39 Comments

I find it interesting there's no evidence of a bomb... that seems to be fundamentally what Richard D. Hall was exposing... the Bickerstaff video is also very much on the side of false flag... I doubt people exposed to his work through the trial will really go and look at his videos that much.. they will just think "crank, leave well alone"..

Expand full comment

The dead people are evidence of a bomb. The survivors testimonies are evidence of a bomb. The surgeries, picking nuts and bolts out of people, are evidence of a bomb. Richard D Hall convinced thousands of his followers there was no bomb and no injuries on the night. Remarkable, the power of suggestion.

Expand full comment

Aisling, really like what you say about compromise at the end of your discussion with Miri. You mention "the media make it look weird". Yes, when they stage events they are obliged to do that, that is why people who just sit in front of a computer can work them out and the fact that RDH went bothering people is such a clear sign he's an operative - no investigation beyond examining the media material needs to be done. They always TELL you the truth underneath the propaganda. It's called Revelation of the Method (RoM) and it's why I became a "psyop detective" - although I only learnt of RoM two years into my study I can see in hindsight the fact that RoM is an essential part of their MO is what drew me to them because they make the truth so obvious and it's only the magic of propaganda that blinds people to that truth - so much about politics is opaque to me, I'm clueless, but because psyops have such a clear MO I'm drawn to them. If I had to do proper investigative work I wouldn't do it - it suits my lazy nature as they lay it all out before you.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2022/06/revelation-of-the-method.html

"But it runs even deeper than predictive programming. Some call this Revelation of the Method.

According to Michael Hoffman: first they suppress the counterargument, and when the most opportune time arrives, they reveal aspects of what's really happened, but in a limited hangout sort of way.

We were told the vaccines were harmless, until Pfizer debased their own safety claims, but not before the entire world had been vaccinated.

Lockdown Apologists across the corporate media are now almost unanimous that lockdowns do more harm than good. This is no arbitrary volte-face, but rather a carefully planned sequence of disclosures when the time is ripe.

Michael Hoffman suggests that the ruling elite are giving notice of their supremacy. Declaring themselves virtuoso criminal masterminds, above the law and beyond reproach. But most of all, they are telling you, in no uncertain terms, that you are without recourse, these events are beyond your control, as is your own destiny for that matter. Eventually a sense of apathy and abulia engulfs humanity, demoralizing us to the point of conceding defeat to a system we are powerless to change.

Not that you would ever have restitution. The house is not designed to do its own housekeeping.

Buried deep within their rule of law, is a hidden constitution that states: nothing happens without your consent. In this version of contract law, once the truth is hidden in plain sight, you have agreed to it. There exists someplace an unsigned contract with your unsworn oath on it.

In the end, we're all victims of the same masterstroke, whether keyboard evangelist or state-apologist, everyone is being royally screwed, and it's not so much that they're laughing at you, it's that you're laughing at yourself."

Expand full comment

V well explained Petra. No doubt our morals are being tested, hence the satanic rules that give us a chance to correct ourselves if we so choose. Yes it's all about consent. We can always use our God-given discernment at any time. The satanic ones make it obvious for us and it's our bad if we let ourselves be conned. In this regard, it's clear to me Richard D Hall is purposefully misleading his viewers so they reach the wrong conclusion. Not a popular opinion but morally the right one. His fans should have kicked up a stink once he started to accuse the parents of Saffie Roussos of being somehow implicated in her death, using a hoax bomb to cover their tracks - with ZERO evidence to support his theory. Just one example where the audience were required to respond ethically. Instead they sucked it up and went back for more. If you go back over RDH's research, you'll note there are countless moments where it's up to the viewer to respond, but more than not, the viewer goes mindlessly along with the suggestions and false allegations. That's why I flip it back to the audience. They've got a moral duty to demand better standards from their journalists because everything is a reflection. Investigate false flags by all means, but have standards or else you'll just end up picking on the wrong people as we've seen in the Manchester Arena bombing case. A devil's trick, indeed.

Expand full comment

How did they die? Dead people in and of themselves are not evidence of a bomb... there is power of suggestion on more than one compass angle here... so many anomolies too and people with blood stained jeans walking around etc. \i am open to the thought I could be duped and I am suggestible.. however I do think he did a pretty good job on this one. After all he did not tell people to believe him... I remember after Manchester previously peaceful people wanting to gun down muslims... claiming we were at war.. and not long after the UK government wanting to bomb Syria and overthrow it's government.. . I have noticed Hall's videos are being redacted or blocked on his own website... I don't see that he has gained much from this publicity unless he is paid up actor himself and all this is speculation on every angle... if he was that narcissicistic surely he'd get a better hairdo?

Expand full comment

His job is to mislead so real conspiracy theorists end up looking mad, bad and untrustworthy. His output is riddled with traps.

Expand full comment

How would I spot a real conspiracy theorist?.. I think Hall's aim is some kind of investigation of the weirder things in life... I've always admired that he does the legwork and makes an attempt to be at least slightly entertaining... I appreciate your point of view and for taking the trouble to reply to me but I do think that traps are only there for those that follow without criticism... I have watched Hall's output on Tommy Mair, the debt system and some other things and I have found him to be a man who admits to changing his own mind when presented with new evidence... I do get that the court case is a way to quieten other people regarded as "conspiracy theorists" and it has given him publicity he could never have afforded otherwise.... but many observers don't have time to look more deeply and will just write everybody off... including Richard D. Hall. I'm sorry this probably isn't very enlightening but I guess we just have to keep our eyes and ears open and see what occurs.

Expand full comment

That's not evidence. How do you know there were dead bodies? How do you know people had nuts and bolts removed from their bodies? How do you know to believe survivors' testimonies? How do you know those people weren't in wheelchairs before, or whether they're faking it? Because you saw it on the telly? Come on, you've got to do better than that.

Expand full comment

I loved this conversation you both had. Questioning, reasoning and listening. Very refreshing in these days of offence arguing dismissing and censorship.

Expand full comment

The dead people are evidence that Covid was really really bad. Please take your 19th booster.

Expand full comment

I have eliminated "false flag" from my vocabulary and stick exclusively to "psyop" because I think "false flag" is a misleading propaganda term intended to mislead the inevitable disbelievers of the official narrative. The term tends to suggest that a crime has been committed but rather than by Group/Individual B who Group A accuses of the crime, it is Group A who is responsible for it. However, I have never seen an event referred to as a false flag that fits this term in that way. Rather, it is always the case that, "Yes, Group A is essentially responsible although Group B will play the role of patsy" but "No, they didn't commit the crime - at least not the part of the crime relating to death and injury."

BASIC PSYOP RULE:

What is wanted for real is done for real, the rest is faked - for (at least) these three reasons:

1. Psyops are all about making us BELIEVE stuff that is not true not doing stuff for real in order that we believe it. Maximising dupery is the name of the game, not minimising it so if they kill people for real then they are eliminating that element of dupery and lessening the "psyop" effect for no good reason.

2. They absolutely do not need to do things for real to make us believe them. What they put forward for death and injury is truly laughable. People will believe it even when they barely lift a finger to make it seem real. Psyops are absolutely not about simulating reality as closely as possible - it's the opposite. It's always Emperor's New Clothes style. It's as said in this quote (edited) from Anthony Daniels:

"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study

3a. Mostly, it is impracticable to the point of impossible to kill people for real because of who needs to be involved. They can get thousands of health professionals to inject people with toxic substances on the back of over 200 years of medical and scientific fraud ... but you can't get demolition professionals to leave buildings only partly evacuated for a terror s-t-o-r-y - that is not a thing. Nor many other people who need to be involved in many of their events.

3b. Psyops are ongoing and they need to employ people for them constantly thus they need to be able to reassure them that no one is hurt or killed in them, it's all make-believe.

https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/are-false-flags-a-thing

Expand full comment

... and in Edinburgh a man was decapitated by 'a bus' of which the media has provided no CTV or witness statements and then the police evacuated nearby student buildings -for a road traffic accident?

Expand full comment

Weird story alright Kevin. I wonder is there more to it - such strange reporting these days. It's hard to know what to believe anymore.

Expand full comment

And still no follow up on this in media. No named victim. It is truly bizarre

Expand full comment

Absolutely brilliant to see people mature, respectful, and articulate enough to be willing to debate so openly - not least because they totally understand the vital importance of 'thrashing' things out without 'falling out'.

Total kudos to the pair of you... 🎯💞

Expand full comment

Thank you Mark. Thoroughly worthwhile and I think we even made some progress challenging each other's perceptions.

Expand full comment

Appreciate your level headed caution to all things Aisling.

I think we can be certain of a few things.

People are always being played,

The same Central Banking families that have existed for 100's of years want more control.

These family's always play both sides against the middle to win.

Wind them up and watch them go!

Expand full comment

Thank you Ray. Yes these families have been playing us like fiddles for too long - the satanic element is particularly shocking in all of this and all their silly little rituals and codes. V interesting.

Expand full comment

I only heard about RD Hall and his conspiracy theory, on the Manchester Arena bombing, here on Aisling's substack.It sounded like the most far fetched theory ever.I also heard the interesting Iain Davies interview, on Delingpole, who made Richard's theory a bit more plausible. This saga is still making me think that RD Hall has played into the hands of the establishment(and maybe always has done)He is being used as an excuse to bring in this terrible new anti 'conspiracy theory' law.

Expand full comment

It’s so obvious Catherine but those who’ve bought into his outrageous fake investigative journalism can’t see the wood for the trees. Oh well.

Expand full comment

I may be one of those... but have you seen the Jo Cox material? What do you think may have happened to her? Also... 7/7... I have seen testimonies from others and also first hand from a friend but Richard D. Hall did a pretty splendid job of presenting evidence on that.. why do we have to hate him now?

Expand full comment

Personally I think Richard D. Hall was ahead of the game before recent events... he's been doing what he's been doing for years... the question is.. why now? Rather than ganging in against him as if he planned to be put on trial...

Expand full comment

So what we are being asked to accept is that if the government says that there was a bomb, then there was a bomb. Unless we the public, who do not have access to the resources that a government agency has, can prove otherwise. In my opinion, that is a very dangerous stance to take. We should always disbelieve anything the government says. Once a liar, always a liar. The "news" is propaganda.

Expand full comment

Brilliant conversation ..so refreshing to see people able to disagree and discuss different perspectives and arguments respectfully .So important 🙏

ps I strongly agree with you ,Aisling , that some solid proof should be needed before accusing otherwise innocent people . I believe innocent untill proven guilty is justice .

Expand full comment

On Taylor Swift - as they are beginning to ‘out’ Hollywood as satanic, then wouldn’t it make sense that the deaths of these children are connected to taylor Swift? Isn’t it their agenda to ultimately show us that satanic forces bring things like kids getting stabbed? As they want to bring in their ultra fake spiritual new age as next level of satanism. This is their ultimate goal.

Expand full comment

You're definitely onto something there Maia - 'ultra fake spiritual new age as next level of satanism'. Ultra Christian discernment required to not be deceived.

Expand full comment

I have just seen a video suggesting that all of our plastic celebs from lady gaga,Swift,Maddona etc etc are all Hollywood Transgender creations.We really are living in Black Mirror territory.Thos is most likely a takeover by an alien intelligence

Expand full comment

Apropos of nothing, 'Taylor Swift' in Jewish Gematria is 1756. The phrase 'Know that they lie' is also 1756.

Expand full comment

On the topic of actors ….. I’d love to hear your views on all the former special forces blokes who we are now seeing in the limelight writing books, on tv, getting into politics and even with their own clothing brands. Are they still serving? Is it some kind of psyop? A change in the battlefield tactics for special forces? They used to be hidden in the shadows with black rectangles over their eyes.

Expand full comment

Appreciate the nuanced take on the "religion" question. Thing is, there's more than one chorus. Some are virulently anti-Israel - understandably - because of the atrocities in Gaza, and may, as you suggest, unfairly tar all Jewish people with the same brush. Others show no regard for innocent Palestinians, and seem to conflate any criticism of Israel - however justified - with "antisemitism". The latter sort is particularly loud in the "conservative MSM/MAM", with a relentless 'victimhood battle cry' driving division and drowning out other valid concerns and beliefs. Obviously, ultimately, a fair-minded awake person understands that it's not the average Jewish person - or Muslim, or Christian or Hindu or atheist - that we need to be concerned about but the powerful of any persuasion, if they don't have our best interests at heart - as has been demonstrated most clearly in recent years.

Expand full comment

The reason Hibbert was persuaded by the BBC to sue Hall for harassment is because any other claim would mean that both parties would need to present their own evidence that the bomb did or did not happen. And Hibbert would have to prove that he was actually there. The powers that shouldn't be would never allow that to happen, hence the harassment charge.

Expand full comment

More to do with a statute of limitations for slander cases but that's certainly the angle presented to RDH devotees so it confirms their bias and 'prove' their hero is being persecuted by the big, bad system.

Expand full comment

I find it tedious to listen to why Richard Hall should not be believed about there not being a bomb at the Manchester Arena because ia that seems disrespectful to the possible victims and their experience. There are other people who also think there was no bomb. Evaluate *their* arguments critically rather than spending air time on sensational aspects of Mr Hall’s turn in the media spotlight.

If I was a betting person I would put money on your speculations, Miri. 1 prediction done. 1 to go. 😱

Expand full comment

MIRI appears to believe that if the flow of events benefit nefarious actors,those events are "too convenient" and that convenience is 'proof' that the event was controlled,timed and executed. This argument is weak and emotional.

Expand full comment

The victims: Are there not historical medical records to prove that these injuries were registered and treated way through some branch of the NHS prior to the bombing incident date?

Expand full comment

Please disregard the 'way' inclusion.

Expand full comment

Miri won this discussion, hands down.

Expand full comment