I’d have liked to attend the Black Lives Matter protest but I didn’t find out about it until the afternoon, and I wouldn’t have been able to afford the train fare.
What is your objective? I can’t work it out. From the way you campaign, you seem to want there to be no governments, no WHO, no UN, no corporations or businesses or maybe none above some unspecified size, and you want science replaced by suspicions, presumably those which coincide with your own, which seem derived from short phrases plucked from public announcements and the relatively tiny body of work that would remain from the likes of Wakefield and Mikovits were the entire mainstream of science swept away.
And yet at the same time there are contradictions. From your June 8, 22:32 comment #54805, “…and the governments don’t kow-tow and allow the US and other Western Multinationals to come in and plunder them”, so even you are saying that all governments aren’t aligned. Yet these governments participate in the UN General Assembly, in fact they make up the majority of it, and the General Assembly often opposes the Security Council.
Forgive me, but you seem engaged in an attempt to sort people and institutions into “sheep and goats”, as if each person or institution were entirely good or entirely evil. Yet everything I see in the world suggests that the opposite is the case, and that alongside campaigning for improvements at scales larger than the individual, each of us also has a responsibility to refine ourselves, our objectives and our understanding.
Refining our understanding in the scientific fields is more easily done because the fundamental ethos of science is a type of honesty about evidence; faking data is grounds for expulsion from the scientific community. That underlying committent to reality is the very reason that scientific findings are so often dismissed by governments, mangled by the corporate media, and pursued in secret by corporations so that they hold control of which aspects get published and which suppressed. You have the likes of myself and SA who would work with you to understand the processes and the types of reasoning useful in assessing evidence; I think Dr Edd is also on the team, but with me and SA you have our writings on other matters especially foreign policy and war by which to judge our objectives. Yet you merely dismiss us as dupes, brainwashed by the corporate media, which neither of us are. You seem to have no interest in why, and more importantly how we have come to opposing conclusions to your own about, for instance, vaccines, chemtrails and the collapses of the Twin Towers. You seem to assume that we are merely too brainwashed to see. Yet I assure you that I spent weeks looking into those matters to reach my current positions; I have definitely not responded reflexively with opinions promoted by the corporate media. I have put in the work and come back to report – the corporate media has no monopoly on deception, misinformation and misdirection, and all humans are subject to error, and seem prone to becoming deceptive by fixing upon misleading conclusions and then promoting them using misleading techniques.
Humanity needs science and truthful dedication to reality more than ever now. Reasoning from suspicions about hidden motives of powerful entities is what I would call conspiracy theory. It is not without utility, but it is most often applied with extreme bias, and it needs to be balanced against critical thinking and rational examination of evidence.