Fuck Russell Brand
Trivium 2.0
Fuck Russel Brand. Det har intet med en voldtægt at gøre, at han er rådden. Ikke engang Harari (fotoet foroven).
Hvis du er clairvoyant, kan du se Brands råddenskab direkte på hans udstråling, men man kan blot ikke bevise noget direkte med clairvoyance (og enhver kan påstå de er clairvoyante). Beviser kræver sprog, påviselige fakta og logik. Intersubjektivitet.
Hvis du kan bevise råddenskab og modsigelser i Russell Brand, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, etc., er der stadig mange som lider af ‘Trivium’-defekten ift. motiv f.eks. [1], dvs. de kan simpelthen ikke tænke ordentligt i formel logik (en konstatering, næppe en fordømmelse) eller mangler viden. Det lyder arrogant men ikke pointen.
Brand fortæller dig det du gerne vil høre, men ender op med at anbefale Global Governance, pudsigt nok…
Hvis man ikke har gennemskuet Russell Brand som etablissementets egen darling for lang tid siden (baseret på grundig biografisk analyse, handlinger og udtalelser), har man ikke gjort sit hjemmearbejde.
Andet eksempel, her med Elon Lusk Fusk Musk:
FAKTISK behøver du IKKE engang at lave dit hjemmearbejde mere end at lære denne basale regel: Virkeligt farlige figurer for magten eller information bliver ALDRIG tilladt eller promoveret af magtens EGNE platforme (YouTube, Twitter, etc) med ENORME visningstal.
Jeg gentager: Virkeligt farlige figurer for magten eller information bliver ALDRIG tilladt eller promoveret af magtens EGNE platforme med ENORME visningstal.
Det er en universel regel, hvis observans også ligger i sagens logiske natur set fra magtens eget perspektiv. Mafiaen tillader ikke farlige bogudgivelser (virale hits på YouTube) på eget forlag, som leder til mafiaens eget fald...det ville være skizofrent og debilt i modstrid med deres egeninteresse - og denne observans bekræftes selvfølgelig igen og igen komplet ufravigeligt af iagttagelser i AL menneskelig historie og erfaring med magtens fjender. Dette er blot "min" fundamentale pointe...
Hapset ny analyse:
If you are a "conspiracy theorist" who is reacting by defending Brand and declaring he is a truth-telling hero who "the media is trying to destroy because he speaks the truth!" - you're reacting exactly as the media wants you to.
Bread and circuses. Play both sides (the media always does).
The truth is that Brand (just like Musk and Tate - who have immediately leapt to his defence, what a surprise!) is just another actor and establishment-intelligence asset being used to manage the opposition. He was propelled to super-human levels of fame, just like Musk and Tate have been too, to get everyone invested in him and talking about him so their strings can be pulled in the desired way every time he is seen to do something.
This whole "sex scandal" thing is just staged theatre. However, even if it is true, it certainly hasn't "destroyed" him - it's made him more famous than ever.
This psy-op seems to serve various functions, the first one being (as a lot of the other big name CO accounts are so keen to tell us):
"This is a warning. If they've come for Russell, they'll come for you too. None of us is safe!"
To which I say (pardon my Francais, but) bullshit. I've been speaking out publicly for years, have written directly to multiple government officials accusing them of maiming and murdering the populace, and so on and so forth, and know what has happened to me?
Nothing. Quite literally, nothing - as in, they totally ignore me and conspire to ensure everyone else does too, by endlessly censoring and shadow-banning me and booting me off platforms to keep my reach very low. They don't do that to "heroes" like Brand, Bridgen, and Tate now, do they? Those guys have massive social media followings - audiences they are not shadow-banned from reaching - and are always in the mainstream press.
Just to be clear, Russell Brand. has over eleven million followers on Twitter. That's (significantly) more than the UK Prime Minister. He has over six million on YouTube, when any legit content creator will tell you YouTube is one of the most censorious platforms in the world and very quick to ban even small accounts (I only have 1k followers and they've already removed two of my videos - once a third is taken down, I'll be banned).
If Brand wasn't 100% controlled, he would never have been permitted to achieve such a phenomenal degree of influence [min egen evige pointe] - he has the Twitter following of a small country and is better known than many high-ranking politicians. It is simply not possible to rise to that level of visibility without the full collaboration of the establishment, but if - as some claim - "well, he started out controlled but now he's not" - if that was so, he would just be de-platformed and censored to remove his influence. He would be taken off the big social media platforms and the mainstream media wouldn't give him coverage.
Because that's how you destroy someone or something from having any significance or power. You ignore it. You starve it of the one thing any person or cause needs to stay "relevant" - publicity. And it really is true that there's no such thing as bad publicity, so when you want to "destroy" someone, you don't make them international front page news and give them their own documentary on Channel 4.
I mean, come on, really? If that's the establishment "destroying" someone, I sure wish they would try and "destroy" me, as I'm sure all us small-fish, perennially censored, shadow-banned and struggling content creators do, too. (And no - eye-roll emoji, face-palm emoji - I am not "jealous of all the attention" Brand or whoever gets, I'm pointing out that the establishment only ever gives significant, sustained attention to its own. Everyone else, it suppresses and ignores. [no-brain pointe som mange ikke forstår]
If they wanted to destroy Brand, they'd do that to him, too. Boot him off all social media and stop saying anything about him at all in the mainstream press. He would be largely forgotten [pointe som mange ikke forstår]
So that's not what they're doing. Instead, they're making him even more famous to increase his influence sphere even further, and they have a variety of goals in mind with this. The first is to scare you out of speaking out as we hurtle into the next act of the pantomime plague ("they'll come for you too", say the big name accounts ominously, coded warning, so you'd better shut up).
There are very likely to be other agendas, too, and one possibility we have to consider is that the allegations will be "proven false", just as appears to have happened with the Tates. That the accusers will recant, or they will be cross-examined and found to be lying, or whatever the scriptwriters come up with, to ultimately exonerate Brand.
Note how sensationally quickly Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, and my old friend Laurence "Lizzo" Fox leapt to Brand's defence, when - if we were to take this whole scenario at face value - they couldn't possibly have had the time to source enough information to so publicly stake their reputations on his being innocent. They're going to look incredibly daft if he's found guilty, lose all credibility - and their handlers and managers would be unlikely to permit them to take such a potentially brand-wrecking risk unless they had some kind of insider intel assuring them this was a wise public move to make.
Alternatively, the whole thing is being staged intentionally to undermine the credibility of "conspiracy theorists", as all the big "conspiracy" names have instantly jumped on the Brand bandwagon, so if it is confirmed he's an evil sex predator, their reputations (and by association, their political beliefs) will be trashed, too. They've just been far too quick and coordinated in their endeavours to defend him (when coming to a genuine view takes consideration and time), so they've obviously been ordered to, and for what ultimate goal, it remains to be seen.
Whatever the endgame is with this, it's all ultimately just another tedious bit of media theatre designed to manage the masses and increase the influence of another controlled opposition "hero" - who is now either "being unfairly persecuted, just like Andrew Tate!" - or "an obvious wrong 'un with his loony views now getting his just deserts", depending on which media-managed camp you fall into.
In reality, he's neither. He's an actor playing a part, just as - in the sphere of politics and talking heads - every single household name in the world is. Because if they're not, they're not permitted to become household names [den evige pointe igen som mange ikke forstår]
They want you infatuated with these "heroes" they control so you feel appeased that "something's being done!" and you don't get active on the grass roots level and do something yourself. So no, it's not that "everyone's controlled opposition" - it's that every super-famous person promoted by the mainstream media (about 0.0001% of the general population) is. Your local friends, neighbours and colleagues aren't - but they're not famous and relentlessly plastered across the front pages of the press. Anyone who is, is suspect.
In closing, I have to say this is probably the most time I've dedicated to thinking about Russell Brand in my entire life
Seriously though: I feel like I need a bath after writing that... I've never been able to stand Russell Brand because the energy he gives off is sinister and awful and I hate listening to him speak (regardless of whether he claims to support any of my own 'pet causes'). From the minute he claimed to become a "truther", I never bothered to comment on him as it seemed so blatantly obvious he was classic controlled opposition. I only comment on him now as the extraordinary level of international infamy he has achieved over the last few days - becoming the hot talking point of some of the most renowned cultural figures in the world at the current time - means he is destined to become even more sinister in his influence than ever.
Gentagelse: ‘Af samme grund er det f.eks blevet analyseret mange gange over årene, hvordan Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Russell Brand, Tucker Carlson IKKE er farlige for magten, men PROMOVERES med millioner af hits af magtuhyrerne på platforme med omvendt fortegn som ‘dissidenter’ (ligesom Trump), og den censur eller chikane de måtte opleve er ikke-eksisterende eller insignifikant. De er i FORVEJEN blevet tilladt at gå viral på magtens egne platforme med mange millioner visninger.......Alle som promoveres eller synliggøres af YouTube, Facebook, Google, TV, Netflix, etc.) med enormt store tal, er ikke virkelig farlig information.
Virkelig farlig information forties, slettes massivt, ofte lynhurtigt indenfor minutter, og/eller afkobles eller reduceres fra magtelitens søgemaskiners søgeresultater. Sådan har det været længe...
EKSEMPEL:
Erfaringens empiriske præmis: Farlig information bliver ikke tilladt eller promoveret af magtens egne platforme med enorme visningstal.
PÃ¥stand:
1. Tucker Carlson er farlig for magten
2. Han promoveres eller synliggøres massivt (mest sete TV-show i USA’s historie på Rotshchild=Murdoch-Fox News platform)
_____________
Konklusion: Carlson er ikke virkeligt farlig for magteliten
(tværtimod, og også hans biografi og handlinger viser, at han er magtuhyrernes frontmand)
De aktivister som censures massivt - som aldrig når enorme tal med information via magtens EGNE platforme - er de farlige!
Kort eksempel: Denne mesterlige analytiker, Johnny Gat AKA Vigilante Intelligence er f.eks et eksempel ud af talløse - information som er slettet fra mange platforme, inkl. hans kontier på BitChute og Patreon, etc: https://odysee.com/@wonderingwhatif:b/Trump's-Pedophiles--Part-1-:9
Johhny Gat er excessivt sjælden, meget dygtig, og har fået slettet sine konti alle steder, Patreon, BitChute, etc...selvom andre har lavet arkiver af ham flere steder: https://odysee.com/@The-Johnny-Gat-Archive:5/Putin_Bibi_Bolsheviks2:f
Gat er blot ét eksempel, et ud af talløse….mens Tucker (en selverklæret communitarian) er verdenshistoriens MEST sete nyhedshow (Fox News)…..nothing suspicious to see at all, move on....
Der er masser af farlig information som forbigår censuren, men det sker bare ikke på YouTube eller magtens andre platforme med enorme visningstal. NB! Nogle dissidenters kanaler får lov til at leve i små ubetydelige visningstal, og en del af er meget svære at finde.’
- fra:
———-
[1] Applicerbart til Russell Brand også:
‘Fynboen: 'Men jeg kan ikke se noget motiv!? Hvorfor skulle de gøre det?
Fynboen siger, at i mangel på et troværdigt motiv i HANS øjne - kan det ikke være potentielt virkeligt, ergo er det løgn.
Man kan kalde denne afvisning tilsyneladende fravær af motiv eller som en ven kaldte min observation, idet vi ikke kunne finde et navn for det. Han kaldte det 'the fallacy of rejecting arguments based on the perceived lack of a believable motive, altså - med hans ord omskrevet; ‘det forhold at man afviser, at noget hemmeligt fordækt foregår, fordi kritikere ikke kan komme med et motiv til, at der fx skulle være tale om noget fordækt. Rationalet bliver så, at fordi Fynboen ikke kan se et troværdigt motiv (og enhver kan jo påstå, at motivet ikke er ‘troværdigt’), så har der ikke været tale om noget fordækt eller skadeligt. [i Russells tilfælde kan mange ikke tro på, at han ikke er en farlig rebel på trods af hans umulige virale position f.eks.]. Det svarer til, at man finder et lig (bliver præsenteret med overbevisende materiale om noget fordækt), og hvis man ikke kan finde et motiv, så er manden ikke blevet myrdet. Det er selvfølgelig noget vås, fordi folk kan godt blive myrdet, uden at man ved, hvad motivet har været.’
Det er tydeligt for mig, at denne logiske fejlslutning også spiller en altafgørende for manglende perception af modsigelser.
Essensen i min tese er, at mennesker har tendens til totalt at ignorere hvem, hvad, hvor og hvornår-spørgsmålene, hvis de ikke kan finde et hvorfor. Konfronteret med påstande, som konflikterer med deres overbevisninger (identitet), starter de ud med hvorfor, og såfremt de ikke kan finde et ‘troværdigt’ motiv, anses disse andre fire spørgsmål (hvem, hvad, hvor og hvornår) som irrelevante, insignifikante eller totalt usynlige (det kan tydeligt forklare dobbelttænkning, selection bias, confirmation bias, normalcy bias, etc).
( Det er ovenud tydeligt, at ikke kun mainstream er præget af denne kognitive brist, sådan tænker mange i alternative cirkler også - f.eks. Qanons, Trumpister, Sound of Freedom-tilhængere - da de køber et præfabrikeret narrativ om hvorfor - og ignorerer alle ‘utroværdige’ kilder om hvem, hvornår, hvor, hvem, - f.eks. follow-the-money - som indikerer, at Trump er i lommen på Israel. I sig selv er dette forstærket af kognitiv infiltration).
Dette er generelt resultatet af forsætlig fordummelse i uddannelsessystemet ifl. John Taylor Gatto.
I Trivium logik finder vi følgende:
I Trivium logik [1] starter man altid ud med grammatik først (ikke den sproglige): hvem, hvad, hvor og hvornår først, og stiller hvorfor-spørgsmål bagefter. I det lukkede narrativ, bliver historien fortalt på forhånd, som den grammatik man har at arbejde med.’ - fra:
