REVOLUTION..Vibrant/provocative interview...Russell Brand interviewed by Jeremy Paxman BBC Newsnight....

[Delight]

Posted by Jean-Luc (here)
Pretty brilliant & genuine guy.

First got to know him through Alex Jones' interview last August

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-FOeNNJ-oSQ

Again, it was invoked by Alex Jones and his whole staff that RB is exciting. He is definitely writing in the "cultural narrative". The way he is well connected as was said another place...brain+heart+tongue makes his words resound.

Alex Jones says RB is able to crack the collective spell of narcissism and shake people up. He is Coyote, THE TRICKSTER human!!![COLOR="red"]

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by billyji (here)
Somewhere in the past i heard that one of Russell's favorite forums was Avalon. That he was one of the watchers.

Maybe not true but if you are watching Russell how about you and Bill having a video interview. You may help take out some painful splinters from some peoples eyes.

Peace

We have one or two celebs here as members (invisible to all, under quiet pseudonyms, rarely posting) -- but as best I know, Russell Brand isn't one of them.

I'd love to see if you can find out more. Yes, an interview with Russell is one of the few I'd be very happy to do. Would be a lot of fun, and maybe very valuable. I could even maybe combine it with one of the other celebs as well... that could be quite something, if all would be willing to play.



And Russell, if you're reading this, write to me at bill@projectavalon.net! Everything there is seen by myself only.

[gripreaper]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
This interview demonstrates what I've always secretly felt, and that is this: humor, or " facetiousness" as it is referred to here, is a wonderful weapon against the establishment. It clearly dumbfounded the interviewer. If you notice his body language, it wasn't long before he assumed a posture of defeat. This one was over before it even began. This type of off-speed humor confounds these types, and they are powerless against it. It renders their line of questioning silly by exposing it as pointless and backwards.

And make it irreverent humor, using analogies which point out the absurdities of the viewpoint. It's time to up the dialogue and break the sacred paradigms of the corporatocracy which we all support. The old: "If you don't like the way the politicians are running things, then go vote them out of office" is so absurd, it needs to be pointed out that they are just different sides of the same coin, a revolving door of pre-selected, bought off, self serving narcissists all cut from the same cloth with just different color shirts on.

If he reaches those who are still glued to the telly, then its all good.

[christian]

Russell is really a bright light in a very homogenized media. I very much appreciate his efforts, even though he unfortunately demands higher taxes and redistribution of wealth. I think the core problem is not the distribution but the freedom to create money, things, our own lives. We gotta abolish the fascist system, charge the robber barons for their crimes, and not blame capitalism which doesn't even exist at the moment. Let's just be free.



Russell surely acts as a catalyst, shaking people up. I think he's absolutely on the good side. I hope he'll learn a bit more about politics, capitalism, socialism, freedom, responsibility, the creation of money and currencies, and all the rest.

[Delight]

Posted by gripreaper (here)

Posted by Chinaski (here)
This interview demonstrates what I've always secretly felt, and that is this: humor, or " facetiousness" as it is referred to here, is a wonderful weapon against the establishment. It clearly dumbfounded the interviewer. If you notice his body language, it wasn't long before he assumed a posture of defeat. This one was over before it even began. This type of off-speed humor confounds these types, and they are powerless against it. It renders their line of questioning silly by exposing it as pointless and backwards.

And make it irreverent humor, using analogies which point out the absurdities of the viewpoint. It's time to up the dialogue and break the sacred paradigms of the corporatocracy which we all support. The old: "If you don't like the way the politicians are running things, then go vote them out of office" is so absurd, it needs to be pointed out that they are just different sides of the same coin, a revolving door of pre-selected, bought off, self serving narcissists all cut from the same cloth with just different color shirts on.

If he reaches those who are still glued to the telly, then its all good.

I had a quite unusual download early in the summer that took my life, my inner ideals, personality characters and my dreams and talked to me in a fairly simplistic story. The amazing part of this narrative that I posted because it came to me posting was that it "came to me" in a flow and tole me the story. Since then the characters have still spoken to me and I have actually been able to turn to them for a sense of their support and it strengthened me.

I have to post this here because this was part of the story that I believe I was foreshadowing as Russell Brand's influence. I encourage the decision to write one's own story... The story as we desire to see it. From my experience this summer, I see the meaning of the story will then appear.

Coyote had been contemplating the project Grandmother had suggested. He was invited to go to the Borderland in disguise. He was to look for Hu Mans with sentient capability and provoke them if necessary to realize Self Awareness means something and leads home. Hopefully they would reflect on this value and the introspection make them amenable to following GAIA's whispers. It was a long shot but worth trying. Even if a few cleared the static with his help, that was beneficial

Coyote was not sure what criteria he would use to discern Hu Man Sentience. He decided to use himself as an example of what sentient Hu Mans might look like. Didn't Grandmother say he had a similar perspective?

He made a list of a few possible characteristics based on his own traits. He knocked on the back door and asked Megan to help decide where the people with these traits might be found.

1. Knows how to laugh at oneself
2. Asks difficult questions others never thought to ask.
3. Says things others are too afraid to say.
4. Prefers the opposite of what is expected
5. Begins with answers and ends with questions
6. Likes to make a mess but not clean it up
7. Knows the art of self sabotage
8. tricks others into doing the opposite of what they wanted to do

Megan looked at it and said, “From what I see and what I read, there are mystics, addicts, outlaws, comedians, clowns, grifters, philosophers, saints and sociopaths on this list”. I believe you will find all these people at the mall. https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post691411

.

[gripreaper]

Posted by christian (here)
I very much appreciate his efforts, even though he unfortunately demands higher taxes and redistribution of wealth

Well, his heroes all came from the paradigm of scarcity, which is the largest social meme which keeps people in line. Many advocate working from within the existing system and dismantling it in pieces, but to me, that will not work because the tendency for change to revert back to the mean is so strong, and we are creatures of comfort, thus...no change can occur if we remain within the existing paradigm of scarcity.

So, the idea of the 1% stealing all the wealth of the planet by desecrating and exploiting the masses is not the only point. The point is that the energy signature of the dumbing down of the collective to automatron robotic slaves needs to be pointed out and exposed, as most people do not even know that they are hypnotized by this mind control and are vastly asleep at the wheel.

Then, to steal back from the narcissistic controllers that which they stole from the masses and redistribute resources only perpetuates the paradigm of scarcity by setting up a body which determines what is fair and equitable based on parameters of some sort of moral imperative shrouded in a meme of caring and spirituality or some such control meme which hasn't been developed yet.

Russell is on the right track but has not had his "dark night of the soul" from what I can tell and is not touching the TWO main taboo subjects. The Federal Reserve and exposing who these elite are who took down the twin towers and who exploit the masses and run the memes which keep the frequency low. We'll see if he can keep his energy above these narcissists and stay out of a pine box six feet under.

Bill Hicks and George Carlin were true comedians for social change. Click on the you tube link in my signature line. Classic compilation of Hicks and Carlin.

[Mike]

Posted by dianna (here)
Russell Brand Calls For “Massive Redistribution of Wealth”, “Socialist Egalitarianism”

Comedian Calls For Socialism, And He’s Not Joking

“The plans may differ, the planners are all alike.” -Frederic Bastiat



Famed comedian Russell Brand has taken a step into the political sphere and become an editor at The New Statesman magazine. His new political agenda he says is a ”socialist egalitarian system” involving a “massive redistribution of wealth”, “heavy taxation of corporations”, and adds that we must address the problem of “profits”. Brand believes that governments need massive centralization, while simultaneously calling for a revolution.

Of course socialism is not revolutionary. Advocating for social safety nets and redistribution of wealth is more about risk aversion. True revolutionaries are risk-takers, and are people who are willing to take risks and accept hardships. Not so with socialism, which creates a nanny state to make decisions for the people. Socialism is central planning. It means central control of your life.

Brand will likely crush the hopes of many libertarians who see this video and have enjoyed some of his previous TV appearances talking politics. Many people were stirred by Brand’s unwillingness to bend to the narrow political spectrum that the main stream media projects. That’s refreshing no matter what your politics. But his calls for socialism and for taxation show he is clearly not a revolutionary, nor a particularly original thinker. After all, we’ve had despotism for centuries.

The only truly radical philosophy today is the one that dares to claim that individuals own their own bodies and the fruits of their labors. It is the philosophy centered on economic freedom and personal liberty. It is the philosophy of natural rights and free markets. It is classical liberalism, the true laissez-faire. THAT is revolutionary, my dear friend. Socialism would be a step back.



Brand is advocating for nothing more than legal plunder. French philosopher Frederic Bastiat once wrote on the topic: “Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.”

Despite Brand’s refreshing candor and undeniable charm, his misunderstanding of the true nature of centralization of government power is unforgivable. It’s intellectually lazy and in truth, dangerous.

Communism and socialism have been responsible for the death of possibly hundreds of millions of people in eastern Europe and Asia in the last century. The butchery of despotic socialist dictators such as Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Che Guevera, Fidel Castro and Pol-Pot are historic testimonies as to the eventual endgame of the centralization of government power.

Central planning is the “The Road to Serfdom,” which means that when the government has planned everything for you for your life and you are no longer useful to the state, they will offer you their final plan.

condescending and semantically manipulated, this piece is worthy of fox news (the no spin zone!)

first off, it assumes that all is as it seems. and how does one argue or debate with with another who is completely ignorant of what's going on behind the veil? the only appropriate response really, is humor, or sarcasm. the issue with this interview (and taking apart this article) is that one has to speak the language of the current societal matrix to do it (ie "isms" "ists" "republican" "democrat" etc). i'd love to see these political pundits write or argue their points without using these nuance-deficient and erroneously all-encompassing terms.

everything being relative, in what many think of as a capitalist system, socialism is indeed revolutionary! if you want to talk about "risk aversion", perhaps we should also refer to the wealthy here in America monopolizing the lion's share of the wealth and resources. risk aversion indeed! lets not risk allowing the poor and working class a shot at financial security! typical of our Orwellian pundits, he applies an incendiary, misleading label to something that would likely benefit the entire country. if redistributing the wealth means we're all gonna have a few more bucks in our pocket, why don't we call it "responsibly caring for our less fortunate citizens"? yeah, I like that better.

as Guevara said, those that blindly buy into the idea of capitalism are usually totally unawares of the invisible forces that prevent them from living the "American dream". capitalism has erroneously been associated with the proud, self-made man; and the idea of socialism has been perverted into this idea that we're all a bunch of helpless infants who need our sh!tty diapers changed by the government. look, i'm in a public library right now. that means it's free! I can use the computer and rent movies and cd's for *no charge*. guys, this is socialism. 'free' is a good thing! or would you all rather pay out of pocket like "proud" "self-made" Americans?

socialism/redistribution of wealth doesn't mean "control of your life". quite the contrary, you'll have never had more freedom! with your newly padded pockets, a trip to the grocery store or a night at the movies will no longer represent the crushing burden it used to be. the author, not surprisingly, very Orwellian-ly refers to this as "legal plunder", which is supposed to carry negative connotations. but plunder of whom, in this instance? why the 1% of course. plunder away then! i'm all for it! I don't care what you call it!

going back to Che, he famously said that a true revolutionary's greatest quality is one of love - love of fairness, equality, and humanity. the true revolutionary does whatever is necessary, whether it's firing a rifle or cooking a meal. a true revolutionary does what he does and advocates what he advocates for the sake of the whole, for the betterment of everybody - not just a select, elite few. which leaves only one pertinent question we should all be asking ourselves: does the current paradigm do the same? provide for the whole? the betterment of everyone? it's simple math (at least here in the US): we have the 1%, and we have the 99%. pretty simple. endless and eloquent talk of "ists" and "isms" cannot change the facts. it will not change who the real despots are.

[Kristin]

Thinking out of the box here; perhaps it has never really been about Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Totalitarianism.... etc. Perhaps not one system of governing has ever really worked because of the corrupt people that run them, period. Perhaps it's the term "Governing" that is the bitter pill. "Serving" is the correct term. As in "Public Service".

You know, I would rather live in a monarchy if the monarch was a person who dedicated her/his life to serving the people. Any system could work if it was run by non corrupt folks who were in it for the good of humanity. A non corrupt system would be self correcting by it's very nature; the fine nature of the people participating. Perhaps a test should be issued to psychologically see if a person is a psychopath before they are allowed to take office. We could at least administer a lie detector test to see if a person was actually to keep their campaign promises.

It's never going to work if we have people driven by personal greed in positions of power. All systems are flawed due to this. I'm glad Russell has given himself, and others by proxy, permission to speak about what ails them. Stirring the hornet's nest is a healthy thing considering the dismal psychopathic governance that everyone finds themselves being subjected to.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[ceetee9]

I don't know anything about Russell Brand or this BBC stooge, Paxman, but since when was voting a requirement to have any "authority" to talk about politics? I mean, look at the millions of Americans who continue to vote for the politicians who pledge their allegiance to the Oligarchy that is systematically destroying this country and planet and keeping us in perpetual wars. If that demonstrates the qualifications for intelligent political decision making wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable.

[Jean-Luc]

Some food for thought, words of caution, and... hints for an interview (many questions asked).

Re-Branding Revolution


http://www.sott.net/article/267983-R...ing-Revolution
Lisa Guliani
Sott.net
Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:26 CDT
Okay, Russell Brand: Yep, you're saying lots of stuff people want to hear. (Just like every single other politician, btw.)

And yeah, you're 'one of us' (Just like every politician that's come galloping across the hero horizon over the years, btw.)

But, I am reminded of something this other comedian said way back when:

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

George Carlin

And so I have to ask, 'cuz I'm annoying that way, why it is you're being granted the opportunities to so openly articulate your political views in mass media venues. Curious, that is. Considering that you're not really espousing any point of view that hasn't already been articulated before, and usually for the purposes of perception management and manipulation, by the way, I guess I am just having this little 'inner niggling' about what your purpose is, Russell.

Because society is way dumber than it used to be, by all appearances.

The public, by and large, seems pretty damn (how shall I put this delicately) 'suggestible'. Put much less delicately: easily suckered, conned, taken for a f*cking ride.

So what kind of 'revolution' do you suppose you are 'starting', Russell, if the majority of society has been dumbed down?

A revolution of mass idiocy? (Sorry, tact has once again eluded me.)

How do you suppose, and I'm not demanding any 'solutions' from you, Russell, I'm just wondering: How would you see, if you could, a 'revolution' unfolding? How would it play out in your mind?

And I wonder, for what reason is mainstream media allowing you to make such politically incorrect statements? What do they stand to gain, other than the obvious, since you, Russell, are 'trending' right now?

I guess since so many others have come and gone before you, basically saying the same things you're saying now, and have been assassinated, ignored, shunned, blackballed and defamed for saying the things you're saying, and certainly denied public access in the ways you've been granted, it just gives me pause, ya know?

And then I'm reminded of the provocateurs in the 'freedom' movement here in the U.S., and how they've tried and continue to try to incite people to engage in potentially violent, dangerous, disadvantageous, and most likely unworkable tactics - and again, I have to ask, what's your story, Russell? What's really going on here?

Because, as I've learned over the years, the ones who are really hitting the nerve, really striking the root, are being slapped with audits, lawsuits, and denied the very public access you now enjoy - and they have been singing a very similar tune.

I hate to say this, Russell, because a part of me wants to buy into you and what you're selling, it really does. But there's this whole other part of me that is compelled to question what precisely it is you're selling - and for whom.

And since revolutions have been mostly ineffective throughout history - co-opted, controlled, subverted, dissolved from within, even financed by the enemy - ya know, essentially taken over and morphed into this 'controlled opposition' sort of thing just like lots of dissident groups, the alternative media, etc...

Well, it makes me wonder what you think will be accomplished by inciting the public, a public that for the most part, doesn't seem to possess even a so-so awareness of what the hell is really going on in this world, in their own government at any level, in their church, education system, their neighborhoods, etc... or, for that matter, seem to CARE enough about what's wrong with any of the above enough to actually pull their heads from the glue-sniffer or out from in front of their TVs long enough to inform themselves about what's going on, or what underlies that, or what things they can do about any of it.

Are you suggesting that the most suggestible among us should engage in a revolution? What the hell would that look like, I'm almost afraid to ask.

I don't know, Russell. In the U.S., we've still got our hands full just trying to get the mass majority to grok that there's little, if any difference between the 'Reds' and the 'Blues', because they essentially all work for the same elitist psychopaths.

I notice you aren't using that word, Russell. 'Psychopath.'

It's an important word, ya know. [my emphasis]

I wonder in which direction your career would travel if you started adding that word to your revolution-themed political perspectives, and if your access to mass media platforms would be impacted at all.

That would be very interesting to see. Maybe you should try it.

It'd be very refreshing if you turn out to be the real deal, but I can't help but wonder, as that familiar niggling feeling comes over me.

Some might call it deja vu.


Lisa Guliani

Lisa Guliani is a former internet-based political talk show host, political writer, researcher, activist, conscientious objector, "known protester', and self-described thought provocateur. When she's not engaged in some odd combination of the above, she's handing out smiles to the elderly, and also enjoys reading, music, cracking jokes, and hanging out with her buddy, Goose, who has yet to realize he's a dog. Her favorite sections of SOTT?

It's a three-way tie: Secret History, Puppet Masters and Society's Child.

Just a as pointed out by Kristin here:

Posted by Kristin (here)
Perhaps a test should be issued to psychologically see if a person is a psychopath before they are allowed to take office.

[Mike]

Posted by Kristin (here)
Thinking out of the box here; perhaps it has never really been about Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Democracy, Totalitarianism.... etc. Perhaps not one system of governing has ever really worked because of the corrupt people that run them, period. Perhaps it's the term "Governing" that is the bitter pill. "Serving" is the correct term. As in "Public Service".

You know, I would rather live in a monarchy if the monarch was a person who dedicated her/his life to serving the people. Any system could work if it was run by non corrupt folks who were in it for the good of humanity. A non corrupt system would be self correcting by it's very nature; the fine nature of the people participating. Perhaps a test should be issued to psychologically see if a person is a psychopath before they are allowed to take office. We could at least administer a lie detector test to see if a person was actually to keep their campaign promises.

It's never going to work if we have people driven by personal greed in positions of power. All systems are flawed due to this. I'm glad Russell has given himself, and others by proxy, permission to speak about what ails them. Stirring the hornet's nest is a healthy thing considering the dismal psychopathic governance that everyone finds themselves being subjected to.

From the Heart,
Kristin

hit the nail on the head there Kristin perfectly put!

meanwhile, while the human race is evolving to the point you described, we unfortunately require these "systems" to legislate morality and behavior. I mean, you can't really legislate morality at the end of the day, but i'm glad we have prisons...if ya know what I mean

Ive always felt it was the mark of an extremely unevolved society to place commerce above moral responsibility. I don't really think that makes me a "socialist"; I like to think it makes me a decent human being. and that's all we need really. not hero's or eccentric, charismatic leaders, or various systems of thought; we just need more decent human beings.

great post Kristin!

[eaglespirit]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
... we just need more decent human beings.

great post Kristin!

Stepping up and into action in their personal lives now more than ever...
doing what they are called to do from within and bringing it to fruition in the now in their own unique ways!
Each and every selfless move moves the whole of humanity to a higher place as never before in our experience here!
imho

[Kristin]

I does not seem to me that Russell is selling anything, just being himself and speaking his mind. The idea that he is selling is due to a social construct. The fact that he has some celebrity, and not that much I may add, automatically places him into the assumption that he is playing a game. That is how far we have come in losing our trust of everyone in society. We always assume that a person is on the take, we would not know genuine person if it hit us right between the nose or in this case in the belly.

We are afraid of revolution and chaos, rightfully so. It's generally messy and people die. We all know that people are so beyond being unified that any sort of revolution would create this. This makes us very afraid to start one. We all want to know who would be in control and further, who will step up to grab control when the chaos subsides. These are good questions and ones that people should be on vigil for. We do have a number of Mahatma Gandhi type leaders in this world NOW, but no one is listening to them. Not in any sort of unified way. I agree that this is going to be a mess no matter which way you turn it, UNLESS PEOPLE SUDDENLY BECOME EDUCATED AND PRACTICE NON-VIOLENCE. But change will happen regardless.

Remember the saying: "What if there was a war and no one showed up?" It's a powerful image. But we have been trained to think that this type of social change, non violent, is from a past revolution that did not work. We have been fed the idea that people who participated in that level of social change were not organized, sold out to money, and have polluted the planet. We have been fed and have swallowed the idea that we are hopeless. This type of thinking is more dangerous then a revolution.

Now we are swallowing the idea that change in itself is dangerous. That saying yes to our own slavery is not right, but it's safe. Yes, we are on the edge of something and not knowing what will happen is frightening. I am not foolish enough personally to expect all the answers from a stand up comic named Russell. I am taking my own responsibility personally. I hear Russell asking that we all do the same. I also hear him asking us not to take his right to express himself and his own discontent away from him... no I got that wrong, he is demanding that we recognize that it is his right and he does not need to ask our permission. Nor do you or I.

The unknown is scary, but we have to grow up someday and hopefully we make choices that we can all live with.

From the Heart,
Kristin

[Delight]

looking at this video, one can get a sense of Russell Brand's personal priorities

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LOKsooC9Sv4

[christian]

Posted by Chinaski (here)
look, i'm in a public library right now. that means it's free! I can use the computer and rent movies and cd's for *no charge*. guys, this is socialism. 'free' is a good thing!

The state doesn't own anything in the first place. It can't give out anything "for free" which has not been taken away from someone, usually rather covertly and with threat of force. Later the state hands it out with a gesture of grandeur. Your free ride in the public library is paid for by yourself, at a very high price I figure.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
socialism/redistribution of wealth doesn't mean "control of your life". quite the contrary, you'll have never had more freedom! with your newly padded pockets, a trip to the grocery store or a night at the movies will no longer represent the crushing burden it used to be. the author, not surprisingly, very Orwellian-ly refers to this as "legal plunder", which is supposed to carry negative connotations. but plunder of whom, in this instance? why the 1% of course. plunder away then! i'm all for it! I don't care what you call it!

Historically, the most plundered people in Socialism are from the (former) middle class. Even if the current robber barons would be plundered, most probably we would quickly end up with a new set of megalomaniacs.

Posted by Chinaski (here)
going back to Che, he famously said that a true revolutionary's greatest quality is one of love - love of fairness, equality, and humanity.

Che also said this:

“Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”

-------

Freedom: Can't be brought by controlling.

Love: Can't be brought by hating.

Prosperity: Can't be brought by taking away from people.

Responsibility: Can't be taught by denying people their right to act freely.

Generosity comes from giving, not taking. I challenge anyone who wants to be a Socialist leader, share your possessions freely and live what you preach! Don't scheme to get in a position of power from where you force me to comply with your ideas or else.

Thought experiment: Tomorrow, the "best" system there could be would be handed down to humanity, with all the texts and information we would need. Would everything be perfect? No, because humanity is incapacitated in many ways and could not hold it up. Therefore, our main challenge is to strengthen humanity broadly, so that eventually a free and empowered humanity may emerge.

[Limor Wolf]

Russell Brand may be the right person at the right time.. he has briliance, charisma and great articulation, he is direct, sassy, and say all the right words in an immaculate way.

He also has a history which is worth taking into consideration

I would take cautious in jumping on the Brand wagon just yet before seeing all angles of this.

Russel was married to Katy Perry, a pop singer. The music industry likes to use illuminai symbolism and be in complete control of their singers and entertainment representatives. There are a lot of mind control games involved nowdays and this can not be completely disregarded when observing Brand's meteoric rising into alternative stardom. It could be nice if he could relate to that and what he thinks about the way the music and entertaiment industry is being effected and played with by the same ones who he criticises. Saying that, he sure gave great performances on his last appearences in TV

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...ock_cruise.jpg


p.s

To make it more clear, I do not doubt his own sincerity.

Simply, the game is different in every level.

[Kristin]

Limor,

I think you'll get a kick out of this: https://youtube.com/watch?v=w-pFDOjc3EI

[christian]

Posted by Kristin (here)
Perhaps a test should be issued to psychologically see if a person is a psychopath before they are allowed to take office.

Then who controls psychology and the testing procedure is in charge of who can get into office and who can't. Who will control the controllers? It's a catch-22, it's impossible to reach a high ground from where it would be ensured that only the decent get into positions of power. The testing must be down by as many people as possible individually. People have to learn to trust and use their own discernment. The more people do this, the more we focus on claiming our freedom and sovereignty, the better off we will be.

I think the only way to prevent people from abusing the power of their office is to take away the power from the office. We don't need presidents, congress-men and all these people. They need us. Humanity has existed prior to politics, many systems have come and gone. And our current one; this too shall pass.

[Hervé]

Some rise to stardom... some get eliminated... what's the dividing line when both sides are controlled by the same pupetteers:

Who killed Michael Hastings?

Carl Gibson
occupy.com
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 20:12 CDT

Early in the morning on June 18, a brand new Mercedes C250 coupe was driving through the Melrose intersection on Highland Avenue in Hollywood when suddenly, out of nowhere, it sped up. According to an eye-witness, the car accelerated rapidly, bounced several times then fishtailed out of control before it slammed into a palm tree and burst into flames, ejecting its engine some 200 feet away.

A witness, Jose Rubalcalva, whose house stood adjacent to the crash, told Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks news network that no one could approach the burning car because it kept exploding. In a simulated full-frontal crash of a 2013 C250 coupe, the car doesn't explode on impact nor does it launch its engine 200 feet.

In fact, said Nael Issa, a Mercedes Benz dealer in Long Beach, "The car has a crumble zone, so when it crashes it goes in like an accordion. And in some cases the engine drops down, so it doesn't go into you."

The driver in the fatal crash was Michael Hastings, a 33-year-old crack investigative reporter for Rolling Stone magazine, whose June 2010 article, "The Runaway General," exposed the behind-the-scenes failure of top U.S. General Stanley McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan - and, even more damagingly, revealed McChrystal's mocking attitude toward the Obama administration, which ultimately led to the general's resignation.

Four months after Hastings's so-called accident, and despite scant coverage in the mainstream media, new facts and evidence continue to emerge raising serious unanswered questions about whether the journalist was assassinated, the breadth of unconventional cyber-techniques that may have been used, and who might have been responsible.

Full article: http://www.sott.net/article/267988-W...chael-Hastings

[Delight]

I wish George Carlin was around to converse with Russell Brand. That would be RICH.
The main priority for humans is what we do to ourselves by the way we think and by extention to others. If we cannot realize this cause/effect FOR us by our own mistaken considerations, well, anyone who remains confused is bound to feel "F'ed".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2cjRGee5ipM