plan behind them—that it is only normal sociological motives of rogue individuals.

I don't buy it—mainly because of the many, many years this has been going on, and the fact that it has always had a powerful continuum of hostility toward the interests of liberty.

If it were people covering for people, the process would clear itself from time to time or even reverse directions.

It would be more random.

But it isn’t random.

It shows all too much disturbing evidence of continual forward movement—purposeful movement, in my opinion.

The Great 'Global' Reset ...

In any case, the least you can do is prepare to survive the next war which is the war on human biological being as far as I can tell ... unless you prefer being a Borg of course.
 
Last edited:
Top