Why is journalist James Delingpole acting so weird, pretending he doesn't know about RDH's theory that accuses Saffie Roussos' parents of covering up her death by using a hoax bomb?
You see, I wasn't there, so I can not say either way. We all know the State uses 'crisis actors' and the evidence is clear, but which events are fake and which are real? Does it matter? Its all distraction to draw people's attention away from what is going on behind the scenes. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/sons-of-liberty?publication_id=746475&post_id=151556485&isFreemail=true&r=1je905&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email We absolutely must not allow ourselves to become distracted, that is what they did with the covid scam, it was all distraction, all smoke and mirrors! Do not become embroiled in any of it, look to yourselves and keep on prepping, use common sense and due diligence, er, that's it!
Hi Diane, I assure you this isn't a distraction because it ties right into the child stabbings at Southport and the child stabbings in Parnell Square in Dublin, both dismissed as false flags. I'm not satisfied with those conclusions. I sense there's more to the story. I also sense that the conspiratorial gang are being misled by these false flag experts to reach the wrong conclusion. I'm sensing it's a war strategy to deactivate appropriate responses. I think Ole Dammegard is full of nonsense, for example, and everyone repeats him, which is troubling. So it's really not a distraction. Not exactly popular work but who cares! Kind of vital that we figure this out and detect suspicious behaviour. I've loads more topics I want to cover too. The bulk of the Manchester Arena bombing research is complete. It's crystal clear to me RDH has deliberately misled his audience at the expense of the real victims of the blast. Extraordinary. If we go on treating victims like this, without sufficient evidence to support the claim they're crisis actors, we'll be in a very dark place indeed. Standards ensure we don't go there.
" It's crystal clear to me RDH has deliberately misled his audience at the expense of the real victims of the blast."
As the original commenter pointed out, we know that crisis actors exist. We know that events are regularly staged. We know they are staged in such a way to provoke maximum emotional response, because that makes most people incapable of questioning the credibility of the story.
We know that frauds are committed. We know that states commit all the same crimes and deceptions that ordinary criminals and fraudsters commit, but they have an almost unlimited budget and manpower to cover it up and muddle it up, pay people off etc.
None of the things RDH has talked about are any more evil or shocking than the shenanigans that went on with 'covid', 'AIDS', 'the war on terror', 'Vietnam war', 'war on drugs', 'cold war' or any other state sanctioned operation. All of these narratives utilised various deceptions, illusions, lies, emotional manipulation, actors, fake news, false paradigms, propaganda etc. Many of them have been officially admitted, with disclosed documents and official apologies given by the state. I doubt there is anything that RDH talks about in relation to Manchester that doesn't have some kind of precedent already.
I am not familiar with the Manchester story, but if it contains false witnesses, false evidence or false narratives (in whole or part) then that makes it the same as most major narratives, so I don't see why it should be off limits for investigation or why we should feel pressured to accept the official version. I mean aren't we all past that now? Isn't having a healthy skepticism of official stories the most defining feature of 21st century living?
If it becomes increasingly hard to differentiate between genuine witnesses and false witnesses that is indeed tragic. But the finger of blame should be directed at the false witnesses and those who hire/ blackmail them. It is absolutely wrong to blame investigative journalists for questioning the credibility of witnesses and speculating on how they might be being deceptive.
Most people crave certainty, and that goes for the 'conspiracy gang' too. They want the official story to be true, and when it obviously isn't they want Alex Jones or Russel Brand to tell them what the official conspiracy theory is so they can believe that instead.
RDH is one of the rare investigative journalists who is able to put out information without committing to narrative A, B or C. He literally tells his audience not to believe half of what they see and to be comfortable in a state of uncertainty - which is often the only thing we can know for sure.
You seem to have found an 'idea' that appeals to you (that they want us to stop empathising with victims) and now you want to make official narratives fit that idea. This provides a sense of certainty, and therefore relief/ closure. But propping up an idea is not journalism.
If I lost a relative (for real) in a major 'event' I would still want everyone to question the official story of that event, no matter how upsetting that would be.
" If we go on treating victims like this, without sufficient evidence to support the claim they're crisis actors, we'll be in a very dark place indeed."
Calling them 'victims' and not 'alleged victims' means you have already strayed outside the realm of investigative journalism. The recent Duke Lacrosse confession reveals how dangerous the 'believe all victims' mantra is. For every (alleged) victim this mantra (supposedly) protects, it has equal potential to put innocent people in jail.
Believing the alleged victims is therefore not the 'safe' option. And that's assuming 'safe' should be a higher priority than 'truth/ objectivity' which is an absurd premise anyway.
Your rationale for not questioning official death reports (ie it's upsetting) was used extensively to cover up the hospital protocol deaths AND the vaccine deaths during 'covid'. Millions of relatives were outraged that people (including investigative journalists) had the audacity to question and challenge the official cause of death of their relatives (ie 'died of covid') and put forward another cause of death instead: murder at the hands of hospital staff and/ or Big Pharma.
Even 4 years on, with all the evidence on the table for all to see, millions of people still cannot accept their relatives died of anything other than 'the virus'. And to suggest otherwise is considered extremely insensitive, disrespectful and even maliciously provocative and hurtful. They all died of a 'virus'. It was very sad. We need to move on. Let's just drop it!
While it's true that millions were murdered and maimed by protocols and injections, it is also true that there is a wide spectrum of perpetrators. Some acted in full knowledge of what they were doing, some just went with the flow. Most had no idea of what they were really involved in, and just about everybody was following orders from their immediate superior, who was doing the same. Many were carefully manipulated into doing terrible things, or propping up a false narrative without full awareness of their role in the crime.
The REAL 'conspiracy' we face is rigid hierarchies of blind obedience. This is particularly true in the healthcare system, police, media, 3 letter organisations etc. And among the general public. The crisis actors who pretended they were sick with 'covid' because they didn't get the shot may have been told (and genuinely believed) they were helping to save lives. Being paid money probably helped too.
People who don't follow orders create UNCERTAINTY, and that automatically offends most people at the most profound level (cue Matrix reference). RDH is one of those people.
I can't comment on RDH's investigation or the court case because I am not familiar enough with either. But if you want to prove a point (whatever point you wish to make) why not just do better journalism than him and expose him that way, rather than trying to paint a dark narrative around the man, which is not journalism.
Trying to put RDH in a bad light with your audience with various clips taken out of context and 'he said, she said' accusations just makes you look like another Marianna Spring (which is not a good look).
If you want the truth to prevail you have to EXPOSE and DISCREDIT the main weapons of cowardly propaganda used by the establishment, such as 'the hit piece' / 'character assassination/ 'poisoning the well'. Or at the very least, you have to make a conscious effort to not use those weapons yourself, however tempting it may be.
Excellent reporting. Delingpole raised my suspicions about himself months ago when he smeared David Icke (one of my hereos, despite his being controversial) in part because Icke is not "Christian." Icke had been on Delingpole's podcast, I believe. Weird.
if you wish to learn more about christianity and the special pineal gland oil,called 'christus' and how it travels down the spine past the 33 vertabrae to the sacrum,once a month,and remains there while being purified for 3 days(and 3 nights) before it rises (from the dead) to the pineal gland. look up 'Santos Bonacci'
Oh yes, loves a bit of Santos although he went a bit cracked there recently. Think he might have been on something and made some very peculiar recordings, which is never a good idea!
Hi Katherine, I'm beginning to wonder if Delingpole is really a Christian - right now he's looking about as christian as Russell Brand! Yes, David Icke is a legend. He's still battling it out bravely on X. Wonder how long they'll let him get the word out.
There is a side of him I quite like. But, I have had some communications with him and I have detected some kind of sensitivity, even a passive aggressiveness. He also offers no solutions to any of the trials we are [supposedly] going through.
Aisling. Knowing so little it would be irresponsible if I were to comment. But good onya for enquiring into an unexplained death and staying with it. Work like that is tough and is rarely acknowledged.
"Aisling. Knowing so little it would be irresponsible if I were to comment. But good onya for enquiring into an unexplained death and staying with it. Work like that is tough and is rarely acknowledged."
It's very peculiar Catherine. I've got to get to the bottom of it! Something is clearly amiss here. The treatment of the Manchester Arena victims has been appalling - I've never witnessed anything like it in all my years. So many have been convinced to treat them like the enemy. Why is Delingpole pretending he doesn't know about RDH's absurd theory on Saffie Roussos? He's a proper journalist - it's his job to understand what he's defending. It's beyond disgusting that he thinks it's ok to treat the Roussos family like this. Something stinks.
If only you knew how ridiculous that sounds. Sorry but Richard D Hall's 'findings' were fed to you so you'd reach the wrong conclusion and sound bananas, which you do. Time to recalibrate.
Not ridiculous at all Aisling. If there was no bomb, there were no victims ( obviously ) Your stance seems to be there were victims so there must have been a bomb. You're not prepared to get involved with proving YOUR supposition whilst at least RDH has made the effort. RDH was a truther when you were still mainstream so your ad hominem comments are pathetic.
You see, I wasn't there, so I can not say either way. We all know the State uses 'crisis actors' and the evidence is clear, but which events are fake and which are real? Does it matter? Its all distraction to draw people's attention away from what is going on behind the scenes. https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/sons-of-liberty?publication_id=746475&post_id=151556485&isFreemail=true&r=1je905&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email We absolutely must not allow ourselves to become distracted, that is what they did with the covid scam, it was all distraction, all smoke and mirrors! Do not become embroiled in any of it, look to yourselves and keep on prepping, use common sense and due diligence, er, that's it!
Hi Diane, I assure you this isn't a distraction because it ties right into the child stabbings at Southport and the child stabbings in Parnell Square in Dublin, both dismissed as false flags. I'm not satisfied with those conclusions. I sense there's more to the story. I also sense that the conspiratorial gang are being misled by these false flag experts to reach the wrong conclusion. I'm sensing it's a war strategy to deactivate appropriate responses. I think Ole Dammegard is full of nonsense, for example, and everyone repeats him, which is troubling. So it's really not a distraction. Not exactly popular work but who cares! Kind of vital that we figure this out and detect suspicious behaviour. I've loads more topics I want to cover too. The bulk of the Manchester Arena bombing research is complete. It's crystal clear to me RDH has deliberately misled his audience at the expense of the real victims of the blast. Extraordinary. If we go on treating victims like this, without sufficient evidence to support the claim they're crisis actors, we'll be in a very dark place indeed. Standards ensure we don't go there.
" It's crystal clear to me RDH has deliberately misled his audience at the expense of the real victims of the blast."
As the original commenter pointed out, we know that crisis actors exist. We know that events are regularly staged. We know they are staged in such a way to provoke maximum emotional response, because that makes most people incapable of questioning the credibility of the story.
We know that frauds are committed. We know that states commit all the same crimes and deceptions that ordinary criminals and fraudsters commit, but they have an almost unlimited budget and manpower to cover it up and muddle it up, pay people off etc.
None of the things RDH has talked about are any more evil or shocking than the shenanigans that went on with 'covid', 'AIDS', 'the war on terror', 'Vietnam war', 'war on drugs', 'cold war' or any other state sanctioned operation. All of these narratives utilised various deceptions, illusions, lies, emotional manipulation, actors, fake news, false paradigms, propaganda etc. Many of them have been officially admitted, with disclosed documents and official apologies given by the state. I doubt there is anything that RDH talks about in relation to Manchester that doesn't have some kind of precedent already.
I am not familiar with the Manchester story, but if it contains false witnesses, false evidence or false narratives (in whole or part) then that makes it the same as most major narratives, so I don't see why it should be off limits for investigation or why we should feel pressured to accept the official version. I mean aren't we all past that now? Isn't having a healthy skepticism of official stories the most defining feature of 21st century living?
If it becomes increasingly hard to differentiate between genuine witnesses and false witnesses that is indeed tragic. But the finger of blame should be directed at the false witnesses and those who hire/ blackmail them. It is absolutely wrong to blame investigative journalists for questioning the credibility of witnesses and speculating on how they might be being deceptive.
Most people crave certainty, and that goes for the 'conspiracy gang' too. They want the official story to be true, and when it obviously isn't they want Alex Jones or Russel Brand to tell them what the official conspiracy theory is so they can believe that instead.
RDH is one of the rare investigative journalists who is able to put out information without committing to narrative A, B or C. He literally tells his audience not to believe half of what they see and to be comfortable in a state of uncertainty - which is often the only thing we can know for sure.
You seem to have found an 'idea' that appeals to you (that they want us to stop empathising with victims) and now you want to make official narratives fit that idea. This provides a sense of certainty, and therefore relief/ closure. But propping up an idea is not journalism.
If I lost a relative (for real) in a major 'event' I would still want everyone to question the official story of that event, no matter how upsetting that would be.
" If we go on treating victims like this, without sufficient evidence to support the claim they're crisis actors, we'll be in a very dark place indeed."
Calling them 'victims' and not 'alleged victims' means you have already strayed outside the realm of investigative journalism. The recent Duke Lacrosse confession reveals how dangerous the 'believe all victims' mantra is. For every (alleged) victim this mantra (supposedly) protects, it has equal potential to put innocent people in jail.
Believing the alleged victims is therefore not the 'safe' option. And that's assuming 'safe' should be a higher priority than 'truth/ objectivity' which is an absurd premise anyway.
Your rationale for not questioning official death reports (ie it's upsetting) was used extensively to cover up the hospital protocol deaths AND the vaccine deaths during 'covid'. Millions of relatives were outraged that people (including investigative journalists) had the audacity to question and challenge the official cause of death of their relatives (ie 'died of covid') and put forward another cause of death instead: murder at the hands of hospital staff and/ or Big Pharma.
Even 4 years on, with all the evidence on the table for all to see, millions of people still cannot accept their relatives died of anything other than 'the virus'. And to suggest otherwise is considered extremely insensitive, disrespectful and even maliciously provocative and hurtful. They all died of a 'virus'. It was very sad. We need to move on. Let's just drop it!
While it's true that millions were murdered and maimed by protocols and injections, it is also true that there is a wide spectrum of perpetrators. Some acted in full knowledge of what they were doing, some just went with the flow. Most had no idea of what they were really involved in, and just about everybody was following orders from their immediate superior, who was doing the same. Many were carefully manipulated into doing terrible things, or propping up a false narrative without full awareness of their role in the crime.
The REAL 'conspiracy' we face is rigid hierarchies of blind obedience. This is particularly true in the healthcare system, police, media, 3 letter organisations etc. And among the general public. The crisis actors who pretended they were sick with 'covid' because they didn't get the shot may have been told (and genuinely believed) they were helping to save lives. Being paid money probably helped too.
People who don't follow orders create UNCERTAINTY, and that automatically offends most people at the most profound level (cue Matrix reference). RDH is one of those people.
I can't comment on RDH's investigation or the court case because I am not familiar enough with either. But if you want to prove a point (whatever point you wish to make) why not just do better journalism than him and expose him that way, rather than trying to paint a dark narrative around the man, which is not journalism.
Trying to put RDH in a bad light with your audience with various clips taken out of context and 'he said, she said' accusations just makes you look like another Marianna Spring (which is not a good look).
If you want the truth to prevail you have to EXPOSE and DISCREDIT the main weapons of cowardly propaganda used by the establishment, such as 'the hit piece' / 'character assassination/ 'poisoning the well'. Or at the very least, you have to make a conscious effort to not use those weapons yourself, however tempting it may be.
Conspiritorial gang !!!!
Excellent reporting. Delingpole raised my suspicions about himself months ago when he smeared David Icke (one of my hereos, despite his being controversial) in part because Icke is not "Christian." Icke had been on Delingpole's podcast, I believe. Weird.
if you wish to learn more about christianity and the special pineal gland oil,called 'christus' and how it travels down the spine past the 33 vertabrae to the sacrum,once a month,and remains there while being purified for 3 days(and 3 nights) before it rises (from the dead) to the pineal gland. look up 'Santos Bonacci'
Oh yes, loves a bit of Santos although he went a bit cracked there recently. Think he might have been on something and made some very peculiar recordings, which is never a good idea!
Hi Katherine, I'm beginning to wonder if Delingpole is really a Christian - right now he's looking about as christian as Russell Brand! Yes, David Icke is a legend. He's still battling it out bravely on X. Wonder how long they'll let him get the word out.
I think JD is beginning to grift at this stage, and that's a pity.
This Richard D Hall episode has raised my suspicions about his role - even the Christian thing. Detecting peculiar behaviour that's far from honest.
There is a side of him I quite like. But, I have had some communications with him and I have detected some kind of sensitivity, even a passive aggressiveness. He also offers no solutions to any of the trials we are [supposedly] going through.
Aisling. Knowing so little it would be irresponsible if I were to comment. But good onya for enquiring into an unexplained death and staying with it. Work like that is tough and is rarely acknowledged.
I remember well when I had to put up, FOR 16 YEARS, with a Trade Union and Government backed ban on being allowed work in a particular job. Thousands of us were left with little choice but jump on the Mail boat from Dun Laoghaire and try to get The Shtart , as it was called, on some site run by Wimpey ( We Import More Paddies Every Year) or, if you were lucky, become one of McAlpines Fusiliers. Here's the bould Ronnie Drew with the full details: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=song%20macaplines%20fusil%20videos&FORM=VIRE0&mid=7DE28B5B77F9EB10A2567DE28B5B77F9EB10A256&view=detail&ru=%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dsong%20macaplines%20fusil
I appreciate what you wrote:
"Aisling. Knowing so little it would be irresponsible if I were to comment. But good onya for enquiring into an unexplained death and staying with it. Work like that is tough and is rarely acknowledged."
Seems suspicious but I think they all just want to stay in favour with R D Hall's fans
It's very peculiar Catherine. I've got to get to the bottom of it! Something is clearly amiss here. The treatment of the Manchester Arena victims has been appalling - I've never witnessed anything like it in all my years. So many have been convinced to treat them like the enemy. Why is Delingpole pretending he doesn't know about RDH's absurd theory on Saffie Roussos? He's a proper journalist - it's his job to understand what he's defending. It's beyond disgusting that he thinks it's ok to treat the Roussos family like this. Something stinks.
How many times Aisling? No bomb , no victims !!
If only you knew how ridiculous that sounds. Sorry but Richard D Hall's 'findings' were fed to you so you'd reach the wrong conclusion and sound bananas, which you do. Time to recalibrate.
Not ridiculous at all Aisling. If there was no bomb, there were no victims ( obviously ) Your stance seems to be there were victims so there must have been a bomb. You're not prepared to get involved with proving YOUR supposition whilst at least RDH has made the effort. RDH was a truther when you were still mainstream so your ad hominem comments are pathetic.