Unlike many active on the web of lies known as the internet, I am not here to make friends – the time when I may have sought popularity is long-gone.

My writings and discourses are not to be measured by the number of ‘followers’, readers, viewers or fair-weather friends who may ‘like’ my output.

Rather, if they are to be measured, then let it be by their quality alone. If I have erred in the facts I state or my reasoning (the logos), then any reader is free to challenge me by way of pointing out those errors.

Should anyone spout off their opinion, then let them for is it not the case that the etymology of that term is as follows?

 

opinion (n.)

 

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” (see option).

Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making. [Milton, “Areopagitica”]
The word always has tended toward “a judgment or view regarded as influenced more by sentiment or feeling than reason.” The meaning “formal statement by a judge or other professional” is from late 15c. The specific sense of “the estimate one forms of the character or qualities of persons or things” is by c. 1500. Public opinion, “the prevailing view in a given community on any matter of general interest or concern,” is by 1735.

Middle English, perhaps reflecting the era’s concern for obtaining knowledge through learned disputation, had opinional “characterised by likelihood rather than certainty” and opinial “based on probable but not certain evidence” (both mid-15c.). ”  Source

Bluntly stated: opinions are like arseholes – everyone’s got one and they each produce faecal matter. To extend the metaphor, opinions are but the cruddy-cling-ons that linger after an arse has been wiped.

On the subject of which, here is a response I sent to a ‘solicitor’ in 2014 who, at the time, was working for the insurance company on behalf of my erstwhile friend and conveyancing solicitor whose negligence manifestly assisted the Bradford and Bingley in procuring a void mortgage against a home which I had, as a matter of accountancy fact, already bought outright and which they eventually stole, with the connivance of Richard Inglis, an individual masquerading as a judge, who may or may not have been a Freemason.

You state that, “We do not recognise the various writs and notices that you have purported to serve on us and our clients.”

That, of course, is merely opinion. Whether of not you “recognise” them is immaterial unless you are able to point out any fundamental defect(s) that may exist (at Law or otherwise) in the Writ of Mandamus, the Notice of Dishonour and any other documentation. Simply stating that one does not recognise them is not enough. Your failure to do so will be taken as evidence that there is no fault.

You will also note that all rights have been reserved since the outset of our correspondence. Unless you can demonstrate with evidence and swear upon you full commercial liability that I do not have the right to issue a Writ and/or any other of the valid documentation you have been served with, then that too stands as the truth in the Private Record of the Parties.”

Thus, it follows that it is very easy to deal with gobshites, whether paid or not, aka those who fire from their keyboards erroneous and unsubstantiated rhetoric before engaging their divine ability to sift through the facts and apply logos to the subject..

We all know such types and they inhabit every institute of the fake state apparatus, from the Privy Council, to the three arms of the state (judicial, legislative and executive), to Mi5/GCHQ, to the MK ultra devils of the Tavistock insitute of mind-control, to the ludicrous bloke poncing about as Prime Minister, to each of the 650 grifting MPs whose snouts are in the trough of their financial overlords, to the prize tits who sit as judges, to the conflicted Freemasonic oath-takers, to the head of the Civil Service, to the arrogant bank teller and to the expensively-educated barrister, the Chief Constable, the psychopathic mind-benders known as psychiatrists, the phoney religious leaders, the quacks in the uniforms of the National Death Cult, to the fake journalists, any and all media moguls and all the actors who deliver the lying scripts – I could go but I will end it there.

If you cannot back up your mouthings with grammar and reason, then fook off for you are no use to anyone who is who is interested in the Truth, and only the Truth.

And, just in case, there are people out their who falsely believe that the Truth is relative, and that people can spout off subjectively as that is ‘their truth’, you too are also kindly asked to fook off.

There you go – I’ve said it. It is a very simple matter of

“The Truth against the world”

After all,

God may love a trier, but the Devil loves a liar”

However, none of the above is to discount my genuine supporters, no matter how exclusive a club that may be, for it is by way of their kindness and appreciation that I am writing my essays and producing my Rogue Discourses. To each and everyone of you, to all those who intuitively sense the truth and honour behind all I put out, I truly thank-you and genuinely value your support.

Should you be feeling appreciative, then please tip me a few quid via the Buy Me a Coffee button and, remember too that I can also be read on Substack.