Jump to content

Looks like they're on to Russell Brand now.


78ast78dgyad

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, octoplex said:

 

This is fascinating.

If I think having sex with children is wrong; I am the problem?

This is what we're dealing with.

Welcome to British society.

 

Also: Guys, I think we've finally located Russell Brand's account here!

 

As you said yourself: don't think that users on this forum won't notice the way you are re-framing this.

 

Having sex with a 16 year old is not illegal nor immoral either. He isn't being accused of having underage sex, you are over-egging the pudding, why is that? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, octoplex said:

 

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.

 

aka it confirms my biases. You now suddenly trust the word of habitual lifelong proven liars. 

 

Innocent until proven guilty. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

consent is 16

 

There is something really wrong with a 30 year old celebrity having a SECRET relationship with a 16 year old.. That he 'picked up' at random in Leicester Square. 

 

If you don't find this really wrong and want to focus on 'legal', then you need to have a word with yourself.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, legion said:

 

There is something really wrong with a 30 year old celebrity having a SECRET relationship with a 16 year old.. That he 'picked up' at random in Leicester Square. 

 

If you don't find this really wrong and want to focus on 'legal', then you need to have a word with yourself.. 

 

IIRC her mother knew and approved, but regardless, what does secret mean? Should he have taken out an ad in the paper?

 

The ones who make the most noise about being pure and holier than thou are usually the ones with the most to hide. Maybe the police should look at your hard drive. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dirtydog said:

 

IIRC her mother knew and approved, but regardless, what does secret mean? Should he have taken out an ad in the paper?

 

The ones who make the most noise about being pure and holier than thou are usually the ones with the most to hide. Maybe the police should look at your hard drive. 

 

You're absolutely hilarious 🤣 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

Maybe the police should look at your hard drive. 

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.

 

Edited by octoplex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a good example of why the jury system is flawed. People like you can be on a jury and you just make up a narrative which ignores the law altogether. 

 

Women have sex (and yes a 16-year-old is a young woman capable of consenting to sex including oral sex) and then later change their mind, maybe years later they think 'I feel dirty that I chose to do that thing of my own free will, I feel angry that the celebrity I chose to have sex with didn't want to keep seeing me. I want to get back at him. I have now, 10 years or more later, decided it was 'rape' and I am going to get him.'

 

These women know they will always have an army of simps and holier than thou types to bat for them. 

Edited by dirtydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

You are a good example of why the jury system is flawed. People like you can be on a jury and you just make up a narrative which ignores the law altogether. 

 

Women have sex (and yes a 16-year-old is a young woman capable of consenting to sex including oral sex) and then later change their mind, maybe years later they think 'I feel dirty that I chose to do that thing of my own free will, I feel angry that the celebrity I chose to have sex with didn't want to keep seeing me. I want to get back at him. I have now, 10 years or more later, decided it was 'rape' and I am going to get him.'

 

These women know they will always have an army of simps and holier than thou types to bat for them. 

 

That is the issue.

 

There will be no physical evidence, just he said she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebestein said:

 

That is the issue.

 

There will be no physical evidence, just he said she said.

 

Perhaps there needs to be a statute of limitations on cases like this. Unless it's clear cut cases of stranger rape where the person has no idea who did it, and sometimes those are solved many many years later with DNA evidence - those are legitimate to have no time limit. But cases like this where the women knew exactly who the man was who had sex with them but they wait until years later before complaining - those should just be dismissed in most if not all cases. No conviction on such a basis can be safe, and just because a load of women come forward when prompted, doesn't make the case any stronger. It is well known that a woman scorned is a terrible thing to be on the receiving end of, and every celebrity male, especially good looking ones like Russell Brand, will have a string of 'conquests' and some of those women will feel aggrieved that they didn't become Mrs Russell Brand. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

You are a good example of why the jury system is flawed. People like you can be on a jury and you just make up a narrative which ignores the law altogether.

 

but the point about the jury system is that it would only need ONE doubter like yourself and the person wouldn't be convicted even if the rest of the jury agreed with the person you are debating with above

 

so the jury system is not the problem. of course if they can choose who gets in the jury then that's another matter as they can rig the jury

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

15 minutes ago, dirtydog said:

and just because a load of women come forward when prompted, doesn't make the case any stronger.

 

there were a bunch of women who suddenly came forward making claims about alec salmond and the blogger craig murray pointed out that they were all members of a clique of people around nicola sturgeon who was salmond's political rival

 

so it looked very much like they had coordinated an attack on salmond. Murray was then jailed for having brought this up during the trial

 

in his interview with andrew tate tucker carlson heard how THEY had gone around anyone they could find who knew tate or had been part of his life to try and find anyone who would dish any sort of dirt on him at all so that's what they do and who knows maybe they offer a little cash incentive....

 

Now lets consider that there might be all kinds of reasons why someone might make a claim. Perhaps they want to remove someone whose job position they want or perhaps its politically motivated or perhaps its just vindictiveness etc

 

But those with an axe to grind can also PAY people to say things. So on one side of the political divide there was stormy daniels coming out making claims against trump and then on the other side of the political divide there was recently a shady character making claims about obama. Now maybe the claims are real and maybe they aren't but what's sure is that character assassination is clearly a tool that is used to take people out so i think we need to be careful and that's why i try not to jump on bandwagons even ones against people i am opposed to like obama

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

8 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

but the point about the jury system is that it would only need ONE doubter like yourself and the person wouldn't be convicted even if the rest of the jury agreed with the person you are debating with above

 

so the jury system is not the problem. of course if they can choose who gets in the jury then that's another matter as they can rig the jury

 

In the UK we don't need unanimous verdicts. Lucy Letby was convicted 10-1. 

Edited by dirtydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Macnamara said:

 

i remember all that whoha about that 'obey' card but lets bare in mind that it is a clothing company who brand may have been sponsored by and that he may well have been flashing an almost subliminal marketting advert by holding that up

 

Complete with the Pentagram..? 

Did you watch the video where Brand pulls it out while being with Katie Perry... Did you see the sudden change in her behaviour..? 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, legion said:

 

Complete with the Pentagram..? 

Did you watch the video where Brand pulls it out while being with Katie Perry... Did you see the sudden change in her behaviour..? 

 

 

yes i know the video and commented on it myself back in the day. i think now i would be a bit more cautious about that one even though i am not a fan of brand and have always suspected him of being a plant in the truth movement

 

re the pentagram symbol the owners of all these big corporations are members of the secret society networks including freemasonry and they use freemasonic symbolism in their logos. Also the PR companies that might be hired to design logos will also be controlled by occultists. But that does not mean that the holding up of that card was part of a mind control move over katy perry

 

now that said katy may well be a MKUltra victim for all i know but even if she was it still doesn't mean that particular instance was an example of that

 

i'm not defending brand as i know nothing about his case and like i said i have always been suspicious of him and the crowd he hangs around with but i'm also suspicious of these sudden me too moves also

 

the ickes posted a clip of ted gunderson speaking about his FBI days recently and in that clip ted mentions how a friend of his in the FBI was stitched up and sent to jail for trying to expose corruption.....it goes on

Edited by Macnamara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, octoplex said:

Many of us knew this was coming for a long time. David Icke himself issued multiple warnings about Russell Brand. This is just the tip of the iceberg. What comes next is truly disgusting.

 

I have more evidence to share in this post. Incidentally, Brand is probably never going to end up in a court; for the same reasons Savile was never going there either:

 

1. The British Court system is infested with Freemasons; of which Brand is one.
2. Brand has direct ties to pedophiles in the British Monarchy.

 

queen.jpeg.452ce9b3bba0f86dca6ef48640398023.jpeg

 

I feel we must also be honest with ourselves here: British society tolerates a known pedophile holding the highest-office in the land. What hope do any of Brand's survivors have in a British court? Near zero.

 

Additional Evidence
I offer the following evidence for consideration. I have presented this evidence in the form of some questions:

 

Why did Russell Brand write a book full of Freemasonic iconography in which "gorgeous" children are led away by a 'pied piper'?

In this book, there is a contest for "The Most Gorgeous Child in Hamelin". The narrator (Brand) gushes over the kids in Hamelin, and "adored" one child for the "blooming circle of blood around his right nipple". "Bob is so delicious," a character remarks of a child, "his hair smells as sweet".  

 

Here are some images from the book written by Russell Brand. This forum's right to reproduce these images for critique is legally protected under the terms of 'Fair Use' enshrined in United States law (17 U.S.C. § 107) and fair dealing, in the UK. Copyright, therefore, does not apply.

 

First, we enter through a Freemasonic Archway. Note the black and white motif, and sculpture at the top of the door:

brand-doorway.png.d5d59db917111fe75ded3ae97630a4ff.png

 

The "Pied Piper", curiously resembling Brand himself, arrives dressed from head-to-foot in Freemasonic iconography:

 

brand-piper3.png.a47054e7453cc07777b9153a9a77308c.png

 

The "Piper" leads the "gorgeous" children away by playing a "pipe". Note the perspective on this drawing. Eyes rolled back:

 

piper5.png.fe0db3c3e6b91ce221f932fa6e85865e.png

 

Then compare this passage in Russell Brand's book:

 

piper6.png.9dd98d3c73d1694c108c796c3e250471.png

 

To these accounts, published in The Times newspaper, by a woman he sexually assaulted:

 

 

Again, take another look at the image above and square it with this account from a child that Russell Brand raped. Also, as reported by The Times.

 

 

You can also see, from Russell Brand's book, that Brand is aware how the Freemasonic power-systems work. What is the pattern on the mayor's tie in this illustration? Note, also, the crown:

 

piper8.png.085e6f2181948d6aa153941872f4385a.png

 

And why is that same pattern in Russell Brand / The Pied Piper's eyes later in the book?

 

piper10.png.647e3dc135eaa4fa78c1f23ec3ad76b3.png

 

I think we get the picture now, no?

 

freemasons.jpg.044c71aa4192b93e7aeade5172236953.jpg

 

 

Why did Russell Brand tell Tucker Carlson, in reference to the behavior of drug-addicts around children  "the [children] who are five or six, they won't ever have really seen it... or remember it"?

What is Brand referring to as the "it" the child will not remember? No modern trauma-therapist still realistically believes this nonsense that children do not remember abuse. At this point in the interview Brand loses his composure and immediately then begins to fidget excessively with his clothes and microphone. Then takes his cardigan off and sips water. He has said too much, and knows it. You can watch this in the video, here, at 18mins 15seconds in.

 

Even Tucker seems a bit lost for words in response, but does not call Brand out on the statement. Society struggles to challenge these abusers.

 

How did Russell Brand make his trip to the USA for the Tucker interview without being 'vaccinated'?

The US government was coercing all plane passengers to have an experimental injection before being allowed into the USA at the time.

 

Why was Russell Brand on such friendly terms with Jimmy Savile?

Let's revisit a recording of their phone call here:

 

Summary
Why was Russell Brand positioned as a guru and alternative-voice? What is a pied-piper? Why did Jimmy Savile do charity work? What is controlled-opposition? What is ingratiation? Was Jimmy Savile the British crown's only supplier of children?

 

brand-piper.png

piper4.png

Doesn't sound like particularly friendly terms in the interview he said he has never met him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what i'm trying to say is there is a lot of these drity tricks that go on.

 

as for brand i don't know anything about him. he could be a nasty piece of work for all i know but the point is i don't know which is why i'll always proceed with caution with these types of things

Edited by Macnamara
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...