Precisely. Both Miri and Iain are capable and *have* written mature, logical, & reasoned pieces on this topic. O'Loughlin's sensational & tabloid style writing, grandiose videos of herself, as well as her petulant, smug, and rude responses to posters on her own articles show her up for what she is. She may well have a point like Iain says, but unfortunately her ego has to come first.
"That doesn't mean all Hall's theories are false: absolutely not. They would get no traction if they were, and a lot of highly intelligent and discerning people are invested in them. But please be aware of how rat poison works - 99% sweetmeal, 1% arsenic."
Earlier in the response she questioned Hall's sincerity. WTF?
Not out of nowhere....Her disparaging comments have there roots in her ongoing middle aged cat fight with Gemma O'Doherty & the attacks on RDH are pretty much proxy attacks on the same....
This Aisling person does not understand the investigative process. You have forensically explored the available evidence and found it to be seriously wanting. She, on the other hand, prefers to come to conclusions based on a narrative. And her narrative is that there is a "movement" and that the "movement" is being tricked into thinking there wasn't a bomb. What she doesn't understand is that, even if you are subsequently proven wrong, you have raised valid questions about evidence, and these questions have NOT yet been answered. Until they can be answered, your theory stands. If she's got a better theory based on a forensic examination of EVIDENCE, let's hear it. It doesn't sound like she has one. So really this movement of hers is the normie movement. She should join the BBC and stop pretending that she is part of a "movement" that has a right to tell people how to think. That's her movement!! It certainly isn't mine.
As usual, these people never address or rebut ANYTHING in the work they are criticising and instead trot out the same old ad hominem attacks. Huge red flag.
So we should discard the mountain of independently researched evidence that RDH has collated and presented because: a) the Hibberts are in wheelchairs (sometimes) and b) we know what happened to the 'victims' because Sky News have reported on it.
Oh well, case closed. She must be right and we are all just 'thick'.
Although I have no idea who this woman is, I can see that others seem to respect her. However, I cannot give her the benefit of the doubt as even the most cursory glance at RDH's work is all it takes for anyone with a genuine interest in the pursuit of truth to begin asking serious questions about the official narrative.
I have found time and time again that those accusing others of being 'counter intelligence' are usually making 'embedded confessions' (to quote Peter Hyatt and other statement analysis experts). From her embarrassingly poor attempt at a take down of RDH, it would appear this woman is a prime example.
I too would be very happy to see her in conversation with Iain but I won't hold my breath.
What the heck is going on?! I listened to your podcast with James Delingpole and was convinced. Aisling is usually solid in her views but seems entirely convinced that the Manchester ‘bomb’ was not a hoax which I find bizarre. I look forward to your discussion with her Iain!
I think it is a highly emotive issue and people tend to react emotionally. I think Ailing is wrong but makes some good points and am happy to discuss the evidence with her.
Seen a couple of her posts and listened to some of her vids including her 35min one. Can't recall any good points she made. Looking forward to your discussion.
Having seen RDH’s full investigation into the hoax, read your book on it there is no doubt, to me, that it was a state operated false flag. This ‘movement’ is what? As far as I can see all we are striving for is truth based on THE evidence.
What are the state so scared of that RDH was allowed barely a tiny fraction of evidence to be heard (through clever defence in court, you described on the Dellingpod)? We all know what.
I used to rate AO’l’s words on here and her videos but she seems to have gone off the rails massively on this.
I agree, we're all just a bunch of individuals doing our own reading and research into how the world works. There's no "movement ", and most of us like to gather a variety of news sources across the Alternative Journalist arena. We each might have our favourite writers etc, but this idea we need a navigator like her to help us decipher genuine from fake in the Alt sphere, I find it grating.
There should be no movement, merely individuals seeking to understand and do what they deem to be right for all, according to the best of their ability. That will lead to a synergetic experience when such individuals meet and you can say they are spirit siblings for a brief moment but there is no outer form to adhere to. - or indeed TO COMPLY WITH!
Hence we seek and strive in and for freedom! I know of quite isolated individuals who are known to a mere handful of few friends who have been investigating since the 60s and were way ahead of the likes of David Ike when he suddenly became the fall-guy for those doing earnest research. I am grateful to him, but have my severe reservations as well. He has in my view happily jumped to a number of conclusions, as it is more cool to have answers than at times to admit you haven't a clue...yet!
I look forward to reading your book-I can't read more than a few pages online. Aisling is normally a superb analyst, but seems to have a blind spot about this one. She also seems to not realise that free speech means the right to ask questions, no matter how seemingly offensive.
She has been building up to it as she does so much work and it seems to come to not a great deal! People who want to change the world will fall prey to the power of impatience. That is why I advocate for taking the time to think and let things sink in!
Aisling might be suffering from this, as many still are:
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
She's a gatekeeper who's not interested in the actual evidence. She just gaslights her audience with ad-hominem attacks and stories of hurty feelings. She even visciously attacks her own readers. Bizarre!
Bravo, Iain Davis! The only person here who has clearly been conned and duped is Aisling O'Laughlin herself. She's little more than an unformed, unapologetic apologist for the conspiracy of government and their draconian means of suppression and censorship.
Aisling has conned herself. In yesterday's discussion with Iain, she refused to accept any of the evidence that didn't support her beliefs about the event.
Don't hold ya breath. Watch now as she attempts to back-peddle and worm her way out of the interview.
Bingo
I certainly did not appreciate Aisling’s post telling me what I should or should not believe.
Miri AF wrote perfectly in response to it and I agree with Miri that I am free to believe whatever I want to.
I look forward to hearing this interview.
Precisely. Both Miri and Iain are capable and *have* written mature, logical, & reasoned pieces on this topic. O'Loughlin's sensational & tabloid style writing, grandiose videos of herself, as well as her petulant, smug, and rude responses to posters on her own articles show her up for what she is. She may well have a point like Iain says, but unfortunately her ego has to come first.
As we say here in Ireland, she's a "dose"!
I found Miri's response disturbing.
"That doesn't mean all Hall's theories are false: absolutely not. They would get no traction if they were, and a lot of highly intelligent and discerning people are invested in them. But please be aware of how rat poison works - 99% sweetmeal, 1% arsenic."
Earlier in the response she questioned Hall's sincerity. WTF?
She's another shill imo
I disagree. I often don't like her viewpoint but rarely find fault with her logic. Her disparaging comments about Hall seem to come out of nowhere.
Not out of nowhere....Her disparaging comments have there roots in her ongoing middle aged cat fight with Gemma O'Doherty & the attacks on RDH are pretty much proxy attacks on the same....
This Aisling person does not understand the investigative process. You have forensically explored the available evidence and found it to be seriously wanting. She, on the other hand, prefers to come to conclusions based on a narrative. And her narrative is that there is a "movement" and that the "movement" is being tricked into thinking there wasn't a bomb. What she doesn't understand is that, even if you are subsequently proven wrong, you have raised valid questions about evidence, and these questions have NOT yet been answered. Until they can be answered, your theory stands. If she's got a better theory based on a forensic examination of EVIDENCE, let's hear it. It doesn't sound like she has one. So really this movement of hers is the normie movement. She should join the BBC and stop pretending that she is part of a "movement" that has a right to tell people how to think. That's her movement!! It certainly isn't mine.
Is Aisling O'Loughlin a metaphorical anagram of Marianna Spring? 🤔
She's Spring's evil, Irish, half-sister!
Begorrah!!😜
Well spotted Steve.
As usual, these people never address or rebut ANYTHING in the work they are criticising and instead trot out the same old ad hominem attacks. Huge red flag.
So we should discard the mountain of independently researched evidence that RDH has collated and presented because: a) the Hibberts are in wheelchairs (sometimes) and b) we know what happened to the 'victims' because Sky News have reported on it.
Oh well, case closed. She must be right and we are all just 'thick'.
Although I have no idea who this woman is, I can see that others seem to respect her. However, I cannot give her the benefit of the doubt as even the most cursory glance at RDH's work is all it takes for anyone with a genuine interest in the pursuit of truth to begin asking serious questions about the official narrative.
I have found time and time again that those accusing others of being 'counter intelligence' are usually making 'embedded confessions' (to quote Peter Hyatt and other statement analysis experts). From her embarrassingly poor attempt at a take down of RDH, it would appear this woman is a prime example.
I too would be very happy to see her in conversation with Iain but I won't hold my breath.
I am glad you quote Peter Hyatt as his testimony is crucial in my estimation.
What the heck is going on?! I listened to your podcast with James Delingpole and was convinced. Aisling is usually solid in her views but seems entirely convinced that the Manchester ‘bomb’ was not a hoax which I find bizarre. I look forward to your discussion with her Iain!
I think it is a highly emotive issue and people tend to react emotionally. I think Ailing is wrong but makes some good points and am happy to discuss the evidence with her.
Seen a couple of her posts and listened to some of her vids including her 35min one. Can't recall any good points she made. Looking forward to your discussion.
"Ailing".
Betraying your true thoughts there, Iain?
😉
I don't think she made any good points...
Having seen RDH’s full investigation into the hoax, read your book on it there is no doubt, to me, that it was a state operated false flag. This ‘movement’ is what? As far as I can see all we are striving for is truth based on THE evidence.
What are the state so scared of that RDH was allowed barely a tiny fraction of evidence to be heard (through clever defence in court, you described on the Dellingpod)? We all know what.
I used to rate AO’l’s words on here and her videos but she seems to have gone off the rails massively on this.
I agree, we're all just a bunch of individuals doing our own reading and research into how the world works. There's no "movement ", and most of us like to gather a variety of news sources across the Alternative Journalist arena. We each might have our favourite writers etc, but this idea we need a navigator like her to help us decipher genuine from fake in the Alt sphere, I find it grating.
There should be no movement, merely individuals seeking to understand and do what they deem to be right for all, according to the best of their ability. That will lead to a synergetic experience when such individuals meet and you can say they are spirit siblings for a brief moment but there is no outer form to adhere to. - or indeed TO COMPLY WITH!
Hence we seek and strive in and for freedom! I know of quite isolated individuals who are known to a mere handful of few friends who have been investigating since the 60s and were way ahead of the likes of David Ike when he suddenly became the fall-guy for those doing earnest research. I am grateful to him, but have my severe reservations as well. He has in my view happily jumped to a number of conclusions, as it is more cool to have answers than at times to admit you haven't a clue...yet!
I look forward to reading your book-I can't read more than a few pages online. Aisling is normally a superb analyst, but seems to have a blind spot about this one. She also seems to not realise that free speech means the right to ask questions, no matter how seemingly offensive.
This is the problem with 'journalists' operating on emotion. Stops them looking at the facts. Aisling has done her credibility harm with her outburst.
She has been building up to it as she does so much work and it seems to come to not a great deal! People who want to change the world will fall prey to the power of impatience. That is why I advocate for taking the time to think and let things sink in!
Good luck with the interview Iain ;-)
Hello Iain I am half way through your book and have read your coverage of RD Halls trial as well. All cogent and reasonably argued for my money.
Have you seen MIRI AF taking up a similar critique to Aisling O’Loughlin?
Here’s the link :
https://miri.substack.com/p/richard-ds-hall-of-mirrors?publication_id=384935&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=2c5jbf&utm_medium=email
MIR AF's article was interesting and I meant to link to it in mine, but forgot. Thanks for reminding me. I have updated this article accordingly.
Aisling might be suffering from this, as many still are:
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
(From https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/alleged-cia-involvement-in-jfk-assassination-goes-mainstream-so-now-what/ )
no , she is just a stupid evil twat.
She's a gatekeeper who's not interested in the actual evidence. She just gaslights her audience with ad-hominem attacks and stories of hurty feelings. She even visciously attacks her own readers. Bizarre!
A narcissist trying to carve out a niche for herself in the Alt scene imo.
That's exactly what she did in the debate with Iain.
I'd say she's in big trouble... Iain Davis will very politely savage this stateist with the truth and facts. I'm very much looking forward to this 😁
Bravo, Iain Davis! The only person here who has clearly been conned and duped is Aisling O'Laughlin herself. She's little more than an unformed, unapologetic apologist for the conspiracy of government and their draconian means of suppression and censorship.
Aisling has conned herself. In yesterday's discussion with Iain, she refused to accept any of the evidence that didn't support her beliefs about the event.
If I were you, I wouldn't agree to waste time participating in what can only be a farce of an interview.
You can't win pigeon chess.