Jump to content

Looks like they're on to Russell Brand now.


78ast78dgyad

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 

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 him to channel broader societal-rage at the Covid Hoax etc etc.

 

Brand is being put in a Wicker Man.

This will be done over several months.

This doesn't mean he 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.

 

There is clearly panic in the Freemasonic system.

 

For those who do not know, this is a Wicker Man, from the eponymous movie of 1973:

the-wicker-man_0-2456801866.jpeg.6c306e48b6606f8b4d7bcf78294df0c6.jpeg

 

Are you saying Brand is willing letting this happen or is it out of his control but he's aware of it and he's trying now to stop it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 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).

 

That WOULD be soooo good....  that is if we could even then tell Chalk from Cheese, but how these legacy traditional media outlets could expect us to trust their approach even if that was exercized more about revealing alternative sides, it would still be in the back of our minds fairly prominently about what you call the Mast-Heads. It'd be like attempting to forgive murderers, or murderers by associated press or however, because lies are murder essentially.

Edited by Certified Green of Heart
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Certified Green of Heart said:

 

That WOULD be soooo good....  that is if we could even then tell Chalk from Cheese, but how these legacy traditional media outlets could expect us to trust their approach even if that was exercized more about revealing alternative sides, it would still be in the back of our minds fairly prominently about what you call the Mast-Heads. It'd be like attempting to forgive murderiers, because lies are murder essentially.

 

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.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, themeadowlark said:

Are you saying Brand is willing letting this happen or is it out of his control but he's aware of it and he's trying now to stop it? 

 

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.

Edited by octoplex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ One of the best uses of WickerMan comparisons I would guess I have seen.... At least you articulate well what's on your mind and the points in the post when used in conjunction with...err well, this burning effigy, either symbolizing to public or to please the elite themselves they are doing whatever it is they think suits them.

18 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 

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'.

 

Uh-huh..... Seems it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put it all together, step back and try to actually think about the message here, you’ll see that-

 

men in the public eye who are promiscuous with women are being demonised. 
Tate, Trump, Brand I’m sure there are more.

 

This is the agenda, they don’t want alpha males having sex with women, they want little soft office men who won’t procreate or raise their voice, who’ll eventually be so feminised that they’ll welcome the transgender/transhuman agenda.

 

It’s a subconscious message they are drip feeding with every new story such as this, and tagging it to rape claims, misogynistic abuse and people like saville etc only makes it seem less and less of an option for men. Slow dripping, it’s a marathon not a sprint. 


It’s basically the depopulation agenda playing out, but it’s hard to see because of all the celebrity bullshit. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 

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.

 

so your theory is they are scapegoating brand to distract away from something else? But news stories never run for that long so unless they find something else equally juicy this will just blow over soon

 

no that doesn't seem enough to explain this

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, octoplex said:

Brand has either been thrown onto the fire by his puppet-masters.

Or an odd cluster of the legacy-media has found its soul.

 

but it's not the legacy media. Its the government who according to the video clip posted by bambazooka above have also written to GB News as well as rumble and have also mentioned dan wooten which makes me wonder if the same people behind this are the same people behind the attack on dan

 

why is the government sticking its oar into the public arena? That's not their job....unless of course they are a tyranny

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

If you put it all together, step back and try to actually think about the message here, you’ll see that-

 

men in the public eye who are promiscuous with women are being demonised. 
Tate, Trump, Brand I’m sure there are more.

 

This is the agenda, they don’t want alpha males having sex with women, they want little soft office men who won’t procreate or raise their voice, who’ll eventually be so feminised that they’ll welcome the transgender/transhuman agenda.

 

although i do agree with you that the cabal are attacking masculinity i don't think it is just womanising alpha males that are under attack. Dan wooten for example is gay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

men in the public eye who are promiscuous with women are being demonised. 
Tate, Trump, Brand I’m sure there are more.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, octoplex said:

 

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.

 

since when have government departments cared about high profile pedos? If they cared about that they'd probably have to remove large swathes of parliament

 

no this story is getting more interesting by the moment.....there's more to this....

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

so your theory is they are scapegoating brand to distract away from something else? But news stories never run for that long so unless they find something else equally juicy this will just blow over soon

 

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.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, octoplex said:

He 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.

 

if that was the only goal here they wouldn't need to pressure media companies to demonitise him

 

no this is deeper than that. This is a takedown but the question is: why?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

no this is deeper than that. This is a takedown but the question is: why?

 

could it feed into the online harms act somehow.....that it serves as a test-piece somehow?

 

also with the government writing letters to various platforms pressuring people to no-platform an individual and with no police involvement but rather just a trial by media it could be an indicator of where we are at as a society. If the government can just take someone down like that without due process and people tolerate it then that shows them they can get away with it

 

But why pick brand for that? if he is actually guilty of something and they can make it stick then we, the people, can't defend him against this process they are doing here (death by media and governmental pressure). Either way though we should defend his right to due process. We can't just let the government start taking people down through trial by media

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 

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.

Then the common factor is promiscuity and the sexual drive in general, through the prism of masculinity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, bamboozooka said:

 

I like what that Tousi video overseer guy said at the end (the one appearing all the way thru), saying these things perfectly >>
 

Fabulous mid way thru he told~ "Caroline Dineage to shutup and go and do her job as an MP".. HAHAHAHA. [03:33]

[She was kind of unknown...] but "we will have to keep an eye on her going forward".... << Too right we will.... HAHA.

 

Also.... way this guy ended was also class....

 

"When people are afraid of Pooliticians it is Tyranny"......

 

"When Pooliticians are afraid of the people, that is Democracy" . . . . (or it because Pooliticians fear Democracy in the real & fair sense in other words)

Edited by Certified Green of Heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

if that was the only goal here they wouldn't need to pressure media companies to demonitise him

 

 

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.

Edited by octoplex
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, octoplex said:

 

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.

Agreed, this is also a mechanism, ‘off gassing’, abreacting or disassociating collective rage onto a handy nearby patsy, taking the heat off the REAL perpetrators 

Its a two for one deal on total control

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

could it feed into the online harms act somehow.....that it serves as a test-piece somehow?

 

It just so happened, of course, that the Online Harms Bill was passed (pending Royal assent) this very week.

 

In the words of Anders (RIP), once of this parish, there are no coincidences.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

if he is actually guilty of something and they can make it stick then we, the people, can't defend him against this process they are doing here (death by media and governmental pressure). Either way though we should defend his right to due process. We can't just let the government start taking people down through trial by media

 

I don't like Brand. I suspect that he's a wrongun. 

 

But what Mac says is spot on. 

 

Take him through the courts or shut the fuck up.. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...