THE CANCER DECEIT

Anything on the news and elsewhere in the media with evidence of digital manipulation, bogus story-lines and propaganda
Post Reply
sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by sharpstuff » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:05 am

THE CANCER DECEIT

In pursuing this particular subject, I am indebted to Seneca (who recognised Dr. Hamer’s German New Medicine in a very earlier post of mine) and especially Patrik whose input into the subjects about which I have studied for many years regarding my passionate efforts to examine health care and despite my age and why I remain apparently healthy, I am grateful.

INTRODUCTION

Of all so-called ‘diseases’ (‘viral’ or otherwise) the very word ‘CANCER’ is paramount. It represents an apparent ‘ultimate disease’ to be feared by the whole of what is called ‘humanity’ upon the ‘planet’ we call ‘Earth’.
It appears from the notion of ‘diseases’ that the term ‘cancer’ as a ‘disease’ is the worst that can befall Humankind (at least). Firstly, the word ‘disease’ in toto is derived from ‘dis’, meaning bad and ‘ease’ meaning something compatible with what we might call, a ‘life’ devoid of too much strife within which we may or may not cope in some way or other without being in some form of distress.
Many other so-called ‘dis-eases’, apparently may pale into some sort of insignificance. In short, ‘disease’ as a complete word should not exist. We may have a ‘bad’ ‘ease’ (we do not feel as good as we may like). ‘Cancer’ is apparently the dis-ease par excellence.

Cancer is usually ‘diagnosed’ as the presence of a particular agglomeration of ‘cells’ which clump together and become what is called a ‘tumour’, (that is, a swelling of a particular part of the body which, left untouched, apparently replicates itself somehow and ‘invades’ the body thus producing other tumours etc.). This ‘invasion’ (another of the ‘war’ terminology coined for such) is called (by the alleged ‘medical profession’) as ‘metastasis’ which means it can ‘travel’ to other parts of the body and in the end to KILL you unless ‘treated’ by means prescribed by the lack of knowledge of those propounding the generally accepted theory or theories of ‘dis-ease’.

There is abundant literature on all sides of the notion of ‘dis-eases’ as portrayed and their ‘causes’. However, the very word ‘causes’ begs explanation. ‘Causes’ merely are the notions of inexplicable behaviours (or processes) of Nature supposedly anathema to continued existence. These are, in real terms, unanswerable.

Anyone following this introduction must take in consideration that the basis of exploration of any one subject, invariably links to others. Thus we must/may be able to establish a pattern of events that make some sense to those exploring (locating a particular piece in a jig-saw puzzle, for example to complete a pictogram).
An explorer, does just that but does not necessarily make conclusions but observations, findings that may be interpreted as ‘fact’ by some without the ability to explore further than their means of such immediate exploration or the means by which they were explored.

Thus the following is intended to explore the notion of ‘cancer’ (in particular only) and the means by which it has been studied by others not attached to any ‘main-stream’ views (the dissenters of investigation) and which are not accepted by the ‘main-stream’ (for whatever their motivations) or by the orthodoxy which imperils their livelihood.

With permission, I offer this written conversation with Patrik, a well-respected member of this forum regarding the notion of ‘cancers’ (and other health important issues) but only if pursuance of the links are undertaken for others to generate their own views on the subject matter.
It is not up to me to try to explain G.M.N. (German New Medicine) since its significance has already been established by Dr. Hamer and as one might say, ‘You can lead a person to a book but one cannot make them read it.’

A word of warning regarding the posted videos by Caronline Makolin on YouTube, a self-professed ‘expert’ on G.N.M. She is the basis of controversy as attested by Ilsedora Laker. You may read her views and an explanation of G.N.M. at:

http://www.newmedicine.ca/statement.php

I have uploaded a number of books to my MEGA account which you are free to download (36Mb). The folder contains a number of books on Various health matters, including Dr. Hamer’s book, including, if I might be so bold, including two of my own books on health I wrote some years ago, for those interested.
A text file giving some idea of the contents of each book is also included.

Here is a preview:

Brief notes on the books listed here which are as .pdf files in my possession and yes, I have read every one of them!

Bacteria Inc.
By Cash Asher

'In which is Told the Story of New York's
Half Million Dollar Bedbug'

Dr. Hamer
By Caroline Markolin
Included for reference


Exposing the Myth of the Germ Theory
By Arthur M. Baker

Florence Nightingale's Book:
Notes on Nursing
My view: A must read for many reasons (158 pages)


Flouride Risk
U.K. Councils Against Fluouridation
(of water supplies)


Horrors of Vaccination Exposed
(From Google Library)
By Chas. M. Higgins
'A Petition to the President to abolish compulsory
vaccination in army and navy.'


Into the Labyrynth
By Jack Doubleday
'Discovering the Truth about Vaccination'

Madrid-Hamer
The Five Biological Laws the New Medicine
Presented by Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer
May 14//15, 2005 Madrid, Spain

Rational Bacteria
Rational Bacteriology
J.R. Verner, C.W. Welant, R.J. Watkins
(Speaks for itself)

The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur
By R.B. Pearson
Probably the most valuable resource and a must read in my view

Thompson-VD
By James C. Thomson
The Question of V.D.

Tilden
Toxemia Explained
By J.H. Tilden, M.D.
'How to cure is an obvious sequence'
also: 'An antidote to fear, frenzy and the popular mad chasing after so-called cures.'

Tooth-ache
Man Versus Toothache
By Dr. George W. Heard
Also called: 'The Town Without a Toothbrush'

Virus Hoax
The Monstrous Virus Hoax
By T.C. Fry

Virus Mania
By Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Kohnlein
'How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics
Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense.’

*****************************************
My Own Books

Easy Health
By Peter K. Sharpen
Basic health issues

Sharpen’s ‘Alternative’ Encyclpaedic Medical Dictionary
By Peter K. Sharpen
(Speaks for itself)

MEGA link:

https://mega.nz/folder/rgxkFT6Z#dHSkouykuG-5STlsFOdHoQ


********************************************************

In the meantime: The following is a transcript of Patrik’s letter to myself and I have his permission to use it.


Patrik: I have now as many men and women of present and past interested in medicine, finally arrived at the conclusion that different chronical diseases does not exist.

Sharpstuff: My thoughts entirely.

Patrik: What we call disease are various symptoms of healing from mental and/or physical trauma plus toxification, de-toxification and malnutrition. The drugs and therapies used today can sometimes suspend or divert these symptoms into different ones and that is interpreted as being cured. In essence however, it is all Pharmakeia.

Sharpstuff interjection: Pharmakeia : the use of medicine, drugs or spells.

https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/index.ph ... -deception

This matches all that I have been saying in perhaps different guises.

Patrik: As for cancer (but also heart disease and dementia), I think it is mainly severe symptoms of toxification, de-toxification and malnutrition. But the million dollar question and where many seems to disagree with me is what causes this. What I did when I put up an hypothesis that I find reasonable and that I haven't been able to disprove so far, is that I assumed people have had these diseases (cancer, heart disease and dementia) historically and that the modern "disease engineers" have looked at past science when looking for a way to engineer them though diet-health recommendations and medicine.

Sharpstuff: How many times has the ‘food pyramid’ changed from one time to another!

Patrik: If we go back to the 19th century and look at medicine, leprosy and syphilis was quite common. When people hear the word leprosy today they think of a beggar with disfigured limbs, but that is in fact a late stage of the disease. As Hansen, the definitive authority on this disease in the 19th century, states in his books and papers leprosy had a slow onset and the symptoms he describes can easily be compared to those related to cancer, heart-disease and dementia, but also other diseases like glaucoma.

Hansen had the new fad of those days - a microscope, and was really into the latest science from Pasteur in France - Germ theory. So naturally in his microscope he saw something he identified as a new bacteria - bacterium leprae. And for this he of course received great accolades from Pasteur and his fellow fraudsters. Their scam was gaining momentum. And as you may know Peter, onto this day this is the official cause of this disease. I do not suspect Hansen was in on it. He was most likely the "useful idiot" that is needed when you tell a big lie and repeat it until it becomes the truth. Hansen repeatedly states that he was never able to infect anyone with bacterium leprae and cause leprosy, but he nonetheless considered it to be the cause of the disease and gained a lot of support for that, despite that no one onto this day has been able to prove that.

But there was another doctor with a very different theory on the cause of leprosy that few had heard of and that has not received much attention neither when he was active at the same time as Hansen or afterwards - Sir Jonathan Hutchinson.

This is what Wicked Pedia has to say about it:

"After his retirement from active consultative work, he continued to take great interest in the question of leprosy. In one of his few scientific errors, he was firmly convinced that a link existed between getting leprosy and eating salted or rotted fish, even after the pathogenic agent, Mycobacterium leprae, was discovered in 1873."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Hutchinson


Now there's where it "clicked" for me. What type of food substance has been heavily promoted since the end of the war Peter? Margarine. And what is margarine made of? Chemically oxidized unsaturated fat.

Sharpstuff: So far as I understood it, it was Napoleon 3rd who required a nutritional, easily made and nutritious food for his armies in place of food not readily available. It was an unappetising grey compound but apparently did the trick. The following link may give some guidance:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... margarine/


Patrik: Fish also contains unsaturated fat and like all unsaturated fats it oxidases (become rancid) quite easily. And if we look at the work Sir Hutchinson did on this:

https://archive.org/details/onleprosyandfis00hutcgoog


I think we find a theory with far more substance than Hansen’s. Now to be clear it is not olive oil that's the problem, but the seed oils that are chemically made stable (artificially oxidized) so that they can be spread on a piece of bread or used in food products. And coincidentally heart-disease became a big problem at the same time as the first margarine Crisco became a success in the 50’s, but this was blamed on smoking. And I believe after that margarine was re-engineered to be a bit slower acting poison than what it was at the time, so that the public wouldn't catch on.

But Sir Hutchinson does not say that salted or badly conserved fish was the only contributing factor to leprosy. I should also mention here that his "rival" Hansen lived in Norway where leprosy was prevalent in the 19th century and that had a big fishing industry and since the refrigerator was not invented the fish was either salted, dried or fermented. He also points at bad food in general with to little animal protein and fats.

Anyway, the engineering of cancer and all the other diseases, I think, and I believe and you do too Peter, is done "scientifically". And the oxidized vegetable oils that is put in practically all foods today, they even deep fry in it although they didn't used to, plays a big part.

https://youtu.be/Q2UnOryQiIY?t=1843


Additives, conservatives, fluoride in toothpaste/water, hygiene products plays a big part as well. AND, this where I get the most dislikes because of the current brainwashing, vegetarianism/veganism plays a big part too. To avoid animal fat/protein is decremental to health, especially in the long run.

Sharpstuff:I totally agree, (for myself) except ‘any’ run, not only the ‘long run’.

Patrik: So why this rant? You brought up German New medicine :-), which I think is right in many ways but in my view focuses a bit much on trauma and psychology. I DO think that plays a big part as well, but could perhaps be seen more as a triggering factor. When we loose the will to go on for some reason and also don't get proper nourishment, the body simply stops trying and falls over. But have a lot of I would say pretty mentally happy people that despite this has severe health issues (whether they recognize it or not).

And then we of course have the Pharmakeia. The above has the purpose of bringing the person under Pharmakeia. And regarding cancer a person in a white robe will tell you that you will die if you don't poison, radiate yourself or cut away essential parts of the body's detox system - the lymph glands. And few sadly dares to defy such a sentence from a medical authority.

Sharpstuff: One might ask what is an ‘authority’ of any description and how do they come by that appellation, consent of the willing to go along with it?

Be well,
Sharpstuff

patrix
Member
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by patrix » Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:49 pm

Dear Sharpstuff,

Very good post and even though many of us understand that modern medicine indeed is Pharmakeia https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/index.ph ... -deception, I think it is important to ponder and discuss HOW this deception works. It's like 9/11. To understand that the official story is bogus is one part, but to figure out as Simon has done HOW the deception was carried out is the most important part. And to quote Dr Tilden - Knowledge is power and the knowledge of medicine is the ultimate power.

Interesting thing about Napoleons Margarine, I had not heard about that but it seemed like a pretty healthy product actually since beef tallow was used. The indians made something similar that's called Pemmican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican. The problems for human health regarding fat is processed vegetable and seed oils and lack of healthy fat. This I believe is why fat people that try to keep their weight using calorie restriction almost never lose weight. Foods with healthy fat contains more calories than industrial low fat foods. The body senses that we aren't getting enough (healthy) fat and signals hunger even though we've had the amount of calories we need. The ingredients in "power bars", Snickers, sugar drinks and all the other crap is also engineered to cause hunger.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu Jan 28, 2021 9:43 am

Patrix wrote:

Very good post and even though many of us understand that modern medicine indeed is Pharmakeia…

https://www.pathwaytopeace.net/index.ph ... -deception,

I think it is important to ponder and discuss HOW this deception works.

*****************************************
Sharpstuff: My personal view.

I think this is a very important (but difficult) question and I make no apologies for the length of the following but I believe it does flow into any number of Clues topics:

Deception is the means by which others mean harm or control (whatever that might be considered to be for that particular person or persons) for their own nefarious reasons. To an ‘ordinary’ human, who wishes just to go about their business, deception is based on the premises set out in the following.

Modern ‘medicine’ (for example) is based upon a failure to understand (or want to understand) that it is relies upon claims that Nature (whatever that is) has produced ‘pathogens’ (‘bad’ products) which undermine our health.

There is no doubt that injuries to our personal terrain occur, whether by accident (e.g. damage caused by an unexpected fall, for example) or by any deliberate attempt to alter it in any way that does not occur in Nature (some-one who might stab you with a device) for whatever their reason.

One of the problems of present society is the notion of ‘instant gratification’. We seem to be wading deep into the mire of this notion. It is the price (often literally) one pays for the apparently simple ‘meals’ they sell us to placate the laziness of the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Silly) principle. It is easier to create the notion of ‘germs’ than to produce one with the full knowledge that very few can verify this in reality or even want to. Reality, of course, is the cry of ‘Oh!’ when some-one kicks you.

So HOW DOES deception work?

Like the engineering of anything outside of making useful objects, it does lie in the laps of those who deem to control (‘Might is right’). It comes down to the amount of ‘power’ these people, who deem to control either by force of arms or the ability to manipulate by the spoken word or in writings or graphic art.

It is, of course, a truism that different languages create different meanings as (especially nouns or names of things) may mean different things to different people, even within a similar group.

This is a basis for what is known as ‘British’ humour, for example, or as they say in French double entendre or double meaning. This fact can be (and probably is) manipulated in many ways.

This manipulation can be seen in the deciphering of ancient clay tablets etc., hieroglyphic writings or any other writing which require translation.

Having created the translations (which make sense perhaps to the translator), the words become objects and take on a life of their own depending upon the veracity of the translator. Thus they may be misinterpreted, leading to false claims or aimed at deliberately creating a required purpose.

Could we perhaps ponder the following?

Identity within a group?

There are some people who thrive within a group and there are others who wish to remain outside a group.

*******************************************************

The Individual and Groups

Introduction

The following essay was written as part of my teacher-training (as a mature student) in 1974 and part of the Psychology element of the course.

Peter K. Sharpen (2021)


THE INDIVIDUAL

An individual is a person who has certain basic traits, all relating to each other and based on:
Genetic factors
[Edit 2021: traits that are somehow carried on through the reproductive process]
Environmental factors
Education and
Health..
This makes up his personality. Regarding the Genetic factors, we can have no control over these (in the sociological sense). Environmental and educational factors are determined by the society in which the individual lives, whatever that may be. Health is intrinsic (according to medical norms of health) and its continuance is also determined by social structure.

An individual has certain needs, attitudes and desires which will or will not be fulfilled. He is creative (in both a positive and negative sense in that is, he sometimes destroys to create). An individual is rational and prefers order to chaos, both consciously and subconsciously (in much the same way that dreams, which are random bits of information or stimuli, are produced into dreams end are therefore not always open to analysis (Sharpen 1968). An individual is motivated by his needs, attitudes and desires to do something which will be rational at the time. Hindsight may alter this, but it stresses the relativity of the act.

It is essential to note that the importance is not in the positive method of rationalisation, but in both the positive and the negative. It is usual to talk in positive terms in normal discourse, but this does not, of course, preclude the use of the negative. Each positive has a corresponding negative
And therefore the use of the word rational, for instance, is not necessarily the positive one, a person can act in a negative rational way and the argument is still valid.
Although parts of the preceding discourse may seem idealistic, it must be appreciated that this is structure not containing the sociological overtones of norms and values.
In society as a whole, the individual functions within a group (however this is defined--(see later).
An individual can also maintain his individuality within a group and providing there is communication, a group may be necessary for the person to maintain his individuality. He can use the terms of reference of the group to maintain this.

The need for communication to be the centre, of group-making may be seen in the example of a deaf child, who will not find it easy to become a member of a group of normally-speaking individuals. Yet he might communicate to that group by his painting (through non-verbal communication). He will, of course, in one sense at least fit into another group of deaf children because a special means of communication will develop. A normally speaking individual would, on the other hand, would find difficulty in a reverse way.

WHAT IS A GROUP?

A: group is a multiplicity of individuals from a dyad (two persons) to a hierarchical structure as constitutes a society, held together by Main elements common to all groups. In a small group, individuality is high, whilst correspondingly, the larger the group the less the individuality. The importance in the large group is the importance of sub-groups, as we shall see later.
TYPES OF GROUP

The word group is an abstract term and-can be defined in as broad terms as necessary, for any purpose. Basically there are two types of group. The first is a classification of types. That is, Boy Scouts, Laundramat customers, skin-divers (in a general sense). However, a, Boy Scout living in Penzance is not aware of a Boy Scout living in Edinburgh, although they are classified in the group Boy Scouts.
The second type of group and the one that will concern us here, is the Functional Group. Such groups as families, or churchgoers or work groups. The individuals within it are aware of their group membership (Lindgren;An Introduction to Social Psychology 1973).


THE BEGINNINGS OF A GROUP

Groups start mainly by accident, but they can be formed by common consent (the idea of starting a Camera club) or by external means (when you start a new job and you are introduced to your workmates).
In the first instance, to cite Lindgren's example the college student in the refectory, with his coffee has a choice of seats but sits down at a table previously occupied by another (there is the basic need for companionship initially).
However, unless the two communicate, we could not in the functionalist sense, call them a group (in the non-functionalist sense they would constitute a group of College Students).
The other student may be reading a paper, which on the back page, the story of a College teacher to be dismissed for some reason, the intruder makes a comment about this and receives no favourable reply, then a group will not be formed. If an unfavourable reply is the communication between these two has broken a group would not be seen to take place, it is followed up by a discussion. This group is very common and is terminated as it is begun. (There also seems to be some ethnic principle involved in group formation).
When a third person joins the group he will normally wait some time to gather what the conversation is about before speaking and will be the subordinate member of the group. Unless he has a particular contribution to make, he will always remain thus. If he becomes accepted by the group a fourth person joining will be the subordinate member and so on.
Thus, if a group becomes a sextet, even in a short while, some structure will appear in the group. Each member will be accepted on his merit and contribution to the whole and leads to initiation. Initiation is defined as the means by which a new member joins a group and may have to undergo certain rites. For example, in secret societies and even college groups and so forth.

PERSISTENCE OF THE GROUP

The main factors, to be discussed separately, leading to the persistence of the group are: cohesion, communication, the influence of the group on members perceptions, group morale and leadership.

COHESION

Cohesion is seen by Lindgren as the extent to which a group is found attractive by its members. Groups that have a high cohesive factor have as members those who attain most satisfaction (correspondingly a breakdown would occur when one or more members did not find continued satisfaction in the group). For example, if a teacher were taking a. group of individuals for violin lessons and the students got tired of continually playing scales, they would have lost the attraction of the group and their satisfaction factor would be low, therefore the group would break down.

The type of group such as the family (the Primary Group of C.H. Cooley) would have a high-degree of cohesiveness (but only providing the members continued to find it attractive). The types of group with a low degree of cohesiveness are groups such as a combat group (Lindgren's example). The combat group is farmed by an external authority and therefore, unless a common ground (bond) is found by the individuals in that group, it will have a low cohesive factor. Other groups, such as the deep-sea fishermen, studied by Tunstall, would also fall into this category, since to some extent they are formed by an external authority, but the nature of the work is dangerous and therefore usually a bond is set up providing the later basis for cohesiveness.

In other words, a group formed by external sources (for example, the combat group or a work party) would have a lesser cohesive quality that the Primary Group such as the family, but common ground (for example, chance might determine that they are all camera fanatics), might later produce a cohesive quality. However, even this cohesive quality would not be permanent, since when the job is finished (for example the exercise is finished and the group split up, or the fishermen come home (to be signed on another ship probably not with the same fellows)) the bond is broken. However, supposing a work party were; formed of six men. These men might have been picked from twenty individuals. An external agency (the foreman) has created a group, which, we shall say, has a specific job to do. When this job is finished, the men will split up again. If the job is dangerous, the men will have to work together so that each is responsible to the other. The factor which will produce the cohesiveness will be danger. However, these six men may have another common ground which will come about perhaps during the lunch-breaks. They may have an interest in photography. After work, they may decide to start a camera club. So one bond can lead to another and even if the group eventually split up when their specific task is finished, the common bond of their club, also with its specific goal, will continue.

What else is important, especially in this example is that these men, having completed this one task, will be chosen again, if such a task is to be repeated. The fact that a cohesive bond of some description (i.e. it is found that the men work well together) is formed, especially in such a group is an important factor in management of such groups.
Lindgren also points out that the more groups to which one belongs, the less cohesive are likely to be the bonds. Presumably, there is some sort of 'group conflict' where contributions to several groups may be mutually opposing. That is to say, a conflict may arise between the responsibility to the primary group (e.g. family) and responsibility to the group where one works.

COMMUNICATION

It is a major group requirement that some sort of communication be set up. For without communication no group can form. There would be no cohesive bond. The longevity of the group would depend on the extent to which communication is maintained. Two college students may discuss a teacher's dismissal from the college, but when this common ground is exhausted, the group may cease to function unless another conversation is entered into. The formation of a specific group, for example, a camera club, would be a long-term idea and unless members left for one reason or another and were not replaced. the group would continue.

PERCEPTIONS

The influence of the group on other member's perceptions involves the maintenance and creation of norms within the group. When a group has been formed certain rights, values, and norms of behaviour become evident. A member is chastised when he 'steps out of line'. This may be seen in union groups. It can also be seen as the reason for group disintegration and the creation of sub-groups depending on the original size of the group.

For example if two more students join our original dyad, we might find that the four split into two factions, two for and two against. In a broad sociological sense, deviants present a problem, although unless the group is very large, they are tolerated within democratic government. In Russia, for example, deviants are not tolerated and are treated harshly.
The institution of rules and accepted behaviour, therefore affects the perceptions of other members' because a certain conformity must be observed. Lodges in Masonry are an example of this.

MORALE

A feeling of confidence and optimism is important in a group and constitutes the morale of the group. The group must feel attractive to its members and a common goal must be seen or felt to be occurring. This adds to the cohesiveness of the group. The members must therefore feel commitment and responsibility towards the group and themselves as individuals within it'. If there is mutual satisfaction within the group then it is possible for the group to endure. The morale thus produced, will be maintained as long as the individuals feel their part in it.

SOCIAL CLIMATE

A certain Social Climate is set up when a group is functioning positively. This is determined by congeniality. Ralph V. Exliner (1957) studied this aspect by placing two groups: (previously given personality tests) in a situation where they were to discuss a counsilee's case. One group was told that they belonged to a high congeniality group and the other group were told that they rated low on congeniality. After the discussion of the counsilee, the members of the groups were asked how they rated their fellows' behaviour in relation to the task. Those who came from the high congeniality group saw others from the same group as concerned with the counsilee's case, whilst those form the low congeniality group saw their fellow's behaviour as more concerned with personal relationships within the group. The evidence shows that in a less congenial group, the task is made less interesting.

LEADERSHIP

"There are no born leaders, only born followers" (Sharpen, 1968). This statement always seems true to me and I have yet to determine its falsity.

We try and create leaders in society by careful selection or by the natural selection from blood-lines (traditional authority). This mainly concerns leaders in the broad sociological sense, and does not really concern us at this stage. Leaders are created in the sense that in a dyadic group, it appears that one of the two will take the lead in a conversation. This may be a very subtle type of leadership and determined only by the fact that for example, one knows more about the story than the other. The leadership in this sense may fluctuate between one and the other.

A leader may be chosen in a specific manner. For example, a group of camera fanatics may enlist the aid of the local chemist, who not only has a knowledge of chemistry and photography, but has access to materials and equipment. He will be elected to lead them. This would not make him a good leader, but these are factors which do not concern us at the present.
A leader in other groups is 'chosen' by unconscious and mutual agreement. Such a person may have a natural ability to voice the opinion of others. His charisma (personality) may be such that he commands authority. This concept is very import and, and almost impossible to define.

"Everyone loves a winner" is almost a cliche. The winner is the leader, the best. Followers will therefore want to wear the same type of shirt he is wearing, use the same deodorant. Advertisers use this aspect to sell goods. Leaders in this field become fashionable and in a capitalist society exploited for every penny they can earn producers.

In-society, broadly, the word leader has a singular definition and is based on traditional authority, they are not really chosen by common consent (the basis of democracy) since there are few alternatives. Again, in broad terms, leaders are therefore chosen by small groups within society because they are attractive to the members of the group. For example, a football hero, a painter, even, perhaps, a local politician.

Having chosen a leader by whatever method is used, leaders can be trained to act in certain ways to gain an idea into their effect on a group. Ralph K. White trained three boys (in a youth group), in the ways of leading by three different methods, autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. He found that the first. group had high work-orientated behaviour but a low degree of personal involvement. The second, democratic group, had higher degrees of personal involvement but their work-orientation, was lower. When the leader left the room, they continued to work on their own. The third group produced little work, were badly orientated and played about, especially when the leader left the room. This happened with the autocratic group as well.

The laissez-faire leadership produced low morale and output and irresponsibility was high.The choice of a leader, therefore, especially for an authority, must be determined by many factors, the least of which that the leader reacts with his sub-ordinates.The maintenance of the group is determined by the type of leader providing these formalities have been observed.

RôLES

The rôles of the individual members within the group is-important if the group is to endure. This is not so important in 'informal' groups (such as the two students at coffee-break) but is much more important in 'formal' groups, such as the family and groups within work etc. Each member has a rôle to play and he must be attracted to the rôle he is playing. Generally, especially as the group gets larger, a type of hierarchy will develop. As mentioned before, there will be super-ordinate and sub-ordinate relationships. In real terms, a sort of meritocracy should develop and in the most successful groups, this will be the most cohesive factor. A greater or lesser meritocracy will produce the more successful or least successful groups. It may be a little idealistic but nevertheless it remains true.

THE FUTURE OF LARGE GROUPS OR GROUPS in extendum

When a group becomes very large (the predicament of society as a whole) certain factors will produce a lack of cohesiveness. If the individual does not feel that his interests are being served by the group, and he can find others of the same thought, then a break-away group or sub-group may be formed. If this group becomes large enough to affect the larger group it will then become a pressure group. The whole situation in regard to society is one of flexibility. Groups must be flexible to withstand the strain that is part of any group.
We have seen that groups have a structure based on the personality of its individual members. This structure takes some form of hierarchy. A small group is easier to maintain, but depends on the initial reasons for its formation. In other words, a dyad of college students might break-up as the lesson bell is tolled; whereas an octad camera club would still be easy to maintain, but yet again, would last only as long as the other factors of group formation (cohesion, common goal, attractiveness to members etc.) are met.
We have also seen that the larger the group, the less individuality can be expressed and the more difficult to maintain. In a very large group, the rules become more authoritarian and more in number, to cover the contingencies that arise with large groups (especially in work-groups). The rules then satisfy the average member determined by his contribution, or lack of it; the overall morale of the group; and the aims of the group etc). However, the average member is of any, individual member, since the average is brought about by all individuals conforming to certain criteria. No average member, therefore is individual in the context of the group.
In a completely democratic society, where each individual is supposed to have his say, it is not possible for him to voice his own opinion, since the individual is functionally an average member and being a function of the group any dissention from the norm would not be acceptable.

Democracy is the feeling that one is free to choose, without actually having that freedom. The dictates of the whole are too strong and there can never be a democracy with a minority ruling group.

The future of large groups, therefore must be determined by the action and reaction of the smaller groups within it. An appreciation that smaller groups (functional groups) make up the whole of society (by extrapolation a non-functional group) and constitute, society, is more important than considering society-as-a-whole, affecting smaller groups.

Groups must be viable within society and must remain the structure of society, otherwise the danger of society becoming the omniscient god to which all bow by dint of totalitarianism, will destroy the image of man. In other words, society should be looked upon with a small 's' not the capital 'S' of a personification (Orwell's '1984' concept of the Big Brother). Careful use of terminology is, therefore, of the utmost importance in determining the nature of society.

The nature of society is the nature of the interaction of small groups. The nature of small groups is the interaction of individuals.
As groups become larger, as we said before, an organizational structure appears. It was this, about which Max Weber wrote when he put forward his theory of bureaucracy. As a theory set down on paper, it seemed valid, but his concept that a bureaucratic organization would be more efficient and the workers happiest in such a structure has tended to become invalid in practice and larger bureaucratic organizations have become less efficient and certainly workers do not always see the goal to which the organization aspires. In Ford Motor Company, for example, a man may be engaged in simply putting into a car, a component about which he knows not the origin or its purpose.

Weber, it would appear, did not take into consideration the human element, nor the interaction of groups.
Some aspects of groups in relation to work are, discussed in ‘The Hawthorne Study’ at Western Electric in Chicago, Working At Fords and others.
Peter K. Sharpen ( 1974)
***********************************************

Rituals?

What are rituals?

According to:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... ish/ritual

variable noun

A ritual is a way of behaving or a series of actions which people regularly carry out in a particular situation, because it is their custom to do so.

The same dictionary defines ‘custom’ thus:

A way of behaving or a belief that has been established for a long time:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/custom

The same dictionary defines ‘belief’ thus:

the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:

His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dicti ... ish/belief


Why do people accept rituals?


People need to feel safe within their environment. Generally, people prefer to live in a group except for some of us who prefer to remain very much on the outside of groups (such as myself, for example).

Any number of answers might be put forward…suggestions welcome…


Symbols of/as control?

There are (at least?) two means of control:

Positive: to lead a way for safety and for self and others (e.g. arrows for direction).
Negative: to manufacture (or engineer) others to the will of the person or persons to their personal ideals (religious crosses, haloes, any particular logo supporting a notion of well-ness).

symbolism
[ sim-buh-liz-uhm ]

1. The practice of representing things by symbols, or of investing things with a symbolic meaning or character.
2. A set or system of symbols.
3. Symbolic meaning or character.
4. The principles and practice of symbolists in art or literature.
5. Symbolism (initial capital letter) a movement of the late 19th century in French art and literature.
6. The use of any of certain special figures or marks of identification to signify a religious message or divine being, as the cross for Christ and the Christian faith.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/symbolism

A possible chronological explanation of ‘symbolism’ might be that what we might know (mostly conjecture, in my view) of ‘primitive Man’, who would (in a positive sense) have been the laying of twigs, rocks etc. to show others of a safe path through the undergrowth (or some-such), especially in areas of great distance, the marking of trees in some way, the placement of objects (forms of ‘sign-post’?) the pictography of animals that might be dangerous and later, the writings on the walls of caves and such-like. (In a negative view, they can and are also be used to detract from sense and lead the unwary to destruction).

Later, symbols developed into writings of various kinds, (symbols of symbols). Symbols are an evolution, from the few twigs marking a safe path, to ideals incorporating earlier symbols (because they took on a meaning of their own and were accepted as such). One could at least read some of this regarding what arrived as Hieroglyphs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs

To inject (!) a little humour here...

The Two Ronnies - Full Hieroglyphics Sketch.mp4

You may also view the video (above) here .

Patrix wrote:

It's like 9/11. To understand that the official story is bogus is one part, but to figure out as Simon has done HOW the deception was carried out is the most important part.
The answer here, is surely that the mass of people have no understanding of deceit!

The reason is that the two ‘towers’ (9/11 for example) represented the number ‘eleven’ which is a symbol of a group of people who claim superiority over others who wanted to keep some secrets of their work from others for the protection of their livelihood (the usurped original Masonic ideals. The original ‘societies’ were secret in that they provided safe ground for their profession. I believe that they became usurped to become secret for nefarious purposes.).

The significance of the number 11 or any other combination of numbers are already embedded with the notion of symbols having some significance, correctly or incorrectly and depending upon their need for them. The two ‘towers’ stood like two phallic symbols of male aggression (above a sky-line of lesser buildings) and were a symbol of the conquest of those were otherwise engaged in ‘real’ life (i.e. getting on with things).

Their ‘demise’ was to usher in another ‘New Century’ (2001) for more fatal consequences and more unseen and unverifiable nonsenses because their ‘world’ was getting out of hand (?) or they needed new fields to plough.

They have managed to get control of basic foodstuffs, have invented ‘dis-eases’ (based on no reliable evidence and even total negation) and are continuously trying to get rid of as many people as possible, so that they can live in comfort with a few serfs to maintain their existence. Their symbol is a $, £, Euro and anything else they can get their hands on at other people’s expenses.

People who regard the notions of amorphous deities (whose ‘powers’ have ‘real’ meaning for them; no problem if it offers comfort but is not intended to be accepted by all and sundry) can find comfort in them without any other knowledge of their significance. In ‘Christianity, for example, the symbol here is the cross, signifying both the apparent ‘good’ (e.g. a Jesus) or the ‘bad’ (the hanging of ‘felons’). There are many others for those with different beliefs, all of which conflict in some way (apparently) because we all live in different locations and symbols would have different meanings, quite naturally.

We should realise that in some way, those of us who ‘just want to get on with our lives’ are distracted by symbols or even vie for them. Advertising products are based upon symbols. Religions are based upon symbols. Whether we can realise that and make up our own minds as to their purpose for control, (my personal ‘pet hate’) and make the adjustments to that control, is up to us as individuals.
Patrix wrote:

And to quote Dr Tilden - Knowledge is power and the knowledge of medicine is the ultimate power.
Knowledge is power providing that we obtain knowledge of the symbols that pervade every step that we take in our lives and take the ‘The Road Less Travelled’ (a favourite poem of mine by Robert Frost) the title of a book by M. Scott Peck, M.D. and also the author of a valuable book called ‘In Search of Stones’ (Monoliths around the U.K. and a book my beautiful daughter sent me for my birthday in 2001). Monoliths make a way, perhaps or are a symbol for something else we might wish to pursue…

Another interesting book to read is The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris:

https://archive.org/details/TheNakedApeMorrisDesmond


Be safe and well.

Sharpstuff
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

patrix
Member
Posts: 634
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE CANCER DECEIT

Unread post by patrix » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:09 pm

Well said Sharpstuff.

It is a battle between mysticism and realism and the mysticists have had an exceptionally good run during the 20th century. They have gradually taken over mass media, science and education. And the objective is to keep the masses detached from logic and objective truth so that the mysticists can keep selling their Pharmakeia and Scientism.

And when something comes up, for example Simons, Boethius and the other fine cluesforumers complete undressing of NASA, the mysticists scramble to set up their own opposition - Flat Earth. Which means that regardless of what you choose - Mainstream/NASA or Flat Earth, you will still be detached from logos. I have yet to see any Flat Earthers credit Cluesforum and Simon for the unpacking of the NASA hoax, and there's a reason for that.

The "shepherds" within Flat Earth are paid to do what they do and as the saying goes - No one is as difficult to convince as someone who's income depends on him not understanding.

And if we look further down the road when Scientism falls and the mysticists know it will, they will begin to more actively promoting (and it has already started) dogmatic religious beliefs. Again to keep people separated from logos. Either you accept the irrational dogmas within Scientism or the different but equally irrational within a religion of choice.

And the specific frauds like the ones we see in medicine are similarly a mix between truth/lies, false logic and words that are given a different meaning. Some examples:

The cholesterol hypothesis - Cholesterol appear in the arteries of people with heart condition (true). The cholesterol is the cause of heart disease (false conclusion). To avoid natural fats and take drugs that inhibits cholesterol production prevents/cures heart disease (false).

"Vaccines are efficient". True. However the word efficient has nothing to do with disease prevention. Efficient/efficacy in vaccine studies means that an effect is noticed when the vaccine is administered that has been dubbed "immune response" or "production of antibodies". It is however unknown if this effect prevents disease, since that has never been determined in any clinical study.

And when we look at cancer research it has been pointed out by Thomas Seyfried and others that the Cancer-gene theory has been disproven in a controlled experiment where the nucleus in a cancerous and non cancerous cells were swapped, and they remained cancerous/non cancerous. Which in turn means that all cancer treatments rest on a false paradigm.

And of course as Sharpstuff points out, our entire view on dis-ease is wrong. Different diseases like cancer, heart disease etc. do NOT exist. What we are experiencing when we're sick are various effects of detoxing and body repair, which of course is a good thing. But if we are experiencing it often we should look for problems in our lifestyle and correct them. And the first thing is of course to get rid of any Pharmakeia.

All the best /Patrik

Post Reply