See here for
essential background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.
Neil Sanders and Brent Lee have made a new three-part show about
Richard D Hall on their podcast
Some Dare
Call it Conspiracy. The two ex-conspiracy theorists released it onto their
free platforms at the same time as their Patreon site which is unusual for
them. They normally let their supporters see the product first. They must have
decided that there is some urgency in publishing this assessment. They are
joined on the programme by an Australian called Joel Hill, who has appeared on
some of their previous shows. Joel contributes nothing rational to the
discussion at all; he just pops up every so often to declare some kind of emotional
reaction to whatever is being talked about, saying that conspiracy theorists
are "despicable!"... "Insane!"...
"Fuckwits!"... "Cringe!"...
"Obnoxious!"... As I've said before, this is pure sentimental
rhetoric and falls well below the standards of people who preen themselves for being
knowers of "how science works!", see:
https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-show-respect-to-victims-of-911.html.
As usual the show's content involves Neil delivering an extensive monologue
with a very occasional interjection by Brent and Joel. Neil Gish-gallops so
many points that I lost count; but hardly any of them are relevant to Richard's
current situation anyway. Almost the entire first episode is simply a rehash of
subject matter that the duo have covered on previous programmes, namely Neil's
general criticism of Richard's ideas (mostly incorrect in my view). It is not
until the forty-five minute mark that the subject of Richard's trial is first
mentioned; in fact, unless you are a newcomer to the Conspirasphere and have no
previous knowledge of it, I recommend skipping the episode until then. Even
then, Neil only spends a minute or two on the subject and then goes off on a
tangent again until early in the third part. The three presenters believe it
was justified to accuse Richard of his supposed harassment. Not libel;
harassment. Filming outside the claimants' home was "doxing" apparently,
even though Richard only went there once and never published the video he took
from a public area. They also support the court's decision to prevent Richard
tabling his full evidence package. Neil mentions my own report and how I compare
the situation to Ernst Zündel. However, he wrongly states that I am comparing
the two men and not the two legal cases.
He also fails to grasp how the court's dismissal of Zündel's defence is given
the very same justification as that of Richard's. He skips over the part where
I describe the dark energy of the courthouse. He claims that we should just
trust the authorities when they say that the evidence is decided. When they
want to hide something from us that might prove or disprove a suspicion; they
just doing it for the sake of our feelings. I stated that a large proportion of
the public question the Manchester Arena event. He said: "So what?
Millions of the American public just voted for Donald Trump."... Yes,
precisely! That is how freedom-loving and independently thinking those
wonderful Americans are. Source:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/62bvOgVjnHLVIsAcIxfkYo.
Neil punctuates this supposed empirical and parsimonious
analysis with his own propagandistic language. Like Joel, he doesn't see any
problem with mixing the two and cannot understand the fallacy he is committing.
At one point he says in response to the accusation that this whole court case
is merely a pretext for censorship, which of course I assert myself:
"Richard, you're not Nelson Mandela, you just told everybody no kids
died!"... "You despicable pieces of shit!"... "Fuck you
both!... You failed at humanity!" There is a strange message when reading
between the lines of Neil, Brent and Joel's conversation; a weird kind of
agreement with me. I knew from the start, and this was confirmed to me as the
court case went on, that the only reason this legal attack on Richard is taking
place is because the government want to destroy him personally and create a
legal landscape in which it is impossible to disagree publicly with the establishment
narrative on any subject they decide. Neil, Brent and Joel say this is not
true, but in the very same breath constantly refer back to the tragedy of the
Manchester Arena incident, the pain caused to the grieving relatives and the
survivors by people doubting it, and the disrespect it shows to the memory of
those who allegedly died. But surely this issue has nothing to do with that,
does it? It's purely about Richard's action and words towards the claimants;
not his opinions, isn't it? We were specifically told that in court. Neil
repeats this two-tier argument when he compares Richard's trial to that of Alex
Jones, a comparison that I have also pointed out, see:
https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2022/08/alex-jones-in-court.html.
Therefore the three presenters are contradicting themselves. They are
essentially admitting, in their own way, that this
is very much about punishing Richard D Hall for expressing an
opinion. At the time of writing, Richard has written a post explaining how the
amount of money he really owes is many times what I said in the
RDH Sentenced article. It adds up to so
much more because of all the costs. There has also been an injunction ordering
him to remove "certain material" from his website. I could not attend
the sentencing hearing because of work commitments and the lack of notice, but
a friend of mine was there and she told me that this injunction is an
"open-ended" one. The court could decide to add more for Richard to
delete at any time wholly at their discretion. (This is surprisingly similar to
what happened to me when I was discharged from Hospital Portering, see:
https://hpanwo-hpwa.blogspot.com/2022/01/ten-years-on.html.)
If this whole affair was not intended to ruin Richard financially and stop his
research and media work, then in what way could it have done a better job if it
were? I feel awful for Richard and will do anything I can to help him in this
time of need, but the sheer volume of the penalty looks truly insurmountable at
the moment. Neil, Brent and Joel clearly have no such desire. They appear
pleased that "justice has been done!" Yet things always come out of
left field. When Richard D Hall is vindicated, along with the rest of the
Conspirasphere, and the New World Order is finally defeated. Those who assisted
with the Illuminati agenda, knowingly or not, will be held lawfully accountable.
I wonder how Neil, Brent and Joel will fair at their own trial.
See here for
background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/06/conspiracy-theory-and-culture.html.
And: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2023/09/conspiracy-theory-deprogramming.html.
