The Pentrich False Flag of 1817

This essay was originally posted in 2017. I have revised it in accordance with yesterday’s video essay, the Right to Bear Arms which referenced the 1817 Pentrich false flag operation but did not provide the details.

I’ve also included an audio recording:

The Pentrich false flag was engineered by a government agent known as ‘Oliver the Spy’ – real name, William J Richards – and it centred around Pentrich in Derbyshire, where the former Butterley ironworks stood. 3 men were hanged in Derby by the tyrannical government who used the staged event to introduce a raft of ‘Acts’ which curtailed the freedoms of the people and which are detailed below.

In the light of which, I have to ask the question,

is the UK Gov fomenting a False Flag event for 13th September, 2025?

The astute critical thinker will instantly spot the False Flag Playbook at work, with Tommy ‘Yaxley’ Robinson having a background similar to the Gov Agent, Richards, who led the rising in Pentrich, Derbyshire. Richards was released from Debtors’ Prison to carry out his mission and, so we are led to believe, Yaxley Robinson was also recently released from jail.

200 Hundred Years of Government Sponsored Genocide & Terrorism.

How the British ‘Government’ has been engineering false flag attacks and terrorist atrocities on the people for hundreds of years.

It is fair to state that the British Government is scared shitless of the people, which, of course is how it should be:

“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

What if you were to suggest to the average man in the street that his ‘government’ (not his own morality or consciousness of wrong and right but the ‘state’ that exists without himself) is, and always has been, his enemy and that of the people?

He might agree but most people, I’d wager, would take issue, despite the fact that the British ‘government’ has a long and ignoble history of engineering staged events in order to increase its powers over the people it falsely claims to ‘represent’.

These are dangerous times for ‘government’ right now. The Grenfell Tower inferno and resultant deaths is a stark illustration of the utter contempt those fake polipuppets have for the people. It should certainly be used as another nail in the coffin of a UK government, that in accord with its deplorable history of genocide against the people, at home and abroad, appears to have deliberately bypassed any attempts to implement, what for most, would be basic standards of safety for those who live in these types of housing blocks. By way of illustration:

In support of the fact that governments commit genocide upon the people, generation after generation, one could quote abundantly from the annals of history, dating back to all civilisations. Government has always been about how to control the people. Tried and tested methods of suppression and control of the people have existed since time in memoriam and those techniques are in constant usage.

The allegory of Plato’s Cave  is perhaps the clearest of all the analogies that we may use to understand the significance of how the state uses mind control techniques to shape and mould the hearts and minds of the people. These days, the television and moving image is the technological equivalent of the fire that casts the shadows on the cave wall, creating the false flickering reality by which people figure out the meaning of their lives and behave accordingly:

Plato’s Cave – controlling the media.

When those techniques break down, the ‘controllers’ resort to force.

It is the circus maximus, the grand bread and circus show, and it is the domineering screen of Orwell’s 1984. It operates to such an extent that it successfully dominates the thought processes of all those who come under its thrall.

The BBC is the state’s vehicle for its promulgation of its messages to the population.

This engineering of the collective psyche has been going on for millennia. Religion has played its part too, as has the introduction of a Frankfurt education system that teaches its captive audiences what to think, not how to think.

It is hugely successful. The techniques work. Throw into the mix the psychological developments of the last century – New Age religion (via theosophy, Crowley and Freemasonry), the creation of eugenics, the rise of social Darwinism and Marxism, the viral spread of ‘psychology’ spun out by Sigmund Freud, his nephew, Edward Bernays, and the weaponised anthropology of the Tavistock institute and, over-arching it all, the control of finance – and one can begin to see clearly the psychological mesh or matrix of control that lies between the individual and his natural state of free or critical thinking.

It is a mesh that the deep state spends billions of pounds on maintaining. It is a massive, though relatively simple, operation of conditioning and brainwashing that relies totally upon the control of the media (a term only recently used to describe the mass mainstream communications networks). That control is currently under threat as a consequence of the rise of the internet and the independent media, a tsunami of individuals who now have the means and the technology to use their critical thinking skills to disseminate factual information that blows apart the fake machinations of the deep state and the mainstream media.

The question as to how and why so much energy and money is spent attempting to control the minds of the people is an interesting one but it boils down to this: those in ‘power’ are scared witless of the people rising up to usurp them.

Personally, I find it incredible that anyone would wish to limit the thinking and the lives of others. I am thus opposed to any and every form of control that limits the capacity of the individual to live in accordance with the righteous precept of ‘do no harm, take no shit’ and to prosper on his own terms, in line with the principals that have been made plain to us from a variety of sources, including the teachings of Christ:

The Summary of the Law is composed of two Great Commandments that both take the form “thou shalt:”

 

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:37-40 Source

These are straightforward enough to need no further comment.

Inevitably, as one journeys through life, it becomes clearer that all is not as it should be.  An unease forms in the solar plexus of the one who wakes up to the panopticon of psychological manipulation that he is living under. Once he begins to delve into the machinations of the systems that beset him, he grows increasingly conscious of how and why the deep state is an extreme force that exists with one purpose: mass manipulation. He learns that the ‘government’ without himself is a collection of extremists whom history has demonstrated beyond doubt is responsible for the mass slaughter of millions of people world-wide.

At the moment, it appears that the city of London and the country at large is being subjected to a series of engineered events that are specifically carried out in accordance with the age-old principle of divide and rule. The hung parliament is designed to create the illusion of chaos, the staged events are aimed at injecting fear into the minds of men – both in order to control and subjugate the masses.

To repeat, there is nothing new in this.

By way of illustration, let us turn back the clock to 200 years ago. As written about previously, the socio-economic situation in Britain at that time was bubbling with malcontent caused by the oppressions of the elites on the many (different time, same shit).

“Following the Napoleonic Wars England was immediately plunged into economic hardship. In the industrial textile towns of the North wages fell sharply as the factory system took hold, traditional handloom weavers being some of the worst affected. Weavers, who could have expected to earn 15 shillings a week in 1803, saw their wages cut by two thirds or more. Then came the Corn Laws of 1815. Intended to protect British agricultural workers from cheap foreign imports, they actually caused an increase in grain prices and a decrease in supplies, only adding to the poor’s woes. These hardships were then further compounded by poor harvests the following year, which resulted in food shortages during the winter of 1816-1817. As discontent led to riots, Lord Liverpool’s government were facing growing demands for social, political and economic reform.”  Source

The Luddites were another manifestation of this. The history of these lands makes it plain that when the people are treated like shit, they will eventually rise and attempt to shake off their psychological and physical shackles. The ruling classes know this, or at least they should, but one can be forgiven for thinking they do not, given the levels of blatant malfeasance that take place at all levels of ‘government’.  Malfeasance which, to reiterate, is perfectly illustrated by the latest ‘Fire of London’, the atrocity that took place at the Grenfell Towers, near Notting Hill.

Before digging into what has been falsely labelled the ‘last revolution’ of 1817, it’s also worth blowing apart the dubious claim of Theresa May that the ‘Manchester Attack’ was the worst terrorist incident the city had experienced, when much of the evidence of the alleged event suggests that it was faked – a false flag.

As a matter of fact, the Peterloo Massacre, a government attack on the people, was far worse in that it was a state-sponsored attack on a gathering of thousands:

“On the 16th of August 1819 the huge open area around what’s now St Peter’s Square, Manchester, played host to an outrage against over 60,000 peaceful pro-democracy and anti-poverty protesters; an event which became known as The Peterloo Massacre.

 

An estimated 18 people, including four women and a child, died from sabre cuts and trampling. Nearly 700 men, women and children received extremely serious injuries. All in the name of liberty and freedom from poverty.” Source

The Pentrich ‘Revolution’ of 1817 was, in fact, a false flag event, using patsies and government agents to stir up the people so that the government could impose repressive acts and measures against the populace. It was a staged event, organised by ‘Oliver the Spy’ – a government agent, William J Richards – who had been released from gaol to work for his masters – and who acted as agent provocateur and the catalyst for events.  The episode was manufactured, founded on the belief of the people that there was going to be a mass uprising that would take place across the country. Accordingly, a body of men was organised, ready to march to Nottingham, gathering support on the way.

However, it was all engineered.  A false flag event.

“Oliver was pulled out of debtors’ prison on the proviso he would spy for the government. He was paid on results, so he created those results.” Pentrich historian, Sylvia Mason.

Thus, Richards’ role was to foment a fake revolution centred around the towns of Derbyshire and the city of Nottingham itself in order that the government could be ‘justified’ in imposing repressive legislation across the country.  It was “an attempt to launch a revolutionary uprising in Derbyshire, by workers convinced by a government spy that a network of similar risings was planned elsewhere. There is evidence that similar plans were afoot in a number of places, but linked only by informers, and the premature events in Derbyshire and some arrests elsewhere led only to disaster.” Source

“The principal activist in the Nottingham and Pentrich area was the veteran radical Thomas Bacon […] who suggested Pentrich as the base for the rising, possibly because of its proximity to the Butterley ironworks which it was hoped to use for the manufacture of pikes and cannon during the coming insurrection. However, Bacon took no part in the rising. Its actual leader was Jeremiah Brandreth, a 27 year old man who had worked in a number of trades, and had only recently moved into the area. Taking charge a few days before 8 June, he organised support from the area around Pentrich.” Source

Government retribution, over an event that it had effectively organised, was brutal:

“The Pentrich rising had involved only a few hundred men at most, many of them effectively forced into taking part during the night march to Nottingham. Armed with a few guns, home-made pikes, scythes, and pitchforks they killed only one man during the whole episode. The Government, however, decided to make an example of them and forty five were tried for High Treason by Special Commission in Derby in July. Three were hanged, including Brandreth; thirty more were sentenced to transportation, including Bacon.” Source

This comment from historian EP Thompson on the engineering of the uprising is as applicable to the staged events in 2017 as it was to the Pentrich false flag, notice the highlighted ingredients and then apply them to the current state of engineered ‘terror’ at play:

“In a sense, the Government needed conspirators, to justify the continuation of repressive legislation which prevented nation-wide popular organisation.

 

[…] The line between the spy and the agent provocateur was indistinct. The informer was paid by piece-rate; the more alarmist his information, the more lucrative his trade. Fabricated information might be eagerly accepted by the authorities who propagated the myth. At a certain stage, it is impossible to know how far they were themselves deluded by conspiracies which their own informers engendered. To isolate and terrorise potential revolutionaries, it was possible to adopt a policy of deliberate provocation. In this sense, it was the policies of Pitt, in repressing the corresponding societies, which set in motion which led to both Oliver the Spy and the Pentrich Rising of 1817. 

 

These years reveal such a foul pattern of faked evidence, intimidation and double agents, that it is possible to regret that the logic did not work itself out to its proper conclusion. If the Cato Street conspirators had achieved their object in the assassination of the Cabinet, the Cabinet would have been slain by conspirators whom their own repressive policies had engendered, and their own spies had armed.” P530

[DOWNLOAD available here]

“The true nature of Pentrich has been variously distorted as a rebellion, or a revolution, an expression of the desire of common folk for armed uprising. In reality, it was largely a deliberate provocation by the State. The motive? To crush the yearnings for democracy. In a letter in 1831, Lord Melbourne, a former Home Secretary, recalled that there was “much reason to suspect that the rising…was stimulated, if not produced, by the artifices of Oliver”.” Source

 

“The government as good as organised it – they named the day in documents and showed they were planning it from 1815. They were afraid a real uprising was coming so they allowed the Pentrich men to march so they could be arrested as used as scapegoats.” Pentrich historian Sylvia Mason

Same As It Ever Was.

#FakeNews, 07 November, 1817

The conclusion is stark: history shows us that whatever the issue or problem may be, government is never the solution.

208 years on from the Pentrich False Flag and we are manifestly facing the same psychological manipulation from a criminal government whose reliance on lies and a captured two tier justice system run to the benefit of the hidden financial overlords is simply part of the tyrannical playbook. As has always been the case, the antidote to dictatorships of all hues lies with the indvidual and his non-compliance.

__________________________________________________

Thank you for reading/listening. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the  Buy Me a Coffee button and/or have taken out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

 

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑