I appreciate your starting paragraph that sets the tone of respect for Mathew. I think both of you are genuinely curious and intelligent and willing to go into mucky waters that are uncomfortable and confusing and want to bring clarity. Debate is good, questions are good. We won't always find any definitive answers even with them (we don't know what we don't know) but we do our best.
Really tough to pin motives on other humans since we can't know their whole story. But when they take public roles, have clear influence and we grok something is 'off', it's hard to avoid.
We all bring our filters to everything we perceive. Traumas, biases, overarching narratives about the world and others come into it.
I don't know ultimately who Brand is. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, especially if I don't 'need' him to be this or that. Conflicting agendas with public personalities is no doubt part of the control matrix. Blurred lines and ongoing disappointment with where we've placed our faith, is a tactic. I think the Q movement in part was about that. I once had a comment exchange with CAF (early days of Q) and asked her (regarding Q) that if it was a psyop, why would they create an army of folks with greater awareness (because the drops did share good info) only to disappoint them in the end? She said because they will feel shame and humiliation from having been duped and so will do nothing in the end - which was the point. I think that's right.
All of the confusion of these times has the ability to defeat us - what's the point; it's too confusing - and it has the ability to steer us more deeply back into ourselves. Do we need external personalities to assert our own authority? Do I need an external anything to claim my own sovereignty and do what I know is right? I know what I know, and I know what is right - in the moment - in terms of my actions. And if I get something wrong, another moment appears in which I self-correct.
I honestly think that ultimately that turning back into ourselves as our own authorities is the great opportunity, even, necessity of these times.
The whole assumption and its many patterns in the world, of needed authorities to tell us what to think, how to feel, who to trust - that's what ultimately over. Personal sovereignty means nothing if we've not claiming inner authority. I author me. You author you. We don't have to agree.
Thank you, Kathleen, for recognizing my respect for Mathew. And very interesting reflection. What CAF said about Q is brilliant, I think. I've been coming back, again and again, to her statement that they've raised toxicity and lowered immunity so that people die of their weakness, and it's never blamed on the vaccine. She's so insightful!
As are you for recognizing the power in what she said about arming folks with greater awareness only to disappoint them so they feel shame and humiliation for being duped. I completely agree with you that this is all to teach us to claim our inner authority as the author of our self. And I love your observation that mistakes aren't permanent and we get another moment to self-correct.
I woke up thinking that I wanted to edit my article to include the phrase "Controlled opposition only works if what we believe or disbelieve is based on who says it." Thanks for confirming that.
We agree on the brilliance of CAF - who remains one of those voices, I have consistently valued for 7-8 years now.
"Controlled opposition only works if what we believe or disbelieve is based on who says it." That's a great line - so true and why, I imagine, external authority is so essential to the deceptions.
Love this and I'm laughing at the bizarre synchronicities that bounced through it.
The funniest one may be yogic! Last month I looked for video guidance to resuscitate and refine 'pigeon pose' as recommended by Conspiracy Sarah to help with my uncomfortable hip. And randomly(?) of the dozen or so on the first page of YouTube was an Adriene of 12 years ago who showed up. I looked at several and settled on her video and shared it with Yoshiko. I just checked - yup that was the same Adriene you are referring to here.
Synchronicity number two aligns with your careful introduction and even definition to your 'disagreement' as being an important process of expanding clarity, understanding and, one hopes, movement towards seeing what is true. I was just making the same point referring to your comment in my essay part 2 as an 'argument' as defined by wiktionary 1, 2, & 3.
And I confessed to being surprised that MC appears to have been bamboozled in such a simple way as to associate rapists with yogis wanting to set up studios! Totally preposterous in a way that has the strong scratch and sniff smell of shadow projection. Jung points out that often times the shadow of a strong 'thinking-type', which by all appearance MC appears to be, can be accompanied by a shadow that projects really crazy illogical even superstitious stuff. The argument that women are more easily duped is ... well. Silly. My bil fell hook-line-and sinker for sex-cult John De Ruiter in Canada, whereas his wife (my sister) who was there at the same time took some expanded awareness from the cult-leader, who was charming and spoke spiritual truth as well as the malicious manipulations, and wasn't 'culted' at all. (Jasun writes about that exceptionally well in his book Dark Oasis: A Self-Made Messiah Unveiled.) Also, I have at least one male cousin deeply culted into that cult.
I like your *arguments* here: strong, reasoned and passionate. As you have elucidated them, MC's are weak, kind of hysterical in the old and derogatory meaning of irrationally woman-ish and outlandish. Another sign of shadow projection, of course, is that he has accused women of being what he himself has at that moment embodied by his own denigration of them with his facile argument.
An interesting break from my essay writing. Thank you.
That's so funny about Adriene! I really do love her presence and the spirituality she brings to it. For her, it's not about having the perfect body, it's meeting yourself where you are and connecting to that 'flow.' I think this is all a sign for me to reconnect to her practice since I don't have any dance classes here so it would be a good time for that.
And I'm glad too that you're seeing my 'arguments' as moving towards seeing what's true, since you and Mathew are my favorite 'sparring' partners ;-)
I'd like to encourage you to wait before commenting too much on the Brand story. I'm intentionally slow rolling it. It gets darker still. I haven't gotten to the intelligence connections, and their extensions.
And I would encourage you to play the three phone call game.
I look forward to those further installments, Mathew. I honestly don't even know who my first phone call would be, to find a connection who knows Russell personally. There's one of my YT viewers who's sorry Russell never reopened the pub he bought, since he'd spent many a good evening there previously. So he must live in the same town. But that's the closest I can think of.
Haha, when I first moved to CA for graduate school, over 40 yrs ago, I also thought it was one big extension of Hollywood. But we could ask Diva Drops. Pasheen might have overlapped with Russell's time there and known someone who knew him then. And the question is whether he was known to be violent towards women in his personal life, correct?
And if I go to the trouble of finding someone I can vouch for who finds someone they can vouch for who finds someone they can vouch for ... and they say no, will you change your mind? If I agree to change my mind if they say yes?
There's a rhetorical device I've thought to coin as 'the wild goose chase.' As Guy can attest, it's usually in the form of 'you need to read this book to understand why you're wrong, so I won't bother refuting your facts and logic in my own words.' In that case, it's an appeal to authority. Your challenge is more personal but does it go both ways? Is your experiment only to show I'm wrong or to figure out the truth?
Can I ask whether you believe that book Trance Formation of America by Cathy O’Brian? I can just about absorb the pedo rings, but that book freaks me out. I did write about MKUltra extensively so know it existed, it’s roots, and the indisputable fact that they kept it going after saying they shut it down.
I hadn't heard of it before but went to her site and read the most recent, "Have You Seen My Childhood?" Heartbreaking. What she says has a lot of parallels to what I've heard from Anneke Lucas and she seemed very credible to me. They both talk about the heightened awareness and abilities (which always make me wonder how low our expectations are for 'normal' kids). And they both seem to have developed a strong spiritual sense that got them through. Her details on having victims write their memories, accessing the logical side of the brain to process them, also rings true. And I don't get a sense of her sensationalizing.
What Mathew went through was also MK Ultra, I believe. I don't doubt that world exists and is disturbingly prevalent, more than I'd ever imagined. But I'm not ready to concede it's everywhere. Maybe I'm just not there yet.
I'm interested to read your pieces on MK Ultra (she says with trepidation), would you post a link please?
I'm happy to order it as a real book. I spend too much on screens to take them to bed, but this sounds like something I don't want to anyway. I'll stick to my fantasy novels where two warring tribes make peace over harp music that summons the spirits ;-) That's my current. But I think the universe is nudging me to understand what you do about MK Ultra. I really value all your writing, Elizabeth, and I'm so glad I found you.
Not suggesting you buy it, but what I wrote was entirely 1000% percent verified. Provable, meticulously sourced. Most of the MKUltra writing is not. Poisoner in Chief was sound. Cathy O’Brian? V dubious. It is easy to see counter intelligence in this subject. Make us look stupid and paranoid.
hoooo the most interesting of the links you sent me! i also really love matt and math works! i just sent you one of mathew for the arthur conan doyle question, funny synch, or sad echo chamber who knows.
well, the good thing is this answered part of my past questioning, but some of my hypothesis arent made of them and the video's. Its true that i do think of russel in a really similar way to both matt & math, but i do bring different point with the kundalini thing. I find funny and quite logical the argument crawford brings with guru and view of them by woman. maybe thats because i am a man hehe. In a way if you appreciate russel brand, and beautifull lady's tend to guru obsession like he says... This means he just sent you a compliment and i totaly agree that you are gorgeous.
I didnt knew you 3 went on a russel brand profiling that deep. Its GREAT, now i can just grab some pop corn and ring me a bell when the next round is on i need to see this =)
To why attacking him if he is psyop wef agent this one i alrdy answered in the past comments.
so meanwhile you 3 go for a round 3, i would ask a valide question and you seem to know a lot on that case i might have knocked on the right door. What do you think of the katy perry\brand short saga? Sure it wasnt a Chandler job? because it definitly look like it, and with what all these stars went trough... from britney to paris hilton and all the similar case. Katy perry own word signing with the devil and the obey sign, it really feels eery. I would literaly put all short trip hollywood couple in a bucket list of possible mkultra CHild hANDLER. mina kulis and ashton, jada smith and will smith, you know the list is exhaustive. Patrick Cc on utube as many, p.diddy saga will show even more, cosmos show pop start de l'occulte also prevail some intel on that. here some links
in search bar of cosmosshow type in pop stars many great show about holywood mkultra programing
Some juicy gossips of unholywood tends towards her being part of all this, just use the date here.
she is in couple with russel brand from october 23 2010 to december 24 2011 (14 months) meanwhile in couple she do the E.T song with kanye west (another mkultra product) the wods in the song are quite revealing. And logicaly if she now is with bloom and have kids, bloom aint the handler, if kanye west is an abused product then he is a handled not a handler, that leaves russel in control and gives credibility o the song date and intention.
well I think i overlaps on the subject. you got me hook for a whole afternoon. well thank you that was a fun day off for me and it was full of surprise thanks! If you wanna discuss anything just ask=) i'm a talkative fellow as you must have probably guess.
I hope at least some stuff i shown you didnt already knew. You definitly covered a lot i have to admit.
Yes, I read that Matt Ehret article and it was fascinating! I was going to wait to respond after I read yours but had to run out to the Farmer's Market.
Thank you for the compliment but I think you're misreading Math. He says women are attracted to the guru types if the GURU is sufficiently beautiful or charming. So it's really saying that women think with their hormones, so to speak, and are not a good judge of character. I've challenged Math to show me what I've said about Russell that hasn't been backed by facts and logic.
There's no question in my mind that Russell and Katy were set up to be the king and queen of the illuminati underworld, along with Shepard Fairey who did the OBEY sign. I don't know if you read the piece that talks about him. Katy is clearly a monarch. But did Russell walk away when he divorced her? That's the answer I don't know.
I don't see what is so hard to understand. Brand signed up for stardom and did what he needed to do to fulfill his agreement as a controllable asset in that immoral system. He was willing to be an utter creep at best, and mostly just a horrible person. Since he has been pushing back at his controllers and their narrative lately (in a way like Tucker Carlson and possibly Trump) and has not backed down, he is getting taken down. The Kennedys were trying to be stand up leaders at the end of their lives also, but had a lot of baggage from prior agreements and deeds which brought them to power. Isn't it clear this is the way things are set up in the matrix?
I suppose the matrix has evolved to a point where Brand is controlled opposition, a pied piper still functioning within the confines of his bosses' whims. Does it matter? Either way, I wouldn't trust him or any of these other egomaniac clowns playing on the edges of a corrupt and collapsing satanic egomaniacal system.
Let me rephrase what you're saying, Michael, as a hypothesis. Russell created a 'brand,' a public persona based on hypersexuality and enthusiasm for women's bodies--in a way that was not discriminatory but omnivoraceous. One of the interviews he did on Luminary was with a woman who talks about body issues and fat-shaming, something Russell relates to from having been anorexic or bulimic, I forget which. Unlike many, I've never seen Russell treat women (or men) as lesser based on their body type. He is lavish in his praise and appreciation for the beauty in everyone--and I've seen this applied to some real characters.
I think that if you call someone an utter creep and a horrible person, you should have some evidence to back it up. Mathew is giving his best evidence for that here, and it hasn't convinced me. When you say, "I don't see what is so hard to understand," you're using a psychological trick to imply that your position is obvious and therefore doesn't need facts and logic to back it up.
Without a doubt, Russell's self-created 'role' that made him famous was one that the kid-fucker cult used for their propaganda and signaling. The marriage to Katy Perry, the 2012 Olympics, the 'Obey' sign at the Oscars, the symbology in his films make that clear. Was that done with his knowledge and consent? I don't know and neither do you. All we know is that he very publicly walked away from that persona and that world with all the fame and fortune.
IMO neither Tucker nor Trump have ever pushed back but are willing participants in the psyop. Tucker was fully in on the Pfizer expose Three Stooges routine with Malone. He's been ousted as 'a whistleblower' which is the traditional way to set up controlled opposition. And the shenanigans with Trump, just like the fake impeachment trial, are working exactly to plan. He doesn't even need to campaign, just be ushered in. Without Trump as the Great Setup, we would never have had the Great Woke Covid Reset.
On Russell as an egomaniac, he makes fun of his Messianic tendencies all the time. Jesus, on the other hand, was a serious egomaniac and established a whole religion as a personality cult. The historical person the Bible personified as Satan believed all people to be equal and led a revolt against the Roman Empire. So don't flatter the egomaniacal kidfucker cult by saying it's satanic. It's imperial, cruel and sadistic, which is the opposite of the reality they hid behind the Satan Psyop. Reality matters.
No psychological tricks here, just pattern recognition.
People sell out for fame. What is so hard to understand about that? Brand's sucking a stranger's dick in a public bathroom for a TV show should be enough of a wake up call about the guy's character.
Speaking of psychological tricks, "the historical person the Bible personified as Satan" is quite a mouthful to toss out as some established fact.
Your pattern recognition, Michael, has the same logical flaw as Mathew's yoga example. "People sell out for fame. Russell Brand is famous. Ergo, RB has sold out."
And it was a hand job, not sucking a stranger's dick. And why do you care? I have absolutely no interest or opinion on what someone does that doesn't hurt anyone else. Someone who gets their paycheck from the military or a defense contractor has certainly sold out if we're looking at the willingness to harm another person for a paycheck.
Yes I also grew up Catholic and have delved deeply into many of the works you describe. (I also appreciate Naomi Wolf's work AND pushed back to her on her Return-of-Baal take.) Although I have a bit of a different take on the Satan aspect, my viewpoint is very similar to yours on the overall manipulation of the religion, the switching of enemies, and the three millenia of debasement following upon the grand psyop.
I do think there are precious few famous people who have not sold out - I am trying to think of ONE at the moment and unable to - so there is no logical flaw in my mind in that statement.
I am not convinced Russell Brand is controlled opposition, but his Pied Piper book is too strange to ignore - along with being an exact metaphor for such deception. I obviously do not share your sense of solidarity with him. I do think he is being attacked precisely because (to his credit) he has risen up too far against the narrative/aims of his former bosses/mentors. But yes I am jaded enough to think he probably did some very compromising stuff to get where he got - and is now being taken down by those same bosses.
Oh we do have much in common! Yes the Satan aspect is something very few people would know. I do go into it more in the Jesus Psyop one, linked at the end. And yes, the inversion of heroes and villains, that's such an important point, and three millennia of debasement.
I agree the Pied Piper book is strange but I haven't seen it, only the clip of him showing it. Those years of 2010-2014 seem like the ones where the Illuminati were zeroing in on him or he was a rising star to them. It doesn't seem like there's much on him after that until he starts his podcast in 2018?
Will it be possible for a new idea to arise spontaneously to replace the existing system? Logistically, that's hard for me to imagine. If someone can't possibly be famous without being corrupt, it would seem that we're doomed. No one with an audience can be trusted.
Liminality to me IS the essential approach - as long as there is life, there arise opportunities to choose the spontaneous reordering that liminal public spaces allow, for spontaneous reordering of societal status. Call them miracles or just principles of Life's emergent nature, they demand a proactive activation, a "taking back the initaitve from the actors of violence," a coming alive. Jesus or Iesu was both a yogi teaching the Iesu principle (kundalini through anointing) and an indigenous man defending his spiritual access to the full dimensions of human manifestation in the face of a genocidal empire. All further added nonsense savior dogma was BS initially generated in 70 AD generated to reckon with the loss of the principle - and the senseless sacrifice - through mytho-historical process, and then utterly co-opted by the victorious empire. The entire initiative ended up adding fuel to the fire of the colonization current of civilization already in place for centuries (millenia?) with the subsequent slaughter of all indigenous cultures with their vast well of human adaptive knowledge for survival and regeneration through whole-brain-activation managing abundant emergent-order systems of food production and ceremony... themselves corrupted along the way, but still ringing with the memory and sometimes presence of the Way, aka common law aka the golden rule. This is likewise a narrative very few westerners get, but is intuitively obvious to anyone who has their indigeneity intact, whether through First Nations' cultural inheritance preserved at great cost, or westerners realizing their own best people and cultures were mercilessly slaughtered by the same genocidal freak show centuries earlier for the same refusal to accept the BS new religion. And on it goes to today's evisceration of women and children by the thousands in the ancient land, threatening nuclear escalation and armageddon unsurprisingly paralleling the spells cast in The Book. Thank you for the sincerity of your work. Bon Courage!
My first impression of Brand was that he is a grifter. A poseur. His confession of being an “ordinary guy” is quite accurate. He has a great vocabulary and a quick wit but he is far from original in any way. He dresses like a Rolling Stones roadie wannabe. I remember his reality TV show. I remember him using a homeless heroin addict for a ratings pet and giving a dude a handjob in a public toilet for views. When I saw him reappear on YouTube wearing a manbun and sporting a beard I couldn’t stop laughing. And then the content of his videos….. Oh boy. Talk about watered down and stolen from actual independent journalists who do amazingly accurate work with little to no credit to the originators of the works he’s making millions from stealing. He even openly admits to being an idea thief. I watched his videos for a few months and all I saw was more of the same misdirection and self-aggrandizement that was characteristic of the phony thought leaders of the 1960’s cultural revolution that wasn’t. Brand doesn’t practice open-source journalism, he pretends to be anti-establishment for money. That’s all. In another decade the only people who will remember Brand are the people who made money off his back either by criticizing him or washing his balls.
Later today I'll be posting one of my first videos responding to Russell's interviews of Jonathan Haidt and Darren Brown. In it, I talk about why I started my YT channel, because I couldn't find anyone who agreed with even one of my five most radical ideas. And my surprise to find that Russell agrees with all five, from his statements. If you look at it, I'd love to have you tell me who else supports these ideas because I've spent 20 yrs looking and haven't found them. In that sense, Russell's perspective is completely original, in my experience.
I did some research on the term 'grifter' when someone accused Matt Taibbi of being one and blackmailed me into taking out an anonymous reference to him as someone who didn't trust his mother to think for herself (and listen to MT). Otherwise, he promised to bomb my channel with floods of online harassment. Although it went against my grain, I took my daughter's advice to do it and by reposting, it got far more views than the first time.
So from Urban Dictionary: "A Grifter, is somebody who can influence anybody, anywhere, at anytime, into doing whatever they choose to have them do, that will result in the grifter's personal gain. Usually monetary, but really anything that benefits him or her somehow." Wouldn't this apply to anyone in sales or marketing, perhaps that whole new group of 'influencers' that sell their online presence to anyone willing to buy?
My primary interest was in Russell's interviews but I also watched his YT in 2021. He definitely posted his sources because I checked them and sometimes posted that I questioned them. Particularly the Epoch Times and WSWS, both of which I think have been infiltrated. I've seen him change his mind when his audience, some of whom are extremely astute, pointed out conflicting information. What you're giving me are opinions, not actual examples, while implying that I am merely stupid, gullible and 'washing his balls.'
So RB isn't your style and you don't like him. Totally valid. But to deride those who do see value in his work and thought is taking a position of intellectual and moral superiority that I don't give you. And it's something I've never seen Russell do, insult other people the way you're insulting him and those who pay attention to him. He disagrees with ideas without making it personal. And I respect that.
Did you use AI to write this? Anyway. 20 years searching and all you have found is brand Brand? It took me less than a week to find the independent journalists Brand uses for his content. Or, rather, the independent journalists his team uses for brand Brand’s content. Try harder.
Exactly! The dripping superiority in your comment is something I've never heard from Brand in the 100+ hrs I've listened to. I've only heard him treat interviewees with respect and affection, whether he agrees with them or not. I can see why he wouldn't appeal to you.
I appreciate your starting paragraph that sets the tone of respect for Mathew. I think both of you are genuinely curious and intelligent and willing to go into mucky waters that are uncomfortable and confusing and want to bring clarity. Debate is good, questions are good. We won't always find any definitive answers even with them (we don't know what we don't know) but we do our best.
Really tough to pin motives on other humans since we can't know their whole story. But when they take public roles, have clear influence and we grok something is 'off', it's hard to avoid.
We all bring our filters to everything we perceive. Traumas, biases, overarching narratives about the world and others come into it.
I don't know ultimately who Brand is. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, especially if I don't 'need' him to be this or that. Conflicting agendas with public personalities is no doubt part of the control matrix. Blurred lines and ongoing disappointment with where we've placed our faith, is a tactic. I think the Q movement in part was about that. I once had a comment exchange with CAF (early days of Q) and asked her (regarding Q) that if it was a psyop, why would they create an army of folks with greater awareness (because the drops did share good info) only to disappoint them in the end? She said because they will feel shame and humiliation from having been duped and so will do nothing in the end - which was the point. I think that's right.
All of the confusion of these times has the ability to defeat us - what's the point; it's too confusing - and it has the ability to steer us more deeply back into ourselves. Do we need external personalities to assert our own authority? Do I need an external anything to claim my own sovereignty and do what I know is right? I know what I know, and I know what is right - in the moment - in terms of my actions. And if I get something wrong, another moment appears in which I self-correct.
I honestly think that ultimately that turning back into ourselves as our own authorities is the great opportunity, even, necessity of these times.
The whole assumption and its many patterns in the world, of needed authorities to tell us what to think, how to feel, who to trust - that's what ultimately over. Personal sovereignty means nothing if we've not claiming inner authority. I author me. You author you. We don't have to agree.
Thanks.
Thank you, Kathleen, for recognizing my respect for Mathew. And very interesting reflection. What CAF said about Q is brilliant, I think. I've been coming back, again and again, to her statement that they've raised toxicity and lowered immunity so that people die of their weakness, and it's never blamed on the vaccine. She's so insightful!
As are you for recognizing the power in what she said about arming folks with greater awareness only to disappoint them so they feel shame and humiliation for being duped. I completely agree with you that this is all to teach us to claim our inner authority as the author of our self. And I love your observation that mistakes aren't permanent and we get another moment to self-correct.
I woke up thinking that I wanted to edit my article to include the phrase "Controlled opposition only works if what we believe or disbelieve is based on who says it." Thanks for confirming that.
We agree on the brilliance of CAF - who remains one of those voices, I have consistently valued for 7-8 years now.
"Controlled opposition only works if what we believe or disbelieve is based on who says it." That's a great line - so true and why, I imagine, external authority is so essential to the deceptions.
Thanks, Tereza, Best.
Wow!
Love this and I'm laughing at the bizarre synchronicities that bounced through it.
The funniest one may be yogic! Last month I looked for video guidance to resuscitate and refine 'pigeon pose' as recommended by Conspiracy Sarah to help with my uncomfortable hip. And randomly(?) of the dozen or so on the first page of YouTube was an Adriene of 12 years ago who showed up. I looked at several and settled on her video and shared it with Yoshiko. I just checked - yup that was the same Adriene you are referring to here.
Synchronicity number two aligns with your careful introduction and even definition to your 'disagreement' as being an important process of expanding clarity, understanding and, one hopes, movement towards seeing what is true. I was just making the same point referring to your comment in my essay part 2 as an 'argument' as defined by wiktionary 1, 2, & 3.
And I confessed to being surprised that MC appears to have been bamboozled in such a simple way as to associate rapists with yogis wanting to set up studios! Totally preposterous in a way that has the strong scratch and sniff smell of shadow projection. Jung points out that often times the shadow of a strong 'thinking-type', which by all appearance MC appears to be, can be accompanied by a shadow that projects really crazy illogical even superstitious stuff. The argument that women are more easily duped is ... well. Silly. My bil fell hook-line-and sinker for sex-cult John De Ruiter in Canada, whereas his wife (my sister) who was there at the same time took some expanded awareness from the cult-leader, who was charming and spoke spiritual truth as well as the malicious manipulations, and wasn't 'culted' at all. (Jasun writes about that exceptionally well in his book Dark Oasis: A Self-Made Messiah Unveiled.) Also, I have at least one male cousin deeply culted into that cult.
I like your *arguments* here: strong, reasoned and passionate. As you have elucidated them, MC's are weak, kind of hysterical in the old and derogatory meaning of irrationally woman-ish and outlandish. Another sign of shadow projection, of course, is that he has accused women of being what he himself has at that moment embodied by his own denigration of them with his facile argument.
An interesting break from my essay writing. Thank you.
That's so funny about Adriene! I really do love her presence and the spirituality she brings to it. For her, it's not about having the perfect body, it's meeting yourself where you are and connecting to that 'flow.' I think this is all a sign for me to reconnect to her practice since I don't have any dance classes here so it would be a good time for that.
And I'm glad too that you're seeing my 'arguments' as moving towards seeing what's true, since you and Mathew are my favorite 'sparring' partners ;-)
I'd encourage you to hold off until you're finished with the article.
Dundas appears to be the female counterpart to Dr Everywhere All-at-Once Baba Malone.
Double-like. Very funny!
Tereza,
I'd like to encourage you to wait before commenting too much on the Brand story. I'm intentionally slow rolling it. It gets darker still. I haven't gotten to the intelligence connections, and their extensions.
And I would encourage you to play the three phone call game.
I look forward to those further installments, Mathew. I honestly don't even know who my first phone call would be, to find a connection who knows Russell personally. There's one of my YT viewers who's sorry Russell never reopened the pub he bought, since he'd spent many a good evening there previously. So he must live in the same town. But that's the closest I can think of.
You don't have a single acquaintance who has worked in entertainment? How long have you been in California?!
Haha, when I first moved to CA for graduate school, over 40 yrs ago, I also thought it was one big extension of Hollywood. But we could ask Diva Drops. Pasheen might have overlapped with Russell's time there and known someone who knew him then. And the question is whether he was known to be violent towards women in his personal life, correct?
And if I go to the trouble of finding someone I can vouch for who finds someone they can vouch for who finds someone they can vouch for ... and they say no, will you change your mind? If I agree to change my mind if they say yes?
There's a rhetorical device I've thought to coin as 'the wild goose chase.' As Guy can attest, it's usually in the form of 'you need to read this book to understand why you're wrong, so I won't bother refuting your facts and logic in my own words.' In that case, it's an appeal to authority. Your challenge is more personal but does it go both ways? Is your experiment only to show I'm wrong or to figure out the truth?
Can I ask whether you believe that book Trance Formation of America by Cathy O’Brian? I can just about absorb the pedo rings, but that book freaks me out. I did write about MKUltra extensively so know it existed, it’s roots, and the indisputable fact that they kept it going after saying they shut it down.
I hadn't heard of it before but went to her site and read the most recent, "Have You Seen My Childhood?" Heartbreaking. What she says has a lot of parallels to what I've heard from Anneke Lucas and she seemed very credible to me. They both talk about the heightened awareness and abilities (which always make me wonder how low our expectations are for 'normal' kids). And they both seem to have developed a strong spiritual sense that got them through. Her details on having victims write their memories, accessing the logical side of the brain to process them, also rings true. And I don't get a sense of her sensationalizing.
What Mathew went through was also MK Ultra, I believe. I don't doubt that world exists and is disturbingly prevalent, more than I'd ever imagined. But I'm not ready to concede it's everywhere. Maybe I'm just not there yet.
I'm interested to read your pieces on MK Ultra (she says with trepidation), would you post a link please?
Cathy says she was a Presidential “model”, and describes horrifying scenes with various presidents in the Oval office. I just ... can’t.
It is a book, but the kindle is only .99 https://www.amazon.ca/Monkey-Puzzle-Tree-Elizabeth-Nickson-ebook/dp/B0086839SI
Ordered!
I'm happy to order it as a real book. I spend too much on screens to take them to bed, but this sounds like something I don't want to anyway. I'll stick to my fantasy novels where two warring tribes make peace over harp music that summons the spirits ;-) That's my current. But I think the universe is nudging me to understand what you do about MK Ultra. I really value all your writing, Elizabeth, and I'm so glad I found you.
Not suggesting you buy it, but what I wrote was entirely 1000% percent verified. Provable, meticulously sourced. Most of the MKUltra writing is not. Poisoner in Chief was sound. Cathy O’Brian? V dubious. It is easy to see counter intelligence in this subject. Make us look stupid and paranoid.
I loved this. Your skill set in dissecting complex issues is unique. Thanks!
I really appreciate that, Greg!
hoooo the most interesting of the links you sent me! i also really love matt and math works! i just sent you one of mathew for the arthur conan doyle question, funny synch, or sad echo chamber who knows.
well, the good thing is this answered part of my past questioning, but some of my hypothesis arent made of them and the video's. Its true that i do think of russel in a really similar way to both matt & math, but i do bring different point with the kundalini thing. I find funny and quite logical the argument crawford brings with guru and view of them by woman. maybe thats because i am a man hehe. In a way if you appreciate russel brand, and beautifull lady's tend to guru obsession like he says... This means he just sent you a compliment and i totaly agree that you are gorgeous.
I didnt knew you 3 went on a russel brand profiling that deep. Its GREAT, now i can just grab some pop corn and ring me a bell when the next round is on i need to see this =)
To why attacking him if he is psyop wef agent this one i alrdy answered in the past comments.
so meanwhile you 3 go for a round 3, i would ask a valide question and you seem to know a lot on that case i might have knocked on the right door. What do you think of the katy perry\brand short saga? Sure it wasnt a Chandler job? because it definitly look like it, and with what all these stars went trough... from britney to paris hilton and all the similar case. Katy perry own word signing with the devil and the obey sign, it really feels eery. I would literaly put all short trip hollywood couple in a bucket list of possible mkultra CHild hANDLER. mina kulis and ashton, jada smith and will smith, you know the list is exhaustive. Patrick Cc on utube as many, p.diddy saga will show even more, cosmos show pop start de l'occulte also prevail some intel on that. here some links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyGNAxVaW4Q&list=PLNcS85wovoXMyNub1jeoOu4wSASdUoGIf&index=16
30min30 russel brand hitting paparazi. for a namaste type of man hope this is from the version 2.0 or under otherwise its just one more suspicion.
https://odysee.com/@CapitaineCosmos:9?view=content
in search bar of cosmosshow type in pop stars many great show about holywood mkultra programing
Some juicy gossips of unholywood tends towards her being part of all this, just use the date here.
she is in couple with russel brand from october 23 2010 to december 24 2011 (14 months) meanwhile in couple she do the E.T song with kanye west (another mkultra product) the wods in the song are quite revealing. And logicaly if she now is with bloom and have kids, bloom aint the handler, if kanye west is an abused product then he is a handled not a handler, that leaves russel in control and gives credibility o the song date and intention.
heres the song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5Sd5c4o9UM
well I think i overlaps on the subject. you got me hook for a whole afternoon. well thank you that was a fun day off for me and it was full of surprise thanks! If you wanna discuss anything just ask=) i'm a talkative fellow as you must have probably guess.
I hope at least some stuff i shown you didnt already knew. You definitly covered a lot i have to admit.
D'un CH.I.Q type
Yes, I read that Matt Ehret article and it was fascinating! I was going to wait to respond after I read yours but had to run out to the Farmer's Market.
Thank you for the compliment but I think you're misreading Math. He says women are attracted to the guru types if the GURU is sufficiently beautiful or charming. So it's really saying that women think with their hormones, so to speak, and are not a good judge of character. I've challenged Math to show me what I've said about Russell that hasn't been backed by facts and logic.
But speaking of character, I've questioned Math on whether the side of Sasha Latypova that I've exposed fits with his view of her, who he's met with personally: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/sashas-daughter-soph.
There's no question in my mind that Russell and Katy were set up to be the king and queen of the illuminati underworld, along with Shepard Fairey who did the OBEY sign. I don't know if you read the piece that talks about him. Katy is clearly a monarch. But did Russell walk away when he divorced her? That's the answer I don't know.
Thanks for devoting a day to my Brandorama!
I don't see what is so hard to understand. Brand signed up for stardom and did what he needed to do to fulfill his agreement as a controllable asset in that immoral system. He was willing to be an utter creep at best, and mostly just a horrible person. Since he has been pushing back at his controllers and their narrative lately (in a way like Tucker Carlson and possibly Trump) and has not backed down, he is getting taken down. The Kennedys were trying to be stand up leaders at the end of their lives also, but had a lot of baggage from prior agreements and deeds which brought them to power. Isn't it clear this is the way things are set up in the matrix?
I suppose the matrix has evolved to a point where Brand is controlled opposition, a pied piper still functioning within the confines of his bosses' whims. Does it matter? Either way, I wouldn't trust him or any of these other egomaniac clowns playing on the edges of a corrupt and collapsing satanic egomaniacal system.
Let me rephrase what you're saying, Michael, as a hypothesis. Russell created a 'brand,' a public persona based on hypersexuality and enthusiasm for women's bodies--in a way that was not discriminatory but omnivoraceous. One of the interviews he did on Luminary was with a woman who talks about body issues and fat-shaming, something Russell relates to from having been anorexic or bulimic, I forget which. Unlike many, I've never seen Russell treat women (or men) as lesser based on their body type. He is lavish in his praise and appreciation for the beauty in everyone--and I've seen this applied to some real characters.
I think that if you call someone an utter creep and a horrible person, you should have some evidence to back it up. Mathew is giving his best evidence for that here, and it hasn't convinced me. When you say, "I don't see what is so hard to understand," you're using a psychological trick to imply that your position is obvious and therefore doesn't need facts and logic to back it up.
Without a doubt, Russell's self-created 'role' that made him famous was one that the kid-fucker cult used for their propaganda and signaling. The marriage to Katy Perry, the 2012 Olympics, the 'Obey' sign at the Oscars, the symbology in his films make that clear. Was that done with his knowledge and consent? I don't know and neither do you. All we know is that he very publicly walked away from that persona and that world with all the fame and fortune.
IMO neither Tucker nor Trump have ever pushed back but are willing participants in the psyop. Tucker was fully in on the Pfizer expose Three Stooges routine with Malone. He's been ousted as 'a whistleblower' which is the traditional way to set up controlled opposition. And the shenanigans with Trump, just like the fake impeachment trial, are working exactly to plan. He doesn't even need to campaign, just be ushered in. Without Trump as the Great Setup, we would never have had the Great Woke Covid Reset.
On Russell as an egomaniac, he makes fun of his Messianic tendencies all the time. Jesus, on the other hand, was a serious egomaniac and established a whole religion as a personality cult. The historical person the Bible personified as Satan believed all people to be equal and led a revolt against the Roman Empire. So don't flatter the egomaniacal kidfucker cult by saying it's satanic. It's imperial, cruel and sadistic, which is the opposite of the reality they hid behind the Satan Psyop. Reality matters.
No psychological tricks here, just pattern recognition.
People sell out for fame. What is so hard to understand about that? Brand's sucking a stranger's dick in a public bathroom for a TV show should be enough of a wake up call about the guy's character.
Speaking of psychological tricks, "the historical person the Bible personified as Satan" is quite a mouthful to toss out as some established fact.
Your pattern recognition, Michael, has the same logical flaw as Mathew's yoga example. "People sell out for fame. Russell Brand is famous. Ergo, RB has sold out."
And it was a hand job, not sucking a stranger's dick. And why do you care? I have absolutely no interest or opinion on what someone does that doesn't hurt anyone else. Someone who gets their paycheck from the military or a defense contractor has certainly sold out if we're looking at the willingness to harm another person for a paycheck.
I have more data on the origin of Satan in this episode. I didn't link it before because I wasn't sure how long you'd been reading and didn't want to be redundant: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-devil-and-naomi-wolf.
Yes I also grew up Catholic and have delved deeply into many of the works you describe. (I also appreciate Naomi Wolf's work AND pushed back to her on her Return-of-Baal take.) Although I have a bit of a different take on the Satan aspect, my viewpoint is very similar to yours on the overall manipulation of the religion, the switching of enemies, and the three millenia of debasement following upon the grand psyop.
I do think there are precious few famous people who have not sold out - I am trying to think of ONE at the moment and unable to - so there is no logical flaw in my mind in that statement.
I am not convinced Russell Brand is controlled opposition, but his Pied Piper book is too strange to ignore - along with being an exact metaphor for such deception. I obviously do not share your sense of solidarity with him. I do think he is being attacked precisely because (to his credit) he has risen up too far against the narrative/aims of his former bosses/mentors. But yes I am jaded enough to think he probably did some very compromising stuff to get where he got - and is now being taken down by those same bosses.
Oh we do have much in common! Yes the Satan aspect is something very few people would know. I do go into it more in the Jesus Psyop one, linked at the end. And yes, the inversion of heroes and villains, that's such an important point, and three millennia of debasement.
I agree the Pied Piper book is strange but I haven't seen it, only the clip of him showing it. Those years of 2010-2014 seem like the ones where the Illuminati were zeroing in on him or he was a rising star to them. It doesn't seem like there's much on him after that until he starts his podcast in 2018?
Will it be possible for a new idea to arise spontaneously to replace the existing system? Logistically, that's hard for me to imagine. If someone can't possibly be famous without being corrupt, it would seem that we're doomed. No one with an audience can be trusted.
Liminality to me IS the essential approach - as long as there is life, there arise opportunities to choose the spontaneous reordering that liminal public spaces allow, for spontaneous reordering of societal status. Call them miracles or just principles of Life's emergent nature, they demand a proactive activation, a "taking back the initaitve from the actors of violence," a coming alive. Jesus or Iesu was both a yogi teaching the Iesu principle (kundalini through anointing) and an indigenous man defending his spiritual access to the full dimensions of human manifestation in the face of a genocidal empire. All further added nonsense savior dogma was BS initially generated in 70 AD generated to reckon with the loss of the principle - and the senseless sacrifice - through mytho-historical process, and then utterly co-opted by the victorious empire. The entire initiative ended up adding fuel to the fire of the colonization current of civilization already in place for centuries (millenia?) with the subsequent slaughter of all indigenous cultures with their vast well of human adaptive knowledge for survival and regeneration through whole-brain-activation managing abundant emergent-order systems of food production and ceremony... themselves corrupted along the way, but still ringing with the memory and sometimes presence of the Way, aka common law aka the golden rule. This is likewise a narrative very few westerners get, but is intuitively obvious to anyone who has their indigeneity intact, whether through First Nations' cultural inheritance preserved at great cost, or westerners realizing their own best people and cultures were mercilessly slaughtered by the same genocidal freak show centuries earlier for the same refusal to accept the BS new religion. And on it goes to today's evisceration of women and children by the thousands in the ancient land, threatening nuclear escalation and armageddon unsurprisingly paralleling the spells cast in The Book. Thank you for the sincerity of your work. Bon Courage!
Guard your thoughts and powers, as the saying goes, We become what we behold.
My first impression of Brand was that he is a grifter. A poseur. His confession of being an “ordinary guy” is quite accurate. He has a great vocabulary and a quick wit but he is far from original in any way. He dresses like a Rolling Stones roadie wannabe. I remember his reality TV show. I remember him using a homeless heroin addict for a ratings pet and giving a dude a handjob in a public toilet for views. When I saw him reappear on YouTube wearing a manbun and sporting a beard I couldn’t stop laughing. And then the content of his videos….. Oh boy. Talk about watered down and stolen from actual independent journalists who do amazingly accurate work with little to no credit to the originators of the works he’s making millions from stealing. He even openly admits to being an idea thief. I watched his videos for a few months and all I saw was more of the same misdirection and self-aggrandizement that was characteristic of the phony thought leaders of the 1960’s cultural revolution that wasn’t. Brand doesn’t practice open-source journalism, he pretends to be anti-establishment for money. That’s all. In another decade the only people who will remember Brand are the people who made money off his back either by criticizing him or washing his balls.
Later today I'll be posting one of my first videos responding to Russell's interviews of Jonathan Haidt and Darren Brown. In it, I talk about why I started my YT channel, because I couldn't find anyone who agreed with even one of my five most radical ideas. And my surprise to find that Russell agrees with all five, from his statements. If you look at it, I'd love to have you tell me who else supports these ideas because I've spent 20 yrs looking and haven't found them. In that sense, Russell's perspective is completely original, in my experience.
I did some research on the term 'grifter' when someone accused Matt Taibbi of being one and blackmailed me into taking out an anonymous reference to him as someone who didn't trust his mother to think for herself (and listen to MT). Otherwise, he promised to bomb my channel with floods of online harassment. Although it went against my grain, I took my daughter's advice to do it and by reposting, it got far more views than the first time.
So from Urban Dictionary: "A Grifter, is somebody who can influence anybody, anywhere, at anytime, into doing whatever they choose to have them do, that will result in the grifter's personal gain. Usually monetary, but really anything that benefits him or her somehow." Wouldn't this apply to anyone in sales or marketing, perhaps that whole new group of 'influencers' that sell their online presence to anyone willing to buy?
My primary interest was in Russell's interviews but I also watched his YT in 2021. He definitely posted his sources because I checked them and sometimes posted that I questioned them. Particularly the Epoch Times and WSWS, both of which I think have been infiltrated. I've seen him change his mind when his audience, some of whom are extremely astute, pointed out conflicting information. What you're giving me are opinions, not actual examples, while implying that I am merely stupid, gullible and 'washing his balls.'
So RB isn't your style and you don't like him. Totally valid. But to deride those who do see value in his work and thought is taking a position of intellectual and moral superiority that I don't give you. And it's something I've never seen Russell do, insult other people the way you're insulting him and those who pay attention to him. He disagrees with ideas without making it personal. And I respect that.
Did you use AI to write this? Anyway. 20 years searching and all you have found is brand Brand? It took me less than a week to find the independent journalists Brand uses for his content. Or, rather, the independent journalists his team uses for brand Brand’s content. Try harder.
Exactly! The dripping superiority in your comment is something I've never heard from Brand in the 100+ hrs I've listened to. I've only heard him treat interviewees with respect and affection, whether he agrees with them or not. I can see why he wouldn't appeal to you.