Russell Brand - visionary or controlled opposition clown?

[TonyGosling]

Russell Brand's Fantasy of a Socialist Egalitarian Utopia - Red Ice Commentary

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COMj3Nw2c3M
In a recent diatribe on BBC, Hollywood actor Russell Brand with Jeremy Paxman spoke candidly about his desire to create a "Socialist egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth and heavy taxation of corporations." In this commentary we question Brand's so called "good intentions" and how qualified he really is to talk about these topics as a multi-millionaire. More importantly, we discuss his connection to the Fabian Socialist magazine the "New Statesman," of which he was co-editing for a week before his senseless speech and call for a revolution on TV.

[acrobat74]

Brand's been quite accurately described as 'a blizzard of brilliance and bo££ocks'.

He's the closest to the great George Carlin that I've seen and is clearly brilliant. His heart's in the right place most likely.
At the same time, some of the utopian / collectivist ideas he proposes will clearly not work and would make Karl Popper turn in his grave.
A good lad though. And has balls.

[TonyGosling]

Russell Brand sparks fury as he says he's 'open-minded' over blaming 9/11 on US government
COMEDIAN Russell Brand provoked fury today after saying he was "open-minded" about the idea that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks.
By: Lianne KolirinPublished: Fri, October 24, 2014
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/527099/Russell-Brand-9-11-controversi al-comments
Never one to shy away from controversy, the self-styled revolutionary used his appearance on Newsnight to elaborate on a view expressed in his new book entitled Revolution, in which he sets out his call for political change.
Pressed by presenter Evan Davis on comments about the destruction of New York's Twin Towers in 2001, Brand refused to rule out the possibility that the American government was behind them.
He then went on to accuse the BBC of promoting an "anti-Islamic narrative" in its coverage of this week's attack by a gunman on the Canadian parliament....

[fish5133]

He is a west ham supporter and fancies being Mayor of London--I would hold that more against him than his 9/11 comments. Not too keen on the guy but glad for truthy stuff from any quarter and if he keeps it up I might grow to like him

[ian neal]

Russell was on newsnight, etc principally to plug his book. I generally like the guy, but I thought his newsnight appearance was a car crash. He didn't come across very well in both style and substance.

Evan Davis was the one to bring it up and Russell was trying to move on/not discuss it. Despite this 9/11 is the angle most papers focussed on. His comments on 9/11 (such as they were ... he is 'open minded' but didn't want to discuss it) formed the focus of all commentary about him in the MSM. Most papers had something on him

The point being that 9/11 and the conspiracy theorist tag is being used against him just as it has against so many others before him. Still it might encourage those that like Russell to challenge/question 9/11.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Interesting Ian that, representing the BBC, Evan Davies brought the subject up isn't it?
Would have been primed to do this by the director/producer in the gallery.
BBC seem desperate to bring this subject matter to the public through the conduit of a clown.
Still covering for the perpetrators after all these 13 years.
Amazing to me and the only way out for them it seems is ever more lies and where will that end?

[Jayhawk]

Have you changed your mind on Mr Brand?
Still trying to figure him out, there's some very good stuff on the Trews.
But is he a gatekeeper?

[ian neal]

Medialens take on Mr Brand Part 1

http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=780: russell-brand-s-revolution&catid=52:alerts-2014&Itemid=245


Russell Brand's 'Revolution' - Part 1, 'The Fun Bus'

On October 23, 2013, Russell Brand appeared to crash through the filter system protecting the public from dissident opinion.

His 10-minute interview with Jeremy Paxman on the BBC's Newsnight programme not only attracted millions of viewers - the YouTube hit-counter stands at 10.6 million - it won considerable praise and support from corporate journalists on Twitter. Brand was arguing for 'revolution' and yet was flavour of the month, cool to like. Something didn't add up.

The hook for the interview was Brand's guest-editing of New Statesman magazine, promoted by him in a video that featured editor Jason Cowley giggling excitedly in the background among besuited corporate journalists. Again, this seemed curious: why would a drab, 'left of centre' (i.e., corporate party political) magazine support someone calling for a 'Revolution of consciousness'?

The answer is perhaps easier to fathom now than it was then, for time has not been kind either to the Newsnight interview or the New Statesman guest issue.

It is clear that an unprepared Brand was largely winging it with Paxman. In response to the predictable question of what political alternative he was proposing, Brand replied:

'Well, I've not invented it yet, Jeremy. I had to do a magazine last week. I had a lot on my plate. But here's the thing it shouldn't do. Shouldn't destroy the planet. Shouldn't create massive economic disparity. Shouldn't ignore the needs of the people. The burden of proof is on the people with the power, not people doing a magazine.'

In his new book, 'Revolution,' Brand recognises that the first part of this response 'ain't gonna butter no spuds on Newsnight or Fox News' (Brand, 'Revolution', Century, 2014, ebook, p.415) and he is clearly keen to move on from 'the policy-bare days of the Paxman interview' (p.417). On the other hand, the second part of Brand's answer helps explain the huge impact of the interview – he was speaking out with a level of passionate sincerity and conviction that are just not seen in today's manufactured, conformist, marketing-led media. Brand looked real, human. He was telling the truth!

Similarly, the New Statesman guest edition was a curious hodgepodge, with good articles by Brand, Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky alongside offerings from BBC sports presenter Gary Lineker, rock squib Noel Gallagher, actors Alec Baldwin and Rupert Everett, multi-millionaire entrepreneur Martha Lane-Fox, and even Russian media oligarch, Evgeny Lebedev. This was revolution as some kind of unscripted celebrity pantomime.

Brand's Newsnight performance, then, was an inspiring cri de coeur. But a 10-minute, impassioned, ill-formed demand for 'Change!' from a lone comedian is not a problem for the media's gatekeepers. It makes for great television, enhances the illusion that the media is open and inclusive, and can be quickly forgotten – no harm done.


Killing Corporate Power – Humanity's Stark Choice

Brand's new book, 'Revolution,' is different – the focus is clear, specific and fiercely anti-corporate. As we will see in Part 2 of this alert, the media reaction is also different.

Brand begins by describing the grotesque levels of modern inequality:

'Oxfam say a bus with the eighty-five richest people in the world on it would contain more wealth than the collective assets of half the earth's population – that's three-and-a-half billion people.' (p.34)

And:

'The richest 1 per cent of British people have as much as the poorest 55 per cent.' (p.34)

But even these facts do not begin to describe the full scale of the current crisis:

'The same interests that benefit from this... need, in order to maintain it, to deplete the earth's resources so rapidly, violently and irresponsibly that our planet's ability to support human life is being threatened.' (p.36)

For example:

'Global warming is totally real, it has been empirically proven, and the only people who tell you it's not real are, yes, people who make money from creating the conditions that cause it. (pp.539-540)

We are therefore at a crossroads:

'"Today humanity faces a stark choice: save the planet and ditch capitalism, or save capitalism and ditch the planet."

'The reason the occupants of the [elite] fun bus are so draconian in their defence of the economy is that they have decided to ditch the planet.' (p.345)

And so 'we require radical action fast, and that radical action will not come from the very interests that created and benefit from things being the way they are. The one place we cannot look for change is to the occupants of the bejewelled bus.' (p.42)

The problem, then, is that 'we live under a tyranny'. (p.550) The US, in particular, 'acts like an army that enforces the business interests of the corporations it is allied to'. (p.493)

But this is more than just a crude, Big Brother totalitarian state:

'A small minority cannot control an uncooperative majority, so they must be distracted, divided, tyrannised or anaesthetised into compliance...' which means 'the colonisation of consciousness by corporations'. (p.165)

Brand notes that 70 per cent of the UK press is controlled by three companies, 90 per cent of the US press by six:

'The people that own the means for conveying information, who decide what knowledge enters our minds, are on the fun bus.' (p.592)

He even manages a swipe at the 'quality' liberal press:

'Remember, the people who tell you this can't work, in government, on Fox News or MSNBC, or in op-eds in the Guardian or the Spectator, or wherever, are people with a vested interest in things staying the same.' (p.514)

Thus, the 'political process' is a nonsense: 'voting is pointless, democracy a façade' (p.45): 'a bloke with a nice smile and an angle is swept into power after a more obviously despicable regime and then behaves more or less exactly like his predecessors'. (p.431)

The highly debatable merit of voting aside, anyone with an ounce of awareness will accept pretty much everything Brand has to say above. Put simply, he's right – this is the current state of people, planet and politics. A catastrophic environmental collapse is very rapidly approaching with nothing substantive being done to make it better and everything being done to make it worse.

Even if we disagree with everything else he has to say, every sane person has an interest in supporting Brand's call to action to stop this corporate genocide and biocide. A thought we might bear in mind when we subsequently turn to the corporate media reaction.

'Wow, I'd Like To Be Him'

Even more astutely – and this is where he leaves most head-trapped leftists behind – Brand understands that progressive change is stifled by the shiny, silvery lures of corporate consumerism that hook into our desires and egos. He understands that focused awareness on the truth of our own personal experience is a key aspect of liberation from these iChains:

'Get money. I got money, I got the stuff on the other side of the glass and it didn't work.' (p.56)

And:

'I have seen what fame and fortune have to offer and I know it's not the answer. That doesn't diminish these arguments, it enhances them.' (p.202)

And:

'We have been told that freedom is the ability to pursue petty, trivial desires when true freedom is freedom from these petty, trivial desires.' (p.66)

In a wonderfully candid passage – unthinkable from most leftists, who write as though they were brains in jars rather than flesh-and-blood sexual beings – Brand describes seeing a paparazzi photo of himself emerging from an exclusive London nightclub at 2 a.m with a beautiful woman on each arm:

'I can still be deceived into thinking, "Wow, I'd like to be him," then I remember that I was him.' (p.314)

Brand tells his millions of admirers and wannabe, girl-guzzling emulators:

'That night with those two immaculate girls... did not feel like it looked.' (p.315)

So how did it feel?

'Kisses are exchanged and lips get derivatively bitten, and I am unsmitten and unforgiven, and when they leave I sit broken and longing on the chaise.' (p.316)

The point, again:

'This looks how it's supposed to look but it doesn't feel how it's supposed to feel.' (p.186)

Exactly reversing the usual role of the 'celebrity' ('how I loathe the word' (p.191)) - Brand sets a demolition charge under one of the great delusions of our time: 'Fame after a while seems ordinary.' (p.189)

Everything, after a while, seems ordinary – external, material pleasures do not deliver on their promises.

So why are we destroying humanity and the planet for a vampiric corporate dream that enriches a tiny elite and brings alienation and dissatisfaction to all? The answer? Thought control:

'We are living in a zoo, or more accurately a farm, our collective consciousness, our individual consciousness, has been hijacked by a power structure that needs us to remain atomised and disconnected.' (p.66)

And:

'Incrementally indoctrinated, we have forgotten how to dream, we have forgotten who we are. We have abandoned our connection to wonder and placed our destiny in unclean hands.' (p.600)

Again leaving most 'mainstream' and leftist thought far behind, Brand urges us to liberate ourselves from the marketised dreams of future happiness 'out there' – the fame, the indulgence, the wealth – to focus on a bliss that is available here, now, inside ourselves. What is he talking about? Is this just 'mumbo-jumbo', as critics claim? Far from it, this is a truth that is subtle, elusive, but real:

'You never know when you will encounter magic. Some solitary moment in a park can suddenly burst open with a spray of pre-school children in high-vis vests, hand in hand; maybe the teacher will ask you for directions and the children will look at you curious and open, and you'll see that they are perfect.' (p.105)

Bliss is there in that tiny, fleeting instant when the mind, for once – for a moment! – stops its ceaseless chatter to make space for 'another awareness. A distinct awareness. An awareness beyond, behind and around these thoughts'. (p.82)

This is brave and truthful; in fact, it is the central message of all the world's spiritual traditions freed from their political, theistic and superstitious baggage.

Yes, the hard-headed Chomskys and Pilgers are of course right, the world is shackled by economic and political chains. But these hook into our most personal dreams and desires. Activism often does, and perhaps more often should, arise from the ultimate inactivism of sitting silently, doing nothing, thinking nothing, realising deeply that the bliss we seek 'out there' is an imposed illusion that obstructs an authentic bliss only available, in fact, 'in here'.

This is the crucial, perennially-ignored link between spirituality and politics, between meditation and the ability to relinquish our dependence on corporate trinkets and 'service', and it has been made by far too few people in the history of Western thought.

If all of this wasn't enough to earn Brand support and applause, he even challenges the taboo that associates seriousness with virtue: 'people mistake solemnity for seriousness, [assuming] that by being all stern and joyless their ideas are somehow levitated'. (p.399)

And indeed leftist writers are almost universally angry, solemn and stern – seriousness is worn like a badge of sincerity by people who are supposed to abhor conformity and uniformity. Brand has the self-belief to joke and jape with childish abandon when discussing even the most serious subjects. Again, he is asserting the right to be whoever he chooses to be - an authentic, juicy human being, rather than a hard-boiled 'intellectual'.

In the effort to escape from illusions, both political and personal, Brand throws all kinds of ideas for action at his readers. He argues for the rewriting of trade agreements to support the needs of people and planet through localised farming. He wants to cancel personal debt, for communities to use modern high tech communications to take control of politics. He wants to 'kill' particular corporations like General Motors, 'sell them off and use the money to compensate victims and former workers, or we could collectivise it and run it as a worker-based cooperative'. (p.409) He wants genuinely participatory democracy along the lines of Porto Alegre in Brazil. Energy companies need to be stopped from wrecking the climate through oil refining and fracking, and so on.

All of this is courageous for another reason. Brand writes:

'I know too with each word I type that I am building a bridge of words that leads me back to the poverty I've come from, that by decrying this inequality, I will have to relinquish the benefits that this system has given me. I'd be lying if I said that didn't frighten me.' (p.62)

If by this he means that, in writing of the need for revolution, he will lose the support of the corporate media that lifted him to a place of prominence, he certainly has a point, as we will see.



Part 2 will follow shortly...

DE

[ian neal]

Here is part 2:

For medialens the attacks on Brand for his open mindness on 9/11 seem to have slipped them by despite it being very easy to find (just google brand 9/11)

But then that doesn't fit their meme and world view either. Namely that conspiracy theories in general and 9/11 truth in particular are worthy of ridicule. I like a lot of what medialens say, but their blind spot on conspiracies and their fawning over their preferred activists (who also have no truck for 9/11) like Pilger, Klein and Chomsky is embarrassing, lazy and displays a lot of the dismissive groupthink that they claim to challenge.

12 November 2014

Russell Brand's 'Revolution' - Part 2, The Backlash

From Messiah To Monty Python

If Julian Assange was initially perceived by many as a controversial but respected, even heroic, figure challenging power, the corporate media worked hard to change that perception in the summer of 2012. After Assange requested political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, the faux-feminists and corporate leftists of the 'quality' liberal press waged war on his reputation.

This comment from the Guardian's Deborah Orr summed up the press zeitgeist:

'It's hard to believe that, until fairly recently, Julian Assange was hailed not just as a radical thinker, but as a radical achiever, too.'

A sentiment echoed by Christina Patterson of the Independent:

'Quite a feat to move from Messiah to Monty Python, but good old Julian Assange seems to have managed it.'

The Guardian's Suzanne Moore expressed what many implied:

'He really is the most massive turd.'

The attacks did more than just criticise Assange; they presented him as a ridiculous, shameful figure. Readers were to understand that he was now completely and permanently discredited.

We are all, to some extent, herd animals. When we witness an individual being subjected to relentless mockery of this kind from just about everyone across the media 'spectrum', it becomes a real challenge to continue taking that person seriously, let alone to continue supporting them. We know that doing so risks attracting the same abuse.

Below, we will see how many of the same corporate journalists are now directing a comparable campaign of abuse at Russell Brand in response to the publication of his book, 'Revolution'. The impact is perhaps indicated by the mild trepidation one of us experienced in tweeting this very reasonable comment from the book:

'Today humanity faces a stark choice: save the planet and ditch capitalism, or save capitalism and ditch the planet.' (p.345)

Sure enough, we immediately received this tweet in response:

'As a big supporter of your newsletters and books, I'm embarrassed by your promotion of Brand as some sort of visionary.'

Mark Steel explained in the Independent:

'This week, by law, I have to deride Russell Brand as a self-obsessed, annoying idiot. No article or comment on Twitter can legally be written now unless it does this...'

Or as Boris Johnson noted, gleefully, in the Telegraph:

'Oh dear, what a fusillade of hatred against poor old Brandy Wandy. I have before me a slew of Sunday papers and in almost all there is a broadside against Russell Brand...'

Once again, the Guardian gatekeepers have poured scorn. Suzanne Moore lampooned 'the winklepickered Jesus Clown who preaches revolution', repeating 'Jesus Clown' four times. Moore mocked:

'To see him being brought to heel by an ancient Sex Pistol definitely adds to the gaiety of the nation.'

After all: 'A lot of what he says is sub-Chomskyian [sic] woo.'

An earlier version of Moore's article was even more damning: 'A lot of what he says is ghostwritten sub-Chomskyian woo.'

This was corrected by the Guardian after Moore received a letter from Brand's lawyers.

The Guardian's Hadley Freeman imperiously dismissed Brand's highly rational analysis of corporate psychopathology:

'I'm not entirely sure where he thinks he's going to go with this revolution idea because [SPOILER!] revolution is not going to happen. But all credit to the man for making politics seem sexy to teenagers. What he lacks, though - aside from specifics and an ability to listen to people other than himself - is judgment.'

Tanya Gold commented in the Guardian:

'His narcissism is not strange: he is a comic by trade, and is used to drooling rooms of strangers.'

In the Independent, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's patronising judgement was clear from the title:

'Russell Brand might seem like a sexy revolutionary worth getting behind, but he will only fail his fans - Politics needs to be cleaned up, not thrown into disarray by irresponsible populists'

Alibhai-Brown commented:

'It is heartening to see him mobbed by teenagers and young people... Brand, I fear, will only fail them.'

Grace Dent of the Independent perceived little point in throwing yet more mud:

'with the lack of a political colossus on the horizon like Tony Benn, we can make do with that guy from Get Him To The Greek who was once wed to Katy Perry. I shall resist pillorying Brand any further. He looks exhausted. I'm not entirely evil'.

Sarah Ditum sneered from the New Statesman:

'Russell Brand, clown that he is, is taken seriously by an awful lot of young men who see any criticism of the cartoon messiah's misogyny as a derail from "the real issues" (whatever they are).'

Brand fared little better among the male commentators of the liberal press. The title of David Runciman's Guardian review read:

'His manifesto is heavy going, light on politics and, in places, beyond parody. Has the leader of the rebellion missed his moment?'

Runciman wrote:

'This book is an uncomfortable mashup of the cosmic and the prosaic. Brand seems to believe they bolster each other. But really they just get in each other's way. He borrows ideas from various radical or progressive thinkers like David Graeber and Thomas Piketty but undercuts them with talk about yogic meditation.'

As we saw in the first part of this alert, there is a strong case for arguing that mindfulness – awareness of how we actually feel, as opposed to how corporate advertising tells us we should feel – can help deliver us from the shiny cage of passive consumerism to progressive activism.

Alas, 'too often he sounds like Gwyneth Paltrow without, er, the humour or the self-awareness. The worst of it is beyond parody... his revolution reads like soft-soap therapy where what's needed is something with a harder edge'.

Also in the Guardian, Martin Kettle dismissed 'the juvenile culture of Russell Brand's narcissistic anti-politics'.

Hard-right 'leftist' warmonger Nick Cohen of the 'left-of-centre' hard-right Observer was appalled. Having accumulated 28,000 followers on Twitter (we have 18,000) after decades in the national press spotlight, Cohen mocked the communication skills of a writer with 8 million followers:

'His writing is atrocious: long-winded, confused and smug; filled with references to books Brand has half read and thinkers he has half understood.'

This is completely false, as we saw; Brand has an extremely astute grasp of many of the key issues of our time.

As ever – think Assange, Greenwald, Snowden – dissidents are exposed as egoists by corporate media altruists:

'Brand is a religious narcissist, and if the British left falls for him, it will show itself to be beyond saving.'

Cohen strained so hard to cover Brand in ordure he splashed some on himself, commenting:

'Brand says that he is qualified to lead a global transformation...'

Not quite. Brand writes in his book:

'We don't want to replace Cameron with another leader: the position of leader elevates a particular set of behaviours.' (p.216)

And:

'There is no heroic revolutionary figure in whom we can invest hope, except for ourselves as individuals together.' (p.515)

Similarly, Cohen took the cheap shot of casually lampooning Brand's 'cranky' focus on meditation:

'Comrades, I am sure I do not need to tell you that no figure in the history of the left has seen Buddhism as a force for human emancipation.'

We tweeted in reply:

'@NickCohen4 "no figure in the history of the left has seen Buddhism as a force for human emancipation". Erich Fromm, for one.'

Cohen was so unimpressed by this response that he immediately blocked us on Twitter.

Writing from that other powerhouse of corporate dissent, the oligarch-owned Independent, Steve Richards praised Brand's style and decried the right-wing conformity of journalism, before providing an example of his own. He lamented Brand's 'vague banalities' and 'witty banalities':

'He is part of a disturbing phenomenon - the worship of unaccountable comedians who are not especially funny and who are limited in their perceptions... We await a revolutionary who plots what should happen as well as what is wrong.'

In the same newspaper, Howard Jacobson effortlessly won the prize for intellectual snobbery:

'When Russell Brand uses the word "hegemony" something dies in my soul.'

Oh dear, does he drop the 'haitch'? For Jacobson, who studied English at Cambridge under the renowned literary critic F.R. Leavis, it was 'a matter of regret' that Brand didn't 'stick to clowning'. Why? Because it detracts from the enjoyment of a comedian's efforts 'to discover they are fools in earnest'. Brand, alas, has not 'the first idea what serious thought is'. To read the book is to know just how utterly self-damning that last comment is.

James Bloodworth of the hard-right Left Foot Forward blog, commented in the Independent:

'Russell Brand is one of those people who talks a lot without ever really saying much.'

Bloodworth clumsily sought to mock Brand's clumsiness:

'Well-intentioned, he can often come across like the precocious student we all know who talks in the way they think an educated person ought to talk - all clever-sounding adjectives and look-at-me vocabulary.'

Words like 'hegemony', perhaps. Or as Nick Cohen wrote in 2013: 'He writes as if he is a precocious prepubescent rather than an adolescent...'

Bloodworth's damning conclusion:

'Millions of people may be fed up of the racket that is free market capitalism, but this really is Revolution as play, and in indulging it the left risks becoming a parody of itself.'


The Tory Press – 'A Snort Of Derisive Laughter'

If we dare turn to the more overtly right-wing press, in the Sunday Times, Camilla Long lamented:

'Brand's mincing tintinnabulations, his squawking convulsions, his constant garbling of words such as "autodidact" and "hegemony".'

That word again! Could the real problem be that a working class author has appropriated words reserved for his classically-educated betters? Wikipedia records of Long:

'Descended from the aristocratic Clinton family (Henry Pelham-Clinton, 4th Duke of Newcastle... is an ancestor through her paternal grandmother), she was educated at Oxford High School and Corpus Christi College, Oxford.'

Again, any thought of discussion had to make way for mockery:

'And what a mediocre, hypocritical, dancing, prancing and arrogant perm on a stick he is... I would be more comfortable with the former Spice Girl Geri Halliwell as a public intellectual.'

From the moral summit of Murdoch's media Mount Doom, Perpetual Warmonger David Aaronovitch of The Times of course declared Brand's book 'uniquely worthless both as an exercise in writing and as a manifesto for social change - I feel able to dismiss Brand's new self-ascriptions, both as self-taught man and revolutionary'. (Aaronovitch, 'A unique Brand of dozy drivel,' The Times, November 1, 2014)

Again, as we saw in Part 1, this is just false. There may be much to debate, but in identifying the fundamental disaster of a corporate system subordinating people and planet to profit, Brand is exactly right.

Aaronovitch heard only 'a wall of sound and words designed to drown out the possibility of thought'. But the wall of sound was coming from Aaronovitch's own head, from the psychological investments that prevent him perceiving words that would make it impossible for him to continue the role he is playing.

For Aaronovitch, like Cohen, it was all 'sub-Yoko mysticana that [has] been the "it's really all about me" staple of pop stars, actors and princesses since the days of the Maharishi'.

So Brand just produces 'sub-Yoko mysticana', 'sub-Chomskyian woo' and, as Robert Colvile noted in his review for the Daily Telegraph, 'sub-undergraduate dross'.

Reviewing the book in the Sunday Times, Christopher Hart wrote:

'There's no doubt that Brand can sometimes articulate what a lot of people are feeling...'

As if panicked by the possibility that this might be thought to signify approval, Hart erupted:

'But when the cry comes from someone who seems the epitome of a vapid, ill-informed, coke-frazzled, self-adoring and grossly hypocritical celeb, preaching to us from the back of his chauffeur-driven Merc, then the only response it deserves is a snort of derisive laughter.'

Parklife! The bottom line:

'Some of this stuff does indeed need saying, but Russell Brand is not the man to say it.'

Again, less a review, more a Soviet-style 'personality disorder' smear.

The Daily Mail really loathes Brand. For the journalist who for some odd reason describes himself as 'The Hated Peter Hitchens', Brand is a 'Pied piper who peddles poison'. It seems clear that some of the hatred directed at Brand by both male and female critics is rooted in something other than politics. In a telling passage that reads like an outtake from a Carry On film, Hitchens observed:

'But there's also no doubt he has a potent effect on women - I watched him, in less than a minute, charm two pretty young Olympic medal winners into taking off their medals and draping them over his scrawny, naked chest.

'The sad thing was that they acted as if they were the ones being honoured by the encounter.'

We can imagine that Hitchens would have been only too 'honoured' to meet the 'two pretty young' women and to admire the medals on their chests where they belonged.

In the same paper, Stephen Glover also snorted derisively:

'Why does anyone take this clown of a poseur seriously?... Russell Brand is a ludicrous charlatan.'

Glover, who had either not read, or not understood a word of the book, commented:

'Revolution is one of the worst books I have ever read. It is repetitive, structureless, poorly argued (if it can be said to be argued at all) and boring... [from] our narcissistic hero... Why should we listen to this clown?'

Another Daily Mail altruist, Max Hastings, also perceived gross egotism at play:

'Mr Brand is a strutting narcissist, who, despite having no idea what he is talking about...'

For the now thoroughly corporatised Piers Morgan in the Mail, Brand was a 'bogus revolutionary... this whole "revolution" he's trying to wage is a load of old sanctimonious hog-wash'. Morgan was happy to sign-off with a lazy dismissal:

'Like most great revolutionaries, he's quite happy wallowing in his own hypocrisy.'

The Mail quoted James Cleverly, Conservative London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley:

'Why do the BBC give so much airtime to the vacuous, narcissistic drivel of Russell Brand?'

We tweeted Cleverly:

'Exactly how often do you see a Brand-style, anti-corporate perspective on the BBC? Every day?'

Cleverly did not respond.

The Mail also noted that Conservative MP Philip Davies, a member of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, had demanded that the corporation look again at its public service remit:

'Why on earth are BBC giving so much air time to such an idiot is beyond me. Especially on such supposedly serious programmes.

'I just don't think that's what the BBC is there for. It is not there to give idiots like Russell Brand time to promote his book.'

Boris Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph:

'Of course his manifesto is nonsense - as I am sure he would be only too happy, in private, to admit... Yes, it is bilge; but that is not the point. Who cares what he really means or what he really thinks?'

For this was 'semi-religious pseudoeconomic mumbo-jumbo'.

Again, another busy individual who had surely not troubled to seriously read the book.

As with Assange, the intent and effect of all this is to portray Brand as so ridiculous, so pitiable, that the public will feel ashamed to be associated with him and his cause.

The corporate media system, with its fraudulent 'spectrum' of opinion, is a hammer that falls with a unified, resounding crash on anyone who dares to challenge elite interests. It works relentlessly to beat down human imagination, creativity and hope, to smash the awareness, love and compassion that might otherwise terminate the 'nightmare of history'. Is resistance futile? Will they always win?

Well, for once, we will give the corporate press the last word. On November 7, the Daily Mail reported that Brand's new book 'has enjoyed monumental sales - earning the star and his publishers a staggering £230,000 in just 11 days'. The Mail, no doubt reluctantly, cited a publishing expert:

'It's an awful lot of money to turnaround in such a short period.'

Unmentioned by the Mail, Brand has said that profits from the book will go towards a non-hierarchical, not-for-profit café and production company managed by the workforce 'where recovering addicts like me can run a business based on the ideas in this book'. (p.593)



DE

This Alert is Archived here:
Russell Brand's 'Revolution' - Part 2, The Backlash

[fish5133]

Seems to be hit time on Brand, our local free newspaper even bothered to include a hit piece on him which seems odd given that the paper usually just deals with local mundane news.

False Prophet

[ian neal]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/05/russell-brand-the-sun-hypoc rite-flat-rent_n_6273894.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/russell-brand-attacks-the-sun -over-yougov-hypocrite-poll-where-dya-get-this-stat-liverpool-hacking- into-dead-childrens-phones-9905394.html

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/dec/05/the-sun-speak-mor e-people-russell-brand

The sun targets Russell Brand, but if that's the worst dirt they have on him (he rents his flat from a tax dodging company ... hardly the greatest scandal .... oh and people don't like him) then they are pretty desperate.

[kershawtim]

Anyone else been interested by this underhand style plant from REBrand, Russell and Edward?


Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDZm9_uKtyo

Someone who has come to symbolise the disenchanted young voters in Britain, especially those who grew up in the REBrand era.

Election 2015: How Russell Brand's Labour endorsement went down online

So "Mr Don't Vote" has changed his mind. In a video posted on YouTube on Monday, Russell Brand called on his one million subscribers to vote for Labour in this week's general election. How did his change of heart go down online? Here's a sample of the reaction. (see bbc link for tweet responses)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32582337

David Cameron labelled Brand "a joke" and some commentators claimed Ed Miliband had made a mistake in agreeing to the interview - but does the endorsement make it a tactical win?

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Russell Brand Exposed: A 'Pied Piper' to Misdirect the Semi Awakened - His Fabian Society Connections & Involvement in Mind Control
https://steemit.com/politics/@ura-soul/russell-brand-exposed-a-pied-pi per-to-misdirect-the-semi-awakened-his-fabian-society-connections-and- involvement-in-mind-control

ura-soul (75)in #politics • 4 years ago (edited)
For many, Russell Brand is a kind of folk hero / millionaire playboy - yet the truth is very different. Let's take a look at the patterns in his life and what exactly his intended role in society has been.

horns

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself" - Lenin
Through his online vehicle 'The Trews' on Youtube and via various books and stage performances, he has captured the minds of many people who are looking for help and some kind of high profile leader among the 'celebrities' of their culture. The vast majority of so called 'celebrities' have absolutely no care or respect for the majority of other people and simply seek to get as rich as possible, as quickly as possible to get them as far away as possible from everyone else. They do this though, from behind a mask of being a 'man/woman of the people' to some extent, since they gain their power from these people and if the people learn their real intent then they will be unlikely to continue to hold an elevated position in society.

The Reason I focus on Russell Brand and not some of the others like him is because his case is so blatantly full of evidence that he is what is known as 'controlled opposition'. If you wish to control the people of Earth you must get their agreement first! How can you get people to agree to let you control them? The answer to that has been the subject of covert research among secret societies for 1000s of years and they have a pretty good idea by now. One tried and tested method is to control both sides of a two sided 'democracy' that you yourself created. The result is that as long as the majority of people fall for your scam and believe that democracy is an honest voting system, they will literally agree to be ruled by the puppets you have installed in the parliament. The two main political parties will be seen to 'battle' each other in public, but in reality they will only be acting out a script that was predetermined, often years in advance.

In Russell's case, he has been held up as an opponent to 'the establishment' itself - he therefore grabs the attention of those who have seen through many layers of the fake democracy and power systems and they may then hold him up as a kind of 'leader'. All the system controllers need to do is ensure he himself is controlled and they can use all manner of manipulation to bend the people to their agenda, while the people think they are being led to freedom.

Evidence
There is, in truth, so much evidence that Russell is at best a 'false prophet' or 'controlled opposition' that I will not even included it all here - I will just look at some of the most obvious bits.

The majority of his 'work' in recent years in the media world has had a general theme to it that is not even being hidden. His book about the 'pied piper' who is a children's fairy tale character who basically steals children and makes them disappear features a character that is fairly obviously and eerily designed to look like a kind of drugged up Russell Brand:

pied piper

He also played the role of the 'Child Catcher' during the Olympics a few years ago:

olympics

As is pointed out by John St. Julien in the video below, the symbolism used in the Olympics ceremony was clear - the colours of the 'hippy bus' and russell's outfit were copied, but reversed, from the Child Catcher in the classic movie 'Chitty Chitty Bang Bang'. The Child Catcher in that movie literally cages children from the streets - yet in this Olympics ritual, the people in his 'hippy bus' are adults - so the entire image is literally that of him acting as a kind of 'hippy catcher' - could they make it any more obvious?!

lucifer

Russell and the Fabian Society
The Fabian Society are a kind of Secret Society in Britain who founded the Labour party - one of the two main political parties in Britain. Their logo and modus operandi are that of 'wolves in sheeps clothing' - which is to say that they operate by deception to create change.

fabian society

Russell is apparently a member of the Fabian Society and previously was editor of one of their magazines - the New Statesman:

russell statesman

During the previous British election he put a lot of effort into convincing people not to vote - just as an awakened being might do - then just at the last moment, he switched to decree to his followers that they should now vote for labour instead! lol

banking

He previously dated Socialite Jemima Khan who 'owned' the white dog that is in the logo for his 'Trews' series on Youtube. The Dog in his logo has a '33' around it's neck, which most likely denotes the 33 degrees in Freemasonry and the 33 vertebra of the human spine - which is significant when it is understood that the esoteric kundalini energy channel is passed through the spine in order to activate the ajna chakra - as taught in many yoga systems - of which Russell is an admitted student. There is nothing 'bad' about kundalini or yoga, but I mention this because it is clear that Russell is misleading us once again here as he released a video answering the question of why the number 33 is being used and he abstractly claimed that it is because Jesus died at 33 - as if that is a good reason to put a number in your logo! He also has a tattoo on his hand denoting the flow of kundalini energy:

kundalini finger

John St. Julien's Videos
John St. Julien is the one who first drew my attention to all of this and he deserves our wider attention - beyond his work on this, he is running a children's home in Tanzania, plus an animal rescue center and is one of the few human beings that could possibly be held up today as something approaching a true 'avatar' or 'saint' (if you are religious)! Check out one of his videos here:

Katy Perry and the Oscars
Additionally, Russell was married for a while to Katy Perry, a singer. For those who pay attention, Katy Perry is one of the most obvious examples of a Monarch Mind controlled slave. You will see many symbols in her music videos from the secret societies that operate these trauma based mind control systems in society - such as the Templar cross and others. In fact, here she is making it obvious:

katy perry

There are numerous examples of her coming out of her mind control programming and starting to freak out - she recently stated that she basically hates 'katy perry' and wants to go back to her real self.

During an appearance at 'The Oscars' ceremony a few years ago, Russell And Katy were interviewed and Katy made some comments that Russell apparently didn't like - he flashed up a small sign that had a pentagram on it and the word 'OBEY' - which she saw momentarily and then her personality totally shifted and she became docile. Those who know about trauma based mind control know that it is through such visual and auditory triggers that mind control programming can be remotely activated. He would not have been able to use any codewords via his voice there due to the situation, so he used the next best thing:

obey

Conclusion
I feel justified in stating that it is highly likely that Russell Brand is knowingly part of one of the most evil and satanic cults on Earth at this timing. He may himself have been through trauma based mind control and thus may not even be fully aware of his involvement in all of this. The nature of such mind control is that the personality is fractured into sub personalities who are unaware of each other - so the victim can appear to be completely 'normal' in one moment and then totally switch to a different personality entirely in the next moment. This is well documented by several researchers, including Fritz Springmeier and Dr. John Hall.

Got Comments?
What do you think of all of this? Do you have any relevant evidence to add? Let us know in the comments below. Thanks.

Wishing you well,
Ura Soul

Steemit T-shirts, Hoodies and Many Other Steemit Inspired Products are On Sale Now
t-shirt
Buy your "Steemit, Dreamit, Memeit, Teamit" T-Shirts, Gifts & Other Clothing Here.


resteem

#life#conspiracy#government#news
4 years ago in #politics by ura-soul (75)$46.58
95 votes
Reply 38




Sort: Trending
[-]
builderofcastles (63) 4 years ago (edited)
Russell Brand I thought was a breath of fresh air when I first heard him.
Then, with more exposure, his message started to become like nails on a chalkboard.

Basically, it was like he was trying to pretend to be an anarchist or an environmentalist but since he wasn't, he constantly said things wrong. Things he shouldn't have gotten wrong if he was what he said he was. Like this:

truth, truth, truth, LIE, truth

Not the little mistakes of someone who doesn't quite understand the philosophy, but someone who either was just repeating pieces from others, or someone who knew, and was specifically destroying the logic.

One way he is just being an actor, the other way a disinformation sales agent.
One is bad, the other is pure evil. I am undecided which.

$1.61
3 votes
Reply
[-]
ura-soul (75) 4 years ago (edited)
Yes, I agree. The nature of trauma based mind control is that the victim becomes the perpetrator and may not even know they are doing it. If you look at his eyes during some of his more symbolic performances, they are wild and glaring - not at all balanced.. I remain open as to exactly what the cause of all of this is. I followed you btw

$0.13
2 votes
Reply
[-]
sacred-agent (59) 4 years ago
This is a very good comment @Ura-Soul. My primary comment is near the bottom currently and I just want to Thank You again for writing this Post.

BIG Kudos to You & @AusbitBank for ReSteeming !!

$0.00Reply
[-]
arkadiy (52) 4 years ago
The Obey pin might just be a fashion accessory. Also, that's not a pentagram, that's a star. You should know the difference.

What all of this "evidence" lacks is the actual evidence. Where're the sources? How do you know there is this underground evil society? In my opinion, all of this is just conspiracy theories and I see no credibility to back up your findings.

I'm a libertarian and I am (just like you) fed up with the current state of the governments around the globe.

I am also Russian and I am fed up with Putin and Medvedev stealing my nation's money. This is a proven fact, which was proposed by Russia's opposition leader Navalny. Watch some of his videos to learn how real evidence is gathered and how you can move away from the pointless conspiracies that you write.

$0.52
4 votes
Reply
[-]
minnowsupport (70) 4 years ago
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by arkadiy from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.

$0.001 vote
Reply
[-]
ura-soul (75) 4 years ago
Greetings! Have you studied Monarch Mind Control Programming? MKUltra? Have you Listened to Dr. Hall?
If you watch the video of the oscars ceremony, you will see why I am highlighting the case here. Ironically, it is probably you who is lacking the background research here.

Have you studied sacred geometry? I have.

The symbol held up is a match for the pentagrams you will see in an image search for the word 'pentagram' - except the inner lines are removed due to it being a BRAND for a clothing company. As a trigger however, it would be an entirely appropriate visual one to use in public since it would not raise much suspicion amongst those who have not done their research.

What sources do you want? The amount of data collected and publicly available on this topic is vast and easily obtained now.

Here's a recent post in which a British Ranking Police Detective discusses how the Freemasonic Society was likely involved in him being blocked from prosecuting gangs of child rapists

Here's a post that scrapes the surface of the subject that links to 9 mainstream media stories that show links between UK Police Coverups of Child Rape gangs and Freemasons

Here is Fritz Springmeiers's book on the process used to create mind controlled slaves via trauma based mind control

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Yeah, a rubber hatchet job....

[TonyGosling]

Can We TRUST Russell Brand? Is He a Freemason / Illuminati Puppet?
89,757 views28 Feb 2015

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q_dFbbW9WE

HumanityWins-IlluminatiLose
1.14K subscribers
http://www.HumanityWinsIlluminatiLose...

Can Russell Brand be trusted? Is he really who he says he is? A revolutionary, a spiritually enlightened soul just trying to uplift and empower humanity? A man using his celebrity status to bring much needed attention to the world's problems?

Or is there more than meets the eye with Russell Brand?

Could he really be a Freemason? An Illuminati / New World Order controlled opposition puppet? Or even a Reptilian shape-shifter?

Comments have been disabled to stop trolls having a platform to voice bs.