Pages:
Author

Topic: Russel Brand's MSM coup (Read 1758 times)

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
May 05, 2014, 07:28:26 PM
#26
It is a mistake to think of the universe as a one-way progression except in terms of expanding entropy.

This life is nothing short of a redefining quantum shift of mystical peace.  Awareness is a constant. Wisdom requires exploration. Greed is born in the gap where science has been excluded.

Thought may be the solution to what’s holding you back from a magnificent wellspring of inseparability. As you dream, you will enter into infinite wisdom that transcends understanding. Through thought, our hopes are enveloped in truth.

You will soon be aligned by a power deep within yourself — a power that is cosmic, mystical. Although you may not realize it, you are unrestricted. If you have never experienced this revolution at the speed of light, it can be difficult to exist.

The cosmos is calling to you via chaos-driven reactions. Can you hear it? Have you found your quest? How should you navigate this internal totality?

    It can be difficult to know where to begin.

Yes, it is possible to eliminate the things that can eliminate us, but not without peace on our side. We can no longer afford to live with turbulence. The complexity of the present time seems to demand a deepening of our bodies if we are going to survive.

You and I are entities of the nexus. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is grace. We exist as sub-atomic particles.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
May 05, 2014, 07:18:31 PM
#25
I did some research on Tue May 01, 2012 6:36 am (quoted below) on the Long Wave Cycle (a generational cycle)

It's a lot less complicated than that.

For 5,000 years a war has raged between people who attempt to predate others, and people who resist predation.

The use of Russell Brand as an anthropological weapon is merely the latest iteration.

It is a mistake to think of the universe as a one-way progression except in terms of expanding entropy.

There must be friction else nothing could exist, because if speed-of-light was infinite the past and present would collapse into a single point (and thus nothing would exist). With friction there must exist cycles (waves), because nothing will cascade without reverberation, reflection, diffraction, etc., e.g. consider the Butterfly effect. I covered this in great detail in my blog essay on the The Universe:

http://unheresy.com/The%20Universe.html#Matter_as_a_continuum

Thus it is import to study the Generational Cycle I shared and understand that the youth will be coming up as Hero and Artist generational cycle attitudes. Thus when they rebuild the global economy (circa 2032 per Armstrong's model) after this imminent Sovereign Debt Big Bang (Armstrong's model's ETA is Oct 2015), they will be applying extreme idealism. And that is extremely dangerous.

Note that Martin Armstrong's ECM model is based on multiples of Pi, i.e. 8.6 years, and one of the key periods is 3 x 8.6 = 25.6 years which is roughly the maturity cycle of a human wherein one forms a family to generate a new cycle. Armstrong's real estate boom & bust cycle (which also appears to correlate with bouts of technological unemployment) is 3 x 25.6 = 76.8 years.

You provided numerous analysis and examples of how that is occurring and I suggest readers study your post which I had replied to.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
May 05, 2014, 10:16:06 AM
#24
I did some research on Tue May 01, 2012 6:36 am (quoted below) on the Long Wave Cycle (a generational cycle)

It's a lot less complicated than that.

For 5,000 years a war has raged between people who attempt to predate others, and people who resist predation.

The use of Russell Brand as an anthropological weapon is merely the latest iteration.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
May 05, 2014, 04:31:18 AM
#23
Brand’s excoriation of the political class felt to many like a breath of fresh air. But while Brand’s humor-infused brew of Marxism, anarchism and New Age spirituality may seem like the mere rantings of a rebellious entertainer who frequently refers to himself as a “Jungian Trickster,” I would argue he represents a more dangerous omen.

The Occupy Wall Street “movement” (if there ever was such a thing) – and emerging generations of young Americans more generally – is being led by Brand and other pied pipers away from practical reality and into an illusory “world of pure imagination”. What in 2009 had the makings of a New Deal-oriented mass strike upsurge is being steered off course by Wall Street interests in a rehash of 1968.

I did some research on Tue May 01, 2012 6:36 am (quoted below) on the Long Wave Cycle (a generational cycle) which predicts the above effect. The youth will take over after 2032, and the kind of world they will create will be one of extreme idealism. This is FDR New Deal style of dangerous. This will launch big government on a bigger scale than we had ever seen before, i.e. "international cooperation" as code word for loss of local sovereignty. The youth will put in place the U.N. Agenda 21 with a gleam in their eye as they are trained and indoctrinated now to believe for example that man-made global climate change hoax is real and is a real problem.

Here follows the research, and I urge everyone to study this carefully.


I haven't verified whether this long wave cycle principle repeats throughout history, but I assume he has, since he said he spent 10 years perfecting it:

http://www.longwavegroup.com/principle/lefi_map/lefi_map.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58qtcPst2OI

I had read an article that ties this cycle into generational cycle attitudes. I am trying to find it, as I think it explains a difference in world view between Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y.

===========
Okay I found it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss-Howe_generational_theory#Defining_a_generation
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/2011/11/03/bad-moon-rising
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/the-gathering-storm

Code:
   Prophet      Nomad        Hero         Artist
High    Childhood Elderhood    Midlife      Young Adult
Awakening   Young Adult  Childhood    Elderhood    Midlife
Unraveling  Midlife      Young Adult  Childhood    Elderhood
Crisis      Elderhood Midlife      Young Adult  Childhood

High = Spring
Awakening = Summer
Unraveling = Fall
Crisis = Winter

Prophet = Boomers (born 1946 - 1964), 40 percent of the workforce
Nomad = Gen X (born 1965 - 1979), 16 percent of the workforce
Hero = Gen Y (born 1980 - 1994), 25 percent of the workforce
Artist = Gen Z (born 1995+)

Boomers = vision, values, and religion (loyalty, idealistic, entitled)
Nomad = liberty, survival and honor (survival, pragmatic, alienated)
Hero = community, affluence, and technology (order, righteous, protected)
Artist = expertise and due process (continuity, flexible, overprotected)

Some links on different attitudes between the current generations:

http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/2431/boomers-generations
http://jojackson.suite101.com/veterans-baby-boomers-gen-x-gen-y-and-gen-z-a185353
http://www.enotes.com/soc/discuss/what-different-characteristics-generation-x-e-90271

I made some interesting comments here:

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/03/hackers-part-3.html?showComment=1335903496830#c239549748064135439

Quote
I presented the generational research in the Transparency blog, which explains why we are not going to agree on the use of the government to enforce values:

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/04/transparency-way-of-future.html?showComment=1335900204476#c1703906618219560883

At least we can be rational about understanding why we have different political philosophies.

We Gen X did not grow up entitled. We have to struggle on our own to get where we are. We don't feel entitled, and thus we are not stakeholders in the society that the Boomers built. We trust the free market, because that is what we were dealing with on our own. Social security won't be there for us. The boomers took more than all (debt every where). We've had to scrap and negotiate hard to get some. And instead of giving back to us now the peace of individual freedom that we want, they want to put their value system on us (which will continue to escalate the wars).

So there is conflict ahead.

The Heros are going to rebuild new institutions and fighting the wars to tear down the current corrupt ones. We Nomads are caught in the cross-fire and just trying to find a way to not get squeezed out. Thus we have no choice but to discard the social contract, as it won't be rebuilt in time for us.

http://relativisticobserver.blogspot.com/2012/04/transparency-way-of-future.html?showComment=1335900204476#c1703906618219560883

Quote
So now we can understand why boomer's (you) politics are loyalty, enforcing idealistic values, and maintaining entitlements.

And Gen X's (me) politics are liberty, pragmatic survival, individualism (honor), and distrust of values and institutions. I am libertarian anarchist. So trying to convince me that the entitled state should enforce values, is like me telling you that we should privatize the government.

Fascinating.

It explains why we are going to disagree about any political/social topics, such as Hackers, Transparency, media's role in society, etc..

===========
Some useful tables (although I think this deviates in some cases from the generational theory in the prior comment):

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-quinn/2011/11/03/bad-moon-rising

The Boomers (elders) and Heros (youth) are archtypes and will be at odds. Boomers will judge them to have threatened values (remember the Heros are protected), yet ironically the above link claims the Boomers did more drugs, volunteered less, have lower college education, and higher teen pregnancy than the Heros do.

sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
May 04, 2014, 03:22:47 PM
#22
I've been a fan of Russell from way before he was famous and regardless of what anyone says about him he does have a lot of interesting things to say. He's going to have to find a balance between being a Hollywood A-lister and an outspoken libertarian (or whatever you want to call him) without looking like a hypocrite though (not that you can't necessarily be both). He's a very intelligent person and I agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, but I really hope he doesn't ruin his career because of his outspoken views as I can easily see him getting blackballed and falling into obscurity like many others who speak out against the norm or MSM etc.

I also love how Russell manages to woo pretty much any woman that he comes into contact with. I suspect that's why a lot of men hate him haha.

i'm a fan of his, and also a meditator like him. he's pretty awesome. i know some people criticize him for "preaching" while living with abundant wealth, but it's not a big issue for me.

btw, if guys hate him, it's because he kind of has a bohemian/hippie style to him. and they hate that.

I think criticising his wealth is a petty topic really and that's usually also just out of jealousy, but I'm sure there are many reasons why people, especially men, dislike him: wealth, fame, looks, intelligence, Englishness, eccentricity, outspokenness, and most of all the sheer amount of women he's slept with and they haven't  Cheesy.

And I don't get the whole meditating thing. I've always been a sceptic of it but maybe I just don't understand it.

you should try the meditation before being a skeptic. doesn't that make sense?

and being british makes him hateable huh.. i didn't know people hated brits. i think the people who don't like him because he speaks freely and has that hippie vibe - lots of americans hate hippies, mainly the conservatives.

You don't think people hate people because of their nationality? You also seem to try make a point of my Englishness or Britishness when you can too  Cheesy. People will use whatever they can about you to try get one over or dislike you for it.

And I'm a sceptic on spiritualist mediums, but it doesn't mean I need to go see one to confirm my suspicious. All meditation looks like to me is closing your eyes and relaxing. I do that all the time right before I go to bed.

there's a difference between talking shit and hating/disliking someone or something. i just talk shit about brits. i've never really heard someone say "fuck that guy man, he's a brit."
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 04, 2014, 02:49:45 PM
#21
I've been a fan of Russell from way before he was famous and regardless of what anyone says about him he does have a lot of interesting things to say. He's going to have to find a balance between being a Hollywood A-lister and an outspoken libertarian (or whatever you want to call him) without looking like a hypocrite though (not that you can't necessarily be both). He's a very intelligent person and I agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, but I really hope he doesn't ruin his career because of his outspoken views as I can easily see him getting blackballed and falling into obscurity like many others who speak out against the norm or MSM etc.

I also love how Russell manages to woo pretty much any woman that he comes into contact with. I suspect that's why a lot of men hate him haha.

i'm a fan of his, and also a meditator like him. he's pretty awesome. i know some people criticize him for "preaching" while living with abundant wealth, but it's not a big issue for me.

btw, if guys hate him, it's because he kind of has a bohemian/hippie style to him. and they hate that.

I think criticising his wealth is a petty topic really and that's usually also just out of jealousy, but I'm sure there are many reasons why people, especially men, dislike him: wealth, fame, looks, intelligence, Englishness, eccentricity, outspokenness, and most of all the sheer amount of women he's slept with and they haven't  Cheesy.

And I don't get the whole meditating thing. I've always been a sceptic of it but maybe I just don't understand it.

you should try the meditation before being a skeptic. doesn't that make sense?

and being british makes him hateable huh.. i didn't know people hated brits. i think the people who don't like him because he speaks freely and has that hippie vibe - lots of americans hate hippies, mainly the conservatives.

You don't think people hate people because of their nationality? You also seem to try make a point of my Englishness or Britishness when you can too  Cheesy. People will use whatever they can about you to try get one over or dislike you for it.

And I'm a sceptic on spiritualist mediums, but it doesn't mean I need to go see one to confirm my suspicious. All meditation looks like to me is closing your eyes and relaxing. I do that all the time right before I go to bed.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
May 04, 2014, 02:43:16 PM
#20
I've been a fan of Russell from way before he was famous and regardless of what anyone says about him he does have a lot of interesting things to say. He's going to have to find a balance between being a Hollywood A-lister and an outspoken libertarian (or whatever you want to call him) without looking like a hypocrite though (not that you can't necessarily be both). He's a very intelligent person and I agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, but I really hope he doesn't ruin his career because of his outspoken views as I can easily see him getting blackballed and falling into obscurity like many others who speak out against the norm or MSM etc.

I also love how Russell manages to woo pretty much any woman that he comes into contact with. I suspect that's why a lot of men hate him haha.

i'm a fan of his, and also a meditator like him. he's pretty awesome. i know some people criticize him for "preaching" while living with abundant wealth, but it's not a big issue for me.

btw, if guys hate him, it's because he kind of has a bohemian/hippie style to him. and they hate that.

I think criticising his wealth is a petty topic really and that's usually also just out of jealousy, but I'm sure there are many reasons why people, especially men, dislike him: wealth, fame, looks, intelligence, Englishness, eccentricity, outspokenness, and most of all the sheer amount of women he's slept with and they haven't  Cheesy.

And I don't get the whole meditating thing. I've always been a sceptic of it but maybe I just don't understand it.

you should try the meditation before being a skeptic. doesn't that make sense?

and being british makes him hateable huh.. i didn't know people hated brits. i think the people who don't like him because he speaks freely and has that hippie vibe - lots of americans hate hippies, mainly the conservatives.
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 04, 2014, 02:21:17 PM
#19
As for MI7 and the BBC, the material is out there. I'm sure if you dig around you'll be able to find it yourself.

Although this article is very long, it provides a very good summary of how Brand fits into the Feudalism 2.0 program.  I quote this article in full because it is such a good summary of the whole enchilada.

People who fear being labeled a CONSPIRACY THEORIST should not waste their time reading this article.


I don't think it's the people reading it that need to be worried about being called conspiracy theorists, but the people who promote or propagate it. To me, conspiracy theorists are just so paranoid that they will find a conspiracy in absolutely anything. No matter what tenuous connections or slithers and shards of evidence they have they'll somehow connect dots that were never there in the first place, oftentimes based on absolutely nothing but paranoia or just hunches. If we ever get someone who will stand up and genuinely fight for a revolution, conspiracy theorists will just bark that he's a shill or whatever, and that's why nothing will ever change.

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
May 04, 2014, 01:04:27 PM
#18
The feminists had a saying - "the personal is political".

They were right - as is Russell Brand - all the rest is hot air.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
May 04, 2014, 12:33:14 PM
#17
As for MI7 and the BBC, the material is out there. I'm sure if you dig around you'll be able to find it yourself.

Although this article is very long, it provides a very good summary of how Brand fits into the Feudalism 2.0 program.  I quote this article in full because it is such a good summary of the whole enchilada.

People who fear being labeled a CONSPIRACY THEORIST should not waste their time reading this article.

My Caveats:

1. This essay is from an F.D. Roosevelt-style socialist website (ala Webster Tarpley).

2. As most politically aware Bitcoiners know, Black Bloc tards are NOT anarchists.

Original by Kyle McCarthy:  http://againstausterity.org/blog/world-pure-imagination-how-occupy-turned-anarchy

“A World of Pure Imagination: How Occupy Turned to Anarchy”

In the closing ceremonies of London’s 2012 Summer Olympics, comedian Russell Brand, perched atop the Beatles’ “Magical Mystery Tour” bus, opened his performance by singing the first lines of “Pure Imagination” from the movie Willy Wonka.

“Come with me, And you’ll be, In a world of, Pure imagination”

Just over a year later, fresh off his worldwide “Messiah Complex” comedy tour, Brand would become something of a countercultural icon for a widely-seen BBC interview, followed by a series of editorials and interviews in the British and American press, including a role as guest editor of the New Stateseman, in which he wondered:

“Total revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system is what interests me, but that’s not on the ballot. Is utopian revolution possible? The freethinking social architect Buckminster Fuller said humanity now faces a choice: oblivion or utopia. We’re inertly ambling towards oblivion, is utopia really an option?”

Brand’s excoriation of the political class felt to many like a breath of fresh air. But while Brand’s humor-infused brew of Marxism, anarchism and New Age spirituality may seem like the mere rantings of a rebellious entertainer who frequently refers to himself as a “Jungian Trickster,” I would argue he represents a more dangerous omen.

The Occupy Wall Street “movement” (if there ever was such a thing) – and emerging generations of young Americans more generally – is being led by Brand and other pied pipers away from practical reality and into an illusory “world of pure imagination”. What in 2009 had the makings of a New Deal-oriented mass strike upsurge is being steered off course by Wall Street interests in a rehash of 1968.

Occupy: just another “Situation”

Most casual observers will remember Occupy Wall Street (OWS) as disorganized mobs of young leftists expressing their anger at the rich and powerful. What they may not recall is that the Occupy movement:

1) Came on the heels of very large, very mainstream mass movements for union rights in Wisconsin and Ohio. Compare the estimated 100,000 workers demonstrating for collective bargaining rights in the middle of February outside the Madison, WI Capitol building to the comparatively small “Tea Party” rallies of 2009 that nevertheless drew widespread media coverage and led to a massive schism in the Republican party.

2) Happened with the memory of the 2009 Wall Street bailout still fresh in the minds of the protestors.

OWS was initiated, organized, and funded in part by AdBusters, a Canadian “anti-consumerist” outfit. AdBusters, whose magazine can be found on advertising agency coffee tables the world round, was by its founders admission inspired by the Situationist International, which became known for its role in France’s 1968 student strikes that nearly brought down the decade-old regime of Charles de Gaulle.

De Gaulle was by most accounts an excellent leader who owed his tenure to France’s rapid industrialization and improvements in living standards – based on his “dirigisme,” a variation on Hamilton and Lincoln’s “American System of Political Economy”. The Situationists emerged against a backdrop of some social and economic turmoil, in which a coalition of French communists and socialists had formed to challenge the de Gaulle regime. The Situationists were mostly avant-garde artists and activists like filmmaker Guy DeBord and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (then known as “Dany le Rouge”, now a German politician and member of the EU parliament), who presented themselves as the intellectual force behind the events of May 1968.

And what were the issues that engaged some 11 million French workers and students in protests, riots and spontaneous “wildcat” strikes? According to the Situationists, it was not the cost of living, unemployment or any other kitchen table issue, but abstractions like “social alienation” and “commodity fetishism.” The Situationists used artistic methods known by AdBusters as “culture jamming” – the goal of which is to effect psychic dislocation between the public and modern life itself. One famous 1968 poster declared, “Beneath the paving stones: the beach!” – the idea being that a perfect primeval past had been paved over by a corrupt civilization, with a hint for activists to use actual paving stones as weapons against the police.

At their core, both the Situationists and the AdBusters networks steering OWS were anarchists. AdBusters contributor David Graeber was considered by many to have been the intellectual force behind the movement. Graeber has been employed as an academic anthropologist by Yale and the London School of Economics. His field of expertise is the study of primitive “gift societies” like those in Madagascar where he did his field work. Somehow his sojourn amongst these “noble savages,” noted for their historic practices of cannibalism and black magic, qualified him to publish books and countless articles on economics, democracy, the history of debt and other subjects. In an essay for The Baffler, he summarized his political program as follows:

“At the moment, probably the most pressing need is simply to slow down the engines of productivity. This might seem a strange thing to say—our knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to assume the solution is for everyone to work even more, though of course, this kind of reaction is really precisely the problem—but if you consider the overall state of the world, the conclusion becomes obvious. We seem to be facing two insoluble problems.

On the one hand, we have witnessed an endless series of global debt crises, which have grown only more and more severe since the seventies, to the point where the overall burden of debt—sovereign, municipal, corporate, personal—is obviously unsustainable. On the other, we have an ecological crisis, a galloping process of climate change that is threatening to throw the entire planet into drought, floods, chaos, starvation, and war. The two might seem unrelated. But ultimately they are the same. What is debt, after all, but the promise of future productivity? Saying that global debt levels keep rising is simply another way of saying that, as a collectivity, human beings are promising each other to produce an even greater volume of goods and services in the future than they are creating now. But even current levels are clearly unsustainable. They are precisely what’s destroying the planet, at an ever-increasing pace.”

How mass discontent against the multi-trillion dollar bailout of JPMorganChase, Goldman Sachs and other bankrupt financial institutions was channeled into buttressing an agenda to reduce economic production (think infrastructure, cars, food, energy, etc.) may require a conspiracy theory. Suffice it to say, Graeber was and is not alone in his outlook. As Timothy Leary succeeded in getting a certain number of anti-war protestors to “turn on, tune in and drop out,” OWS leadership turned righteous indignation into irrationalism. Occupy started with tremendous political potential and became something of a middle-class laughing stock for its stated demand of “no demands.” What was expected to produce political reform became instead an unwashed, “leaderless” mob camping in the park, marching across bridges to nowhere, and claiming to have “changed the conversation,” a change which was sadly short-lived.

Perhaps this bleak assessment is overstated, considering the media’s blackout on demands within the movement – which are said to have included hard-hitting economic issues like the 1% Wall Street Sales Tax (cited by no less than AdBusters founder Kalle Lasn and Nationalizing the Federal Reserve – in favor of interviews with unelected leaders like Graeber, LSE colleague Naomi Klein and other foundation-funded anarchists. Chris Hedges, while not reproving anarchism per se, identified the insidious presence of “Black Bloc” anarchists as a cancer in the movement, certain to destroy any support from middle America. The OWS rank and file ultimately fell in line for ridiculous process antics like consensus government and the “human microphone,” which in one infamous incident got US Congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis denied the opportunity to address a small assembly in Atlanta.

Occupying the Mind:  Return of the “Psychedelic Elite”

After the last Occupier went home and the parks were hosed down, OWS seemed to suffer a prolonged hangover. Despite some key victories for new legislators like Senator Elizabeth Warren, anything resembling a New Deal coalition has largely confined itself to more parochial issues like gay marriage and marijuana, with Wall Street remaining somewhat more free from public ire than in 2009-11.

During this time, elements of OWS have taken on new forms, and the first hints are emerging that the next faux-revolution is underway. OWS’ rebirth, if Wall Street gets its way, will lose much of its populist veneer and will take the form of a “Magical Mystery Tour,” adopting the methods used in 1968 to derail the movement against the Vietnam war with Woodstock-like mass situations (ie the Burning Man festival), psychedelic drugs, the occult and the New Age, and the loss of coming generations to social alienation and population reduction.

With a growth in the popularity of psychedelic drugs like ayahuasca, we should underscore their historical importance as tools of mass cultural control. The psychedelics that played a central role in cementing the hippies and other subcultures of the late 1960s were provided en masse by the CIA, as detailed in books like Acid Dreams. The agents behind their popularization turned out in most cases to be agents of British and American intelligence like Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, the Grateful Dead—the latter of the two (Kesey and the Dead’s Robert Hunter), along with others like “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski, having been participants in the CIA’s clandestine MKUltra program. Psychedelic mushrooms were popularized by R. Gordon Wasson, a vice president of public relations for JPMorgan bank, one-time chair of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, and confrere of figures like ousted CIA chief Allen Dulles. Wasson co-authored The Road to Eleusis with LSD pioneer Albert Hofmann, tracing the programmatic use of psychedelic-fueled “mystery rites” back to Ancient Greece.

Hints of psychedelia began to re-emerge during OWS. One example was the presentation of “Social Dreaming” seminars by London’s notorious Tavistock Institute, where residents of OWS’ “tent city” were guided through the process of collective dreaming and psychoanalysis. Tavistock figured heavily in the creation of the 1960s hippie culture, where it played a parallel role to the CIA and cutouts like the Esalen Institute.

The #WaveOfAction

On April 4, 2014, a group of former Occupiers launched the “Wave of Action” to some media fanfare. The Wave of Action, which culminates on July 4 of this year, announced its arrival with viral videos featuring voiceovers by Russell Brand, the late Terrence McKenna (another psychedelic pioneer and admitted government agent) and others. There is reason to suspect the name of the group is based on McKenna’s “Timewave Zero” theory about cycles of history culminating in social transformation. Profiles of the group’s organizers suggest a marked shift away from academic Marxism and anarchism, and toward New Age philosophy, psychedelic drugs and similar phenomena. Notable among the organizers:

Daniel Pinchbeck is something like the Timothy Leary of our day, and can be read and watched widely in popular media, and in association with figures like OWS’ David Graeber, Russell Brand and New Age “grand dame” Barbara Marx Hubbard. Pinchbeck, the son of Jack Kerouac’s paramour Joyce Johnson, is most known for his research and ideas regarding shamanism, ancient prophecy and the Amazon psychedelic ayahuasca. Ayahuasca is exploding in popularity, with impressionable 20-somethings traveling to South America by the thousands for ceremonial “trips” that are reminiscent of the aforementioned Eleusian mystery rites.

Patricia Marx Ellsberg is the wealthy daughter of toy icon Louis Marx, and wife of CIA “whistleblower” Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg’s anti-military “Pentagon Papers” deflected attention from the CIA, including the role of the overtly satanic Phoenix Project and related operations in which CIA operatives like Ellsberg systematically mass murdered (allegedly with the aid of psychedelics and mind control) tens of thousands of North Vietnamese citizens in unspeakable fashion.

Mrs. Ellsberg is also the sister and collaborator of Pinchbeck’s collaborator and likely patron Barbara Marx Hubbard, an octagenarian prophetess and sponsor of the New Age, who has been funded for decades by the Rockefeller foundation, who has run various “spiritual” programs for the United Nations, and who has issued such prophecies as:

“The choice is: Do you wish to become a natural christ, a universal human, or do you wish to die? People will either change or die. That is the choice.”

“We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the last moment before quantum transformation. The destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body.”

“We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the Pale Horse, death…We do this for the sake of the world.

A pattern of social change to alienate and reduce the population

Based on the underwhelming reception of its 4/4/14 inaugural events, the “Wave of Action” is unlikely to produce any lasting results, but it does offer a glimpse into the program of the ruling class to destroy the New Deal once and for all, by pushing younger generations out of social struggle and into the realms of “pure imagination,” where they will increasingly lose any notion of their economic rights to a decent education, employment, family, retirement, and protections from exploitation by financiers and corporate power.

    Drugs – Ayahuasca and related psychedelics loom large in the counterculture. One of the world’s most popular podcasts, The Joe Rogan Experience, provices a revealing glimpse into the highly lucrative nexus of psychedelics, alternative medicine, mixed martial arts fighting, body building, pornography and New Age spirituality. Increasingly, these “shamanic” experiences are seen as pasttimes of enlightened seekers rather than recreation for burnouts. To pharmacopeia, one could add transcendental meditation, yoga (both favorites of Russell Brand), psychoanalysis and similar forms of mental catharsis.

    Pornography – Pornographic films and images have been made universally available by the internet, and are being pushed into the mainstream. This has had predictable consequences on marital fidelity, premarital sex, mental health, etc. A visit to the Huffington Post website will confirm the agenda to make pornography seem like a normal part of daily life, rather than the preserve of “dirty old men.” Russell Brand is an admitted sex addict, and his “Messiah Complex” takes “make love not war” to pornographic extremes.

    Nihilism/materialism – Hip hop culture, pop music, Hollywood and other forms of entertainment increasingly promote mindless violence, materialism, moral ambiguity and occult themes – even to children – as documented amply by websites like Vigilant Citizen.

    “Alternative lifestyles” – Without wading into the waters of moral judgement on the ever-expanding array of non-traditional sexual relations, it is hard to deny the decline of the nuclear family as a lifestyle, and the attendant reduction of population. Underpopulation has become a serious crisis in countries like Japan and Russia, whose populations are both aging and reducing, with a heavy toll placed on social services and economic production.

    Environmentalism and the New Age – Global warming activism was not prominent in the original Occupy movement, but plays an increasing role under groups like Wave of Action, with a New Age bent and an almost religious zeal. Young Americans have never witnessed a functioning industrial economy, and are more easily convinced than their forbears that humans amount to nothing more than a disease on the earth, and that the future must therefore be based on a reduced population of neo-pagan tribalists rather than a growing population supported by advances in science and technology.

    “Hacktivism” – The group “Anonymous,” with its trademark Guy Fawkes masks (the original banker patsy), is playing a more prominent role in the formation of new political groups. Young activists have rallied around figures like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who represent the chimeric information economy and a general mistrust of government bureaucracy. This vein connects to the New Age intelligentsia, generally organized in groups like the World Future Society and TED Talks. Politically, the spectrum is increasingly blurred between left-anarchists and right-libertarians, neither of which group has any notion of an industrial economy and are thus susceptible to fantasies about the potential of decentralization and information technologies.

    Tribalism – Demands for good government are giving way to the demand for no government. The “After Party,” another group created from remnants of OWS, is claiming to represent the next American revolution, based on indigenous rights, urban gardens, alternative currencies, listening to the “simple wisdom of children”, and similar demands. On the other end of the spectrum, libertarian supporters of Ron Paul have combined similar themes with gun fetishism and the cartoonish “rugged” patriotism of the John Birch Society.

Know Thy Enemy

The common thread of Occupy’s successors (which was to a large degree true of Occupy itself) has been the misidentification of the enemies of society, and therefore the lack of effective (if any) political demands.

As has been known since the time of Plato, our enemy is neither ourselves, “capitalism,” (if taken simply to mean the private organization of resources for economic production), nor government bureaucracy, but oligarchy – an open conspiracy of non-productive, parasitical, organized wealth. OWS at least pushed the idea of the 99% vs. the 1%, but failed to elaborate. The enemy is not “the wealthy” per se, which could simply mean an industrial entrepreneur with a net worth in the millions. Oligarchs are those benefitting from:

    Financial speculation: Not just “bankers,” but those involved in derivatives speculation, real estate speculation, “equity investment” (like BlackRock, State Street, Prudential, et al – who dominate the ownership of corporate stock), leveraged buyout, etc.

    Cartels (oil, gas, food, mining, etc.), which are not so much industrial corporations as hedge funds using their industrial monopoly to dominate the financial markets.

    “Disaster capitalism,” like the oligarchs that crashed Russia’s economy in the 1990s, the super-rich use political clout to effect “creative destruction” of entrenched interests, and to pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar.

    Trusts and foundations – family or personal fortunes associated with names like Walton, Koch, Rockefeller, Gates, Soros and others are able to exercise control not just of corporations, but of politics, extending even into overt political revolutions like the role of George Soros’ Open Society Institute in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere.

If we take this to be a fair assessment of our enemy, how will we benefit politically by taking hallucinogens, indulging in sexual excess or cutting our carbon footprints? The ruling elite does not fear our “spiritual awakening” or our empty threats to “go off the grid.”

Imagination and self-exploration certainly have their place, but without a practical method to seize power in service of the greater good, what’s left of Occupy Wall Street, and what seems to be coming, is essentially a self-inflicted Opium War. Our young people are being hoodwinked, detached from reality and set adrift on a sea of irrationality. It’s time to get real.​”
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 04, 2014, 03:55:34 AM
#16
I've been a fan of Russell from way before he was famous and regardless of what anyone says about him he does have a lot of interesting things to say. He's going to have to find a balance between being a Hollywood A-lister and an outspoken libertarian (or whatever you want to call him) without looking like a hypocrite though (not that you can't necessarily be both). He's a very intelligent person and I agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, but I really hope he doesn't ruin his career because of his outspoken views as I can easily see him getting blackballed and falling into obscurity like many others who speak out against the norm or MSM etc.

I also love how Russell manages to woo pretty much any woman that he comes into contact with. I suspect that's why a lot of men hate him haha.

i'm a fan of his, and also a meditator like him. he's pretty awesome. i know some people criticize him for "preaching" while living with abundant wealth, but it's not a big issue for me.

btw, if guys hate him, it's because he kind of has a bohemian/hippie style to him. and they hate that.

I think criticising his wealth is a petty topic really and that's usually also just out of jealousy, but I'm sure there are many reasons why people, especially men, dislike him: wealth, fame, looks, intelligence, Englishness, eccentricity, outspokenness, and most of all the sheer amount of women he's slept with and they haven't  Cheesy.

And I don't get the whole meditating thing. I've always been a sceptic of it but maybe I just don't understand it.
sr. member
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
May 03, 2014, 09:52:22 PM
#15
I've been a fan of Russell from way before he was famous and regardless of what anyone says about him he does have a lot of interesting things to say. He's going to have to find a balance between being a Hollywood A-lister and an outspoken libertarian (or whatever you want to call him) without looking like a hypocrite though (not that you can't necessarily be both). He's a very intelligent person and I agree with the vast majority of what he has to say, but I really hope he doesn't ruin his career because of his outspoken views as I can easily see him getting blackballed and falling into obscurity like many others who speak out against the norm or MSM etc.

I also love how Russell manages to woo pretty much any woman that he comes into contact with. I suspect that's why a lot of men hate him haha.

i'm a fan of his, and also a meditator like him. he's pretty awesome. i know some people criticize him for "preaching" while living with abundant wealth, but it's not a big issue for me.

btw, if guys hate him, it's because he kind of has a bohemian/hippie style to him. and they hate that.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
May 03, 2014, 09:47:57 PM
#14
I feel a bit embarrassed for posting this thread now. I tend to get overloaded on research and working a feel differently when I have time to rest and rethink with a clear rested, resolute mind.

As engineer I appreciate do-ers more than actors who can put on a good show.

And wooing women is not really a fantastic or stoic quality of a man.

I was just kind of blown away to see that on the MSM. But now I feel it is more like a dog & pony circus event.

As Rome peaked, the masses were given circus.

global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 03, 2014, 10:46:55 AM
#13
I didn't mean to demean you, hilarious. All I mean to say is that I don't see this guy as 'brave' etc when he has most likely been put out there by the establishment as a kind of safety valve. After all, what does he really achieve? It's all talk at the end of the day. Meanwhile, we have development workers and charitable volunteers working hard to selflessly achieve things for others around the world, and what sort of public recognition do they receive? Very little, because they are not TV celebrities. For me, it's crazy to miss this fact. Especially when the likes of Quigley and Sutton already gave us the juicy details decades ago. They went much further than Brand ever will.

Ultimately, 'speaking out' on TV doesn't require that much courage. The man is already a multi-millionaire who dominates a certain niche where he can be alternative, but not too alternative. As for his charm, some women like him, some don't. This is not a big issue for me. I accept I will never be a TV or Hollywood star. Again, this is not a big issue for me. Not everybody wants to have that life. Why are you so quick to accuse people of jealousy?

As for MI7 and the BBC, the material is out there. I'm sure if you dig around you'll be able to find it yourself.

Well we can have differing opinions on him, but I don't believe that he's some sort of establishment shill and find that to be ridiculous personally, but if you want to believe it you can. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't buy it (or similar arguments of other people). Of course being 'brave' has many different meanings relative to whatever situation you might be in and I'm not going to say he's as brave as someone who risks their life to help others or something, but I think he's got some balls to say what he is saying and do what he is currently doing. As for what can he achieve? Well, only time will tell on that front, but I'm sure he can achieve the same if not more than anybody else speaking out against the mainstream / establishment. He's got a voice and a platform and I'm glad he's using it. I don't think we can just write him off because he's a movie star or a millionaire. That just seems like an easy thing to criticise. Those should be irrelevant really, but judge him on his deeds and achievements (or lack thereof). Personally I think he's got potential and look forward to where he takes himself next.

Quote
Why are you so quick to accuse people of jealousy?

I'm not, but I usually find this is the case when criticising such a man, but why are you so quick to judge someone's perceived masculinity?

newbie
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
May 03, 2014, 10:33:18 AM
#12
I didn't mean to demean you, hilarious. All I mean to say is that I don't see this guy as 'brave' etc when he has most likely been put out there by the establishment as a kind of safety valve. After all, what does he really achieve? It's all talk at the end of the day. Meanwhile, we have development workers and charitable volunteers working hard to selflessly achieve things for others around the world, and what sort of public recognition do they receive? Very little, because they are not TV celebrities. For me, it's crazy to miss this fact. Especially when the likes of Quigley and Sutton already gave us the juicy details decades ago. They went much further than Brand ever will.

Ultimately, 'speaking out' on TV doesn't require that much courage. The man is already a multi-millionaire who dominates a certain niche where he can be alternative, but not too alternative. As for his charm, some women like him, some don't. This is not a big issue for me. I accept I will never be a TV or Hollywood star. Again, this is not a big issue for me. Not everybody wants to have that life. Why are you so quick to accuse people of jealousy?

As for MI7 and the BBC, the material is out there. I'm sure if you dig around you'll be able to find it yourself.
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 03, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
#11
I was only admiring (not idolizing) the way he had those anchors wrapped around his finger, but I was thinking tonight at dinner that it was probably scripted (or those anchors are really inept). He would never have gotten the upper hand that way if I had been at that table, ditto some of you.

The dialogue that the newscasters may have been scripted as they usually are, but Russell's won't have been. You can quite tell he had them genuinely flabbergasted and they had no idea how to handle him. I doubt they'd've actually even let him on had they knew that's how he was going to behave  Cheesy.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
May 03, 2014, 10:24:26 AM
#10
Brand is a false hero (controlled opposition counter-culture figure) like John Lennon who is heavily promoted by the establishment. He never really tells us anything we don't already know. It's all very light. Yes, I dislike how people idolise him.

Idolizing anyone or anything is a trap. And yes Armstrong had linked to him and I wasn't impressed with his lack of understanding of the cause of the problem and his proposed solutions were globalist crap.

I was only admiring (not idolizing) the way he had those anchors wrapped around his finger, but I was thinking tonight at dinner that it was probably scripted (or those anchors are really inept). He would never have gotten the upper hand that way if I had been at that table, ditto some of you.

Add: I just listened to that linked interview again and he is pitching the globalist Communist agenda! What an idiot!
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 03, 2014, 09:48:32 AM
#9
Brand is a false hero (controlled opposition counter-culture figure) like John Lennon who is heavily promoted by the establishment. He never really tells us anything we don't already know. It's all very light. Yes, I dislike how people idolise him.
When men hate on him it's just out of pure envy and jealousy.
Not really. You're giving away your masculinity when you worship people you don't know, who don't care about you. I know a lot of girls here in the UK who don't particularly like him.

Like I say, Brand never really says anything. He lacks specificity. If you want intelligence, you want to be reading the work of Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Simon Hytten and others.

I don't really see how I'm 'giving away my masculinity', nor do I 'worship' him. The comment you just made probably says more about your masculinity or typical male ego than anything. I also never said every woman on earth is attracted to him. You sound just like typical paranoid conspiracy theory type with the language you use. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that can be more 'specific', but they're not in the spotlight. Brand has a platform and I think it's admirable and brave of him to use it, but I guess you wont if you're of the opinion that he's a ' false hero' / 'controlled opposition counter-culture figure' or have masculinity issues commending certain men.
You're too desperate to slam people who don't have exactly the same cultural tastes as you. Yes, this guy does have a weird fanbase, in my opinion, who seem to be obsessed with him and worship every single thing he does. It's strange to me. The reality is that not everybody likes him all that much. You can't change that. It doesn't "say anything about me" other than his stuff isn't to my taste. So what? Deal with it.

By the way, about conspiracy theories. I am from the UK myself. I know that the Tavistock Institute, and the fact that the BBC used to be part of MI7, are most definitely NOT conspiracy theories. They are an integral part of how the country has been run for the last century or so. There's no paranoia involved here. It's a simple fact.

I'm not desperate at all nor do I 'slam people who don't have exactly the same cultural tastes'. I think that's more probably what you did. And I think you're making quite a mass generalisation of his fanbase. I hadn't actually really paid much attention to Russell for the past 5 years or so until he started speaking out about the MSM etc. I enjoyed his comedy much more back in the day when he was doing more bizzare subversive stuff, but he was on the drugs then  Grin.

I know the BBC can be used for propaganda purposes and is hardly impartial, but in what way was the Beeb part of MI7?
newbie
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
May 03, 2014, 09:31:31 AM
#8
Brand is a false hero (controlled opposition counter-culture figure) like John Lennon who is heavily promoted by the establishment. He never really tells us anything we don't already know. It's all very light. Yes, I dislike how people idolise him.
When men hate on him it's just out of pure envy and jealousy.
Not really. You're giving away your masculinity when you worship people you don't know, who don't care about you. I know a lot of girls here in the UK who don't particularly like him.

Like I say, Brand never really says anything. He lacks specificity. If you want intelligence, you want to be reading the work of Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Simon Hytten and others.

I don't really see how I'm 'giving away my masculinity', nor do I 'worship' him. The comment you just made probably says more about your masculinity or typical male ego than anything. I also never said every woman on earth is attracted to him. You sound just like typical paranoid conspiracy theory type with the language you use. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that can be more 'specific', but they're not in the spotlight. Brand has a platform and I think it's admirable and brave of him to use it, but I guess you wont if you're of the opinion that he's a ' false hero' / 'controlled opposition counter-culture figure' or have masculinity issues commending certain men.
You're too desperate to slam people who don't have exactly the same cultural tastes as you. Yes, this guy does have a weird fanbase, in my opinion, who seem to be obsessed with him and worship every single thing he does. It's strange to me. The reality is that not everybody likes him all that much. You can't change that. It doesn't "say anything about me" other than his stuff isn't to my taste. So what? Deal with it.

By the way, about conspiracy theories. I am from the UK myself. I know that the Tavistock Institute, and the fact that the BBC used to be part of MI7, are most definitely NOT conspiracy theories. They are an integral part of how the country has been run for the last century or so. There's no paranoia involved here. It's a simple fact.
global moderator
Activity: 3850
Merit: 2643
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
May 03, 2014, 07:48:00 AM
#7
Brand is a false hero (controlled opposition counter-culture figure) like John Lennon who is heavily promoted by the establishment. He never really tells us anything we don't already know. It's all very light. Yes, I dislike how people idolise him.
When men hate on him it's just out of pure envy and jealousy.
Not really. You're giving away your masculinity when you worship people you don't know, who don't care about you. I know a lot of girls here in the UK who don't particularly like him.

Like I say, Brand never really says anything. He lacks specificity. If you want intelligence, you want to be reading the work of Carroll Quigley, Anthony Sutton, Simon Hytten and others.

I don't really see how I'm 'giving away my masculinity', nor do I 'worship' him. The comment you just made probably says more about your masculinity or typical male ego than anything. I also never said every woman on earth is attracted to him. You sound just like typical paranoid conspiracy theory type with the language you use. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that can be more 'specific', but they're not in the spotlight. Brand has a platform and I think it's admirable and brave of him to use it, but I guess you wont if you're of the opinion that he's a ' false hero' / 'controlled opposition counter-culture figure' or have masculinity issues commending certain men.
Pages:
Jump to: