Russel Brand: The time for Revolution is now.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Agreed, all of our opinions are valid and should be seen/heard as such BUT he has a status in this shallow society of celebrity worship that lil old Joe Bloggs does NOT. A shame but true all the same. I for one salute him for speaking out on his real points of view & getting the dialogue going & hopefully encourage sleeping ppl to wake up & start digging around. As I have said before Well done mate

I do have a fear this whole bring on the change seems manipulated to a degree, which worries me. The people who are in the loop see the bigger picture and can therefore change before the change. Maybe its paranoia but have the very people who have manipulated the world for centuries really lost touch? I am not so sure.

reply to post by Zen24


"if communities across the world started to refuse money",,why refuse it when u can send it too me,,,all your money,,,and while you are at it, would u mind liqiudating all of your ASSETS.,, as well,,

ohh a Money order ,,,noo,,,, a Cashiers Check,, would be nice,,,

best regards.

reply to post by Zen24


A think tank is exactly what I attempted to accomplish with the threads in my signature, which was overall, a failure.

I am currently coming up with other means, and putting them into action.

Luckily, "revolution" isnt relegated to the narrow definition of violent action as many have stifled it into. We will see how it all turns out.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


I don't think his opinion is more valid...I never stated any such thing...you implied that he lacked credibility based on his celebrity status, which you allocated...ranking him a z-list celebrity.

If his celebrity status is irrelevant, why include that remark in your post?

Again..these are your rules, not mine. I don't see a celebrity, I see a fellow human being who has an advantage over me and many others...he has the ability to reach a wider audience.

Don't create the game then ask me the rules...I'm expecting you to educate me on this celebrity-ranking system you seem to go by.

Well, if America wants to do what Brand tells them, thats fine.

Rest assured, Britain will not rise up and follow Miley Cyrus, whatever she says

reply to post by AndyMayhew


In truth, some celebrities have much more access to high level people, so it's certainly possible their opinions are more valid than others who have little knowledge on the subject. All you have to do is look what Hollywood is producing and it's clear they are very aware of the occult going on around us, far moreso than the public who has no clue what these movies are depicting.

crimvelvet
reply to post by benrl

 

This is no longer becoming an American problem, its the same in the UK, Canada, most western society seems to be marching toward a very dark place.

Brings to mind the Alexander Tytler Cycle.

...Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Alexander Tytler Cycle:

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage
SOURCE

We the western civilization are in the apathy to dependence stage it seems to me. Unfortunately out political leaders are traitors deliberately undermining us.

Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization let the cat out of the bag.

...The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty...
www.theglobalist.com...

That seems pretty darn clear to me and this guy is all buddy buddy with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. All three lecture at the Fabian founded London School of Economics that trains world leaders like JFK, George Soros, David Rockefeller and even Gaddafi's son who was awarded a Phd.

edit on 23-10-2013 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)

and i ask
"what happens when banks can just decide to give money to themselves"?
fed gives to member banks

so your speal is devoid of reality because you failed to mention the banks have the power to pay themselves from the public purse ala "bailouts"

redundant quotes become redundant when you leave out the inverse and perverse system that currently exists.

so why did you leave that part out?
is it to suit your narrative or "talking points"?

xploder

samerulesapply
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

I don't think his opinion is more valid...I never stated any such thing...you implied that he lacked credibility based on his celebrity status, which you allocated...ranking him a z-list celebrity.

He lacks credibility on the basis that he is knows less than many and no more than any.

Why listen to a celebrity? That's the question. Would you listen to Bill Foggett? Who has never been on TV and isn't famous for being obsessed with sex? Because his views are as valid, as are mine and yours.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Does the message only apply to americans? I've wasted my time here, being from the UK myself.

I've watched and admired brand for many years, political statements are nothing new for him - his statements are simply getting more attention than they used to.

His celebrity status means nothing to me, I watched a film he made as a teenager when he was addicted to herois, he took in a homeless man and even back then was highlighting social issues. That film was really touching, though uncomfortable to watch at times it was genuinely moving and Russell came across as a truly honest and compassionate young man even back then before he was a z-list celebrity as you so eloquently put it.

this guy is an absolute diamond, one of the few in the public eye I genuinely appreciate and respect.

He's risking it all to be true to who and what he really is, something the likes of David Icke tried to do and was met with public ridicule, this could easily go bad for brand, who could happily live out his life in a state of extremely blissful ignorance and selfishness if he so wanted.

samerulesapply
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

Does the message only apply to americans? I've wasted my time here, being from the UK myself.

I've watched and admired brand for many years, political statements are nothing new for him - his statements are simply getting more attention than they used to.

I've never been aware of any politcal statement from him. I doubt he has any interest in politics. Unless he promotes himself.

this guy is an absolute diamond, one of the few in the public eye I genuinely appreciate and respect.

IMO you have very low standards then. But I guess we have to disagree. He is famous only for being infamous.

He's risking it all to be true to who and what he really is, something the likes of David Icke tried to do and was met with public ridicule, this could easily go bad for brand, who could happily live out his life in a state of extremely blissful ignorance and selfishness if he so wanted.

He's just trying to garner publicity to make more money.

Don't be so naive

reply to post by AndyMayhew


The difference is I don't kbnow who this foggart fellow is.

Your argument is so hollow I contemplated not responding...again, i'll repeat - i did not say his opion was more valid because he was a celebrity.

Most of thepeople I know and interactive with on a daily basis have opinions and they're as entitled to them as anyone.

it's you that seems to think he lacks credibility simply because he's a minor celebrity, as if this makes him less of a person.

The difference between him and the guy who lives across the street from me is obvious, the man across the street doesn't have as much attention...you do not know the man who lives across the street from me. Nor I the man who lives across the street from you.

I don't care that he is a so-called celebrity, that's you. Clearly, since you just implied in the very post I'm currently responding to that celebrities opinions are somehow less important or credible than the average man. Bad news, most television shows like the one brand featured in...the one we're discussing, very rarely broadcast interviews with regular joe-schmoe who lives acress the road from some other random citizen.

Get real.

AndyMayhew

samerulesapply
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

I don't think his opinion is more valid...I never stated any such thing...you implied that he lacked credibility based on his celebrity status, which you allocated...ranking him a z-list celebrity.

He lacks credibility on the basis that he is knows less than many and no more than any.

Why listen to a celebrity? That's the question. Would you listen to Bill Foggett? Who has never been on TV and isn't famous for being obsessed with sex? Because his views are as valid, as are mine and yours.

You are right. But how would the rest of the world get to hear Bills opinions? How would people get to hear what he has to say?

Brand is in a position where he has a large audience at his disposal. Its the fact that he's using that for seemingly unselfish reasons unlike the abundance of others in his position.

And I'm not American btw.. I don't understand why that is even relevant as he's talking about the state of the world as a whole.

reply to post by heliopolis


"seemingly unselfish reasons " being from Britian,,and preaching,,,revolution against the standing GOVMENT,,,oh ya i forgot its America,,freedom of Speech,,

well sedition ,,is still free speach,,dam it.

So, instead of being inspired by Brand (regardless of who/what he is) and starting to come up with solutions, we decide to continue the same division that allows small groups to profit off of everyone else.

His basic point to me is;

There are problems with how we run things. How can we run things differently to do better?

Who cares who Brand is? He is just a part of the same system the rest of us are involved with. Focusing on him instead of working towards a better tomorrow might just be the type of perspective that got us here in the first place..

reply to post by AndyMayhew


More pointless drivel based on assumptions...why would anyone listen to a celebrity...because they're human too, and I don't believe someone becomes and less credible because they're in the spotlight.

And as I pointed out, he made many-a political issue in the past long before he was as famous as he is now, many of his old films are on youtube.

He isn't famous for being infamous, the Andrew Sachs fiasco came long after he'd achieved some status in the celebrity world, sounds to me you're simply lashing out against someone you apparently know zero about, given that you have never known him to make a political statement before now.

He was on question time not so long ago, he was being interviewed because he's editing a political magazine...on a show that focuses on political subjects...by a well known, notorious inquisitor.

People are talking as though brand made this film himself in a shameful attempt at self promotion...is that how it looks? Those are some strange spectacles you're wearing.

If you know nothing about him, by your own admission, how can you say what you're sating with some confidence and conviction?

Hey, if your neighbor can get on tv and make a political statement and i'm lucky enough to see that then I'll judge what he says on it's merit, and not the fact that he's a something-list celebrity.

Trust me when i say this, I know non-celebrities who make statements that are just as valid to me as those made by brand...but that's irrelevant to this thread.

AndyMayhew

samerulesapply
reply to post by AndyMayhew

 

Does the message only apply to americans? I've wasted my time here, being from the UK myself.

I've watched and admired brand for many years, political statements are nothing new for him - his statements are simply getting more attention than they used to.

I've never been aware of any politcal statement from him. I doubt he has any interest in politics. Unless he promotes himself.

this guy is an absolute diamond, one of the few in the public eye I genuinely appreciate and respect.

IMO you have very low standards then. But I guess we have to disagree. He is famous only for being infamous.

He's risking it all to be true to who and what he really is, something the likes of David Icke tried to do and was met with public ridicule, this could easily go bad for brand, who could happily live out his life in a state of extremely blissful ignorance and selfishness if he so wanted.

He's just trying to garner publicity to make more money.

Don't be so naive

I must have missed something... what exactly is he trying to sell?

The man isn't asking for your respect or his admiration. He's trying to get a message across. There are plenty more celebrities worse than Brand who are out there for nothing more than personal gain. All Brand is doing is using the tools available to him to try and show people that the current system has failed the general public on numerous occasions and will continue to do so if something doesn't change.

The fact he was once addicted to drugs and sex just gives him more in common with a lot of people who suffer from the same due to their less privileged circumstances. He even states this in the video.

he reminds me of this guy,,,




but thats just my,,,own,, opinion.

Well run along and listen to what your Celebs tell you, like good little boys and girls. That's what they want ...... After all, they must be telling you the truth without agenda. Unlike everyone else, eh?

I'm no Bible thumper by any stretch - But seriously people, you can't see the parallels drawn here from what little scripture you may of heard to what's happen around you? Look at the posts on this thread, "New Leader", "Messiah", "New World Order", "Who Can Lead Us?" and on and on...One person was cool enough to have posted the cycle of known human existence - "From bondage to faith and dependence and back again" (paraphrased) - Even if you have the worst time trying to believe in God, you don't have to right now in as much as you need to support the billions that do. It's a Jenga puzzle piece to society, like manners and good-will - It's a very important part to making things keep working the way they have for centuries. Those that don't believe in God are crying for new leadership in the world right now...It's because they've worked so hard to kill the idea of God and subjection to him which has been the source of fear and humility in mankind which in-turn has been the source of 237 years of freedom.

I'm not asking for much - Just consider easing up on those of faith and at least allow them to continue to operate with it comfortably. There is no logical reason whatsoever, for any human to try to work against faith.

If you think you're smart because you don't have any...Congratulations. You've won absolutely nothing...In the most literal sense.