Tereza, I'm behind on my comments to you on your recent posts. I appreciate the volume of interesting things you have to bring!
Reading this post makes me think of the disappointment I felt as I read your dissection of Charles Eisenstein, although I tended to follow Charles more than Russell. But there's this feeling of "oh dang, there's no one to trust!". Haha, does that include you? Will you do a take down of yourself someday? <3 I mean that very lovingly. And also, I truly believe that one of the great lessons right now is learning discernment and how to listen to ourselves, rather than outsourcing authority.
Becoming You/Me/We - and my belief that the best way forward is through healing/growing myself. I know lots of people believe that is too much navel gazing, but so far I can't find a way to feel at home in my skin without continuing to work on myself. Welcoming your thoughts if you want. But no pressure! Sometime I will write about my absolute dislike of obligation and pressure.
Ha, I tried to keep to no more than two posts per week but the things I want to respond to stack up faster than I can get to them. I really do take my time and savor the process. I decided to let readers deal with it rather than not write. I know you read out of connection and love, not obligation, but I do feel your love whether you respond or not. So always follow your heart and don't force yourself to read or write when something else is calling you. We always stay connected.
All of these start with a feeling that something's not right, whether Charles or Russell. And then I go into analytical mode to see whether it's just an emotional thing--I hoped that Russell or Charles might recognize that we were saying the same thing and catapult me into stardom.
I do take the takedown as loving but I'll tell you how to do a takedown of me. The essence that you're looking for is hypocrisy, someone who presents one way but acts another. So you know my professed dogma that people are morally equal. Where you want to catch me is acting as if I'm morally superior to others--not my ideas or my behavior, which I should believe are better, but who I am essentially as a person. That's how you take me down ;-)
That's so exciting that you've launched your stack, marta! I love the title of it. I will be looking forward to reading it and I think you're exactly right. I just said something similar that we can't 'defuse hate in the world' as if it comes from someone else. We can just uproot the vestiges of superiority in ourselves wherever we find them. I accept your no pressure! Thank you!
Those words are manna to my heart & mind. I’ve just landed here from outer nowhere so have no idea what threads went before upon Charles/Russel but I don’t need to know. I just need to trust that inner guide who always tells me the truth. Right now we are all as moving goal posts with absolutely no idea which way to kick the flipping ball. So trust the ball within and it will lead you upon the pathway of transformation. All this said, I appreciate your candour and shared expression. Onwards.
Zanna, welcome to my stack! With only 20 other subs, that makes you practically a Substack virgin. Some of my notices say they have other subs in the hundreds. I have to wonder if those are bots ... or just playing a numbers game to get their own stack recognized?
I hope you find good company here to be worthy of your discerning membership ;-)
Good morning, Tereza. I so appreciate that tuning into 'something not feeling right'. I really relate to that. I have that radar in ways too, about certain people and relationships.
This nugget - the essence that we're looking for is hypocrisy! And can we add to that something about lack of humility? That we all are hypocritical in life, in not living up to ideals, but I bet you can own if it's pointed out to you?
I'm sorry that Charles and Russel didn't recognize your brilliance and catapult you into stardom. <3 <3 <3
Thanks for the support about my new stack! I'm curious to see how my own relationship to it develops! And so true - "we can't defuse hate as if it comes from someone else." We ALL have it in us! I am such a big believer that healing it in ourselves is the only thing we can control and the best thing we can do! Thanks for that affirmation!
This is very useful, marta, because I'm formulating an episode around these ideas, so you're helping me to think them through.
And I should better define hypocrisy because I violate my principles a half-dozen times a day, a dozen if it includes a trip to the grocery store. If I was 'ethically pure,' I'd lead a miserable and small life, losing my house for the refusal to pay taxes that hurt other people, not having money that was made in ways that do damage, which is the only way that money originates in our culture. No one would want to follow in my footsteps--I would be a cautionary tale.
The obligation to act on what I knew would be an impediment to knowing. Every new fact would paralyze me further. So I make it my priority to know the truth, as much as possible, rather than as much as I have the ability to act consistently with. And my practice is to not judge other people as good or bad based on their actions, but certainly to judge the behaviors (including words) and the systems that facilitate them as better or worse, or even evil if they cause people to cause harm to others.
So hypocrisy, in my case, might be NOT pointing out conflicts in someone's thinking because secretly I'm judging them as not as caring or intelligent as me. If I had decided that Russell was a bad person, there would be no conflict between who he's been in the past--making clear statements about Israel and Palestine when that was extremely unpopular--and his lack of challenging blind support for Israel now. So my post was to try to figure out why his behavior has changed when he knew the truth at a time it was far less evident.
Haha! Thanks for indulging my sour grapes ;-) They make a good whine.
Right? Don't we all break our own ethics and integrity all the time? I drive a car, in Chicago. And both the car and Chicago do not match my heart ethic.
I don't quite follow what you are saying about hypocrisy for you would be NOT pointing out conflicts in someone else's thinking? Can you say more about this? If you want to.
Fascinating that Russell spoke out earlier about the Israel/Palestine situation, but does not challenge the blind support now.
Your post does not read like sour grapes, it reads like internal discernment and clarifying. Love that.
Thanks, marta. In the intro to my book, I say give yourself a one-year vacation from activism and the need to DO anything about what you know. Now I'd probably recommend a 10 yr hiatus at least.
Well, I don't actually put that into practice IRL. But if I say to myself, "Oh that person would never understand what I'm saying," then I've already thought less of them. So, in a sense, when I don't argue with someone, it's because I don't see them as equal ... or don't have the energy. More likely the latter. Conflict is such hard work and so draining.
Thank you so much for the affirmation Tirion! I wasn't sure how others on this stack would relate to the idea that healing ourselves is the only thing we really can control, but it's nice to see a number of people, including you, relate to that as well!
they are the same human. gautama is the family name of siddhartha, so... siddhartha gautama.
and the word 'buddha' means simply, to be awake.
here's a link that gives a nice short pretty official history of the person born into a rich family linked to the aristocracy of the hindus. "Who Was the Buddha? The Buddha who lived 2,600 years ago was not a god. He was an ordinary person, named Siddhartha Gautama." https://www.lionsroar.com/who-was-the-buddha/
from what i've perceived, few understand that gautama b was strongly against the rigidity of the hindu caste system and part of his efforts were to break that system down: humans are not born into slavery positions and karma as perpetuated by hinduism was wrong. gautama argued against karma and refused to acknowledge the existence of god or gods as cosmologically or moralistically meaningful. exactly the opposite, actually.
a more nuanced and fascinating and really brilliant look at the fallible human who became 'the buddha' and died before 'buddhism' was evolved away from his teachings, is Confession of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor.
"In closing, I don’t disagree with what Russell says. What disappoints me is what he leaves 'unsaid' and the ways he doesn’t use his platform and celebrity to challenge the next level of the psyops. He’s too smart to be taken in by the cheap tricks he’s letting slide. Eliminating naive only leaves complicit or captured. Maybe both." ---- This is what I have thought about when it comes to high profile "Celebrity" personalities, who have massive followings. This is also true of some of those in the medical freedom movement.
Russel ONLY has "Liberty" to Say Some Things; he doesn't have Freedom to Speak to important aspects of issues that would make the difference. This is likely the case across most platforms, access to audience is conditional; his celebrity is really not his.
As I said in part on your YouTube video; "He lives a life of Professionally looking over his shoulder, his focus is whether or not he keeps a sponsor, not whether or not he sticks to Truth. The Truth has NO agenda." --- I think what is motivating your moving past Russel is that you are always doing everything you can to genuinely seek Truth, as I think most of us here with you are doing. Like many of us, you have gone way beyond where Russel is willing to go.
I really love the four agreements you posted, they completely resonate with me, is it ok for me to include them on my next post?
That's a great phrase, Nef, "his celebrity is really not his." My daughter Cassandra, who I think you resonate with, says that if you think you're not vulnerable to cults, you just haven't met the right one. Fate has never offered me the Tereza Cult of people who hang on my every word. Would I be able to resist that? Not likely.
People generally love someone because they confirm what they already think, especially in a funny and clever way. Once that happens, it has to be hard to change your mind. So happily, I've never had that temptation. Now I become suspicious of anyone who's overly enthusiastic and barely knows what I think. That pedestal is going to come crashing down when I don't fulfill their projection.
I would be honored for you to use my four agreements! And yes, certainly send me a link to the draft. I told Mark that you wanted to use his info and I'm sure he'll be delighted.
I do like what your daughter says about cults, she is a very perceptive, sharp thinker!
Hanging on your every word? Nah, it's what actually resonates, you are individually holding a discipline, at least from my perspective that is quite consistent, because ultimately you must be honest with yourself.
Real Love has a deep seated Acceptance within it, there is no pedestal. ;-)
Thanks for writing this so succinctly, Nefahotep. It makes so much sense to me. How would any of us fair under the spell of having so many followers? It must change a person. It must be tempting to the ego. It must take an extraordinary person who can stay the course of being true to themselves and true to seeking Truth when given the constant ego boost of numerous people tuning in and raving. Dopamine on steroids.
"When I’m President, we will not allow our campuses to be taken over by violent radicals. If you come to this country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism, we’ll immediately deport you.
He then gets the crowd to fill in the blank with “Everything they touch turns to ________!” Russell’s response was:
It seems like the main thrust of that speech was ordinary and expected ‘America First’ rhetoric, a willingness to shut down on insurgent groups, and other populist ideas. Now whether or not you agree with the policies of Donald Trump—and I know that a great many of you do—you would have to say that the rhetoric deployed there is an attempt to galvanize and address issues that Americans care about today."
These comments align with an article posted 6 months ago (it suggests Donnie T & RB 'got the memo' a while back and decided to comply). Can you say 'capture'???:
Q&A: For every 1 Jewish Zionist, there are 30 Christian Zionists, and Netanyahu exploits this
Israel’s war rhetoric is laced with biblical references, a ploy aimed at wooing Christian Evangelicals in the US. Here’s how British theologian Stephen Sizer unpacks this phenomenon.
Any battlefield is usually in a state of flux. Actions and experience combine to change frequencies and what we were previously in tune with we now hear differently or not at all. Isn't this both healthy and necessary? Hanging on to infatuations/allies that have turned toxic for whatever reason is never good. You should be grateful - as you no doubt are, and I certainly am - for your finely-tuned antennae. Thank you, Tereza, for the pure light you shed on the battle!
What a lovely comment, Tirion. And very insightful. Very interesting to think of this as a battlefield with changing frequencies. I really appreciate your kind words.
And you seem like an appropriate place to repost Mark Elsis (from Earth Newspaper) and his comment from my Rumble post on the Trump remark about college radicals. I know this is close to your heart, and you won't mind:
"Study Shows Vast Majority Of Campus Protests Peaceful, Police Bias Towards Israel
A study by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) examined 553 campus protests focused on the war in Gaza and found that the vast majority of them – 97% – did not include violence or property damage.
"The study also found that while police were most likely to break up a protest when counter protesters also showed up [Overwhelmingly Jewish Thugs], unopposed peaceful pro-Palestine protests were five and a half times more likely to be forcibly dispersed than unopposed pro-Israel protests. The ACLED defined violence as something that goes beyond “pushing or shoving” and property damage as “breaking a window or worse.” This was the second study the ACLED released on violence at campus protests, the previous review published on May 2 found that 99% of campus protests were peaceful. Among the protests that included violence or property damage, roughly half of them only became violent after police was called to remove previously peaceful protesters. It also found far more incidents – 70 in total – where police used violence, including chemical agents and baton beatings, against protesters. by Ian DeMartino https://sputnikglobe.com/20240513/study-shows-vast-majority-of-campus-protests-peaceful-police-bias-towards-israel-1118415449.html
The police as Zionist agents provocateurs? Like all their playbooks, it's an old one. The frequency you're on determines what you see and hear when you tune in. Different people see different things, sometimes even with their own eyes:
I like the concept of that video, Tirion. It's my favorite kind of story where the villain turns out to be the hero. I know you've probably both seen the professor being pushed to the cement by the police, when she tried to intervene in their treatment of a student. What disturbed me more than that was the shouting in the background of epithets like 'Nazi' and other things. I couldn't tell if it was the police who were shouting it or pro-Israel protesters who somehow weren't being rounded up. I'm not sure which would be worse. Any thoughts?
Oh, yes. I had read about that but had not seen the video. Looks like it was one of the protesters who was shouting.
First of all, I would say that any police service has a very difficult and often unpleasant job to do; and I understand that police officers need to keep themselves safe in sometimes dangerous situations.
As you know, I'm not American and don't live in America; but it does seem clear that, as the years go by, the police have become out of control, heavy-handed, politicized, militarized - indeed, "NAZI-fied." There is also no doubt that the job attracts a certain type of thug-in-uniform, like the one in this video who takes the professor down - assuming that they are not all actors. In decades gone by, I was a frequent visitor to the US and even lived there briefly. Now I would be reluctant even to visit - not that any of the Five-Eyes countries is really any better.
When we are willing to observe with equal mindedness; that is, viewing something without any prejudice, we are closest to seeing the actual truth. When I watched that video, I think it doesn't have the same contextual approach, as watching students and faculty getting their heads slammed into the ground by police on campuses. I can appreciate your more neutral and pragmatic demonstration of "vantage point" because there can be some truth to that. BUT, if at the end of the day, police are in fact brutalizing otherwise peaceful pro-Palestinian student protestors who are doing nothing else than holding signs, then the police are in the obvious wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
Oh, I would agree, of course. My point was that it was likely less obvious to the police officers' commanders and perhaps their families and perhaps others conditioned by the Zionist media. One man's obvious is another man's inversion?
I agree. I suppose that could make sense. We are all at the disposal of information conveyance and re-conveyance, but this is exactly how the books were 'over cooked' in regards to the Holocaust, people will inevitably perceive what they are conditioned to see.
Excellent, so glad I could be a reflection point. I thought it was great data too. I love when someone skips the anecdotes and goes straight to the statistics. And you just saved me another post, so I can keep from inundating marta! ;-)
Can I send you a proof first before posting it? I would like to make sure that I'm not missing anything. Tentative title: Wars, and Government are Conspiratorial Criminal Scams.
I've come to accept that all Big Names have had to make compromises in order to become --or stay -- a Big Name. Those compromises probably range from heinous to disappointing to annoying, depending on the Name. Accepting that allows me to take what works, because I do believe some of them still have valuable ideas or good hearts or something else to offer me. Bottom line -- I've given up on much bathwater, whilst retaining some babies. Hope that made sense 🙃
Mary! What are you doing responding at 11 pm on a Sat night? But finally, I can tell someone who'll appreciate my setting. I'm at my favorite little restaurant, Chocolat, next door to the bookshop, where I've already finished a Manhattan with Chicken Parmesan and Caesar Salad. Now I'm having some kind of Carmelo Loco hot alcoholic drink for dessert. The next table over is celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary and just ordered the dessert orgy. Doesn't everyone need an orgy for their 50th anniversary?
Okay, okay, back to business. I love your concept. And it lets me enjoy Russell, who I really do. He just did a great takedown of Lindsey Graham. He's FUNNY! I don't need him to be pure.
Did I mention I just picked up another novel by my favorite smutty author, Sarah Maas? Jealous yet?
I TOTALLY appreciated your setting. I would have loved to join you for the gourmet meal, rather than thrash around fitfully, unable to sleep! 😂
I find RB hilarious, delightfully verbal in a uniquely British way, and wholly entertaining. In fact, has he ever claimed to be anything other than an entertainer?
It’s too bad our politicians can’t just be honest: that’s what they are, too.
Sarah Maas? Never heard of her, but now I’ll have to look her smutty a** up. You are an original, my dear. xox
We're going to make that dinner happen. Lori, my favorite server, is a theater gal who just started rehearsals for In the Heights at the community college. She did a great rendition of Happy Anniversary, which she may have made up on the spot.
Your take on Russell is so refreshing. I've listened to hundreds of hours of Russell without ever being bored or saying, "Wait a minute, that's so disrespectful!" With 50 videos, I've spent over 100 hours thinking and responding to his ideas, and his guests. He brought information I wasn't getting anywhere else, and perspectives that were shocking to have someone stating them out loud, when no one else was.
My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love. I think you can only really criticize who you love. It's not either/ or, it's both/ and. It's almost entirely women who see both sides on Russell, and that keeps getting attributed to us being physically attracted to him, thinking with our hormones, falling for his accent. It's not just an insult to Russell, it's an insult to us and our discernment. As you can tell, there's another post brewing here.
The Sarah Maas to start with is A Court of Thorns and Roses. Not much sex but it will set you up for the second in the series, where things really heat up. My daughters and I are really bonding over them, the middle one is reading the series again. And isn't that the best excuse to indulge in a little trash, Ms. Love Island (or was it the Bachelorette?)
Isn't that 'not her real name?' Can't wait for that play. Maybe we can cast Lori in a part.
With all the words that 'shakespeare' invented, and I think s/he set the record, couldn't there have been a few more for love? But I can go with this, applying my definition from 'To Love Me is to Know Me.' Love is giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they do what they do for a reason, and you would do the same in their exact shoes.
There's a lot of conflicting information on Russell--his marriage and sudden break-up with Katy Perry, clearly an Illuminati monarch and next Madonna. His signaling with the OBEY sign and friendship with Shepard Fairey, whose OBEY giant logo is a penis and balls from a child's perspective and whose name couldn't be more obvious. Lots of other hints that I cover in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/russell-brand-and-the-illuminati.
It's very dark stuff, if true, and goes way beyond some sins of omission. Just like RFK, I think there's a reason Russell isn't as outspoken about Palestine as he was 15 yrs ago, when it was much less popular. My guess is that they're both captured in some way, through blackmail. So my act of love is honoring the Russell who, I think, knows and wants to speak the truth by not falling for the compromised role.
I'm completely down with your definition of love, and yes, Shakes could have bequeathed us a few more options!
I'm impressed that what you arrive at by the end of your comment takes us full circle -- your love for Russell gives him the benefit of the doubt. Perfect. xox
Just don't force me to take an 'astrology' quiz or anything connected to the stars/universe. I'd be lucky to locate the moon.
I'm, as a taurus like you, pretty much hooves to the ground sort of person.
Mind boggling sometimes that one can have a birthday within a week of another person and yet interests/passions in some areas are wildly different. Like you say, we'll stick to the aligned topics.
Taûros, Latin for "bull") is the second astrological sign in the modern zodiac. It spans from 30° to 60° of the zodiac. This sign belongs to the Earth element or triplicity, as well as a fixed modality, quality, or quadruplicity.
Taurus personality
Taurus personality is often characterized by their practical, reliable, and determined nature. They are known for their strong sense of responsibility and ability to work hard to achieve their goals. Here are some key traits associated with Taurus personality:
Intelligent and resourceful: Taurus individuals are known for their intelligence and ability to think critically and strategically. They are often able to find creative solutions to problems and are not afraid to take calculated risks.
Hardworking and reliable: Taurus people are known for their strong work ethic and ability to deliver on their commitments. They are reliable and dependable, and others often count on them to get the job done.
Stubborn and determined: Taurus individuals can be quite stubborn and determined once they set their minds on something. They are not easily swayed by others and can be quite persistent in their pursuit of their goals.
Loyal and trustworthy: Taurus people are known for their loyalty and trustworthiness. They value honesty and integrity and are often sought out as friends and partners.
Practical and down-to-earth: Taurus individuals are known for their practical and down-to-earth approach to life. They are often grounded and sensible, and are not easily swayed by fleeting trends or fads.
Appreciative of beauty and luxury: Taurus people have a strong appreciation for beauty and luxury. They enjoy the finer things in life and often have a good sense of style and taste.
Can be lazy and possessive: While Taurus individuals are known for their hard work and determination, they can also be quite lazy and possessive at times. They may struggle with procrastination and can become overly attached to their possessions and relationships.
Value stability and security: Taurus people value stability and security above all else. They are often drawn to careers and relationships that provide a sense of security and predictability.
Can be overly critical: Taurus individuals can be quite critical of themselves and others. They may have high standards and can be quite hard on themselves and those around them.
Appreciate sensual pleasures: Taurus people have a strong appreciation for sensual pleasures, such as good food, wine, and music. They enjoy indulging in the finer things in life and taking pleasure in the simple things.
Overall, Taurus personality is known for its practical, reliable, and determined nature. They are often seen as anchors of stability and security, and are valued for their loyalty and trustworthiness.
Big names only get invited into first class as long as they ‘behave’. Step out of line and back to ‘coach’ they go. They know it and cling to their nicer seat on the bus. While us back in coach, or in my case ‘economy’, we’re just here to help pay the cost of the trip.
My opinion as an amateur astrologer: people with mercury retrograde in their natal chart are likely to need to talk to other people because they see their own consciousness as part of a collective mind. They are biased in favor of the whole. Therefore, their equilibrium will be found in learning to be individuals who self-express and develop their own stories.
In contrast, people with Mercury direct are biased toward the self. They don't see a collective mind anywhere. Perhaps they see trends of behavior, at best. And their equilibrium is found in attaching themselves to other people's stories, and in learning to suppress their voice.
For example, a Pisces person born on March 12, 1999 has Mercury retrograde in Aries, and that means she or he ought to be one of the most perplexed people on Earth.
Astrology just makes me space out....lol I do enjoy that pun that just came up. But I so appreciate people who like astrology and can bring it down to earth for me. Thanks for sharing Againt Roger!
very interesting indeed, from the perspective of a ... rb outsider for the most part. somehow i managed to not turn to him except on rare occasions. we've exchanged ideas about him before. i certainly liked the bits i saw although what i saw came exclusively from someone like yourself pointing this or that item of interest.
i paused, here, in my comment to wonder what to write or maybe even to wonder why i am wrting at all. beyond... what? it is very unlikely i will even move to see with my own eyes your description of his fall back into fallibility? purchased? compromised?
what did come to mind was clif high and hyper novelty. is this 'fall' into human fallibility an interesting expression and/or energetic movement towards no-authority? not even the authority of respect? we are asked to do as gautama directed anand to do: don't look to the dharma. don't look to the sanga. look to your self, the truth of life rests there.
another thought is how much did he really change? has your quality of perception been the biggest change and rb is embodying what I have called the chomsky effect and the chomsky paradox? basically the false perception we have of someone who we come to see as hypocritical when what has happened is we misperceived the other with our own projections before the situation changed and we could see more perceptively or the others behaviour no longer supported our shadow projection.
thank you for sharing with us your breakup with an old friend now in a journey disparate from yours. amazing.
Often, I’m on the same page with friends or respected individuals…………….until something ’snaps’ and no longer are we connected on the journey going forward. That happened recently with a group of friends. We got into a discussion regarding Israel and genocide being committed against Palestinians. My friends insisted Oct.7 was ‘real’ and Israel was at war against Hamas. I expanded the conversation by explaining that Hamas was created by the Mossad, CIA and Britain’s MI6 purposely to prevent a 2-state solution. Nope. No traction. Back to my friends refusal to admit that Israel was anything different than god’s chosen land.
So much for that friendship. Easy come, easy go sometimes. We communicate but simply never discuss the ‘touchy’ topics.
Life’s just crazy like that.
Like the adage goes, everything will be fine among friends as long as no one brings up money, religion or politics.
That's a brave thing, Greg, to counter that narrative. Maybe the next time it comes up, they won't be as sure, especially if someone else is questioning it. But that's a hard thing, losing friends.
No, not at all. I have three daughters and two friends with whom I dance and joke. One daughter shares my Palestinian focus, none are willing to talk about the vaccine. With people IRL, I ask questions, give compliments, and try to avoid opinions and facts. Fortunately I have all of you for the latter. My life is very compartmentalized that way.
Now that you mention dealing with friends before and after the ‘jabs’ came out, I must admit my ‘group’ really got challenged and definitely shrunk. Money, politics, religion and now pHarma psyops can make keeping friends a task.
oddly enough, i would say that i have had pretty close to zero friends my whole life. i was kind of made gun shy of 'friendships' when in elementary school. and by chance, i wound up going through grade school with 1/2 of me in the geek-nerd side of its social structure and the outsiders side at the same time! [headshake.] so.... i wasn't really in either camp fully and so didn't really develop friendships.
then 37 years in a truly toxic co-dependent relationship that, by its very structure, shrinks life outside the relationship to almost nothing.
so...
i've not really experience the angst of those losses. (the breaking out from the family and the codependency relationship were extreme forms of death and perhaps phoenix-like rebirths.)
so... my sense of friendship is such that unless i am free to speak, the relationship is not a friendship: kithship or acquaintanceshhip? possibly kinship?
in the last couple of years i seem to have evolved to the point where people have come into my life who now say to me 'you are the only person i can have these kinds of conversations with' meaning, nothing is forbidden. substack is in a general way a friend, and some people within it inching slowly towards 'friendship'.
I've avoided even touching the subject with a lifelong friend of 60 years. In this case, I'm biting the bullet to preserve the friendship, the few that you have possibly seeming more important and vital as you get to a certain age.
"is this 'fall' into human fallibility an interesting expression and/or energetic movement towards no-authority?" That's my bet! (Though I'm quite biased in that direction, still it looks inevitable to me.
Re your Chomsky paradox is a great point. I realized, sadly, during the hoax that in many cases where I was shocked and disappointed in those who I thought I knew well and went along, that in fact I had never really seen them accurately and had projected a lot of assumptions.
hola, kathleen. great comment, gracias. it got me thinking about what i was looking to express more deeply.
it is the energetic movement towards 'no-authority' from both 'directions': it is the realisation of those of us seriously looking to individuate that the other doesn't have authority over us. and, likely more problematic to actualise, that the other for whom an authority has been accepted by past mutually and often unconscious terms, has been accepted. i'm thinking that rb is a great example of that, as are brett weinstein and charles eisenstein and even steve kirsch. at one point will the collective authorisation we have conferred onto them be withdrawn with sufficient energy for them to recognise that they no longer have authority?
things like the wellness company are perhaps the continuation of the authority structure more formally. this one is a bit obvious because it is still looking to fear as the 'control' energy grounding their authority: we have the power to assuage your fear(s).
as my thoughts continue to tumble along, the less obvious authorities that are going to fall, are the authorities who authorise our place as questioning humans. for me that would be people like carl jung and buddhist and yogic teacher and strong critic michael stone. do i have sufficient self-trust to de-authorise them as my teachers? hmmmmm.
and now, the other part of that phrase, is the falling away of egoistic energies of control, especially that of perfectionism and all the other mind-centric fear abatement practices that have been hijacked by the 'controllers'. the interesting guru (born american in rich hollywood california), Sadhvi Bhagawati Saraswati gave me the phrase 'trust-fall into the universe.' wow. that is to not be mindful of our own fear abatement practices nor those of we have given authority to do that for us.
the great apocalypse! we are living it. all the best with what is changing — everything changes!
p.s.:
if you would like to read the development of the chomsky effect and paradox, here it is:
That's a good description, Kristin. Stuck. And not continuing to evolve with the rest of us. That feels right to me. His rise to prominence with 6M YT subs was an organic movement, I think. 6M of us recognized the truth in what he was saying, and were glad to have someone confirming what we had suspected. I think his sudden fame as a truthteller surprised them. Maybe he hit the limits of his own ability to evolve, or maybe those limits were set for him. We may never know.
As an Essex girl, I have told you before that I cringe with embarrassment every time I hear that squeaking beta-bloke's voice. His Pied Piper personality grates my nerves and so I cannot comment much on his content because I have judiciously ignored him for many years.
Essex men are not well represented by his narcissism and foppery. They are tough, good dads who work and play hard. They probably ignore him too.
Unfortunately, you Americans seem to fall for our accent and are entranced by it, hence the success of Guy Ritchie's films and many actors such as Michael Caine and Vinnie Jones. I had an interview with James Delingpole recently and was surprised that my American subscribers were all commenting on my accent! I do find that most amusing!
I agree about cringing with RB’s accent. It’s over-the-top trashy, like he’s trying too hard to come across as one of the blokes. Anyone who can do a cryptic-demonic performance at the Olympics is definitely not a down to earth guy.
I also found the crow with the farting sound at the beginning of his videos so cringeworthy. Something always seemed off about RB, even if he was funny and entertaining sometimes.
I do think you have a lovely voice, Frances. It's like getting to know you in a whole new way that's different than just reading your excellent work on your posts ;-)
I have often wondered if doing a Podcast or video in substack would be a good thing, or a potential mistake. It might just increase the management difficulty level.
I recently had an interview with Jerm Warfare but that is behind a paywall atm, soon to be released so I hear. I am also scheduled to chat with Doc Ahmad Malek on 4th July. Other than that I have a post which provides a collection of all the videos and interviews I have done since 2013 here:
I used to think that Russell was genuine but also a showman and that the two aspects might get in the way sometime. He is a good interviewer but he puts so much of himself into the interaction it gets a bit much eventually. I guess I was never really in the Russell club but I did think he was on the side of freedom. Now I'm not sure he is but he is in very good company. People I really thought cared about fighting the medical industrial machine turn out to be promoting it as alleged freedom fighters. Even ivermectin was a psy op to catch all the people who didn't believe the main story.
I recently watched this JJ Couey video of Russell interviewing Nick Hudson who I do consider to be an honest commentator and Brand seems a bit uncomfortable with Nick's views that there was no pandemic. Have you seen it? Long as always and JJ has his quirks but I found it worth the watch. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2138836025?filter=all&sort=time
Personally, I liked the conversation style of interview, but that was also my style the few times I've done interviews. I was so eager to get my ideas out there, and I'd already read a book full of their ideas, I felt like it was my chance.
Yes, it's been shocking to me that ivermectin was another part of the psyops. But I feel like all medicine is 90-100% psychosomatic, so it still served a purpose. I know my prescription got passed around and used by four or five different people, all with good results. But this TWC agenda is sick, predatory.
I like JJ and you've probably seen the one of mine he featured on Malone: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/phony-maloney-and-wikispooks. What surprised me, though, was finding out that Malone introduced him to RFK, who became his employer. That was casually mentioned somewhere but seemed significant, given his critique of Malone.
I'll check it out but I'm agnostic on the no-virus dogma. I see the logic on why it could be true although it seems like people 'catch' things from experience. But I'm the gal who entertains the possibility that the world exists in our OneMind, rather than our separate minds existing in the world. So I don't dismiss anything as not possible.
I like a conversational style of interview too but Russell is very busy and so quick, I would like to see him slow down and be more reflective. You would do it very differently and I suspect I would find your interviews much more relaxing to watch. You can have a quick mind without becoming speedy.
I think it might have been JJ's video on your take on Malone that introduced me to you actually. If you would like to hear JJ speak openly about why he was let go from CHD he talks about it in this video. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2146352268?filter=all&sort=time Interesting that you think JJ is part of the no virus crowd because he doesn't say that at all. He says that according to the biology RNA viruses don't have the capacity to pandemic, not that they don't exist. And his insistence that there was no deadly illness, no pandemic seems like a big part of why he got fired from CHD. Yet another reason not to trust Robert Kennedy sadly.
That's funny. I had listeners at the time who liked my responses but couldn't listen to the original interviews because Russell's frenetic pace made them too anxious. When it was natural to the conversation because both people were having fun and getting excited, I didn't mind. He does have a lightning quick mind. But as Tonika points out, it's now fast cuts and sped up. He also often had a much slower pace in those podcasts, which sometimes went on two hours. It made me secretly wish for another pandemic for him so he could slow down and enjoy his daughters.
Oh I didn't know that JJ was let go from CHD. Thanks for clarifying what he says about viruses. That makes much more sense to me. I certainly agree with him that there never was a pandemic. And it's been a nagging question in my mind about JJ, who I like as a person very much. So I really appreciate you clarifying it.
thank you for the great comment, kerry. nice observation on how those two aspects of his personality could and perhaps did come into conflict.
and thanks for the link. i will add this to my pile of really-want-to-watches and see. it is getting a bit unwatchable as a whole! i enjoy couey and his quirks, atlhough i'm an infrequent viewer of him too. although, more often than brand.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes!
If there was no pandemic (agree) then there is no need to sell those overpriced supplements from Wellness Company. Oops. At least he has him on. I watched it the interview with Hudson too, will check out JJ's take.
Tereza, I share your disappointment with Russell Brand. He helped get me through the pandemic (as you did, too, btw). I’ve learned much from him and his guests. I’ve actually followed his Under the Skin podcast off and on for years prior to his latest incarnation as a YouTuber. So, while I haven’t invested nearly as much time as you in following and analyzing his show, I can no longer count myself an awakening wonder. After the hit pieces by the UK press over his previous and admitted scandalous behavior, it seems to me he returned to his show as a changed man. Based on the evidence of my own senses, after his return what I saw in his eyes and detected in the tone of his voice was clearly fear. My perception is that he now seems to be consciously signaling his increased willingness to accept the leash and stay inside his yard. The examples of his reactions to Trump and RFK are most interesting because Trump and RFK, too, I think, have gone through transitions to tone down their radicalism. Is it just my imagination or does it seem Populism itself is being methodically captured and tamed? One thing is certain: cancel culture tactics actually work.
What you did not remark on (and I was hoping you would) was Russell’s recent baptism, which he hyped extensively. I assume he had some kind of conversion process, maybe even a conversion experience. I no longer follow him closely enough to know what or why he was baptised, and I don’t mean to be critical of anyone’s personal religious experience, but I have to wonder if his public shaming and his publicized baptism were related. I’d always assumed from his words and his tatoos that he was a kind of new age syncretist spiritual-not-religious type, but now, if his baptism is any indication, does that mean he has joined some sect of Christianity that requires adult baptism by immersion a la John the Baptizer. Has he gone from being caught in the imperial cancel culture net to joining the imperial fishers of men? My point, if I have one, is that religion is still almost always a reaction to fear. Get cancelled, get in danger of losing your considerable income, fame, and reputation, so publically wash away your sins and atone. It’s an old story.
In contrast to Russell, I notice Jimmy Dore stopped smoking pot, and has had a startling conversion to Jungian psychology. I find Jimmy’s experience to be much more interesting and also somehow much more authentic and compelling. Russell’s and Jimmy’s experiences are not precisely analogous, but I do find their coincidental timing interesting (but not in a synchronicity sort of way).
What an excellent comment, Jack. Thank you for the compliment on helping you to get through the pandemic, Russell certainly helped me too. Someone on my YT version dissed his meditation but Russell's slow-paced, imaginative guided mediations were a real source of grounding for me during those days.
It's especially good to hear from someone who listened to those long and often relaxed interviews. They were a very different side of Russell than the edited hyperspeed clips. I remember you being a touchstone for my Chomsky response, to help figure out if I was imagining it. Now public opinion has gone the other way but at the time, it felt heretical to be questioning Chomsky. I was glad you had access to the full interivew also and confirmed my response.
And in this case, it's just what I was looking for--someone who appreciated Russell but was picking up on changes. That's very interesting that you felt fear from him. I do suspect there's serious blackmail they have on him and RFK and Trump--and with the reputation all three have as womanizers, that would need to be very serious. What they hyped with Russell was just a demonstration, I think.
Someone mentioned that they felt the baptism felt very Zio. Greg (Walking the Dog) linked an article above that for every Jewish Zionist, there are 30 Christian Zionists. That would be a common thread of all three clips, with Tulsi supporting the anti-BDS bill as a 'freedom gal.'
He has had a tattoo of Jesus on the cross since I've watched him and would say glibly, "I love Jesus." He's also said that the 33 tattoo is the age at which Jesus died, but other times, the age at which he thought he'd die. Your theory of the absolution of sins makes sense too.
I've only seen Jimmy Dore when Russell interviewed him, but I really liked him. Yes, I'd find giving up pot and embracing Jung more palatable than Russell rejecting all other definitions and avenues to god and spirit. He's always had a strong focus on religious experience but this isn't just one more experiment. It's committing to one dogma. That is especially disappointing.
And is why many of the 1K viewers of the YT (most for a few seconds, I'm sure) have posted, "Praise Jesus, Russell has been red-pilled!" And yes, I agree with your connection between religion and fear. Thanks for the comment, Jack!
Thank you, Pauline! I told the Diva my daughter had taken a pic but I was waiting to see if it could be used against me in the court of public opinion. Her response was "Hasn't that court(ship) already sailed?" So that convinced me to post it ;-)
I value your ability to self assess and reroute if necessary. Rusty Rockets was fun at first but since I started editing, I noticed a lot of the tricks he would use to manipulate his audience, especially those fast jump cuts that leave a lot of the superfluous gab on the cutting room floor, making him both sound smart and also not give the viewer an opportunity to really digest what is being said. I also suspect that the footage is sped up maybe about 5-10%. Not enough to make it noticiable, but enough to make it feel like an Aaron Sorkin script.
I remember you saying that before about the fast jump cuts. It made me notice them more--sometimes in the middle of a word. Very interesting about speeding it up. I bet you're right about that.
There was also a young woman who had been his producer for the interviews. She had a degree in media with her dissertation on how to give the illusion of a personal connection with mass media (I'm sure she worded it differently but that was the gist). They would do the 'banter decanter' at the beginning, where he would make fun of her but I always figured it was all in jest. At some point she left the show and I remember the last one where it seemed like there had been some going-away event that he'd missed and said something lame like he was busy. They cut it right after that so you never heard her response.
Since then it's all men. He has a young good-looking guy for his producer and co-host, and they do a soccer show together too. It's very bromance energy. He never talks about his wife or kids anymore. He was just a lot more human before.
Oh interesting. Yeah, I would have not known those details. My two normie friends who used to watch him quite a bit and I can probably, at least, partially, thanks Russel for having them be opened to “jabs: bad” (although I take credit for convincing them out of the booster) also stopped watching Russel because of his recent religious inclinations. Which feel completely staged to me. Not sure what’s happening but it feels like a narrative shift.
Hi Tereza, Politicians, Hollywoodians all the same to me. You have to have holllywood training to be a politician imo. This is the first election I probably won't vote in. What a disaster. Could you please start a write in campaign for president. Maybe some normal American, like yourself would be willing to take it on. It is dangerous work, just ask the president of Slovakia. At this point I may write in Mr. Putin. I would be very sad to have to break up with Mr. Putin as you have broken up with Russell, lol.
Helene! I was just thinking of you when I wrote the response to marta. I also always feel your kinship and never take it personally if I don't hear from you. But also lovely to hear now!
This won't be the first I haven't voted in but we do seem to be reaching some kind of nadir. Yes, I was just reading about the president of Slovakia. Beyond blatant!
I am 70% confident that Putin is who he says. Still waiting for the int'l currencies and digital ID to shake out before I go further. The WEFfie YuGL is a concern. But he seems to be doing good things and his statements to China are very interesting. Since it doesn't really matter what we think, you might as well keep the faith as long as you can. Thanks for responding!
According to a friend, he is also on the payroll of Coulson (owner of the wellness Co). Unfortunately, several others are. Babylon Bee, Epoch times, Dr McCullough, I think I see Naomi Wolf on there, and several others.
Very interesting, Ingrid. I remember Malone often quoting from the Epoch Times. And of course, I have my own take on Naomi, which I think you've read: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-devil-and-naomi-wolf. I have a draft on her views of China. Thanks for those.
there was a picture of about 40 people and logos on the stack from DrGeoffPain, but I cannot find it right now. Here is one from around that timehttps://geoffpain.substack.com/p/when-the-cats-away-the-mice-will?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1264116&post_id=143880974&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=3e5x7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I have a subscription to epoch times, I think they only advertise, they must make money somehow Never seen them promote the stuff. Malone makes a TV program with epoch times (never watch their TV, hardly ever open their website, LOVE their games though LOL)
I anwered GoeffPain on April 26 when I read OKeefe was one of them, too, and immediately unsubscribed from his stack. Cannot stand Wolf.
As far as Russel Brand goes I could have told you so more than a year ago, Tereza.
Oh, wait........... I did, didn't I?
Just one look at Greenwalds set (imagine the price of that studio), and the endless minutia he rambles on about (read: a continuous limited hangout) is enough of an indicator that he's a shill for the bad guys.
Then we have Tulsi Gabbard. She out-did herself when she called herself a woman of color. White is not a color in the real world. Besides, you can't call yourself a patriot in the US after stomping on the Bill of Rights and vote FOR an anti-BDS bill which is in direct violation of the first amendment.
I didn't realize Tulsi had voted for the anti-BDS bill. Although I should have, since that was near-unanimous as I recall. Curious that the 'Judea Declares War on Germany' international boycott that could be seen as the instigation of WWII is not condemned or even remembered. Yet individuals with a small amount of consumer discretion are deemed illegal for speaking for themselves.
It is my assertion that the Zionists in Great Britain instigated the war, and they couldn't have found a more willing guy to do their bidding than Adolph Hitler.
If you add Theodor N. Kaufman's book "Germany Must Perish!" into the mix it becomes clear as day that they were projecting unto Germany the intention they themselves had with regards to that country. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still have the same intent. Nordstream is proof of that.
I was just reading about Kaufman's book in Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion.
I waver between being 50% certain that Hitler was a Rothschild agent and 70%. But we certainly agree about the Zionists in Great Britain. Someone recently listed several prominent British who were not Jews who started WWII, as if that disproved my point. But when Churchill writes about 'an old Zionist like me,' you certainly didn't need to be Jewish to be Zionist.
And Michael Hudson wrote on the Nordstream, "Germany is defeated three times in a century." That's definitely their intent.
NATO's secretary general during the late fiftys said that NATO has three objectives: To keep the US in, to keep Russia (the USSR) out and to keep Gemany down.
I apreciate you liking my coment where I said: "I ciuld have told you so a year ago. Oh, wait a minute........, I did, didn't I?
I did not mean to mock you.
The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago with Charles Wright. (note that I did not use the @ in front of his name) He and I had a long back and forth with regards to what happened during the 1930s in Germany. This came to a head when I mentioned what I learned from @Nefahotep about Adolph Eichman.
It ended when he questioned my sanity.
I subscribed to his substack a few months ago, and by accident I becane a paid subscriber.
I have copied and saved all the comments in the dialogue, and I will publish them as a post as soon as I have the time.
I appreciate your clarification, although I didn't feel you were mocking me.
As I mentioned to Mary, I only listen or read when I can learn something both new and meaningful, that helps make sense of the world. I don't need to agree with them, but I need to have someone asking the same questions. I don't listen to any kind of entertainment. But I've listened to hundreds of hours of RB, between audiobooks, podcasts and videos. And spent over 100 hrs formulating responses to them.
With Russell gone commercial, with the irritant of ads and narrowing of topics, there's no one else out there covering the ground that he did. I don't even need them to be funny, just asking the same questions I am. So to dismiss him out of hand, as someone who isn't interesting, does say that I was naive to have 'fallen for him.' If you click on the playlist in my article, you'll see the 50 videos I made. There are many where I disagreed with him or his guest--possibly all of them. But I'd be curious as to your response to any one of them and where you think I was fooled.
Also, I unsubbed Charles W awhile ago but I don't remember why. I'll be curious to read your article.
Putin was there from the start. When Klaus and co went to St Petersburg in 1990. The Global Leaders of Tomorrow starting the following year. Which later became the Young Global Leaders program. A sort of Komosol if you like.
Putin is not a graduate of the YGL program just as Klaus Schwab is not a graduate. Because its their baby.
So do you see the whole BRICS+ economic program as another circle of controlled opposition? The idea that Sergei Glazyev and Dima Rousseff are seeing The Unit as the solution, the GBDC designed by Bretton-Woods, is concerning to say the least.
Tereza, I'm behind on my comments to you on your recent posts. I appreciate the volume of interesting things you have to bring!
Reading this post makes me think of the disappointment I felt as I read your dissection of Charles Eisenstein, although I tended to follow Charles more than Russell. But there's this feeling of "oh dang, there's no one to trust!". Haha, does that include you? Will you do a take down of yourself someday? <3 I mean that very lovingly. And also, I truly believe that one of the great lessons right now is learning discernment and how to listen to ourselves, rather than outsourcing authority.
I wrote my first substack post! https://open.substack.com/pub/martamuses/p/becoming-youmewe?r=diq9r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Becoming You/Me/We - and my belief that the best way forward is through healing/growing myself. I know lots of people believe that is too much navel gazing, but so far I can't find a way to feel at home in my skin without continuing to work on myself. Welcoming your thoughts if you want. But no pressure! Sometime I will write about my absolute dislike of obligation and pressure.
Ha, I tried to keep to no more than two posts per week but the things I want to respond to stack up faster than I can get to them. I really do take my time and savor the process. I decided to let readers deal with it rather than not write. I know you read out of connection and love, not obligation, but I do feel your love whether you respond or not. So always follow your heart and don't force yourself to read or write when something else is calling you. We always stay connected.
All of these start with a feeling that something's not right, whether Charles or Russell. And then I go into analytical mode to see whether it's just an emotional thing--I hoped that Russell or Charles might recognize that we were saying the same thing and catapult me into stardom.
I do take the takedown as loving but I'll tell you how to do a takedown of me. The essence that you're looking for is hypocrisy, someone who presents one way but acts another. So you know my professed dogma that people are morally equal. Where you want to catch me is acting as if I'm morally superior to others--not my ideas or my behavior, which I should believe are better, but who I am essentially as a person. That's how you take me down ;-)
That's so exciting that you've launched your stack, marta! I love the title of it. I will be looking forward to reading it and I think you're exactly right. I just said something similar that we can't 'defuse hate in the world' as if it comes from someone else. We can just uproot the vestiges of superiority in ourselves wherever we find them. I accept your no pressure! Thank you!
“Uproot the vestiges of superiority in ourselves”
Those words are manna to my heart & mind. I’ve just landed here from outer nowhere so have no idea what threads went before upon Charles/Russel but I don’t need to know. I just need to trust that inner guide who always tells me the truth. Right now we are all as moving goal posts with absolutely no idea which way to kick the flipping ball. So trust the ball within and it will lead you upon the pathway of transformation. All this said, I appreciate your candour and shared expression. Onwards.
Zanna, welcome to my stack! With only 20 other subs, that makes you practically a Substack virgin. Some of my notices say they have other subs in the hundreds. I have to wonder if those are bots ... or just playing a numbers game to get their own stack recognized?
I hope you find good company here to be worthy of your discerning membership ;-)
Good morning, Tereza. I so appreciate that tuning into 'something not feeling right'. I really relate to that. I have that radar in ways too, about certain people and relationships.
This nugget - the essence that we're looking for is hypocrisy! And can we add to that something about lack of humility? That we all are hypocritical in life, in not living up to ideals, but I bet you can own if it's pointed out to you?
I'm sorry that Charles and Russel didn't recognize your brilliance and catapult you into stardom. <3 <3 <3
Thanks for the support about my new stack! I'm curious to see how my own relationship to it develops! And so true - "we can't defuse hate as if it comes from someone else." We ALL have it in us! I am such a big believer that healing it in ourselves is the only thing we can control and the best thing we can do! Thanks for that affirmation!
This is very useful, marta, because I'm formulating an episode around these ideas, so you're helping me to think them through.
And I should better define hypocrisy because I violate my principles a half-dozen times a day, a dozen if it includes a trip to the grocery store. If I was 'ethically pure,' I'd lead a miserable and small life, losing my house for the refusal to pay taxes that hurt other people, not having money that was made in ways that do damage, which is the only way that money originates in our culture. No one would want to follow in my footsteps--I would be a cautionary tale.
The obligation to act on what I knew would be an impediment to knowing. Every new fact would paralyze me further. So I make it my priority to know the truth, as much as possible, rather than as much as I have the ability to act consistently with. And my practice is to not judge other people as good or bad based on their actions, but certainly to judge the behaviors (including words) and the systems that facilitate them as better or worse, or even evil if they cause people to cause harm to others.
So hypocrisy, in my case, might be NOT pointing out conflicts in someone's thinking because secretly I'm judging them as not as caring or intelligent as me. If I had decided that Russell was a bad person, there would be no conflict between who he's been in the past--making clear statements about Israel and Palestine when that was extremely unpopular--and his lack of challenging blind support for Israel now. So my post was to try to figure out why his behavior has changed when he knew the truth at a time it was far less evident.
Haha! Thanks for indulging my sour grapes ;-) They make a good whine.
Right? Don't we all break our own ethics and integrity all the time? I drive a car, in Chicago. And both the car and Chicago do not match my heart ethic.
I don't quite follow what you are saying about hypocrisy for you would be NOT pointing out conflicts in someone else's thinking? Can you say more about this? If you want to.
Fascinating that Russell spoke out earlier about the Israel/Palestine situation, but does not challenge the blind support now.
Your post does not read like sour grapes, it reads like internal discernment and clarifying. Love that.
Thanks, marta. In the intro to my book, I say give yourself a one-year vacation from activism and the need to DO anything about what you know. Now I'd probably recommend a 10 yr hiatus at least.
Well, I don't actually put that into practice IRL. But if I say to myself, "Oh that person would never understand what I'm saying," then I've already thought less of them. So, in a sense, when I don't argue with someone, it's because I don't see them as equal ... or don't have the energy. More likely the latter. Conflict is such hard work and so draining.
🙌🏻
Working on yourself is ultimately the only work that really matters, isn't it?
Congratulations on embarking on your own 'stack!
Thank you so much for the affirmation Tirion! I wasn't sure how others on this stack would relate to the idea that healing ourselves is the only thing we really can control, but it's nice to see a number of people, including you, relate to that as well!
I wrote the same in my comment about the direction for our attention is ourselves. I cite gautama buddha not buddhism.
Thanks Guy! Is Gautama Buddha different that Siddhartha Buddha?
hola, marta.
they are the same human. gautama is the family name of siddhartha, so... siddhartha gautama.
and the word 'buddha' means simply, to be awake.
here's a link that gives a nice short pretty official history of the person born into a rich family linked to the aristocracy of the hindus. "Who Was the Buddha? The Buddha who lived 2,600 years ago was not a god. He was an ordinary person, named Siddhartha Gautama." https://www.lionsroar.com/who-was-the-buddha/
from what i've perceived, few understand that gautama b was strongly against the rigidity of the hindu caste system and part of his efforts were to break that system down: humans are not born into slavery positions and karma as perpetuated by hinduism was wrong. gautama argued against karma and refused to acknowledge the existence of god or gods as cosmologically or moralistically meaningful. exactly the opposite, actually.
a more nuanced and fascinating and really brilliant look at the fallible human who became 'the buddha' and died before 'buddhism' was evolved away from his teachings, is Confession of a Buddhist Atheist by Stephen Batchelor.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6957758-confession-of-a-buddhist-atheist
Both controlled opposition. Xj
Your quote at the end says a lot:
"In closing, I don’t disagree with what Russell says. What disappoints me is what he leaves 'unsaid' and the ways he doesn’t use his platform and celebrity to challenge the next level of the psyops. He’s too smart to be taken in by the cheap tricks he’s letting slide. Eliminating naive only leaves complicit or captured. Maybe both." ---- This is what I have thought about when it comes to high profile "Celebrity" personalities, who have massive followings. This is also true of some of those in the medical freedom movement.
Russel ONLY has "Liberty" to Say Some Things; he doesn't have Freedom to Speak to important aspects of issues that would make the difference. This is likely the case across most platforms, access to audience is conditional; his celebrity is really not his.
As I said in part on your YouTube video; "He lives a life of Professionally looking over his shoulder, his focus is whether or not he keeps a sponsor, not whether or not he sticks to Truth. The Truth has NO agenda." --- I think what is motivating your moving past Russel is that you are always doing everything you can to genuinely seek Truth, as I think most of us here with you are doing. Like many of us, you have gone way beyond where Russel is willing to go.
I really love the four agreements you posted, they completely resonate with me, is it ok for me to include them on my next post?
That's a great phrase, Nef, "his celebrity is really not his." My daughter Cassandra, who I think you resonate with, says that if you think you're not vulnerable to cults, you just haven't met the right one. Fate has never offered me the Tereza Cult of people who hang on my every word. Would I be able to resist that? Not likely.
People generally love someone because they confirm what they already think, especially in a funny and clever way. Once that happens, it has to be hard to change your mind. So happily, I've never had that temptation. Now I become suspicious of anyone who's overly enthusiastic and barely knows what I think. That pedestal is going to come crashing down when I don't fulfill their projection.
I would be honored for you to use my four agreements! And yes, certainly send me a link to the draft. I told Mark that you wanted to use his info and I'm sure he'll be delighted.
I do like what your daughter says about cults, she is a very perceptive, sharp thinker!
Hanging on your every word? Nah, it's what actually resonates, you are individually holding a discipline, at least from my perspective that is quite consistent, because ultimately you must be honest with yourself.
Real Love has a deep seated Acceptance within it, there is no pedestal. ;-)
Thanks for writing this so succinctly, Nefahotep. It makes so much sense to me. How would any of us fair under the spell of having so many followers? It must change a person. It must be tempting to the ego. It must take an extraordinary person who can stay the course of being true to themselves and true to seeking Truth when given the constant ego boost of numerous people tuning in and raving. Dopamine on steroids.
"When I’m President, we will not allow our campuses to be taken over by violent radicals. If you come to this country and try to bring jihadism or anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism, we’ll immediately deport you.
He then gets the crowd to fill in the blank with “Everything they touch turns to ________!” Russell’s response was:
It seems like the main thrust of that speech was ordinary and expected ‘America First’ rhetoric, a willingness to shut down on insurgent groups, and other populist ideas. Now whether or not you agree with the policies of Donald Trump—and I know that a great many of you do—you would have to say that the rhetoric deployed there is an attempt to galvanize and address issues that Americans care about today."
These comments align with an article posted 6 months ago (it suggests Donnie T & RB 'got the memo' a while back and decided to comply). Can you say 'capture'???:
Q&A: For every 1 Jewish Zionist, there are 30 Christian Zionists, and Netanyahu exploits this
Israel’s war rhetoric is laced with biblical references, a ploy aimed at wooing Christian Evangelicals in the US. Here’s how British theologian Stephen Sizer unpacks this phenomenon.
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/qanda-for-every-1-jewish-zionist-there-are-30-christian-zionists-and-netanyahu-exploits-this-15656249
Any battlefield is usually in a state of flux. Actions and experience combine to change frequencies and what we were previously in tune with we now hear differently or not at all. Isn't this both healthy and necessary? Hanging on to infatuations/allies that have turned toxic for whatever reason is never good. You should be grateful - as you no doubt are, and I certainly am - for your finely-tuned antennae. Thank you, Tereza, for the pure light you shed on the battle!
What a lovely comment, Tirion. And very insightful. Very interesting to think of this as a battlefield with changing frequencies. I really appreciate your kind words.
And you seem like an appropriate place to repost Mark Elsis (from Earth Newspaper) and his comment from my Rumble post on the Trump remark about college radicals. I know this is close to your heart, and you won't mind:
"Study Shows Vast Majority Of Campus Protests Peaceful, Police Bias Towards Israel
A study by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) examined 553 campus protests focused on the war in Gaza and found that the vast majority of them – 97% – did not include violence or property damage.
"The study also found that while police were most likely to break up a protest when counter protesters also showed up [Overwhelmingly Jewish Thugs], unopposed peaceful pro-Palestine protests were five and a half times more likely to be forcibly dispersed than unopposed pro-Israel protests. The ACLED defined violence as something that goes beyond “pushing or shoving” and property damage as “breaking a window or worse.” This was the second study the ACLED released on violence at campus protests, the previous review published on May 2 found that 99% of campus protests were peaceful. Among the protests that included violence or property damage, roughly half of them only became violent after police was called to remove previously peaceful protesters. It also found far more incidents – 70 in total – where police used violence, including chemical agents and baton beatings, against protesters. by Ian DeMartino https://sputnikglobe.com/20240513/study-shows-vast-majority-of-campus-protests-peaceful-police-bias-towards-israel-1118415449.html
The police as Zionist agents provocateurs? Like all their playbooks, it's an old one. The frequency you're on determines what you see and hear when you tune in. Different people see different things, sometimes even with their own eyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU&pp=ygUYZ3VhcmRpYW4gYWR2ZXJ0IHNraW5oZWFk
I like the concept of that video, Tirion. It's my favorite kind of story where the villain turns out to be the hero. I know you've probably both seen the professor being pushed to the cement by the police, when she tried to intervene in their treatment of a student. What disturbed me more than that was the shouting in the background of epithets like 'Nazi' and other things. I couldn't tell if it was the police who were shouting it or pro-Israel protesters who somehow weren't being rounded up. I'm not sure which would be worse. Any thoughts?
I haven't seen that one, Tereza. Do you have a link, please?
https://www.dailywire.com/news/economics-professor-at-protest-screams-im-a-professor-while-getting-tackled-by-police. I think it's the police officer who says, "Get on the fucking ground. You people are fascists, you are Hitler, you are (something) dogs ..." It's pretty brutal.
I just assumed it was a nearby protester yelling "fascists" at the cops. I watched again and that's still my best guess. Occam's razor and all.
Oh, yes. I had read about that but had not seen the video. Looks like it was one of the protesters who was shouting.
First of all, I would say that any police service has a very difficult and often unpleasant job to do; and I understand that police officers need to keep themselves safe in sometimes dangerous situations.
As you know, I'm not American and don't live in America; but it does seem clear that, as the years go by, the police have become out of control, heavy-handed, politicized, militarized - indeed, "NAZI-fied." There is also no doubt that the job attracts a certain type of thug-in-uniform, like the one in this video who takes the professor down - assuming that they are not all actors. In decades gone by, I was a frequent visitor to the US and even lived there briefly. Now I would be reluctant even to visit - not that any of the Five-Eyes countries is really any better.
When we are willing to observe with equal mindedness; that is, viewing something without any prejudice, we are closest to seeing the actual truth. When I watched that video, I think it doesn't have the same contextual approach, as watching students and faculty getting their heads slammed into the ground by police on campuses. I can appreciate your more neutral and pragmatic demonstration of "vantage point" because there can be some truth to that. BUT, if at the end of the day, police are in fact brutalizing otherwise peaceful pro-Palestinian student protestors who are doing nothing else than holding signs, then the police are in the obvious wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
Oh, I would agree, of course. My point was that it was likely less obvious to the police officers' commanders and perhaps their families and perhaps others conditioned by the Zionist media. One man's obvious is another man's inversion?
I agree. I suppose that could make sense. We are all at the disposal of information conveyance and re-conveyance, but this is exactly how the books were 'over cooked' in regards to the Holocaust, people will inevitably perceive what they are conditioned to see.
🙌🏻
Wow, can I use this? I am trying to put together a quick post that centers on the Protests and Gaza conflict. That is a lot of very relevant info.
Excellent, so glad I could be a reflection point. I thought it was great data too. I love when someone skips the anecdotes and goes straight to the statistics. And you just saved me another post, so I can keep from inundating marta! ;-)
Can I send you a proof first before posting it? I would like to make sure that I'm not missing anything. Tentative title: Wars, and Government are Conspiratorial Criminal Scams.
Tereza’s comments about ‘up being down’ and lies actually hiding the truth, etc. would be good additions. History seems to continue rhyming, no?
Yes, that's in part what it's shaping out to be, the post I mentioned I just want to make sure I cover the connections. ;-)
Tereza has a good eye for things.
interesting information. good dig and share. gracias.
I've come to accept that all Big Names have had to make compromises in order to become --or stay -- a Big Name. Those compromises probably range from heinous to disappointing to annoying, depending on the Name. Accepting that allows me to take what works, because I do believe some of them still have valuable ideas or good hearts or something else to offer me. Bottom line -- I've given up on much bathwater, whilst retaining some babies. Hope that made sense 🙃
Mary! What are you doing responding at 11 pm on a Sat night? But finally, I can tell someone who'll appreciate my setting. I'm at my favorite little restaurant, Chocolat, next door to the bookshop, where I've already finished a Manhattan with Chicken Parmesan and Caesar Salad. Now I'm having some kind of Carmelo Loco hot alcoholic drink for dessert. The next table over is celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary and just ordered the dessert orgy. Doesn't everyone need an orgy for their 50th anniversary?
Okay, okay, back to business. I love your concept. And it lets me enjoy Russell, who I really do. He just did a great takedown of Lindsey Graham. He's FUNNY! I don't need him to be pure.
Did I mention I just picked up another novel by my favorite smutty author, Sarah Maas? Jealous yet?
I TOTALLY appreciated your setting. I would have loved to join you for the gourmet meal, rather than thrash around fitfully, unable to sleep! 😂
I find RB hilarious, delightfully verbal in a uniquely British way, and wholly entertaining. In fact, has he ever claimed to be anything other than an entertainer?
It’s too bad our politicians can’t just be honest: that’s what they are, too.
Sarah Maas? Never heard of her, but now I’ll have to look her smutty a** up. You are an original, my dear. xox
We're going to make that dinner happen. Lori, my favorite server, is a theater gal who just started rehearsals for In the Heights at the community college. She did a great rendition of Happy Anniversary, which she may have made up on the spot.
Your take on Russell is so refreshing. I've listened to hundreds of hours of Russell without ever being bored or saying, "Wait a minute, that's so disrespectful!" With 50 videos, I've spent over 100 hours thinking and responding to his ideas, and his guests. He brought information I wasn't getting anywhere else, and perspectives that were shocking to have someone stating them out loud, when no one else was.
My daughter Cassandra says you can only change what you love. I think you can only really criticize who you love. It's not either/ or, it's both/ and. It's almost entirely women who see both sides on Russell, and that keeps getting attributed to us being physically attracted to him, thinking with our hormones, falling for his accent. It's not just an insult to Russell, it's an insult to us and our discernment. As you can tell, there's another post brewing here.
The Sarah Maas to start with is A Court of Thorns and Roses. Not much sex but it will set you up for the second in the series, where things really heat up. My daughters and I are really bonding over them, the middle one is reading the series again. And isn't that the best excuse to indulge in a little trash, Ms. Love Island (or was it the Bachelorette?)
"...love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove."
~Shakespeare (not his real name)
Not sure how this squares with your change/criticize theory, but thought I'd throw it in to see how you'd react. 😂
Okay, yeah, guilty as charged. Ms. Love Island! Ha!
Isn't that 'not her real name?' Can't wait for that play. Maybe we can cast Lori in a part.
With all the words that 'shakespeare' invented, and I think s/he set the record, couldn't there have been a few more for love? But I can go with this, applying my definition from 'To Love Me is to Know Me.' Love is giving someone the benefit of the doubt that they do what they do for a reason, and you would do the same in their exact shoes.
There's a lot of conflicting information on Russell--his marriage and sudden break-up with Katy Perry, clearly an Illuminati monarch and next Madonna. His signaling with the OBEY sign and friendship with Shepard Fairey, whose OBEY giant logo is a penis and balls from a child's perspective and whose name couldn't be more obvious. Lots of other hints that I cover in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/russell-brand-and-the-illuminati.
It's very dark stuff, if true, and goes way beyond some sins of omission. Just like RFK, I think there's a reason Russell isn't as outspoken about Palestine as he was 15 yrs ago, when it was much less popular. My guess is that they're both captured in some way, through blackmail. So my act of love is honoring the Russell who, I think, knows and wants to speak the truth by not falling for the compromised role.
I'm completely down with your definition of love, and yes, Shakes could have bequeathed us a few more options!
I'm impressed that what you arrive at by the end of your comment takes us full circle -- your love for Russell gives him the benefit of the doubt. Perfect. xox
I don't know if Mary is jealous, but I am. Sounds like a lovely night!
And yes, RB is Funny and quick and despite the constraints we are seeing and intuiting, he's doing some good out there.
lol!
“Did I mention I just picked up another novel by my favorite smutty author, Sarah Maas? Jealous yet?”
TMI.
That's why I waited for my women buddies to make that remark, Greg. I'll save the political analysis for you.
Just don't force me to take an 'astrology' quiz or anything connected to the stars/universe. I'd be lucky to locate the moon.
I'm, as a taurus like you, pretty much hooves to the ground sort of person.
Mind boggling sometimes that one can have a birthday within a week of another person and yet interests/passions in some areas are wildly different. Like you say, we'll stick to the aligned topics.
Taûros, Latin for "bull") is the second astrological sign in the modern zodiac. It spans from 30° to 60° of the zodiac. This sign belongs to the Earth element or triplicity, as well as a fixed modality, quality, or quadruplicity.
Taurus personality
Taurus personality is often characterized by their practical, reliable, and determined nature. They are known for their strong sense of responsibility and ability to work hard to achieve their goals. Here are some key traits associated with Taurus personality:
Intelligent and resourceful: Taurus individuals are known for their intelligence and ability to think critically and strategically. They are often able to find creative solutions to problems and are not afraid to take calculated risks.
Hardworking and reliable: Taurus people are known for their strong work ethic and ability to deliver on their commitments. They are reliable and dependable, and others often count on them to get the job done.
Stubborn and determined: Taurus individuals can be quite stubborn and determined once they set their minds on something. They are not easily swayed by others and can be quite persistent in their pursuit of their goals.
Loyal and trustworthy: Taurus people are known for their loyalty and trustworthiness. They value honesty and integrity and are often sought out as friends and partners.
Practical and down-to-earth: Taurus individuals are known for their practical and down-to-earth approach to life. They are often grounded and sensible, and are not easily swayed by fleeting trends or fads.
Appreciative of beauty and luxury: Taurus people have a strong appreciation for beauty and luxury. They enjoy the finer things in life and often have a good sense of style and taste.
Can be lazy and possessive: While Taurus individuals are known for their hard work and determination, they can also be quite lazy and possessive at times. They may struggle with procrastination and can become overly attached to their possessions and relationships.
Value stability and security: Taurus people value stability and security above all else. They are often drawn to careers and relationships that provide a sense of security and predictability.
Can be overly critical: Taurus individuals can be quite critical of themselves and others. They may have high standards and can be quite hard on themselves and those around them.
Appreciate sensual pleasures: Taurus people have a strong appreciation for sensual pleasures, such as good food, wine, and music. They enjoy indulging in the finer things in life and taking pleasure in the simple things.
Overall, Taurus personality is known for its practical, reliable, and determined nature. They are often seen as anchors of stability and security, and are valued for their loyalty and trustworthiness.
Big names only get invited into first class as long as they ‘behave’. Step out of line and back to ‘coach’ they go. They know it and cling to their nicer seat on the bus. While us back in coach, or in my case ‘economy’, we’re just here to help pay the cost of the trip.
I'm looking at Russel's astro chart.
Yep, like I suspected: Mercury retrograde natal. Another special one.
Can you share an interpretation of Mercury retrograde natal?
My opinion as an amateur astrologer: people with mercury retrograde in their natal chart are likely to need to talk to other people because they see their own consciousness as part of a collective mind. They are biased in favor of the whole. Therefore, their equilibrium will be found in learning to be individuals who self-express and develop their own stories.
In contrast, people with Mercury direct are biased toward the self. They don't see a collective mind anywhere. Perhaps they see trends of behavior, at best. And their equilibrium is found in attaching themselves to other people's stories, and in learning to suppress their voice.
For example, a Pisces person born on March 12, 1999 has Mercury retrograde in Aries, and that means she or he ought to be one of the most perplexed people on Earth.
Astrology just makes me space out....lol I do enjoy that pun that just came up. But I so appreciate people who like astrology and can bring it down to earth for me. Thanks for sharing Againt Roger!
hola, tereza.
very interesting indeed, from the perspective of a ... rb outsider for the most part. somehow i managed to not turn to him except on rare occasions. we've exchanged ideas about him before. i certainly liked the bits i saw although what i saw came exclusively from someone like yourself pointing this or that item of interest.
i paused, here, in my comment to wonder what to write or maybe even to wonder why i am wrting at all. beyond... what? it is very unlikely i will even move to see with my own eyes your description of his fall back into fallibility? purchased? compromised?
what did come to mind was clif high and hyper novelty. is this 'fall' into human fallibility an interesting expression and/or energetic movement towards no-authority? not even the authority of respect? we are asked to do as gautama directed anand to do: don't look to the dharma. don't look to the sanga. look to your self, the truth of life rests there.
another thought is how much did he really change? has your quality of perception been the biggest change and rb is embodying what I have called the chomsky effect and the chomsky paradox? basically the false perception we have of someone who we come to see as hypocritical when what has happened is we misperceived the other with our own projections before the situation changed and we could see more perceptively or the others behaviour no longer supported our shadow projection.
thank you for sharing with us your breakup with an old friend now in a journey disparate from yours. amazing.
Often, I’m on the same page with friends or respected individuals…………….until something ’snaps’ and no longer are we connected on the journey going forward. That happened recently with a group of friends. We got into a discussion regarding Israel and genocide being committed against Palestinians. My friends insisted Oct.7 was ‘real’ and Israel was at war against Hamas. I expanded the conversation by explaining that Hamas was created by the Mossad, CIA and Britain’s MI6 purposely to prevent a 2-state solution. Nope. No traction. Back to my friends refusal to admit that Israel was anything different than god’s chosen land.
So much for that friendship. Easy come, easy go sometimes. We communicate but simply never discuss the ‘touchy’ topics.
Life’s just crazy like that.
Like the adage goes, everything will be fine among friends as long as no one brings up money, religion or politics.
Me asks, who needs friends like that??
That's a brave thing, Greg, to counter that narrative. Maybe the next time it comes up, they won't be as sure, especially if someone else is questioning it. But that's a hard thing, losing friends.
There’s friends
For a reason
For a reason
For a lifetime
I can count the latter on one hand.
Life’s funny like that.
I suspect though, in your case, you’d easily run out of fingers, and possibly some toes, in counting lifetime friends.
What a blessing.
No, not at all. I have three daughters and two friends with whom I dance and joke. One daughter shares my Palestinian focus, none are willing to talk about the vaccine. With people IRL, I ask questions, give compliments, and try to avoid opinions and facts. Fortunately I have all of you for the latter. My life is very compartmentalized that way.
Now that you mention dealing with friends before and after the ‘jabs’ came out, I must admit my ‘group’ really got challenged and definitely shrunk. Money, politics, religion and now pHarma psyops can make keeping friends a task.
"Money, politics, religion and now pHarma psyops can make keeping friends a task."
....., or good house keeping simple.
oddly enough, i would say that i have had pretty close to zero friends my whole life. i was kind of made gun shy of 'friendships' when in elementary school. and by chance, i wound up going through grade school with 1/2 of me in the geek-nerd side of its social structure and the outsiders side at the same time! [headshake.] so.... i wasn't really in either camp fully and so didn't really develop friendships.
then 37 years in a truly toxic co-dependent relationship that, by its very structure, shrinks life outside the relationship to almost nothing.
so...
i've not really experience the angst of those losses. (the breaking out from the family and the codependency relationship were extreme forms of death and perhaps phoenix-like rebirths.)
so... my sense of friendship is such that unless i am free to speak, the relationship is not a friendship: kithship or acquaintanceshhip? possibly kinship?
in the last couple of years i seem to have evolved to the point where people have come into my life who now say to me 'you are the only person i can have these kinds of conversations with' meaning, nothing is forbidden. substack is in a general way a friend, and some people within it inching slowly towards 'friendship'.
I've avoided even touching the subject with a lifelong friend of 60 years. In this case, I'm biting the bullet to preserve the friendship, the few that you have possibly seeming more important and vital as you get to a certain age.
Hi Guy.
"is this 'fall' into human fallibility an interesting expression and/or energetic movement towards no-authority?" That's my bet! (Though I'm quite biased in that direction, still it looks inevitable to me.
Re your Chomsky paradox is a great point. I realized, sadly, during the hoax that in many cases where I was shocked and disappointed in those who I thought I knew well and went along, that in fact I had never really seen them accurately and had projected a lot of assumptions.
So many lessons.
Best.
hola, kathleen. great comment, gracias. it got me thinking about what i was looking to express more deeply.
it is the energetic movement towards 'no-authority' from both 'directions': it is the realisation of those of us seriously looking to individuate that the other doesn't have authority over us. and, likely more problematic to actualise, that the other for whom an authority has been accepted by past mutually and often unconscious terms, has been accepted. i'm thinking that rb is a great example of that, as are brett weinstein and charles eisenstein and even steve kirsch. at one point will the collective authorisation we have conferred onto them be withdrawn with sufficient energy for them to recognise that they no longer have authority?
things like the wellness company are perhaps the continuation of the authority structure more formally. this one is a bit obvious because it is still looking to fear as the 'control' energy grounding their authority: we have the power to assuage your fear(s).
as my thoughts continue to tumble along, the less obvious authorities that are going to fall, are the authorities who authorise our place as questioning humans. for me that would be people like carl jung and buddhist and yogic teacher and strong critic michael stone. do i have sufficient self-trust to de-authorise them as my teachers? hmmmmm.
and now, the other part of that phrase, is the falling away of egoistic energies of control, especially that of perfectionism and all the other mind-centric fear abatement practices that have been hijacked by the 'controllers'. the interesting guru (born american in rich hollywood california), Sadhvi Bhagawati Saraswati gave me the phrase 'trust-fall into the universe.' wow. that is to not be mindful of our own fear abatement practices nor those of we have given authority to do that for us.
the great apocalypse! we are living it. all the best with what is changing — everything changes!
p.s.:
if you would like to read the development of the chomsky effect and paradox, here it is:
"Just This Is It. What Is This? Pt 2: Rings In Our Noses and Introducing ‘The Chomsky Affect’ and ‘The Chomsky Paradox’. https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/just-this-is-it-what-is-this-pt-2
I agree. He was fun for a while.
Now. Not so much.
What do they call this??? Controlled opposition?
He has not evolved with the rest of us. He’s stuck. That’s how I would describe him.
That's a good description, Kristin. Stuck. And not continuing to evolve with the rest of us. That feels right to me. His rise to prominence with 6M YT subs was an organic movement, I think. 6M of us recognized the truth in what he was saying, and were glad to have someone confirming what we had suspected. I think his sudden fame as a truthteller surprised them. Maybe he hit the limits of his own ability to evolve, or maybe those limits were set for him. We may never know.
Nice one Tereza! A step in the right direction!
As an Essex girl, I have told you before that I cringe with embarrassment every time I hear that squeaking beta-bloke's voice. His Pied Piper personality grates my nerves and so I cannot comment much on his content because I have judiciously ignored him for many years.
Essex men are not well represented by his narcissism and foppery. They are tough, good dads who work and play hard. They probably ignore him too.
Unfortunately, you Americans seem to fall for our accent and are entranced by it, hence the success of Guy Ritchie's films and many actors such as Michael Caine and Vinnie Jones. I had an interview with James Delingpole recently and was surprised that my American subscribers were all commenting on my accent! I do find that most amusing!
https://odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/2024-03-26-Frances-Leader:8
I agree about cringing with RB’s accent. It’s over-the-top trashy, like he’s trying too hard to come across as one of the blokes. Anyone who can do a cryptic-demonic performance at the Olympics is definitely not a down to earth guy.
I also found the crow with the farting sound at the beginning of his videos so cringeworthy. Something always seemed off about RB, even if he was funny and entertaining sometimes.
I do think you have a lovely voice, Frances. It's like getting to know you in a whole new way that's different than just reading your excellent work on your posts ;-)
I have often wondered if doing a Podcast or video in substack would be a good thing, or a potential mistake. It might just increase the management difficulty level.
I recently had an interview with Jerm Warfare but that is behind a paywall atm, soon to be released so I hear. I am also scheduled to chat with Doc Ahmad Malek on 4th July. Other than that I have a post which provides a collection of all the videos and interviews I have done since 2013 here:
https://francesleader.substack.com/p/all-my-recorded-interviews-and-video
Thanks, I'll check it out ;-)
I used to think that Russell was genuine but also a showman and that the two aspects might get in the way sometime. He is a good interviewer but he puts so much of himself into the interaction it gets a bit much eventually. I guess I was never really in the Russell club but I did think he was on the side of freedom. Now I'm not sure he is but he is in very good company. People I really thought cared about fighting the medical industrial machine turn out to be promoting it as alleged freedom fighters. Even ivermectin was a psy op to catch all the people who didn't believe the main story.
I recently watched this JJ Couey video of Russell interviewing Nick Hudson who I do consider to be an honest commentator and Brand seems a bit uncomfortable with Nick's views that there was no pandemic. Have you seen it? Long as always and JJ has his quirks but I found it worth the watch. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2138836025?filter=all&sort=time
Personally, I liked the conversation style of interview, but that was also my style the few times I've done interviews. I was so eager to get my ideas out there, and I'd already read a book full of their ideas, I felt like it was my chance.
Yes, it's been shocking to me that ivermectin was another part of the psyops. But I feel like all medicine is 90-100% psychosomatic, so it still served a purpose. I know my prescription got passed around and used by four or five different people, all with good results. But this TWC agenda is sick, predatory.
I like JJ and you've probably seen the one of mine he featured on Malone: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/phony-maloney-and-wikispooks. What surprised me, though, was finding out that Malone introduced him to RFK, who became his employer. That was casually mentioned somewhere but seemed significant, given his critique of Malone.
I'll check it out but I'm agnostic on the no-virus dogma. I see the logic on why it could be true although it seems like people 'catch' things from experience. But I'm the gal who entertains the possibility that the world exists in our OneMind, rather than our separate minds existing in the world. So I don't dismiss anything as not possible.
I like a conversational style of interview too but Russell is very busy and so quick, I would like to see him slow down and be more reflective. You would do it very differently and I suspect I would find your interviews much more relaxing to watch. You can have a quick mind without becoming speedy.
I think it might have been JJ's video on your take on Malone that introduced me to you actually. If you would like to hear JJ speak openly about why he was let go from CHD he talks about it in this video. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2146352268?filter=all&sort=time Interesting that you think JJ is part of the no virus crowd because he doesn't say that at all. He says that according to the biology RNA viruses don't have the capacity to pandemic, not that they don't exist. And his insistence that there was no deadly illness, no pandemic seems like a big part of why he got fired from CHD. Yet another reason not to trust Robert Kennedy sadly.
That's funny. I had listeners at the time who liked my responses but couldn't listen to the original interviews because Russell's frenetic pace made them too anxious. When it was natural to the conversation because both people were having fun and getting excited, I didn't mind. He does have a lightning quick mind. But as Tonika points out, it's now fast cuts and sped up. He also often had a much slower pace in those podcasts, which sometimes went on two hours. It made me secretly wish for another pandemic for him so he could slow down and enjoy his daughters.
Oh I didn't know that JJ was let go from CHD. Thanks for clarifying what he says about viruses. That makes much more sense to me. I certainly agree with him that there never was a pandemic. And it's been a nagging question in my mind about JJ, who I like as a person very much. So I really appreciate you clarifying it.
thank you for the great comment, kerry. nice observation on how those two aspects of his personality could and perhaps did come into conflict.
and thanks for the link. i will add this to my pile of really-want-to-watches and see. it is getting a bit unwatchable as a whole! i enjoy couey and his quirks, atlhough i'm an infrequent viewer of him too. although, more often than brand.
all the best with what is changing. everything changes!
If there was no pandemic (agree) then there is no need to sell those overpriced supplements from Wellness Company. Oops. At least he has him on. I watched it the interview with Hudson too, will check out JJ's take.
Tereza, I share your disappointment with Russell Brand. He helped get me through the pandemic (as you did, too, btw). I’ve learned much from him and his guests. I’ve actually followed his Under the Skin podcast off and on for years prior to his latest incarnation as a YouTuber. So, while I haven’t invested nearly as much time as you in following and analyzing his show, I can no longer count myself an awakening wonder. After the hit pieces by the UK press over his previous and admitted scandalous behavior, it seems to me he returned to his show as a changed man. Based on the evidence of my own senses, after his return what I saw in his eyes and detected in the tone of his voice was clearly fear. My perception is that he now seems to be consciously signaling his increased willingness to accept the leash and stay inside his yard. The examples of his reactions to Trump and RFK are most interesting because Trump and RFK, too, I think, have gone through transitions to tone down their radicalism. Is it just my imagination or does it seem Populism itself is being methodically captured and tamed? One thing is certain: cancel culture tactics actually work.
What you did not remark on (and I was hoping you would) was Russell’s recent baptism, which he hyped extensively. I assume he had some kind of conversion process, maybe even a conversion experience. I no longer follow him closely enough to know what or why he was baptised, and I don’t mean to be critical of anyone’s personal religious experience, but I have to wonder if his public shaming and his publicized baptism were related. I’d always assumed from his words and his tatoos that he was a kind of new age syncretist spiritual-not-religious type, but now, if his baptism is any indication, does that mean he has joined some sect of Christianity that requires adult baptism by immersion a la John the Baptizer. Has he gone from being caught in the imperial cancel culture net to joining the imperial fishers of men? My point, if I have one, is that religion is still almost always a reaction to fear. Get cancelled, get in danger of losing your considerable income, fame, and reputation, so publically wash away your sins and atone. It’s an old story.
In contrast to Russell, I notice Jimmy Dore stopped smoking pot, and has had a startling conversion to Jungian psychology. I find Jimmy’s experience to be much more interesting and also somehow much more authentic and compelling. Russell’s and Jimmy’s experiences are not precisely analogous, but I do find their coincidental timing interesting (but not in a synchronicity sort of way).
What an excellent comment, Jack. Thank you for the compliment on helping you to get through the pandemic, Russell certainly helped me too. Someone on my YT version dissed his meditation but Russell's slow-paced, imaginative guided mediations were a real source of grounding for me during those days.
It's especially good to hear from someone who listened to those long and often relaxed interviews. They were a very different side of Russell than the edited hyperspeed clips. I remember you being a touchstone for my Chomsky response, to help figure out if I was imagining it. Now public opinion has gone the other way but at the time, it felt heretical to be questioning Chomsky. I was glad you had access to the full interivew also and confirmed my response.
And in this case, it's just what I was looking for--someone who appreciated Russell but was picking up on changes. That's very interesting that you felt fear from him. I do suspect there's serious blackmail they have on him and RFK and Trump--and with the reputation all three have as womanizers, that would need to be very serious. What they hyped with Russell was just a demonstration, I think.
Someone mentioned that they felt the baptism felt very Zio. Greg (Walking the Dog) linked an article above that for every Jewish Zionist, there are 30 Christian Zionists. That would be a common thread of all three clips, with Tulsi supporting the anti-BDS bill as a 'freedom gal.'
He has had a tattoo of Jesus on the cross since I've watched him and would say glibly, "I love Jesus." He's also said that the 33 tattoo is the age at which Jesus died, but other times, the age at which he thought he'd die. Your theory of the absolution of sins makes sense too.
I've only seen Jimmy Dore when Russell interviewed him, but I really liked him. Yes, I'd find giving up pot and embracing Jung more palatable than Russell rejecting all other definitions and avenues to god and spirit. He's always had a strong focus on religious experience but this isn't just one more experiment. It's committing to one dogma. That is especially disappointing.
And is why many of the 1K viewers of the YT (most for a few seconds, I'm sure) have posted, "Praise Jesus, Russell has been red-pilled!" And yes, I agree with your connection between religion and fear. Thanks for the comment, Jack!
Excellent Tereza!
(Unrelated but forgot to say...loved the splendid pic of you in your pink boots. Most beautiful, enviable dancing legs:-) x
Thank you, Pauline! I told the Diva my daughter had taken a pic but I was waiting to see if it could be used against me in the court of public opinion. Her response was "Hasn't that court(ship) already sailed?" So that convinced me to post it ;-)
I value your ability to self assess and reroute if necessary. Rusty Rockets was fun at first but since I started editing, I noticed a lot of the tricks he would use to manipulate his audience, especially those fast jump cuts that leave a lot of the superfluous gab on the cutting room floor, making him both sound smart and also not give the viewer an opportunity to really digest what is being said. I also suspect that the footage is sped up maybe about 5-10%. Not enough to make it noticiable, but enough to make it feel like an Aaron Sorkin script.
I remember you saying that before about the fast jump cuts. It made me notice them more--sometimes in the middle of a word. Very interesting about speeding it up. I bet you're right about that.
There was also a young woman who had been his producer for the interviews. She had a degree in media with her dissertation on how to give the illusion of a personal connection with mass media (I'm sure she worded it differently but that was the gist). They would do the 'banter decanter' at the beginning, where he would make fun of her but I always figured it was all in jest. At some point she left the show and I remember the last one where it seemed like there had been some going-away event that he'd missed and said something lame like he was busy. They cut it right after that so you never heard her response.
Since then it's all men. He has a young good-looking guy for his producer and co-host, and they do a soccer show together too. It's very bromance energy. He never talks about his wife or kids anymore. He was just a lot more human before.
Oh interesting. Yeah, I would have not known those details. My two normie friends who used to watch him quite a bit and I can probably, at least, partially, thanks Russel for having them be opened to “jabs: bad” (although I take credit for convincing them out of the booster) also stopped watching Russel because of his recent religious inclinations. Which feel completely staged to me. Not sure what’s happening but it feels like a narrative shift.
Someone on my YT thread also pointed to that and said it felt very Zio. I haven't watched it yet but I already agree.
Hi Tereza, Politicians, Hollywoodians all the same to me. You have to have holllywood training to be a politician imo. This is the first election I probably won't vote in. What a disaster. Could you please start a write in campaign for president. Maybe some normal American, like yourself would be willing to take it on. It is dangerous work, just ask the president of Slovakia. At this point I may write in Mr. Putin. I would be very sad to have to break up with Mr. Putin as you have broken up with Russell, lol.
Helene! I was just thinking of you when I wrote the response to marta. I also always feel your kinship and never take it personally if I don't hear from you. But also lovely to hear now!
This won't be the first I haven't voted in but we do seem to be reaching some kind of nadir. Yes, I was just reading about the president of Slovakia. Beyond blatant!
I am 70% confident that Putin is who he says. Still waiting for the int'l currencies and digital ID to shake out before I go further. The WEFfie YuGL is a concern. But he seems to be doing good things and his statements to China are very interesting. Since it doesn't really matter what we think, you might as well keep the faith as long as you can. Thanks for responding!
According to a friend, he is also on the payroll of Coulson (owner of the wellness Co). Unfortunately, several others are. Babylon Bee, Epoch times, Dr McCullough, I think I see Naomi Wolf on there, and several others.
Very interesting, Ingrid. I remember Malone often quoting from the Epoch Times. And of course, I have my own take on Naomi, which I think you've read: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-devil-and-naomi-wolf. I have a draft on her views of China. Thanks for those.
there was a picture of about 40 people and logos on the stack from DrGeoffPain, but I cannot find it right now. Here is one from around that timehttps://geoffpain.substack.com/p/when-the-cats-away-the-mice-will?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1264116&post_id=143880974&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=3e5x7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I have a subscription to epoch times, I think they only advertise, they must make money somehow Never seen them promote the stuff. Malone makes a TV program with epoch times (never watch their TV, hardly ever open their website, LOVE their games though LOL)
I anwered GoeffPain on April 26 when I read OKeefe was one of them, too, and immediately unsubscribed from his stack. Cannot stand Wolf.
found the pic but cannot fwd it. I think I see catturd and (not so) vigilant fox on there.
Those connections are interesting to know. Thanks for that.
As far as Russel Brand goes I could have told you so more than a year ago, Tereza.
Oh, wait........... I did, didn't I?
Just one look at Greenwalds set (imagine the price of that studio), and the endless minutia he rambles on about (read: a continuous limited hangout) is enough of an indicator that he's a shill for the bad guys.
Then we have Tulsi Gabbard. She out-did herself when she called herself a woman of color. White is not a color in the real world. Besides, you can't call yourself a patriot in the US after stomping on the Bill of Rights and vote FOR an anti-BDS bill which is in direct violation of the first amendment.
I didn't realize Tulsi had voted for the anti-BDS bill. Although I should have, since that was near-unanimous as I recall. Curious that the 'Judea Declares War on Germany' international boycott that could be seen as the instigation of WWII is not condemned or even remembered. Yet individuals with a small amount of consumer discretion are deemed illegal for speaking for themselves.
I may have mentioned it before, but the Zionists at the helm in Great Britain not only wanted a new war with Germany, they NEEDED it.
I wrote a post about it a while back: https://greaterisrahell.substack.com/p/who-started-it
It is my assertion that the Zionists in Great Britain instigated the war, and they couldn't have found a more willing guy to do their bidding than Adolph Hitler.
If you add Theodor N. Kaufman's book "Germany Must Perish!" into the mix it becomes clear as day that they were projecting unto Germany the intention they themselves had with regards to that country. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still have the same intent. Nordstream is proof of that.
I was just reading about Kaufman's book in Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion.
I waver between being 50% certain that Hitler was a Rothschild agent and 70%. But we certainly agree about the Zionists in Great Britain. Someone recently listed several prominent British who were not Jews who started WWII, as if that disproved my point. But when Churchill writes about 'an old Zionist like me,' you certainly didn't need to be Jewish to be Zionist.
And Michael Hudson wrote on the Nordstream, "Germany is defeated three times in a century." That's definitely their intent.
NATO's secretary general during the late fiftys said that NATO has three objectives: To keep the US in, to keep Russia (the USSR) out and to keep Gemany down.
Nordstream was a trifecta in that respect.
I apreciate you liking my coment where I said: "I ciuld have told you so a year ago. Oh, wait a minute........, I did, didn't I?
I did not mean to mock you.
The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago with Charles Wright. (note that I did not use the @ in front of his name) He and I had a long back and forth with regards to what happened during the 1930s in Germany. This came to a head when I mentioned what I learned from @Nefahotep about Adolph Eichman.
It ended when he questioned my sanity.
I subscribed to his substack a few months ago, and by accident I becane a paid subscriber.
I have copied and saved all the comments in the dialogue, and I will publish them as a post as soon as I have the time.
Boy, is he in for a big surprise.
I appreciate your clarification, although I didn't feel you were mocking me.
As I mentioned to Mary, I only listen or read when I can learn something both new and meaningful, that helps make sense of the world. I don't need to agree with them, but I need to have someone asking the same questions. I don't listen to any kind of entertainment. But I've listened to hundreds of hours of RB, between audiobooks, podcasts and videos. And spent over 100 hrs formulating responses to them.
With Russell gone commercial, with the irritant of ads and narrowing of topics, there's no one else out there covering the ground that he did. I don't even need them to be funny, just asking the same questions I am. So to dismiss him out of hand, as someone who isn't interesting, does say that I was naive to have 'fallen for him.' If you click on the playlist in my article, you'll see the 50 videos I made. There are many where I disagreed with him or his guest--possibly all of them. But I'd be curious as to your response to any one of them and where you think I was fooled.
Also, I unsubbed Charles W awhile ago but I don't remember why. I'll be curious to read your article.
I'll give you a heads up when I publish the post. ;-)
I was pressured to remove Tulsi Gabbard from my list. But I saw absolutely no reason to do so.
https://plebeianresistance.substack.com/p/all-the-young-global-leaders-from
I thought Tulsi's protests were feeble that she didn't know she'd been added. Yeah, right.
Interesting that neither Trudeau nor Putin are officially on the list. Thanks for reading, Rich!
Putin was there from the start. When Klaus and co went to St Petersburg in 1990. The Global Leaders of Tomorrow starting the following year. Which later became the Young Global Leaders program. A sort of Komosol if you like.
Putin is not a graduate of the YGL program just as Klaus Schwab is not a graduate. Because its their baby.
So do you see the whole BRICS+ economic program as another circle of controlled opposition? The idea that Sergei Glazyev and Dima Rousseff are seeing The Unit as the solution, the GBDC designed by Bretton-Woods, is concerning to say the least.
I think it’s (BRICS) Plan A on how to install CBDCs
Not sure why Justin is not on the lists.