A Fistful of Shekels
Fri 11:36 am +01:00, 20 Sep 2024
The Shekels or the ‘money’ is a chimera that many chase. It is a falsity on the simple basis that the money of the realm is neither lawful or real and because it is, as a matter of unassailable fact, a credit system of financial control. It is The One Ring to Control Them All.
As I have written about extensively, the licenced credit brokers are not actual banks. They are traders in securities, which they either buy, sell for profit or, in the case of the Great British Mortgage Swindle, unlawfully procure through the thousands of duplicitous conveyancing solicitors whose ignorance of the facts is as manifold as the earth’s oceans.
In a recent essay, I posited that I am not in the business of making friends or followers across social media, whatever the form those limited hangouts take. My output is to be measured qualitatively and not quantitively.
Some, so-called popular writers and podcasters are manifestly engaging in the opposite, whether for dorphine hits or fame, it matters not and one such character is James Delingpole.
His Delingpod podcast is popular and, without a doubt, he is a likeable character, with his gentle eccentricities of speech and knowledge serving to pull in the crowds, whether that be on his various platforms or through his performances at a variety of venues. Good for him, you might say.
However, and this is the rub: it is a fact that he and Toby Young, at least for a series of their erstwhile London Calling podcasts, extolled the virtues and the services of a Leicester mortgage broker who was sponsoring the ‘show’.
Further, as far as I know, James Delingpole never goes near the issue of the One Ring of financial control that holds the vast majority of the multitude in its thrall.
Could it be that James has been placed to corral those who are awakening to the pernicious nature of the construct in which they find themselves to be trapped?
As such, could it be that his output amounts to nothing more than a Limited Hangout?
After all, is it not the case that those, like him, who have sizeable followings are tolerated by the controllers as long as they avoid the more salient issues like the law, hidden history and the credit system?
Of coures, James is a popular character but since when does being popular equate with being right?
To be popular on social media and in the ‘alternative scene’ one has to accommodate and maintain the current audience but is that audience truly conscious?
Is an audience that is drawn to conspiratorial narratives and the ‘rabbit holes’ that James frequently refers to really any different from the rest of the populace? Does that audience not have a limited perception that undermines their claims to be ‘awake’?
Is the ‘alternative scene’ truly different from the mainstream one?
Take for instance the issue of vaccination. The mainstream promotes it and the alternative scene denounces it.
Although a minority may point it out, few seem to be ready to acknowledge that the very premise of vaccination is utter nonsense. That premise is rarely considered and thus we have the mud-slinging that is exchanged between the two opposing camps which goes nowhere, just as it is intended to do.
I have no beef with James but I do wonder if his schtick is nothing more than an echo chamber, that occasionally mocks his followers. By way of example, in his interview with Richard D Hall, the latter made mention of the recurrence of the number Twenty-Two in the referenced Manchester event, as well as how it features in other such psy-ops. This moment occurs in the 22nd minute of their dialogue. Did James edit it so that it appeared to be a coincidence, designed as a hint that the Freemasonic controllers are all-powerful and that their operations are thus works of genius?
When I published my essay on Rhetoric on the Substack platform, James shared it and reiterated my conclusion that Miri Finch’s article on the Richard D Hall court case was reliant on logical fallacies.
However, in a direct message, he subsequently wrote to me stating that Finch is “good”, that he would defend her honour and that I should stop giving her “shit”, otherwise he would be “very disappointed”. This is my reply to him, to which he has not responded:
“Good morning, James and thank you for getting in touch.
Naturally, I will retract any post I have made that is inaccurate and, if necessary, issue an unreserved apology to the individual concerned.
Therefore, if you would be so kind, please inform Ms Finch that she has only to point out any errors in my reasoning and I will do just that.
However, please take note that I will not be moved by any fallacious appeals to emotion such as those contained in your rather bizarre direct message.
In fact, may I enquire as to what any of this has to do with you? Did you not appreciate the critique on Finch’s rhetoric to the point of sharing it?
In truth and honour, Michael”
To reiterate: I am not here to gain praise or garner followers. Rather, my writings and discourses are to be assessed qualitatively – they stand or fall on the accuracy of the information and the reasoning contained therein.
That, of course, is the opposite to James’ output, which, superficially, gains more plaudits than I ever do, or indeed would seek.
Meanwhile, James’ love of the shekels continues – each ‘Delingpod’ episode is introduced with an advertisement for a company that deals in gold and silver and whilst there is no problem with that per se, it is interesting to note that his much-trumpeted burrowing down and into a variety of rabbit holes always avoids the gaping tunnel of the financial control system, the matter of Law and the various legal traps in which we find ourselves. Would such a venture threaten his income stream? I don’t know but it is an interesting question nevertheless.
So it goes, so it goes.
Source: https://roguemale.org/2024/09/20/a-fistful-of-shekels/
