A Question of Rhetoric

A critique of the rhetoric contained in an article on the Richard D. Hall false harassment lawsuit.

As I’ve stated regularly, it is now 2024 and I am too long in the tooth to pussy-foot around being gentle in the face of the empty rhetoric that gets spouted on a regular basis these days.

As such, I will, if I feel it necessary, or am  so inclined,  demonstrate exactly how and why the rhetoric of some people is open to question and challenge, just as all my published writings are..

What do I mean?

Simply that when one offers up an opinion that is not substantiated by the facts of the matter, it is easy to debunk it by applying the divine methodology of the Trivium. When I say divine, I mean the inherent ability of an individual to apply reason (or logic) to the facts of the matter.

A fact is something which is demonstrably true. When a problem, subject or theory is presented, its validity can be verified by way of the application of the Trivium. Trivium means ‘three way’ and no part of this ‘holy trinity’ can stand without the other 2.

The Trivium – ‘the 3 Way’, when deployed correcty will lead the individual to Truth.

Some may choose to call this common sense – a term which I was familiar with from an early age – my father, for instance, would regularly urge me to use it when faced with a difficulty:

“Use your common sense, Michael.”

Whilst neither he nor I were classically educated – my dad left school at 15 to become a cinema projectionist and, later, an engineer – he was, in effect, urging me to use the Trivium.

The following image illustrates just what this is.

To reiterate what I have espoused on many occasions, we live in a perceived reality – it is a mental construct and, of course, the truth does not fear close scrutiny. Accordingly, should any reader doubt what I am stating, then he is welcome to challenge the information, reasoning and rhetoric which I am putting out on this website, and, occasionally, elsewhere.

For example, please read my article ‘The Promissory Note’ in which I state the facts behind the monetary mechanics and fraud of modern banking. The assertion that no loan ever takes place is supported by the cited authors, some of whom are experts in finance. Those authors were writing over 100 years ago and it is as correct now as it was then.

I recently read an article by Miri Finch, a writer based in my home town of Huddersfield and, whilst I have regularly appreciated the content of her articles, I do take issue with the use of rhetoric in her latest piece on the Richard D. Hall court case.

Hall was sued in the civil court for alleged harassment of a certain Martin Hibbert and his daughter and his recent hearing at the High Court can be read about in a series of posts by Iain Davis who was in attendance.

Finch puts forward the view that the lawsuit is part of a larger operation, initiated by the usual script writers and actors of the Deep State and, on the face of it, it is a reasonable proposal.

However, instead of focusing on the fact of the alleged bombing in which Hibbert claims he and his daughter were seriously injured, she begins by immediately voicing her opinion on Hall’s earlier documentary about the Madeleine McCann episode, in which he presented a thorough analysis, and elects to dive straight away to opine,

“In introducing this piece, it’s important to underline that I’ve always thought that Hall’s theory on Madeleine McCann is wrong.”

Finch states, that in her view, the long-running McCann saga is a psy-op with the following intent behind it,

“1. To push the chip agenda. We know they want us all chipped, especially children, and what could be more of an emotive and impactful push for that than the idea that “if only [the world’s most famous missing child], Madeleine, had been chipped, we could have found her in hours and avoided all this dreadful heartache”…. You know that if this happens, the masses will be positively lining up for their “Maddie Microchip” (and we’ve been further programmed about the “necessity” of chipping loved ones to keep them safe with the recent cat-chip mandate);

2.To demonise conspiracy theorists and clamp down on free speech.”

This is an apparent appeal to common knowledge, i.e “we all know that they want us all chipped,” when such cognisance does not exist.

To which I would ask, do they really want us all chipped? Just like they wanted us all jabbed? How did that work out?

Then we have the use of the term ‘Conspiracy theorists’, a vague and wooly expression that is invariably only used in a pejorative way.

Next, she uses the appeal to emotion, when she states that, “There is basically no worse crime to accuse someone of than child murder, and the murder of their own child the most horrific crime of all.” – again, she asserts it as a fact because, well, imagine how you would feel if falsely accused of said crime? As such, it stands as a classic example of the fallacy of the Appeal to Emotion.

Legally speaking, this is wrong, on the simple basis that it is not a crime to falsely accuse someone of an act they are innocent of. I assert this on the straight-forward ground that for a crime to have taken place, there has to be demonstrable and material harm and loss suffered by the victim. Whilst I share her distaste for false accusations, they are not crimes per se.

So, why bring up the McCann saga and what effect does this have on her article ? Why the reliance on emotional language? What relevance does any of this have to the harassment case?

Has Finch, by putting her rhetoric before the facts, slipped into the use of the fallacy known as the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque, also known as the ’You Too Fallacy’?

Is she undermining the validity of Hall’s defence on the grounds that he put forward a hypothesis about McCann over a decade ago and that demonstrates him to be in danger of being labelled a “vile crank” who could incite a reprisal against the McCanns? I see no evidence that that is the case and for her to use such language, albeit in inverted commas, is to simply rely on the sensationalist language of the tabloid press, which she often and, quite rightly rails against.

In this case, said logical fallacy is committed when it concludes that a person’s claim is false because,

It is inconsistent with something else the individual has stated, i.e her view that Hall suggested Madeleine McCann’s death was covered up, or, what an individual states is inconsistent with his actions. This ‘argument’ takes the following form,

Person A makes claim X.

Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

Therefore X is false.

Of course, the fact a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims, only one can be true – but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

In this matter,

Having examined – in great detail – the still images and CCT footage, Hall makes the claim that no 33kg bomb was detonated at the Manchester Arena on 22 July, 2017 and, like Iain Davis, he backs it up by demonstrating that, in accord with the evidence, there is absolutely nothing to substantiate that an explosive device of that magnitude went off. Look at the images in my article linked above and you will see what I mean – the purported victims are wandering about daubed in fake blood, with incongruous tears in their clothing.

Finch asserts that his previous claim that Madeleine McCann’s death was covered up is dangerous to make or false (in her view) as it falls in line with the psy-op playbook that she believes is in operation, although there is no evidence to back this up, unlike Hall’s extensive documentation of the matter and his resulting conclusion.

Therefore, Finch posits that because of her belief in the McCann psy-op, Hall is making another dubious claim when he asserts there was no explosion and he is once again falling for a psy-op. By association, she must evidently think that Iain Davis has also fallen for the ruse and he too is being used to further the joint chipping and ridiculing of ‘conspiracy theorists’ agenda.

This is the fallacy of the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque because she is asserting that Hall’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of what he states about the constituents of the harassment lawsuit. But Finch overlooks the key tenet in all of this:

it is a fact that there is zero evidence that a 33kg bomb was detonated at the Manchester Arena in 2017.

She states that Hall is entitled to his view that it was a “hoax”. when  it is not an opinion – the fact is plainly stated: there clearly was no bomb explosion, had there been, it would have been a scene of absolute carnage and devastation, to life, limb and infrastructure. There wasn’t. Period.

Both Hall and now Davis have demonstrated, in their books, beyond doubt that there was no explosion of a huge 33kg bomb. That is not a matter of opinion but one of fact.

Finch then argues that the media has deliberately conflated his “hoax theory” with the harassment case and she is right to state that, although that may simply be due to the demonstrable  lack of grey matter, or critical thinking which is something eminently missing from the largely vacuous individuals operating in the controlled mainstream media.

Then, she writes,

“What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty.

The general public was being played because they don’t understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses  (sic) a trial on damages.”

This is a fair point but it overlooks a salient fact – there was no trial, at least in the strictest sense of the word, which would necessitate a jury being in situ.

Had Hall simply stated at the outset of this civil matter that he rebutted, rejected and dismissed the harassment claim in its entirety, filed an Affidavit of the facts and refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court, then it would have been entirely different as the Court would have been left with no alternative but to go to trial, under strict proof of claim – namely, that the Claimant should provide material evidence demonstrating beyond all doubt that a 33kg bomb had been detonated.

Speaking from a postion of knowledge and direct experience, in a civil case, the Court is simply seeking, under maritime, or commercial law, to coerce the defendant into agreeing to pay the Claimant. Money, after all, is the name of the game in the arena of the Civil Court, which operates on the presumption that any Claim is valid and not fraudulent.

 

Contrary to her statement that “these two high-profile trials (she places it alongside the pantomime of the law suit Alex Jones faced over Sandy Hook) have been deviously used to scare the public out of free speech, and we know they are being intentionally used in that way, because of all the mainstream press attention both cases received,”

To repeat:there was no real trial. Only a summary judgement hearing and the pretence of one. End of.

Her assertion that “If the powers that be thought this information should be hidden from the public, they’d ignore the story, starve it of oxygen. Amazon wouldn’t sell the book. Martin Hibbert would have been advised not to take the case against D Hall. The complicit newspapers wouldn’t meticulously set out his conspiracies for the viewing public to analyse. They want people to go explore and see for themselves. It’s a trap, ” is thus of dubious merit.

After all, if it is a trap then it has backfired spectacularly on the basis that that the ridiculousness of the court hearings, which were held in the High Court, are now a matter of public record. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see the gaping holes in the false narrative of the Manchester Arena bombing.

I agree with her suggestion that it may be an intended trap but only up to a point as this relies on the notion that those who planned it are infallible when they are manifestly not. “The viewing public,”  as she calls it, is so overwhelmed with events unfolding right now in this crazy realm and so immersed in the propaganda of the MSM, that they will not pay it attention.

Only a few will be prepared to look beyond any official narrative and it has always been so.

Then we have this assertion, “It’s not about whether any particular event is a hoax or not, because as we explored earlier, it is perfectly legitimate to question the veracity of any event and come to your own conclusions about it – and in my opinion, you should do exactly this. You may conclude a certain event is a hoax, whilst others may be certain it’s real, and that’s okay: we can disagree, debate, that’s what free speech is all about.”

Finch is clearly of the view that opinions are “okay”, but when we look up the etymology, then it becomes evident that is not the case,

early 14c., opinioun, “a judgment formed or a conclusion reached, especially one based on evidence that does not produce knowledge or certainty,” from Old French opinion “opinion, view, judgements founded upon probabilities” (12c.), from Latin opinionem (nominative opinio) “opinion, conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks; appreciation, esteem,” from stem of opinari “think, judge, suppose, opine,” from PIE *op- (2) “to choose”  Source

Thus, her comment that, “You may conclude a certain event is a hoax” and that’s it ‘s “okay” to hold opinions is another attempt to Appeal to emotion, to reassure us that, it’s alright, we can all agree to differ. 

But in this case, the Manchester Arena explosion, we are dealing with the truth and that , my dear Miri,  is exactly what it’s about- there was no bomb. That is the unassailable truth, anything else is patent nonsense. It is not a matter of opinion but fact.

From which we can state that it is most certainly not “okay” to hold an opinion that is without the facts and logic to support the rhetoric.

Rather, it is totally about the Truth and the Truth  does not give a flying fook about opinions, debate, free speech, hoaxes or however Finch wishes to frame it.

On top of which, Finch is seemingly a little afraid of “the powers that be’,  as she evidently believes that these shadowy figures who must not be named are somehow smarter than us, that their operations are of such genius that they always succeed and that the Freemasonic sorcery always steers events in the direction it intends.

To which I say, does it bollocks. After all,

The Truth fears no investigation.

Whilst it may be the case that Hall have erred by accepting the jurisdiction of a captured Civil Jurisdiction that is awash with fallacy and Talmudic determinations, operated by deeply-mind-controlled lickspittles for the benefit of their shadowy overlords rather than rejecting it from the outset, the matter is far from over.

In the event the court issues a demonstrably void order that flows out of the arse-end of a bi-wigged despot who has ignored the truth, then he has the ability and the right to reject it on those grounds.

To reiterate: it is not a matter of opinion or belief – there is zero evidence of a 33kg bomb exploding on that date at that venue. That is an unassailable fact.

The lie of a huge bomb exploding on that night in Manchester, seven years ago, is the false premise upon which the entire shit-parade is built. Pull that out and the false flag is torn asunder.

And that, dear reader, is all we need to know. Stand under the Truth, reject the fear-porn and you will flourish with the full realisaton that you are in immortal being with an informed field that will only grow, never diminish.

---

Thank you for reading. Should you be appreciative of the collosal volume of fallacy-free output at this site, the please tip me a few quid via the Buy Me A Coffee button and please subscribe to my email list in order to be notified of my new posts. I can also be read and ‘followed’ on Substack.