Is Russell Brand a Rothschild shill?

[Akasha]

Posted by fractal being (here)
. The beautiful island of Crete in the Mediterranean used to be covered 95% with plantation just 350 years ago, now it's a poor 30%. x

I'm ploughing through Wade Frazier's epic "Energy & the Human Journey" essay at the moment (which I would highly recommend and encourage everyone to take the time to read) and according to his research:

.....by 1500 BCE, the use of wood in palaces declined precipitously, and when Mycenaean Greece annexed Crete, the forests were gone and the Greeks used Crete for pasturing their sheep.....

Not that that in anyway undermines your argument, FB which I agree with. We have royally f****d up our environment and, as Dennis pointed out, responsibility for the 6th (and possibly the most devastating) mass extinction falls squarely at our collective feet.

Back to the topic of "our Russ". Have those that give more rather than less benefit of the doubt to him considered why he chose to make absolutely no mention of the Scottish vote fraud allegations, and I'm not talking about the impersonation allegations reported in the MSM to, as I see it, misdirect away from the real fraud which took place?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zQbGgT3391w

The above video and several more like it, as most here will remember, set the alt' media on fire when they were uploaded. How could Russell avoid such a topic, not to mention removing mine and a friend's (as well as many others) requests for him to comment on the phenomenon on his Trews channel?

Answers on a postcard to the usual address, please

[Akasha]

Posted by Skyhaven (here)
And maybe he didn't address the Scottish election fraud because as he had said on many occasions he is against the current political system. He himself therefore doesn't vote at all.

Choosing not to comment is one thing. Deleting posts highlighting the fraud, quite another.

[Shezbeth]

Those who are quick to label this thread as negative and their opposition as positive could REALLY stand to look those words up for their (socially agreed) definitions.

Positive means that which posits, or tending to express/present a position; posit-ive, posit-ion, etc.

Negative means that which negates, or tending to engage in negation (usually of a position); negat(e)-itve, negat(e)-ion, etc.

Having thoroughly read (and enjoyed!) this thread, I can state with a degree of personal authority that no one (for the salient part) has attempted to negate Brand's position on issues, they have attempted to critically analyze his position including possible conflicts of interest, hidden motives/agendas, etc. including the (largely circumstantial) indicators that would suggest ulterior motive.

Sorry, if he is a shill, it seems Brand is smart enough to not wear a t-shirt saying "I'm a Shill" with a bullet-point list of why and how.

If this thread is to pan out, I would have that - in the aftermath - readers realize the degree of cognitive dissonance that is evident in many of the posts and expressions.

(parahprased) "Yeah, he's friends with (some of) the Rothschilds,... but maybe they're the NICE Rothschilds!" - That one was my favorite.

[Anchor]

I like how its "proof" that RB is a shill on account of the fact that he wont be manipulated into getting drawn into someone else's agenda (re: Scotland Voting Fraud) and chooses to remove requests to do so.

Shill or not RB is smart enough to know that he needs the media to work with his agenda and he plays that media well.

[donk]

Nevermind....

[Innocent Warrior]

There are people with skeleton keys to the internet. The source of this information is me. Take it or leave it but if you pay close attention you can see for yourself.

[Shezbeth]

Side-note:

Posted by wishinshow (here)
I ask you all. Would you give Bill Ryan as hard a time as you are giving me/us, if he was questioning whether or not a witness/whistleblower was adding lies to his testimony? is it any different when the "witness" is a funny celebrity?

I seem to recall Gordon Duff of Veterans Today got much the same treatment (shill analysis),.... Why is Brand exempt?

[KaiLee]

Posted by Shezbeth (here)
Side-note:

Posted by wishinshow (here)
I ask you all. Would you give Bill Ryan as hard a time as you are giving me/us, if he was questioning whether or not a witness/whistleblower was adding lies to his testimony? is it any different when the "witness" is a funny celebrity?

I seem to recall Gordon Duff of Veterans Today got much the same treatment (shill analysis),.... Why is Brand exempt?

Why would anyone be exempt? And yes, that includes Bill Ryan. Although, good manners would prevent one from speculating on the the persons own website. (...and no, I don't have a need to do so elsewhere either)
The point being; we all should use judgement on everyone. Isnt that the mantra of the alt. community? Do your own research, don't just believe.

[Tesseract]

Does anyone have the connections to invite Russel Brand to the forum? I think his input would be most valuable on a lot of topics.

[Shezbeth]

Oh that's just what this forum needs, the potential for another Charles debacle.

For the record, by debacle I mean "Star-struck worship of a perceived celebrity by the overwhelming majority of members", particularly one as bombastic as Brand; I don't mean that he would deliberately try and wreck shop.

See, that was negative.

I suggest that Brand has quite enough platforms,... but if he can pass the application process, who am I?

Afterthought: Part of healthy discernment is the recognition that one's discernment can be incorrect IMO,....

[Tesseract]

But who on here worships Russell Brand? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. It's not that he needs another platform, it just might be possible to have some very interesting discussions..

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Tesseract (here)
Does anyone have the connections to invite Russel Brand to the forum? I think his input would be most valuable on a lot of topics.

It's actually a great idea, though with his own life and "Trews", he probably wouldn't have time. It would be great if he were a member because as a member, he wouldn't have to put up with attacks on his character and integrity - because Avalon's rules prohibit treating other members with such utter disregard for their feelings - and character assassination witch hunts based on baseless accusations, trivia, jealousy, being intellectually intimidated, and innuendo. But, I'm feeling kinda snarky so I'll include the following:

Well, since I've been declared a shill, and Russell has been declared a shill, I'll just call him up and ask him to join. I'm sure he'll be delighted to come here into a nest of paranoid people who have declared him as a Rothschild agent. Maybe he will describe the thrilling exhilaration of holding an Illuminati music industry slave in his arms (and maybe even tell us the nasty nasty intimate details that the gossip columnists want to hear about!) Maybe he will tell us about how his sister's brother's uncle's mother's daughter's brother gives him a direct line of communication with the Big Cheese himself, his pal and confidant, "Rothy" de Rothschild!

The OP mentioned a "litmus test" to determine "awake" status. Let's devise a litmus test for shills!

Exactly how much money does someone need to have before they are automatically inserted into the "he's a shill!" club?

How many degrees of separation from "The Bad Guys" does someone need to be, to definitely be a shill?

Regardless how much truth a potential shill club member speaks, how many times does the potential shill have to say something you don't understand, disagree with, or you are unsatisfied with the answer, to make it into the "Shill Hall Of Fame?"

If someone calls for a "massive redistribution of wealth" (something that makes Grandpa Rothschild vomit in his mouth a little bit, I'd suppose), is he simply "anti-right-libertarian-capitalist", or is he ALSO a lying shill?

If someone calls for "revolution" (do see Jenya's eloquent and succinct explanation of the term in modern usage), does that automatically make them a shill? Or how about the reverse, where someone basically says, "Calm down everyone! Relax. No drastic change is necessary. Purchase some products. Enjoy some distractions. Everything is OK You are the problem, and you need to meditate and fix yourself - you are co-creating the Bad Guys." - would that person be a shill too? (or an anti-shill?)

How many times does a baseless accusations of being a shill does it take before the false accusations become true? And, at what point do we start looking at the people screaming "SHILL!" at people with good hearts that are trying their best to rally humanity to do something to stop the enslavement of humanity - before we start to actually question the motives of those people? Is it even possible that {gasp!}, the finger-pointers are THEMSELVES shills? (Or certainly aiding and abetting in the divide-and-conquer strategy of the Global Rulers - perhaps inadvertently acting as shills, doing the work of shills.)

My final note in this thread is that this is a moronic witch hunt, tearing down a man (you know, a flawed human being just as we are all flawed human beings) that is trying to help stir people from complacency and hopelessness. Not one piece of "evidence" has been presented, just a bunch of innuendo. More evidence was entered into the record here about how aliens created the rings of Saturn and that chemtrails are a UFO anti-cloaking strategy than was entered to substantiate the claim in the thread's title. If the people posting against Russell Brand's character and integrity in this thread are an indication of a cross section of us all, then the Global Rulers can raise a glass and toast you all for neutralizing yet another person who stuck his neck out and tried to unite ordinary people against the Global Rulers. If that was your aim, job well done. Your COINTELPRO tactics worked reliably, once again.

[Shezbeth]

Wow. Way to miss the point entirely, and then make a spectacle of the fact.

I've seen less petulance in children.

Stating, with suggestions and largely (but not entirely) circumstantial evidence that he COULD be a shill (lets be real, it is WELL within the threshold of possibility) and advising/exercising caution is a whole different beast than lighting torches and preparing the guillotine (re: 'witch-hunt').

Moreover, it would seem that the reader is being advised to throw caution to the wind, which would be a point toward the writer BEING a shill (not saying that's a case, but with outbursts like that it gravitates more toward being a possibility). Invoking COINTELPRO for purpose of minimizing and disregarding critical analysis,... wow.

'People with good hearts doing their best to rally humanity...' ? You state this like it is the sole and exclusive possibility, which seems naive in the least and ignorant in the extreme.

Show of hands please; Who in their entire lifetime has NOT been fooled (read: seduced, misdirected, followed the red herring, etc.) by the 'apparent' interests of another person? Anyone?

Being associated with - arguably - the most Machiavellian family in history doesn't mean one is up to no good,... but I hope you will understand if that is seen as something worth considering.

But, apparently we can all sleep soundly and put away our critical faculties because Dennis is convinced that we're being silly.

I'll say it again; part of healthy discernment is the recognition that one's discernment can be incorrect IMO,.... For good measure, I'll say this again too (paraphrased); I have every hope that Brand is sincere and authentic, but I recognize the extant possibility that he isn't.

IMO, those who are convinced that he is are as foolish as those convinced that he isn't.

<Prepares for the inevitable misconstrue-ance of his suggestions,....>

[wishinshow]

I would like to throw a REALLY crazy thing out there. I am open to the possibility that Rothy de Rothschild (@dennis ' words)(marquis de libeaux?) is, himself, "positive" (whatever that means) to the development of Terran hominid. If a man like this (not Rothy or the Marquis because I don't want to be sued by a moderator) is indeed a black cap satanist and he is indeed into sacraficing infants, then, perhaps he might have a future plan to use the powers gained from said sacrifices to undermine the (his) deity to which he is sacraficing those infants.

I kinda' think Russell is deciding on whether or not to break ranks with his Rothschild influence and that this thread may be of influence, if he ever reads it. Or maybe he knows that the satanists are in fact doing a good job and Tony Blair (convicted, moderators?) has a long term strategy for good!

I dont judge the satanists or the luciferianists. I think it likely that the dark beings that they worship have been useful in rebellions against even worse things: such as AI from an alternate existence

[Maunagarjana]

Just a thought....rather than assume the worst of Russell Brand with his tenuous connections to Rothschilds, why not consider the possibility that he may have used Jemima Khan to find out for himself what their world is like, assuming of course that he actually actually met them or got to know any of them beyond perhaps sharing some meals. Surely, he's aware of their reputation. I know I would at least think about doing something like that if I had the opportunity. I'd be curious to know what they are like on a personal level, and what they talk about in private. It would be an interesting window into a world that most people have no access to whatsoever.

If I was someone like Brand, I would go in fully expecting they would probably try to charm me and assess my usefulness for their machinations. But maybe he is naive in that regard. But I wouldn't presume to know such a thing. Personally, I can't see how in the course of conversing with any of them that he wouldn't ask them something like, "You lot seem very supportive of Socialism, from what I've read, which is odd, because you're like the antithesis of the proletariat, you're one of the wealthiest families in the world and major stake holders in lots of the massive mega-corporations out there. So, why would you support something like Socialist revolution unless you somehow have figured a way to exploit any attempt at achieving such in order to further consolidate more wealth and power into your already squid-like world-encompassing empire?" That there was my Russell Brand impression,

[wishinshow]

@maunagarjana IMHO, this is only second to @donk's posting, in its value, here. I wish I had written your postulation as the op and I think that it is perhaps the most likely reality. I could even hear Brand speaking the words that you wrote. So if we don't want our children to be served up on dinner plates (and I'm not saying that that is "bad") then let's hope you are correct in your appraisal of the situation, wise @maunagarjana

[wishinshow]

Posted by Maunagarjana (here)
"You lot seem very supportive of Socialism, from what I've read, which is odd, because you're like the antithesis of the proletariat, you're one of the wealthiest families in the world and major stake holders in lots of the massive mega-corporations out there. So, why would you support something like Socialist revolution unless you somehow have figured a way to exploit any attempt at achieving such in order to further consolidate more wealth and power into your already squid-like world-encompassing empire?" That there was my Russell Brand impression,

This is beautiful. It was a very very good impression. I do hope RB reads it and feels that he once said it. And that he further ommitted to say - out loud - the part about them being squids! Maybe he was just eating some squid with the squids. Maybe we can change their red shield to a red squid, in a few years.

[wishinshow]

I invite everybody (esp @maunagarjana)to see the original post. If anybody has a problem with the changes that I have made then I am happy to discuss the changes and am open to changing the post back to its original form in order to protect the integrity if the many posts which people have made in reference to the op.

[Wind]

Posted by Tesseract (here)
Does anyone have the connections to invite Russel Brand to the forum? I think his input would be most valuable on a lot of topics.

Indeed it would be interesting see him defending himself here. Then again, since he is a celebrity, this thread would be inundated with questions and participants. It would be another circus show. I would like to think that he reads this thread while laughing.

Personally, the way I see is that many people just see Russell as annoying (and he has money, that bastard!) and that's why they want to believe that he has some sinister agenda. I mean, since he is a celebrity he just must have some weird agenda? Surely there are no shades of grey, everything is only black and white.

I am very skeptical when it comes to people (especially celebrities or big names), but I use both discerment and intuition and I can see through people. My spider senses just aren't tingling with Russell and that just can't be said of many other persons... Sure he could have better ideas and he is not any messiah, just a man with an inspiring message. He is using his celebrity status and fame to promote the peaceful ideas and probably that's why he won't be getting any more film roles, at least not any significant ones I think.

Why aren't more celebrities doing that, they can't be all brainless now can they? Of course I do believe in the inner (r)evolution, the change comes from within and then the outer world will change. Though right now we would a need a miracle to change the current system...

[wishinshow]

@wind thank you