jhado wrote:
Oh I see, I did read some of the other link that you posted, I didn't pay attention to the authors name, I'll read more next time, it's nearly midnight and my eyes are stinging.

feather wrote:
Personally, I'm not sure. Maybe the celebrity 'culture' has something to do with it. Maybe in this case people have heard something they're not overly familiar with but could identify with what he was saying.
Obviously once they start to put him on a pedestal is when they've lost focus or the intended message. If he starts to lap it up even worse..... next thing he'll be doing the non-compliance-dance at Wembley with loads of screaming girls throwing their knickers at him.

I kinda agree.
The guy is an entertainer by trade and an extrovert by nature.
He's must be making a fair shilling already with Jones, US Chat shows, Newsnight etc appearances and guest editing the Spectator.

He said nothing that isn't already in the public domain and offered up no feasible remedies except some blabber about it needing to be based upon an egalitarian society, (Yeah, good luck with that), yadda, yadda.

So what does he bring to the table? (At one time I might have said big-hair but see the earlier posts and that is pretty much mandatory)
Personality by the bucketload, an occasional rib jab, softened by a huge cheeky grin and ................ and ........................ what?

But apparently he might be sparking or even fronting a revolution, (uhuh).
My initial query may have sounded completely inane and naive but it really is the first item that needs to be pondered.
Why follow, or even listen to, this guy?

feather wrote:
Sure he's not offering up anything we're not familiar with.... but you don't see/hear stuff like that being shown on regular telly very often, and most people aint got a beef stew about what's going on anyway.... it seems this got people talking for various reasons;
He's young, dynamic, eloquent, intelligent, witty & sexy... so it's a broadside of appeal!

Also what he brings to the table is a wake-up call without the melodramatic bellowing, or any insinuation of his having been selected by supernatural forces as the chosen one to spread the word, or talk of reptilian overlords, or accusations of the docile stupidity of the masses.

We'll have to see how he progresses before it's evident whether he's been allowed to be heard for some sneaky ulterior motive.

At this point I say good on him.

From Russies website...

''I caught up with the sad malice in Woolwich and felt compelled to tweet in casual defense of the Muslim community who were being haphazardly condemned by a few people on my time line. Perhaps a bit glibly (but what isn’t glib in 140 characters) I put “That bloke is a nut. A nut who happens to be Muslim. Blaming Muslims for this is like blaming Hitler’s moustache for the Holocaust”.

Russy darling, it's the Nazis that are blamed for the holocaust not Hitler's moustache, It was the 'murderer himself that mentioned 'Islam' so of course that's going to cause some unsettlement in certain view points in society.
WTF are you talking about Hitler's moustache for, are we to suspend reality to accommodate your wit?

Let us not forget that you're presently promoting your comedy show Price: £27.50.
Come on now, tell the truth, is it because the truthers have grown in number and they're now worth targeting as an audience group, that you've decided to lean out to them, and at the same time you can go to the BBC with your comments and show us all that we can be 'truthers' and still love the BBC besides their paedophile connections.
Is the revolution going to be called ''How to keep everybody happy whilst making loads of money''.
You've quite neatly positioned yourself between the MSM and alternative media, must be where you see the next buck coming from.
Do you think people have that short a memory....

''The wife of actor Andrew Sachs criticised the BBC last night for an interview with Russell Brand in which he blamed the Sachsgate scandal on ‘dishonest’ reporting.

Melody Sachs said yesterday’s edition of flagship Radio 4 programme Desert Island Discs featuring the comedian was ‘very, very nasty to hear’ and an ‘insult’ to her husband.

And she accused the corporation of helping Brand promote his new comedy tour by allowing him on a string of recent programmes, including Question Time and The Andrew Marr Show.

Brand used his radio appearance to provide his own version of the 2008 scandal, in which he and presenter Jonathan Ross left a series of obscene messages on Mr Sachs’s answerphone during Brand’s Radio 2 programme.

The incident provoked 42,000 complaints after Brand boasted of sleeping with Mr Sachs’s granddaughter and joked that the 83-year-old former Fawlty Towers star might hang himself as a result of the phone calls.

Brand later resigned while Ross was suspended.
Brand insisted he is now ‘contrite’, but Mrs Sachs said last night: ‘He didn’t apologise. It was a pathetic little rendition of what actually happened.
‘And the thing that upset me the most was that he claimed people weren’t upset by what he and Jonathan Ross did to Andrew. He said it was the Daily Mail which had whipped up public opinion. That simply isn’t true. People were very upset because of the terrible abuse we endured.’

Criticising the BBC’s decision to invite Brand on Desert Island Discs, the 79-year-old added: ‘What we had to listen to was disgusting and unnecessary. It was very, very nasty to hear. Andrew has spent a lifetime working at the BBC. This was an insult.’

Brand has appeared on a string of BBC programmes since announcing his Messiah Complex world tour last month, including Question Time, The Andrew Marr Show and the Radio 1 breakfast show.

How the hell does the pathetic stunt Brand & Ross pulled a few years ago have any bearing whatsoever on his latest topics? None imo.

This thing about charging the going rate for tickets to his comedy shows - what the hell does that have to do with it? Nothing, imo.

Since the name of the game in showbiz is reaching audiences, and the BBC is a pretty big broadcasting company, it stands to reason that artists will work with them if the opportunity arises. Also, I've noticed that nearly all the programmes I've opted to watch on Netflix recently were produced by the BBC - Black Books, Luther, Whitechapel, Robin Hood. So the implications of whomever composed that argument above (not sure if it's all a quote, or how much, if any, is your opinion, Frothy) that anyone who has anything to do with the BBC must be in support of pedopilia and its cover up, is complete bollocks, imo, and it's a feeble, yet vicious attempt to reflect blame for unspeakably nasty acts on to innocent parties.

It's a fairly confused argument too since we're urged to feel sympathy for Andrew Sachs on the basis of what happened (which actually I do, but there's quite a 5 act drama being made of some juvenile stupidity that happened a long time ago, and should just be got over) who actually worked for the BBC during and after time of the pedophilia horror, yet simultaneously to condemn Brand by implication for working for them now.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a 'fan' of Brand, as such. It'll be a while before his true colours are apparent. I just think that when people stoop to illogical, venomous attempts to besmirch someone's character, it's not for wholesome reasons.

Gilly wrote:
Good morning Gilly.
Re relevance of comedy show tickets, the material being presented in the comedy show, is very similar to the material being presented in interviews, thus Brand is promoting his show ££££. Re Andrew Sachs, It was July this year that Brand was on the Radio 4 programme Desert Island Discs, discussing his comments, so even though it might have happened a few years ago, Brand is still getting BBC air time to 'clear his name'. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372866...sks-actors-wife.html

I'm not saying that ''anyone that has anything to do with the BBC is in support of paedophilia'' what I'm saying is that the BBC had dragged there heals with the Savile case and others.
Truthers in general have a low opinion of the BBC because of their selective broadcasting and their heal dragging over Savile etc..
So it seems that Brand would like to engage with the BBC but at the same time engage with the truthers, It's a bit like joining the Peace Movement whilst turning up to presentations for the SAS.
It's not possible to be establishment and anti-establishment, thus the anti-establishment element of Brand is only his persona for the establishment.

Just my silly thoughts, but it's a very clever way of 'whoever' to use Brand to flush out would be 'terrorists of the state'...but meh...what the hell do I know.

Also, concerning the BBC, have you guys seen this?

More here....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690002


Jane

Like I said Brand is being 'used'

Time will tell, won't it.

Hi Gilly, time won't tell, time will only reflect the same bulllshit that we already know.

Why do you say that? It sounds like you've already prejudged the situation so aren't prepared to evaluate based on evidence as it presents itself. You're welcome to adopt that stance, but won't convince me to do the same.

If he proves to be a tool, so be it. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until it becomes clear. I don't think everybody can be corrupted.

Gilly wrote:
Hey Gilly,
''After the death of his old friend, Albert Einstein said “Now Besso has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us … know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
We live within that illusion though.... and this is reality however grim. We can't see into the future within the illusion.... so only time can be used to show whether Brand is genuine or not.
I'm surprised at the amount of people who seem to think there's summit up with the whole thing..... there's thousands and thousands of celebs so it's hardly surprising that the odd one might turn their nose up at how things are and share their views.

Maybe he is being used and using them with the knowledge that he is being used but using that as a platform to tell many people that would never dream of logging on to a site like this or listerning to AJ or DI.

TBH it doesn't really matter, most won't listern of if they do will forget when they wake up Monday morning to scrape a living in HMP Britain.

Time won't tell because the only thing 'time' will tell is the reflection of the observer effect.
We don't live in that, we make that, now if you don't agree, then I won't respond, as it's then just a matter of something else... you vs me
If you get enough exposure to Brand as per his persona to convince you of his authenticity then that's your deal.
To me he's got his career to think about. He gives not a flying fuk about anyone else as he prattles on ...(mounting to his million pound bank balance).

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Obviously time itself doesn't do anything.... but you're making hard work of a turn of phrase when you know full well what was implied!
Personally I've never been arsed about Brand - initially he was just another big loud gob on the telly and involved in Big Wankers for a bit.
If he wants to use he celebrity status as a vehicle to mobilise these kinds of ideas to more people I've not got an issue with that..... it's got to be better than people watching Big Wankers or listening to the gubberment.
I'm not particularly concerned about him making a few quid out if it. People will carry on making a living however they can by taking advantage of their situations until the actual system changes. I just don't see why there has to be this big conspiracy behind anybody who does anything like that, but we see it implied so often. People in the 'truth movement' <cringe> moan about the lack of exposure this kind of material gets, and as soon as somebody comes out & does something about it people in that same movement are jumping on their backs!
Cannot win!

Space Bandit wrote: Ok, I was being a bit obnoxious about the 'time phrase' sorry 'bout that space bandit & Gilly.
Now Brand, his comedy act involves 'revolution' he discusses Che Guevara ,Jesus, Malcolm X, Gandhi Now it does not really matter that the very things that those people would have stood against, is 'Russel Brand' (A mouthy little rich prick who loves shagging about, works at the MSM, who's now standing 'behind' their names, as if it gives him some type of moral authority to do so).
I'm not suggesting 'big conspiracy' I'm suggesting that Brand is playing the role of his 'messiah complex' identification character in his recent interviews, and is using AJ, DI, as props, quite why the BBC have permitted him recent broadcasting time to advertise his show I don't know?

I could see the point of him going onto a magazine show, such as 'Loose Women' or 'The Right Stuff' etc. . . As he is a 'Joker' and the atmosphere on those shows would have bid him well.
Quite why he's been on Newsnight, Question Time, and The Andrew Marr Show I don't know, It seems like all of a sudden he's 'political'.

But he's not saying anything new, nothing that most people don't already know, it's just that 'he's discussing such issues. It's not in the interest of the BBC ( The governments mouthpiece to have a revolution) is it?

Yes to a degree it is The BBC's image is much tarnished re 'Operation Yewtree'.... So let's get Russel on to discuss revolution, The BBC are well aware that if you type into your search engine issues about current affairs, child molestation, war is Syria, etc. . .that D/I's and AJ's webpages appear.
Brand is wiping away the bad publicity that has recently been exposed about the BBC & 'our' government, don't forget that Brand was working for the government during his performance at the closing ceremony at the most recent Olympics.
A ceremony where a lot of 'symbolism' has been noted.
The very fact that Brand has been engaging with Icke & Jones (two of the most staunch enemies of the BBC) and then with the BBC, should tell us all something.
.
To me the term 'messiah complex' is referring to Jones & Icke, just look at the facts, he's at the BBC (where he has worked for many years) and he's come up with the 'messiah complex' where he refers to Che Guevara ,Jesus, Malcolm X, Gandhi (and Hitler).

The reference to Hitler is in brackets on his poster, I wonder why?
The clear message that I'm getting here is here is 'don't listen to icke or Jones' they have the messiah complex. If you don't think that this type of mind control exists can I suggest that you take notice of Neil Sanders, if you don't know who he is he can be found in your search engine in 'mind control'.

This can be seen in the way that Paxman did act like Brand's bitch on the Newsnight 'interview'.
Russel Brand is media, It's all PR he's got a neat few million bucks in the bank, his role in society appears to be to take people away from the 'truth movement' and back to the establishment, I guess that's why he's been hob nobbing with icke & Jones, I guess they can both see through him but will use him to gain further exposure themselves.
Why else would there be so much fuss about a second rate comedian doing a tour,
Frankie Boyle is 'controversial' with his comments...

.....www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23389757
Most people who watch comedy that I know find Boyle to be a much better comedian than Brand.

What I'm really getting at here is that the BBC are backing Brand.