Jump to content

octoplex

Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by octoplex

  1. That 'pressure' is theatrics. If the UK government (top ranking Freemason pedo-elite) wanted to de-monitize Brand they could just de-bank him; or arrest him. He lives in UK territory. They've done it to others for less. They want Brand to be a focus of public-fury, and they don't want it to look like they're doing nothing. The 'sternly worded letters' the government (pedo-elite) are sending to Rumble etc are designed to give the Facebook-hand-gazer demographic the impression that Brand was not himself, basically, a politician; one of them. Anything more than 'sternly worded letters' risk public-sympathy for Brand. He has to be 'neutralized' carefully, without questions being asked about who funded and enabled him. Just as with Savile. There is also worse that these Freemason (government) groups can do than just release kompromat. Brand is effectively muzzled and just has to silently witness his ritual Wicker Manning. Unless he goes totally rogue.
  2. Not as a distraction. As a displacement. In the psychological meaning of the word. We are, as a society, now invited to displace our subconscious, collective-furies onto Russell Brand. Brand is likely being used as a kind of lightening-conductor to channel our collective free-floating rage at government; the covid hoax; the elite etc. We displace our rage onto Brand and off The Government. To the 'elite', it doesn't matter how long 'we' burn Brand, just as long as we burn him very, very brightly. This way 'we' will not be inclined to storm Parliament and drag out the apex-predator pedophiles. In summary: They may want us to Wicker-Man Russell Brand so we don't Wicker-man the King. This doesn't mean Russell Brand is to be forgiven; but simply that it's worth bearing in mind why a mid-level pedophile is being served up to the public so readily.
  3. These two things can be simultaneously true: 1. Men in the public eye who are promiscuous with women are being demonised. 2. Russell Brand is a predatory pedophile. The media is clearly unfairly persecuting men who have many (consensual) partners and/or are 'masculine', 'confident' and 'assertive' in positive ways. I agree that this is done unfairly in many cases. However, this does not automatically mean that every man the media persecute is innocent. The logic does not follow.
  4. Out of his control. Its a tidal-wave from what I can see. Brand has either been thrown onto the fire by his puppet-masters. Or an odd cluster of the legacy-media has found its soul. Or a bit of both. Both are fatal to Brand's image. I don't feel that Brand has volunteered for this. Nobody bounces back from this level of meticulously-evidenced testimony. In the end, the important thing is that Brand cannot harm any more children and adults. Brand's "food-supply" has been cut-off now. Regardless of any "legal" outcome, society has been warned of a predator while he was still in operation. This is more than we ever got with Savile. Already, the children of the future have won.
  5. Agreed. I don't recommend trusting legacy media. But if people are capable of change, and I believe they are, then there is always a chance. Beneath the vampire-eyes of many journalists lurks the remnants of something once human yearning to be free again.
  6. This is probably their damage-control strategy. The more Channel 4 and the UK Government can draw the spotlight onto Russell Brand (the product of corrupt power-systems), the more they draw the spotlight off those who enabled him. Namely, Channel 4; the BBC; the UK government; Freemasonic-brotherhood etc. They can also use invite the public to "thrash" Brand, as a persona/idea. This may be designed to ''safely' channel broader subconscious-societal-rage at the Covid Hoax etc away from the true seats of power. Brand is being put in a Wicker Man. This will be done over several months. The the 'villagers' will be invited to (metaphorically) 'burn' him to displace their unconscious fury at the government / royals etc. This doesn't mean that Brand does not deserve it. Freemasonry is a 'kompromat'- based ponzi-scheme. Initiates ascend through the ranks the more horrific stuff they do, and provide evidence of doing, to their lodge. As they become more puppeteered, they are granted more privilege. If they disobey, the kompromat is released. Brand signed up for this life. I feel that the difficult part to grasp here is this: That, yes, Russell Brand is being Wicker-Manned. He is being torched by the establishment. But Brand is the establishment. They slay their own, when necessary. Brand was a servant of the elite. Now he is their 'victim'. There is clearly panic in the Freemasonic system. They are eating each other now. For those who do not know, this is a Wicker Man, from the eponymous movie of 1973:
  7. Agreed. However, it is plausible that Russell Brand is being thrown to the villagers because his puppet-masters know they will be at risk without an 'offering' to the furious masses. These things can both be true: 1. The legacy media is utterly corrupt. 2. Russell Brand is a pedophile. One does not preclude the other. The legacy media may (or may not) have a strategic reason for nuking Brand. This doesn't mean the evidence they provide to do so is false. Remember, the Freemasons are a 'kompromat' based cult. Also: The legacy media is not like a car giant competing with a new type of car. The legacy media could become the alternative media overnight. All it would require is courage and morals. If truth and integrity become valued commodities, then parts of the legacy-media could, theoretically, rebel out of economic necessity. The Times, for example, is not like a car-factory; it would not need to re-tool all the machines to start printing the truth. This is, then, another possibility: That parts of what you knew as 'legacy-media" are beginning to dabble in "alternative media". After all, the only thing that really divides these two genres of reporting is: TRUTH (alternative) or LIES (legacy). Either side can switch sides. Pay attention to the quality of reporting and standard of evidence, not to the masthead.
  8. Perhaps. But the complex-ambiguity of the moral-conundrum you present is fortunately eliminated by Russell Brand himself, who constantly emphasized she was a child. Russell Brand referred to the schoolchild repeatedly by his self-devised nickname of "The Child", which you would know if you would watch the documentary which you are critiquing. Not only did Brand nickname her ‘the child’ and cradle her in his arms, he also callied her his ‘baby’ and ‘like my little dolly.’ "The Child" "My little dolly"... Hopefully this will save you time in wrestling with the complex definition of "child". Russell Brand has eliminated the ambiguity for you. Even if you mystically contort the schoolchild into a "woman", we are still left with the rapes and phallic-choking-to-near-death-incident. Which is a bad-look for Brand regardless of whether some of his victims scrape across some grey-line of child/not-child in the minds of the most amoral public-spectators. Perhaps watch the documentary? Sigh.
  9. That was my paraphrasing, not the TV program's. Here is a link to the source documentary which, I notice, a lot of you are struggling to actually watch. I can't realistically continue this discussion since it now appears that everyone here arguing against the survivors' accounts has not actually watched the documentary that is the topic of this entire discussion. Hilarious. It's brave, I suppose; that some of you can launch so confidently into a stern-critique of a documentary you have not watched. But also indicative of a broader societal problem: Zero attention spans.
  10. Try hovering over the link, your browser will inform you that it links to the official Channel 4 streaming site. At this point, I think you're dealing with more than I can assist with. I wish you well.
  11. I thought someone might offer, as counter-evidence, that that solitary Russell Brand video that appears to be on the topic of Epstein. Look more closely at that video and you will discover that its purpose is to create the impression that Bill Gates is sexually attracted to adults. No? I've mentioned it several times now: The purpose of Russell Brand is controlled-opposition. He is The Matrix (the establishment). YouTube refugees flood into Brand's Rumble hell-realm and he feeds them the Associated-Press-Newswire in disguise. Gates must convince the swing-idiot-demographic that he is not a predatory pedophile. That's why the AP threw this story on the wire; and it's why Brand regurgitates it.
  12. Yes, he issued threats. The entire account can be heard here.
  13. That is not a claim that has been made. The claim is that he violently raped a 16-year-old schoolgirl who the BBC chauffeured to his house. To prevent herself from being choked-to-death, she punched Brand in the stomach. Nobody 'slept' with her and re-framing it in those terms is inaccurate. Thank you for your second question, however, it is a good one: Why have the claims resurfaced now? The theory that the Trial-By-Media is payback for Brand's challenge to Big Pharma doesn't make sense if the investigation into Brand was begun by the media in 2019, which is what the reporters say. This predates the entire Covid Hoax, and predates Brand saying anything on the topic of Big Pharma etc. Secondly, the a-priori assumption here is that Brand challenges Big Pharma. But does he? Who is Big Pharma? Big Pharma is merely the chemical-toxin-production arm of the global-elite. The more Brand convinces his followers that Big Pharma have genocided us, the more he deflects attention from the higher-tiers of power. Instead of marching on Buckingham Palace, or storming the Bastille, Russell Brand directs you to.... what? Stop buying shampoo and conditioner, to spite Johnson and Johnson? Or does he even do that? There is never any call to action. Other than to shrug and laugh. Finally: How can Russell Brand challenge Big Pharma when he is plainly jabbed up to the eyeballs in Pfizer? How did he enter the US through a major airport terminus for his Tucker Carlson interview? At the time 'vaccination' (self-poisoning) was compulsory. They were turning away global tennis stars at the time. Remember? Russell Brand is so pumped up on mRNA modification that he's a living-satire. A recovered alcoholic who owns a pub. A YouTube preacher who rapes schoolgirls. An enemy of Big Pharma who is vaxxed to the rafters. "Stay Free".
  14. This keeps happening on this thread. You must hear the survivors' testimonies because your summary(and others') is a complete mis-representation. Russell Brand raped a schoolgirl delivered from school-lessons to his home by BBC chauffeur. He nicknamed her "The Child" and would refer to her repeatedly as such. And that was only the beginning. Other survivors withdrew their accounts from the documentary before broadcast, out of fear. We only hear from a small-subset of Brand's victims. You can listen to the survivor, and others, in full, by watching the Channel 4 documentary here. You'll need to VPN into the UK, if overseas. Here I have paraphrased one account from the documentary:
  15. Because the British Government are terrified that this will spread up the chain-of-command. The British Government has to appear to be acting against Russell Brand, or the 'masses' will begin to realize that Russell Brand is a media arm of the British Government The venn-diagram of British politicians and Freemasons is almost a complete overlap. Russell Brand's strings are pulled by the Freemasonic order, of which he is a Savile-grade mid-level puppet. The British Government hope the 'villagers' will now pitchfork Russell, so that they don't pitchfork his organ-grinders: The BBC; the political-class etc. I realize this is difficult to fathom, if coming to the topic afresh, but perhaps it is easiest to recall how Jimmy Savile was entwined with politics and the royal family. If Savile had been outed in his lifetime, the British Government would have written a strongly worded letter to the BBC to de-monetize Savile. Then the BBC would have written a letter about how it was morally unacceptable to de-monetize Savile until a proper trial had been run. This despite the fact that YouTube and Rumble will happily de-monetize us 'normal people' at the drop of a hat. Suddenly, with Russell Brand, they mysteriously grow a sense of legal-procedure, and remember basic human-rights. You don't get human-rights from Rumble or YouTube, but Russell Brand does. You uploaded footage of a protest; Russell Brand raped children. You're de-platformed instantly. But Russell Brand throws YouTube and Rumble into a deep ethical and moral open-philosophization, which they broadcast in strongly-worded letters. Suddenly YouTube and Rumble have to wrestle with 'morals'. Give me a break. They de-platformed doctors for nothing. Yet they hesitate and 'umm' and 'err' over an (from their perspective, alleged) pedophile with multiple survivor-testimonies. Wow. just wow.
  16. I take your broader point, but for many of us, this is not early in the scandal. This is very late. Many of us were onto Brand as child-rapist years ago, and some of that evidence has been raised earlier in this thread. The scandal began, approximately, when Brand began openly-trafficking victims with Jimmy Savile live on a radio show in 2007. We are already sixteen years behind schedule on this operation.
  17. If your definition of a "troll" is someone who accurately paraphrases a first-hand witness account by a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by Brand, then yes, I am the Troll of all trolls.
  18. Is Brand even popular? We have no idea if Brand is popular or not. YouTube numbers are all gamed on the backend, as we've known for several years now. Google is a CIA project. They boost numbers for those they want to appear popular, and subtract numbers from those they don't. Here's some info on how the CIA made Google Rumble feeds repackaged mainstream-trash to YouTube refugees Rumble is the CIA's catchment zone for Google refugees and is also a CIA project. When you get tired of YouTube because it's all 'fake', you get funneled into Rumble, where you can watch people like Russell Brand feed you the same stories that were on CNN's YouTube channel, but now with the added-twist that the story is now being disputed (by Brand). The problem is, you are being fed the same core narratives; only in polarized form. You're still eating trash; only now it's inverted-trash and, as you watch Russell Brand preach from behind his Chinese-child-slave manufactured Apple MacBook M1, you can feel like you're all hip and 'alternative'. When all you actually are is someone having the Associated-Press-Newswire sewage-funnel fired into your face by a child-rapist who keeps telling you to "stay free" while behind the scenes he's ramming his phallus down the throats of GCSE students (as reported by The Times, Channel 4, The Mail etc). Russell Brand owns a Pub Russell Brand owns a pub for the love of Zeus! A pub. A recovered alcoholic who own a pub. A messiah who rapes children (as reported in all major newspapers). Is everyone here certain -- and I mean absolutely certain -- they want to get behind Brand and cheerlead him just because he once told you that the World Health Organization were evil? Wow. Some of You have been Gamed Centralized video-streaming platform services like Rumble are not the solution to centralized video streaming services. Many of you got gamed. First by Rumble, which is the CIA's holding-pen for YouTube evacuees. Secondly by Brand, who is a child rapist (as reported and evidenced in all major newspapers and multiple survivors). Today it was announced that the special investigations team set up to bring-down Savile ("The Hydrant Programme") now has Russell Brand as its primary target. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Many people on this forum should be careful who you support; your words may return to haunt you. Also: Read David Icke's books again. You clearly missed a lot.
  19. You, and others here, have clearly not listened to the the survivors' testimony. Russell Brand's victims include a schoolgirl who was delivered, via BBC chauffeur, from her school lessons to Russell Brand's house. Here, she described how Brand pushed his phallus down her throat until she was unable to breathe. Then to prevent herself from being choked to death by Brand, she had to punch Russell Brand in the stomach as hard as she could. Later, Brand ordered the schoolgirl to sit in a bathtub of water. Leaving the house, Brand demanded that the schoolgirl remain in the cold water until he returned. Being only a CHILD, and already having been nearly choked to death by Brand's phallus, the child shivered until his return. From this you got, "he was their Casanova." and she was " looking for parties, sex, money". A CHILD. Jesus. Welcome to society.
  20. This is Jimmy Savile all over again. With zero lessons learned. If Savile had been exposed in his lifetime, and had social-media existed at the time, we would be witnessing precisely the same scenario as now. Savile's 6.6 million Youtube followers would flood internet forums. Savile's followers would claim that 'The Matrix' was attacking Savile because his brilliant work at Stoke Mandeville Hospital was exposing shortcomings in the government. Savile was being targeted by the 'elite' because he was so outspoken against the legacy-pharmaceutical / medical industry etc. If anyone on this forum is curious about whether they would have spotted Savile in his lifetime: Well, if you're uncertain about Russell Brand, then now you know the answer: You would have been totally oblivious to Savile. He would have completely fooled you. The reason why people like Russell Brand and Savile abused children on such a widespread scale is because society cannot accept this reality. At the same time that Savile was roaming about the UK sticking himself into anything that smelt like child, is it implausible that the BBC was sending taxi cabs to relay a supply of children to Russell Brand? The Times and the Mail and Channel 4 appear to have bet the house on it. This is not a small bet. Why did the BBC supply Russell Brand with school children? Did we forget the reason why presenters are allowed on the BBC? They are almost all compromised. The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Freemasons. Sure, we can debate it all day; in idiot land. But those who learned from Savile have left Idiot Land. We see BBC television presenters for what they are: pedophiles and trainee pedophiles. Society is unable to entertain the simple realization that a person who is deeply evil, and abuses children, is successful in doing so precisely because their public-persona disguises them. Is Brand charismatic? Of course. Was Savile? Yes. This is the reason they were chosen for these roles. They are actors. They are split. They were likely groomed from childhood; their psyches split and fractured intentionally. They are bipolar. This is even the name of Brand's tour. Don't forget: unconsciously these people are human. They seek an escape from the Freemasonic hellpit of their puppet-lives. Was Russell Brand the mainstream media in disguise? Finally, the idea that Russell Brand was 'alternative' media was absurd to begin with. Anyone who watched his broadcasts on Rumble etc over the last two years has seen that Brand takes whatever CNN broadcasts and disputes it. While this is certainly better than parroting it, all Brand does is splash about in the cess-pool of nonsense spewed from the pipes of the Associated Press. Truly independent media frames its own stories. Brand has not been attacked by 'The Matrix', he is The Matrix. Was Brand trained for this role? There is a reason Brand refuses to take psychedelics: They would heal the split in his psyche; and force him to face the horror of his split-aspect. There is a reason that Brand NEVER talks on the topic of Epstein's Island. There is a reason why Brand has never been de-platformed from YouTube. He is YouTube. He is CNN. He is the Royal Family. Welcome to Savile Part Two Did you learn anything from Part One? Or are you going to make all the same mistakes? Incidentally, there's a reason why these survivors didn't go to the police. Russell Brand and the British police are members of the same club. So are the courts. Welcome to Britain: Freemason Hive. Trial by media? Let's hope so. It's not like there's some other kind of trial in the UK that members of the neo-Savile-caste, like Brand, will ever face. When the police have failed; and the courts have failed, for multiple-generations, to prosecute their Freemasonic-brothers, all that survivors have left is the media.
  21. Agreed. Russell Brand even wrote an illustrated book, packed with Freemasonic iconography, in which a powerful Freemason kidnaps "gorgeous" children and plays on the "shaft" of his pipe. Sadly, most of British society is so scared of the reality of who governs them, that their emissaries, like Brand, can literally (in literature) tell people who he is, and there is zero reaction. It reminds me of how everyone knows Joe Biden is a pedophile, and his own daughter (Ashley Biden) says so in her verified diaries, but society just shrugs and carries on. How long will the general public tolerate the rule of the pedos? It's become almost comical to watch the contortions that must be gone through by people to deny it.
  22. Russell Brand can be heard, on tape, offering Jimmy Savile direct sexual-access to his staff. But to you this "Doesn't sound like particularly friendly terms". Wow. The damage-control on this is extraordinary. “I’ve got a personal assistant, and part of her job description is that anyone I demand she greet, meet, massages, she has to do it. She’s very attractive, Jimmy.” — Russell Brand, 2007, BBC. Listen again:
  23. The basic psychology of projection now suggests that dirtydog's hard drive should be examined. He's already re-framed Brand's oral-rape of a child as "having sex", then, as a finale, he told us that those who think that sexual contact with children is wrong are a "problem". Personally, I'm glad to be a problem. I think we got ourselves a live one here in the forum. Wow. This is the social context in which survivors make their reports. You can see the problem, no? British society is decades from making progress in this arena.
  24. Save it for the courts, Russell. Or are you Prince Andrew?
  25. The mainstream news reports are incidental. Many of us have been collecting evidence on Brand for years. The media reporting on it now is just of minor interest.
×
×
  • Create New...