Conspiracy theory

What follows is a real, unedited, email exchange, a sort of "novel" that writes itself. Only the names (except mine) have been changed. (On my French you can read a "novel" about my adventures in money laundering; no names have been changed.)

I have written about confirmation bias before. Conspiracy theory is confirmation bias on steroids. While this conversation is perhaps an extreme example of a “dialogue de sourds,” I think it illustrates well the difficulty of bridging ideological differences and reaching a common ground even under normal circumstances. The desperate need for certainty in these troubling times leads people to cling to answers rather than bask in questions like a philosopher. While basic income does not face such stiff opposition, commonly held views and prejudice do contribute to the resistance against this innovative policy. Please email me your questions and comments. Should I have treated Charlotte differently?

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

Subject: time to end the lockdown

14 May 2020, 00:40

The data is now in. There was never a justifiable reason or science to justify the lockdown, social distancing, face masks, etc. The lockdown will destroy many businesses and parts of the economy. The lockdown will significantly add to the national debt of all countries. In Canada, there is already talk of implementing austerity measures. This was a plan-demic, not a pandemic. It was never about health care or protecting the public. The official narrative should always be questioned as misleading and false until proven otherwise. Let me leave you with the latest video of an interview with Professor Dolores Cahill, assuming YouTube does not censure it as it has been censuring so many other videos the show the official narrative is false.

I am outraged, seething, at how easily we allowed our civil liberties to be violated... If this is how easily we, the public, can be herded like cattle over a fake pandemic then forget about any hopes you have about being able to impose solutions on climate change, eco-justice and other supposedly meaningful causes.

Charlotte

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

14 May 2020 at 07:02

Hi Charlotte,

What is a plan-demic? If not “about health care or protecting the public” then what?

Pierre

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

Subject: time to end the lockdown

14 May 2020 at 17:15

Hello Pierre,

I will answer your questions after you answer a few my questions to you.

What is happening with the Organization? I have sent you quite a few emails and received no response. I have asked a few people and they too have not received any information. Why have we not heard anything from the Organization and you? There are so many pressing issues today and yet the Organization, for all intents, is dormant. Why?

I am requesting to be a member of the Organization steering committee. Please let me know when/how the steering committee is meeting next so that I can attend and participate in that meeting.

What did you take from the fact sheet on covid-19 I sent you? This fact sheet is quite comprehensive and long. It makes very clear statements. For example, it states there is little science behind the decision to impose/force social distancing, face masks and travel restrictions. Tell me, what is your response to this fact sheet? Do you agree or disagree with it? If so, why or why not?

Similarly, what is your response to the interview with Dolores Cahill? Cahill clearly has the full credentials to speak as an authority on covid19. She makes clear claims that refute the official narrative. For example, between 00:51:39-00:54:36, Cahill talks about “Gain of Function.” One extremely important claim is that covid-19 is NOT A NATURALLY OCCURRING VIRUS. She is not the only scientist to make this claim. When credible scientists make this claim then we must give this point serious consideration because it brings into question the essence of this crisis which is, who can we trust? This interview is a gold mine of information that is completely consistent with what many other doctors and scientists, who are experts on the subject, have been stating throughout the lockdown. So again, do you agree with what Cahill or do you disagree? Why or why not?

We have just been subjected to a lockdown that appears to have had little to do with science and where it is more plausible and readily argued to be more about social engineering. The public must now critically reflect on the covid-19 lockdown and understand how readily we acquiesced to having our civil liberties violated. Sit back and let the full enormity of this point sink in! Education was suspended, jobs were suspended, restaurants and businesses are closed – many to be forced into bankruptcy, collective gatherings were suspended, social distancing is teaching people to be fearful and wary of others, people are afraid as they question how they can pay for rent, food, mortgages and other loans they have! For this first time, we actually locked down the HEALTHY population, not just those with compromised immune systems. This is unprecedented! The list goes on. This is social engineering - and we acquiesced to it without a murmur, let alone a fight! What is your opinion on all of this?

It is entirely predictable that the after effect of the ‘financial response’ to this alleged pandemic will be austerity measures. But austerity measures are exactly the wrong response to remedy the economic chaos to the lockdown. We need government stimulus spending to get us through this chaos. But government stimulus spending forces us into deeper national debt which foreign central banks then used to leverage austerity measures and the privatization of public resources – all against the public’s interest. Our financial system is a debt trap which transfers control of government policy to non-elected foreign central banks. Why is this and how do we break out of this trap? This is the question you should be asking. What is your answer?

The global covid-19 body count alone confirms the official narrative has been false from the very beginning. The models pushed by the WHO were so grossly inaccurate as to raise the question what exactly was the purpose behind these models, that is, what were they really intended to do? Why are those who presented these fraudulent models now not held accountable? There are so many inconsistencies and questions about this alleged pandemic that we need answers for. What is your opinion on this?

To summarize, what is happening with the Organization? The steering committee has been together for 4 months. What are its plans for the Organization? Second, do you agree that the fact sheet and interview with Cahill are starting points on which we can focus our discussion, if indeed, you are actually interested in having a discussion? The public needs to have this discussion in the open, without fear of being belittled as being ignorant or disparaged as being poorly qualified to understand events as they have and will transpire.

Charlotte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

14 May 2020 at 19:02

Now, to offer a partial answer your question, “…then what.”

For starters, here is Naomi Klein. A more thorough review and understanding can be had by reading through Allison Hawver McDowell’s blog. And here is something for you to watch.

If you think all of this is fiction, then reconsider again after reading Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” or, for a shorter review, read the condensed version by Joe Plummer.

Charlotte

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

14 May 2020 at 22:28

Hello Charlotte,

Thank you for your questions. I will do my best.

What is happening with the Organization? I have sent you quite a few emails and received no response. I have asked a few people and they too have not received any information. Why have we not heard anything from the Organization and you? There are so many pressing issues today and yet the Organization, for all intents, is dormant. Why?

Our plans to revitalize the chapter were nipped in the bud by the pandemic.

I am requesting to be a member of the Organization steering committee. Please let me know when/how the steering committee is meeting next so that I can attend and participate in that meeting.

You were offered a spot and you declined.

What did you take from the fact sheet on covid-19 I sent you? This fact sheet is quite comprehensive and long. It makes very clear statements. For example, it states there is little science behind the decision to impose/force social distancing, face masks and travel restrictions. Tell me, what is your response to this fact sheet? Do you agree or disagree with it? If so, why or why not?

The information you sent me contains statements that are not supported by a consensus of the scientific community. As a chemist, I support the process by which such a consensus is achieved. Mainstream or far-fetched, a false theory will eventually be rejected.

Similarly, what is your response to the interview with Dolores Cahill? Cahill clearly has the full credentials to speak as an authority on covid19. She makes clear claims that refute the official narrative. For example, between 00:51:39-00:54:36, Cahill talks about “Gain of Function.” One extremely important claim is that covid-19 is NOT A NATURALLY OCCURRING VIRUS. She is not the only scientist to make this claim. When credible scientists make this claim then we must give this point serious consideration because it brings into question the essence of this crisis which is, who can we trust? This interview is a gold mine of information that is completely consistent with what many other doctors and scientists, who are experts on the subject, have been stating throughout the lockdown. So again, do you agree with what Cahill or do you disagree? Why or why not?

You are implying that covid-19 was fabricated on purpose (by the insertion of 12 nucleotides) in a Chinese lab funded by the US government. What is your point? It still killed 300,000 people so far. That would seem liking larger issue than “who can we trust?” I know whom you trust: No one.

We have just been subjected to a lockdown that appears to have had little to do with science and where it is more plausible and readily argued to be more about social engineering. The public must now critically reflect on the covid-19 lockdown and understand how readily we acquiesced to having our civil liberties violated. Sit back and let the full enormity of this point sink in! Education was suspended, jobs were suspended, restaurants and businesses are closed – many to be forced into bankruptcy, collective gatherings were suspended, social distancing is teaching people to be fearful and wary of others, people are afraid as they question how they can pay for rent, food, mortgages and other loans they have! For this first time, we actually locked down the HEALTHY population, not just those with compromised immune systems. This is unprecedented! The list goes on. This is social engineering - and we acquiesced to it without a murmur, let alone a fight! What is your opinion on all of this?

The lockdown is a trade-off between saving lives and collateral damage. The choices can’t be judged in the light of hindsight.

It is entirely predictable that the after effect of the ‘financial response’ to this alleged pandemic will be austerity measures. But austerity measures are exactly the wrong response to remedy the economic chaos to the lockdown. We need government stimulus spending to get us through this chaos. But government stimulus spending forces us into deeper national debt which foreign central banks then used to leverage austerity measures and the privatization of public resources – all against the public’s interest. Our financial system is a debt trap which transfers control of government policy to non-elected foreign central banks. Why is this and how do we break out of this trap? This is the question you should be asking. What is your answer?

I agree that stimulus is required now and in the future. As for debt, I think it is a myth that it has to be repaid, ever.

The global covid-19 body count alone confirms the official narrative has been false from the very beginning. The models pushed by the WHO were so grossly inaccurate as to raise the question what exactly was the purpose behind these models, that is, what were they really intended to do? Why are those who presented these fraudulent models now not held accountable? There are so many inconsistencies and questions about this alleged pandemic that we need answers for. What is your opinion on this?

How do 300,000 deaths confirm a fake narrative? Models are constantly evolving as new information comes in. They improve with additional data. Accountability is for politicians. Scientists require only the legitimacy of rigour and transparency.

To summarize, what is happening with the Organization? The steering committee has been together for 4 months. What are its plans for the Organization? Second, do you agree that the fact sheet and interview with Cahill are starting points on which we can focus our discussion, if indeed, you are actually interested in having a discussion? The public needs to have this discussion in the open, without fear of being belittled as being ignorant or disparaged as being poorly qualified to understand events as they have and will transpire.

No, I don’t think Cahill is a good starting point. She is looking for someone to blame rather than a solution. I don’t think you are ignorant or unqualified. I do think you are a misguided conspiracy theorist with whom discussion is pointless. If you find that disparaging, consider that freedom of speech is the right to offend.

Now, to offer a partial answer your question, “…then what.” For starters, here is Naomi Klein. A more thorough review and understanding can be had by reading through Allison Hawver McDowell’s blog. And here is something for you to watch.

So, there are evil people in the world who take advantage of tragedies to line their pockets. Sounds about right.

If you think all of this is fiction, then reconsider again after reading Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” or, for a shorter review, read the condensed version by Joe Plummer.

Quigley claims that a “Secret Network” is out to sabotage his work. Of course, even the paranoid have real enemies...

Best regards,

Pierre

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

15 May 2020 at 03:13

Hello Pierre,

If you want to shoot something, shoot the message and not the messenger. Your fixation on and attempt to discredit me is trite and irrelevant to this exchange.

I am on the mailing list of quite few groups and have received weekly information and updates from them throughout the lockdown. The Other Organization, for example, has continued having monthly meetings via web conferencing and also is active on Facebook. The Organization has been silent. Aside from offering talks by selected speakers, what other Organization plans have been “nipped in the bud by the pandemic?” This is such a simple question that it begs the question, that after 4 months of waiting, why you are being evasive.

You do not have the authority to dictate who can and cannot be on the steering committee. So once again, please let me know when/how the steering committee is meeting next so that I can attend and participate in that meeting.

I was trained as a researcher in experimental psychology and have a doctorate from the University of Ottawa. I am very familiar with experimental paradigms and methodologies by which hypotheses are tested, accepted and refuted. So too are the experts you so have casually discounted that are listed in the fact sheet. As for the issue of trust, had you actually watched the video then you would be aware this is Cahill’s point, not mine.

You made a false and unsubstantiated statement by stating, “You are implying that covid-19 was fabricated on purpose (by the insertion of 12 nucleotides) in a Chinese lab funded by the US government.” I did no such thing.

You wrote, “Scientists require only the legitimacy of rigour and transparency”. This is a fallacious argument, particularly given UK scientist Neil Ferguson’s grossly inflated doomsday models predicted over 2 million US deaths and half a million UK deaths and on which UK policy was implemented. There was nothing rigorous or transparent about his models and the same can be said for the scientists cited by WHO, and to claim otherwise is a farce. By the way, Ferguson resigned after ignoring lockdown rules and getting caught with his mistress (who is married with children). It has been demonstrated there was very little scientific rigour and transparency employed at any stage, before and during, the lockdown. This point was clearly made in the fact sheet. Moreover, I specifically made reference to it. Yet it seems you did not take the time to read the fact sheet, watch the Cahill interview or actually read my email. So I got a chuckle from the irony of you stating it is pointless trying to have a discussion with me. Finally, you have yet to offer anything of substance to substantiate your claim I am a conspiracy theorist. This is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last time. But hey, give it a go. I have the data to prove my points. Where is your data?

The common flu kills about 700,000 people each year. Covid-19 mortality rates have been demonstrated to be about the same. Yet a lockdown has never been imposed as a result of the annual flu mortality rate or other diseases which have substantially higher annual mortality rates. Many world-leading scientists have raised the question of “trust”. I go where the data leads and, while it seems unnecessary to make this point, they are the ones who provide the data – not me. So please focus on their data instead of me.

To repeat, when is the next Organization steering committee meeting?

Charlotte

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 12:00

Hi Charlotte,

Whereas most sensible people would probably have abandoned this exchange (“un dialogue de sourds”), I find it fascinating to explore the underlying causes of disagreements. For instance, in a previous email you mentioned your concern about the trampling of our civil liberties; perhaps this article from Slate can provide food for thought.

If you want to shoot something, shoot the message and not the messenger. Your fixation on and attempt to discredit me is trite and irrelevant to this exchange.

I think your bias as a messenger so strongly colours the message as to render it unusable. Uncritical acceptance of sources renders all your information suspect and untrustworthy.

I am on the mailing list of quite few groups and have received weekly information and updates from them throughout the lockdown. The other Organization, for example, has continued having monthly meetings via web conferencing and also is active on Facebook. The Organization has been silent. Aside from offering talks by selected speakers, what other the Organization plans have been “nipped in the bud by the pandemic?” This is such a simple question that it begs the question, that after 4 months of waiting, why you are being evasive.

Seems to me that you are more interested in receiving a service than making a contribution.

You do not have the authority to dictate who can and cannot be on the steering committee. So once again, please let me know when/how the steering committee is meeting next so that I can attend and participate in that meeting.

While no meeting is scheduled for the moment, I will keep you informed.

I was trained as a researcher in experimental psychology and have a doctorate from the University of Ottawa. I am very familiar with experimental paradigms and methodologies by which hypotheses are tested, accepted and refuted. So too are the experts you so have casually discounted that are listed in the fact sheet. As for the issue of trust, had you actually watched the video then you would be aware this is Cahill’s point, not mine.

If you disavow Cahill’s point, why present the video and refer to a specific section?

You made a false and unsubstantiated statement by stating, “You are implying that covid-19 was fabricated on purpose (by the insertion of 12 nucleotides) in a Chinese lab funded by the US government.” I did no such thing.

“One extremely important claim is that covid-19 is NOT A NATURALLY OCCURRING VIRUS.” What is your point? What you quote from me is certainly what I understood from the video interview.

You wrote, “Scientists require only the legitimacy of rigour and transparency”. This is a fallacious argument, particularly given UK scientist Neil Ferguson’s grossly inflated doomsday models predicted over 2 million US deaths and half a million UK deaths and on which UK policy was implemented. There was nothing rigorous or transparent about his models and the same can be said for the scientists cited by WHO, and to claim otherwise is a farce. By the way, Ferguson resigned after ignoring lockdown rules and getting caught with his mistress (who is married with children). It has been demonstrated there was very little scientific rigour and transparency employed at any stage, before and during, the lockdown. This point was clearly made in the fact sheet. Moreover, I specifically made reference to it. Yet it seems you did not take the time to read the fact sheet, watch the Cahill interview or actually read my email. So I got a chuckle from the irony of you stating it is pointless trying to have a discussion with me. Finally, you have yet to offer anything of substance to substantiate your claim I am a conspiracy theorist. This is not the first time and I doubt it will be the last time. But hey, give it a go. I have the data to prove my points. Where is your data?

You are a conspiracy theorist in that you uncritically accept any data that supports your theories and reject all other information. Ferguson’s model was based on information available at the time and made public. It was open to falsification. That’s rigour and transparency. You keep repeating that “this is not so,” “it’s a farce,” “the point is clearly made in the fact sheet.” Facts are not arguments just as correlation is not causation. Your use of innuendo in bringing up Ferguson’s escapade is not the rational argument of a reasonable mind. Seething anger trumps honest inquiry. On any subject, I doubt that there is anything I could say that would make you change your mind. You live in your own world of certainty. I don’t trust people who have all the answers.

The common flu kills about 700,000 people each year. Covid-19 mortality rates have been demonstrated to be about the same. Yet a lockdown has never been imposed as a result of the annual flu mortality rate or other diseases which have substantially higher annual mortality rates. Many world-leading scientists have raised the question of “trust”. I go where the data leads and, while it seems unnecessary to make this point, they are the ones who provide the data – not me. So please focus on their data instead of me.

In Canada, 83,000 people die of cancer each year whereas only 1,900 die in traffic accidents (down from 3,300 in 1995). Obviously, we should equip cancer patients with seat belts. Seriously, on March 5th, when US covid deaths stood at 11, the LA Times published “The flu has killed far more people than coronavirus. So why all the frenzy about COVID-19?” According to the CDC, in the 2018–2019 season the US had 34,200 flu-related deaths down from 61,000 in the 2017–2018 season. This may be an overestimate. As of today US covid-19 stand at 86,942. Given these numbers and since the disease can be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers, a lockdown is not unreasonable. Are there better solutions? I think so: Contact tracing

To repeat, when is the next the Organization steering committee meeting?

I will keep you posted

Pierre

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Nikki

To Pierre Madden

16 May 2020 at 12:36

Hi Pierre,

I just want to thank you for taking the time to dialogue with Charlotte. Much like you, I believe she has fallen into conspiracy theorist territory and have stepped back from interacting with her, as I don’t have the energy, in part due to this ongoing crisis.

If anything, your articulation of counter-arguments to Charlotte’s unflinching dialogue has given me more insight in how to properly dismantle these forms of discourse with less strenuous effort.

In Solidarity,

Nikki

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 13:41

Hello Pierre,

Stick to the data, not me. What part of this do you not understand?

What are your plans for the Organization? What part of this do you not understand?

Charlotte

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 14:00

Hello Pierre,

If you are not prepared to specifically address the points in the fact sheet and video, or the point there was little to no science behind the lockdown (i.e. you want a pissing match) then let us exclude Nikki, Betty and Dan from this exchange.

Charlotte

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 14:39

Hi Charlotte,

It is pointless to go over facts because there are no contradictory facts that you would accept. Your motivation is ideological. You are driven by the need for a certainty that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I like having witnesses to our discussion. Public debate is healthy. Plumbing the profound roots of disagreement is a useful exercise. In fact, since I estimate my chances of swaying you at zero, the spectators are my true audience. Without them there is really no point.

Go ahead and get their feedback. I think you will find that the “conspiracy” has deep roots.

À bientôt Pierre 514 238-0044

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 16:15

Hello Pierre,

I have stated the lockdown is based on a fake/false claims of pandemic. There is little to no science behind the lockdown. This is a clear and pointed statement. This was supposed to be the focus of the discussion. My intent was to start a discussion, an exchange of information, geared towards gaining a better understanding of the what I refer to be a fake pandemic. Instead, you took us on a sideshow, a pissing match.

You were unable to refute the Cory Morningstar articles on the Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg and hence commenced your attack of labelling me a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semitic and even acknowledged you were Jew baiting me. I personally asked you to stop making claims you are unable to substantiate. This exchange demonstrates you cannot offer even this basic courtesy.

You claim to be a scientist, one driven by the ideals and methodology of science. We were supposed to be talking about the lockdown. Yet you are unwilling or unable to have a discussion using the fact sheet and Cahill interview as a starting point. Instead, you resort to ad-hominem attacks.

The financial response to the lockdown has significantly increased the Canadian national debt, likely doubling it. The austerity measures that are coming down the road reflect this debt trap. Your response was to say you think it is a myth that the debt needs to be paid down. Canada has paid over one trillion dollars in interest on the national debt since 1976 to foreign entities (e.g. central banks) . Canada pays tens of billions of dollars each year in interest, most of which flows outside the country. These interest payments have negative and destructive impacts on our economy and our own personal lives. For you to even equate paying down the national debt as a ‘myth’ reveals an abject ignorance on the predatory nature of our finance system and the pernicious effects of predatory finance/debt.

I have repeatedly asked you what is happening with the Organization, that is, what plans have you made. Your response – silence.

I was proposing the Other Organization and the Organization start discussions amongst its member about the rational and implications of the lockdown. My opinion is this just as important, if not more important, than hosting speaker talks which entertain viewers for an hour or two and then are largely forgotten as soon as the speaker walks out the door.

If, as the acting head of the Organization, you have no intention of discussing the lockdown then do not include Nikki, Betty and Dan in your emails to me.

Charlotte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

16 May 2020 at 19:53

Hello Charlotte,

Unlike yourself, most people in the real world accept that the pandemic, which has killed 300,000 people so far, is not fake. I am not saying that truth depends on votes, just that consensus is a strong indicator.

I have done you the courtesy of looking at your statements, arguments, fact sheets and interviews. They can only be described as garbage. No amount of contradictory fact or reasoning would make you change your mind. Your theories are not falsifiable. There is no meaningful discourse possible in the face of such rigid ideology. You have amply demonstrated that you are a conspiracy theorist. Nothing I could say would be more convincing than your own words.

An ad hominem attack is when you use someone’s personal characteristics to impugn his argument. This is what you did with Neil Ferguson, by discounting his work because of his reckless behaviour and marital infidelity. I discount your opinions because they don’t hold water, not because of your character, which is sterling.

As for the question of debt, from the vantage point of my “abject ignorance,” I advance the hypothesis that the necessity of repaying national debt is overblown. The attitude towards debt is changing. Here are some references on my reading list:

Dan Graeber Debt : the first 5,000 years
Margaret Atwood Payback (Debt and the shadow side of wealth)
Olivier Bonfond Et si on arrêtait de payer? 10 questions/réponses sur la dette belge et les alternatives à l'austérité

Every time you ask about an the Organization meeting I tell you that I will get back to you in good time.

I’m afraid I can’t agree that your opinion is more important than that of the speakers we heard. They were brilliant and inspiring activists. You are like a broken record with whom discussion is pointless. Discussing theories of a fake pandemic is a waste of time since there is no such thing outside your imagination. With regard to your proposal to discuss this topic, we will pass.

As for cc’ing our “guests,” I’m afraid they’re in this for the long haul.

À bientôt Pierre 514 238-0044

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

17 May 2020 at 11:51

Dear Charlotte,

I was a bit harsh yesterday. While I mean what I said, I expressed no empathy. Believe me I understand how frustrating it is for you to have this conversation. At one point you use the expression “seething anger.” I know what you mean. If I were in your shoes, I would feel the same way. You are pointing to something you find important and everyone is looking at your finger.

I mentioned that you have a sterling character. You care deeply about truth and justice, no doubt about it. You also have, I believe, a profound need to make sense of the world, which I share. Explanations are important for you because you have a low tolerance for uncertainty. Here is perhaps where we differ the most. Uncertainty causes me no discomfort.

So I am learning from our exchange and although it shares some of the features of a pissing match I find it useful and stimulating. It’s also a bit exhausting...

In friendship

Pierre

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

17 May 2020 at 18:37

By the way, I appreciated the conciliatory position you expressed.

Thank you.

Charlotte

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

17 May 2020 at 12:40

Hello Pierre,

I will get back to your tomorrow. While you are waiting, I recommend you use that time to actually get a copy of Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley and then tell me where in the book “Quigley claims that a ‘Secret Network’ is out to sabotage his work” to which you quipped, “even the paranoid have real enemies...”. I will comment on that in my next email to you.

...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan

17 May 2020 at 17:49

This information comes from Chapter 1 - Footnote 3 of Joe Plummer (the book you recommended).

The actual text of the footnote is:

3 See “Letter to Peter Sutherland, December 9, 1975; reprinted in Conspiracy Digest (Summer 1976), and reprinted again in American Opinion (April 1983), page 29.” Reference: http://JoePlummer.com/1-fn3

I could find no information on the Conspiracy Digest. As for the other publication, I found this on a John Birch Society website:

The Perfect Companion for Patriots

Truth be told, the magazine started in 1985, after combining two longstanding publications: American Opinion and Review of the News. American Opinion was a monthly journal that began as One Man’s Opinion back in 1954 by Bob Welch, four years before he founded The John Birch Society. Review of the News was started in 1965 as a weekly round-up of news. JBS members have access to every issue of these magazines in our archives.

The solid track record of The New American and its rich history make it the perfect companion to any American patriot concerned about the future of the country, our rights, liberties, and independence. The New American is an affiliate of The John Birch Society. We feel so strongly of its continuous impact that members receive it as a benefit of their membership. We encourage you to subscribe to the magazine, sign up for its free daily, weekly or monthly headlines, and regularly visit it online.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

17 May 2020 at 18:28

Hello Pierre,

Dan has requested he be removed from this exchange. My sense is we have made a spectacle of ourselves and should therefore keep this exchange to ourselves. Moving forward, I will send my emails only to you. You can include the others if you want.

Charlotte

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

17 May 2020 at 18:50

Then, that is the end of our conversation, Charlotte. It is exhausting and there’s no point in continuing. I will follow up on my commitments and that’s it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

17 May 2020 at 19:31

Hello Pierre,

Thanks for being frank.

I am a member of the Organization and expect to be around for quite some time. I remain open to working with you, not against you. Can we find common ground and work towards building up the Organization together? There is little to be gained by our adversarial stances and it serves only to take away from the Organization.

As a start, bring me up to date with your plans for the Organization. If your plan is only to host selected speakers then there is no shame in that. I can work with this. I have some ideas that I would like to bounce off you and get your input. I ask you be open to them and give me a chance to follow through on at least some of them. They are hardly radical and I fully expect you will approve of a few.

I will notify Nikki and Betty that we have closed this exchange.

Sincerely,

Charlotte

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Nikki, Betty

CC: Pierre Madden

17 May 2020 at 19:41

Hello Nikki and Betty,

Dan has requested to be excluded from the exchange Pierre and I were having. Despite my intentions, my sense is we have made spectacles of ourselves. As such, Pierre and I have agreed to close this exchange. I apologize for any inconvenience we might have caused you. In the future, I will not attempt to engage you

in these discussions without first getting your consent.

Charlotte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

20 May 2020 at 13:56

Hello Pierre,

In my email of May 17, I wrote, “For you to even equate paying down the national debt as a ‘myth’ reveals an abject ignorance on the predatory nature of our finance system and the pernicious effects of predatory finance/debt. “

Your response was you, “think it is a myth that it has to be repaid,” and “I advance the hypothesis that the necessity of repaying national debt is overblown.” You then offered 4 references. I reviewed your first 3 references. Thank you. I could not have illustrated any better that you have absolutely no clue – literally - about what claim to be talking about. Had you even read the 2 books then you would have realized they have nothing to say about the predatory and destructive nature of debt and finance today. If you knew anything about the nature of debt then you would have immediately understood your reference to this article applies only applies to countries who debt is denominated ONLY in its own currency. The US dollar is the currency reserve of the world so the argument presented in the article applies only to the US. It is almost as if you felt absolutely compelled to counter the sting of “abject ignorance” with something other than silence and quickly scrambled to pull together whatever you could find in a cursory internet search. You would have had a better position had you simply said nothing – just as you did with the Morningstar articles and the Covid-19 fact sheet I sent you.

Carroll Quigley was a distinguished historian and scholar. This is what you had to say of Quigley, without having first read his book or Joe Plummer’s book, “…even the paranoid have real enemies.” This is such a vacuous statement that, like the many you make, suggests false pride and a fear of admitting you simply do not know or understand.

Normally, I would patiently explain why someone, who makes false claims such as you have, are wrong. But I will offer you no such courtesy and understanding since you acknowledged in our phone conversation yesterday that you have no intention of trying to work with me and are only not looking to undermine my presence and involvement in the Organization.

The more you push the deeper the grave you dig. If you persist like this then it is not going to end well for you.

The choice is yours. I am still willing to work with you despite our obvious differences. Keep your eye on the ball and focus on building the Organization up. Put aside this petty quarrel of yours and be part of something bigger than just yourself.

Charlotte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

Re: roaring with laughter - a turf war over nothing

20 May 2020 at 14:57

Hello Pierre,

I have been constantly laughing since our phone conversation yesterday. I cannot wipe this irreverent smirk from my face. The Organization has no resources, no platform, no active members (aside from you and me). Picture the headlines in your favorite local news source:

“Two old people, well past their prime, fighting a turf war to claim the title ‘Top Dog’ over nothing”.

This article reads:

“…the adversarial foes are relentless in their attacks, pausing only long enough for Geritol supplements and frequent naps. One protects the Organization from the malevolent, insidious force of another who seeks to subvert all that Organization has attained over the past 40 years. Truly a battle of the feeble and impotent.”

I am laughing at the utter absurdity of all of this!!! What I first hoped would be a reflective discussion on the lockdown has degenerated into a lacklustre spectacle of two grumpy old people. Consider on how an observing comedian would describe our tango. It is truly cause for riotous laughter. Go for a long walk, get some fresh air and ask yourself, what is this petty bickering doing to move the yardstick forward?

I am finished, not laughing, but with this petty quarrel.

Right now this is solely between you and me. Think long and hard about bringing this into the open with other people. It is highly probable we will only bring ridicule down upon both of us.

Chuckle!

Charlotte

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Pierre Madden

To Charlotte

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan, Mark

20 May 2020 at 17:47

Hello Charlotte,

I picked up on two things you wrote today:

Right now this is solely between you and me. Think long and hard about bringing this into the open with other people. It is highly probable we will only bring ridicule down upon both of us.

No need to think long and hard, all discussions should be in the open. I am not afraid of ridicule. I expect to be blamed for excessive patience.

The more you push the deeper the grave you dig. If you persist like this then it is not going to end well for you.

I assume that this is not a death threat, despite the mention of graves and endings. Although I am not afraid of death, it might upset my children.

I thought we agreed to end this conversation. I will let you do the honours by not responding.

Regards,

Pierre

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Charlotte

To Pierre Madden

CC: Nikki, Betty, Dan, Mark

20 May 2020 at 20:36

Hello Pierre,

First, let me say to the Betty, Nikki, Dan and Mark that I sincerely apologize for dragging you into this squabble. This was never my intent and it reflects very poorly on Pierre and myself. I am truly sorry.

You have actually written, “I assume that this is not a death threat, despite the mention of graves and endings.” This is so absurd and illustrates exactly the nonsense that will bring ridicule down upon both you and me!

You can’t say I did not warn you that you would be digging your own grave and that this would not end well for you.

You asked me to call you yesterday. Given my past experiences with you, I decided to record the full 45-minute conversation. If any you wish to waste 45 minutes of your time then I will make the recording available to you upon request.

I do not know where this will go. But I certainly got my surprise for today. If I get the boot from the Organization as a result of this squabble then it will have been worth the entertainment and story that I will be able to tell for years to come.

Cheers,

Charlotte