Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

Everything posted by Pindar

  1. It's common knowledge. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12754482/sir-patrick-shares-vaccine-gsk/ One here that says it's fine (Matt Hancock says so, so I'm sure there's nothing to worry about) https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/09/24/no-conflict-of-interest-in-vallance-holding-vaccine-company-shares-hancock/ https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/24/uks-chief-scientific-adviser-patrick-vallance-has-600000-of-shares-in-vaccine-maker-gsk-13321944/
  2. Whoa, "science deniers" - generalisation of the century. I think real science is fantastic and could lift humanity out of the quagmire but real science doesn't drive public health policy, money does. Follow the trail of money to see it's not about public health, it's about profit. You only have to look at one example of Sir Patrick Vallance (chief scientific advisor to the government) with his £600,000 shares in GSK, one of the companies developing one of the vaccines against CV19. If that's not a conflict of interest I don't know what is. Just because someone questions the safety of something, doesn't make them a science denier. But then logical fallacies seem to be your forte.
  3. Assuming they survive it. Whatever happens, the next decade is not looking pretty.
  4. Ah, they've thought of that. Supplies will be tight and available only to selected people. That way they'll have full control. Better keep your social credit score up.
  5. It's interesting you should say that. There is a biologist called David Sinclair who said in a video that the virus was a telomere shortening virus. Telomeres are what controls ageing. The longer they are, the better.
  6. I thought something similar. I think the "real" (yet to be deployed) virus is deadly and that the proposed vaccine(s) will offer protection. The vaccine sceptics will thereby be eliminated, leaving an obedient, trusting population. It's just a theory but if you think like "them" it makes total sense.
  7. I've long suspected this to be the case - I mean the normalisation of ideas by "capitalist" institutions and corporations - that would seem more at home in Soviet Russia. This behind the scenes alignment of thinking and attitudes along communitarian lines would seem to support the theory that it's all one big club at the top and that the long term goal of all the think tanks, NGOs and other "independent" institutions has been to steer the world in the direction of centralised socialism. The painless revolution that Aldous Huxley spoke of is eminently possible now that the other pillars of infrastructure are in place.
  8. And to me, the most chilling aspect of all this is the number of people oblivious to it. I had some history lessons at school which covered some of the horrors of communism but given the political leaning of the teachers, the worst was always glossed over.
  9. WEF is just the tip of the iceberg. Communism or communitarianism has been promoted indirectly for decades by NGOs and the UN. It's just that we don't recognise it as it's couched in fluffy sounding language about fairness, equality and saving the environment etc. There's nothing wrong about environmental conservation but when you look at the backgrounds of many of the people behind this stuff, it's always leading back to Marxists or leftists, often aristocratic in origin.
  10. Nobody in particular apart from most of the world's media.
  11. I think the UN is outdated, as much as those behind it like to claim it's the future.
  12. Trump does appear to have been a fly in the ointment of the more collectivist elements of the establishment. I find it interesting that the BBC has taken every opportunity to undermine Trump and particularly during the US election campaign despite the fact that the main consumers of the BBC won't be voting in it. This tells me that the BBC is simply repeating a script that's been written for them by someone else. Who/what that someone else is, remains to be seen but to me it's just another example of misappropriation of public funds to - rather futilely - try and influence a foreign election.
  13. Hollywood, weirdly enough, seems to give us, through fiction, the modus operandi of out of control lust for power and influence . If you've seen the 2005 film "V for Vendetta" it appears to be quite prophetic of the times in which we find ourselves.
  14. If you ask this question you'll immediately be accused of tinfoil hattery because the majority of people have been so thoroughly trained to attack anybody who points the finger at the leaders of this insane cult we call society. Despite that, the biggest beneficiaries of a potential inoculation are all hiding in plain sight and yet few make the connection. I don't think one needs to be snart to see this, I think one simply needs to question the motives of those in key positions both in government and in institutions that influence government. Just like it was commonplace to do in the days when real journalism existed.
  15. I would urge anybody who might be tempted to drink the Marxist/Socialist koolaid to watch this excellent documentary
  16. Well Winston, it just goes to show that the conditioning is deep and thorough. The system really does get us early. It's baked in to us from around the age of 5 (sometimes earlier).
  17. I'm of the opinion that people are actually scared by what's happening and fear shuts down critical thinking.
  18. TBH I wouldn't be surprised. The JFK assassination generated a lot of questions which became inconvenient for the ruling elites and would cast them in a bad light for the apparent lack of a proper investigation.
  19. What I'm saying is that the term conspiracy theory is a conditioned response to material that falls outside the official narrative. It has come to include perfectly credible sources of information, whether by accident or design and serves to effectively shut down debate or conversation about things that people ought to take an interest in because it will ultimately affect their lives and material wellbeing.
  20. I think you could have just said that the EROEI is/was making the extraction of oil increasingly unprofitable and omitted the flippant comment at the end.
  21. But nevertheless, if a subject or topic sounds like something that the majority of people have been trained - almost as a conditioned reflex - to dismiss as conspiracy, then that's what they'll do. The mind-benders in the government and media just haven't come up with a suitable replacement for the term.
  22. I don't think that article proves anything. It merely states that the amount of interest in peak oil declined and that the mainsteam view on the matter "won". In the clash, peak oil turned out to be the loser, not because it was “wrong” but mainly because it was a minority opinion. The future will bring new data and, with them, the concept of peak oil might regain popularity for a second time, just as it did for the first time with the 1998 work of Campbell and Lahérrere. As pointed out by Gandhi, widespread belief in something doesn't make it true. Peak oil isn't a theory, it's a fact. It's a matter of when, not if. The same people who said Texas would never run out of oil were left looking a bit silly when it finally did peak and there were thousands of spent oil wells littering the landscape. Given that the global industrial machine depends so heavily on a finite resource, I can guarantee that there are a lot of people who are a lot smarter than you or I working on this problem. It's just possible, nay likely, that they would try and force the world into a less consumptive pattern in order to buy more time.
  23. Exactly. It's the technocratic wet dream where the decision making is in their hands, with "science" (providing it supports their agenda) deciding our collective fate. That's not something any of us consented to, let alone voted for.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.