I wonder if the US establishment felt it needed to act fast as Brand has been openly advocating for RFK Jr, ramping up his overt backing to the point of planning a pull-up challenge as a big publicity and fund raising event...
Brand is a dilletante compared to Assange but the DC liberal establishment won't see him as an insignificant force when it comes to votes and election campaigns.
There's a serious Mockingbird element to this. Assuming that the CIA's Mockingbird legacy is what many think it is (there's a hell of a lot of proof), and assuming that Assange, Rogan, and many alt media actors (even very small ones) are actually totally untouched by the Mockingbird infrastructure, those running modern day MB could have been actively tasked with media politics by other means i.e. 5G hybrid media warfare. They've been properly fingered across SocMed, they're being called out as totally in league with the Uniparty across every facet of power structure, of which J6 is a damning indictment. Mockingbird, when secret, was sophisticated enough to become hugely pervasive and no one wanted to entertain the idea/"conspiracy theory" that their gov was perma-fucking them harder than the soviets ever did to their people. So, now the mask's slipped, the Ponzi scheme of Empire is in the last chance saloon and people keep chucking out receipts, what's left to lose if you just go full tilt overt smash down? They don't care about showing how bent they are by changing the Dem process for RFK or denying him SS details. Meanwhile, psycho Cirilo says "we'll murder these journos, in addition to the ones we've already killed," while still posting pictures of UKR troops sporting nazi badges. It's nuts and it's totally open. The whole thing is literally the major components of the Fourth Reich being increasingly admitted to, so what's the point pretending any more?
The Five Eyes ex-USA are all fucked. The legal systems in all of them are gone. The quality and amount of lying to hide the insanity in these nations is at an all time low, such is the contempt for the citizenry and the total impunity of the ruling classes.
The West is now the USSR and it is our turn to face our version of hypernormalisation.
The irony is that a reset is actually needed, but it's still likely to be 85% on the elite's/WEF's terms because Joe Average cannot effectively mobilise.
That's a dense first paragraph! Hard to disagree with any of your description, bleak though it is.
The US/UK/Nazi thread goes back to pre-OSS times. I've read pretty convincing docs detailing NSDAP bankrolling by City of London and Wall Street, backed by factions in both the British and American elite politicians.
It's hard not to see Ukraine today as a continuation of a covert operations strategy that started in earnest in the 1920s with building and arming Hitler's band of bitter Munich thugs into a real nationally popular fascist party - a paramilitary mobilization of the working class against their own interests - and using them as a battering ram against communism and Stalin's Soviet Union. WW2, Cold War, Gladio, Neo-Colonialism, Sectarian Extremism, Azovifying Ukraine; it's a continuous lineage of state violence, its continuity in the quasi-religious (anti-Russia/anti-China) global domination mission driven by the same Anglo-American shadow state cabal...
Enough on that for now. It's a hard history to summarize and then not sound like a raving Cassandra.
I agree with you on the mask falling, the increasingly brazen cannibalization at home and existential aggression everywhere else. Every year the out-of-control Five Eyes oligarchy isn't stopped we're gamblimg worse odds against omnicide.
What you write at the end about needing the population to wake the fuck up and how little sign any wake-up happening (or likely to happen) is hard to argue.
Who else has 6 million followers and appeals to both youth and women? Come on? Give me some names? Of course he is the best person in the 5 Eyes nations to take out currently . His past and his academic credibility are of no consequence. He IS clever, and 6 million people like what he is saying. What matters now is his potential future, not his past. He is far more intelligent that most of you realise, even if he is not that well educated, and he is poised to make a serious nuisance of himself if he ever decides to do so.
There a few others lining up behind him, but they are not in his league. Neil Oliver is preaching revolution at the moment, and he also has a good following - but only in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions. And he is far too well educated to appeal to the youth or to Americans. And maybe Lawrence Fox? He is very clever, but also far too well educated and arrogant to boot. So he will never be that charismatic leader that Russell Brand can be. His followers LOVE him for his imperfections, not despite them.
Nop. Russell Brand it is. Cut him out and you cut loose 6 million people who need a new figurehead to lead them, and who are very unlikely to be able to find a replacement for him. And whatever some of us might like to think, the human race is rudderless without leaders.
He may or may not be a "leader", but by modern standards he is certainly a "thought leader" and an "influencer". The old world and the old style of leadership is gone, dead and buried. Brand is working in a modern way with modern tools, and he has charisma by the bucket load. What he uses that for is another matter altogether, but currently he is way ahead of any other English personality as an "influencer".
But what I think of him, or what you think of him, is not the question here.
Whatever skills he does or does not have, the "powers that be" have assessed him to be worth of effort of taking out. That's what matters. They have clearly identified a threat that you have not. What ARE they so afraid of, that they will accept alienating at least the 6 million people who are following him? Why try to silence him?
It serves no-one to be minimising or patronising Russell Brand at this point in time. You can do that when you get to 6 million followers. Until then, let's pay a bit more attention to what he is actually saying or doing, so that we can work out why the powers are so afraid of him.
Perhaps Brand is "the man for this time and place".
You appear to have read VST's output on a highly selective basis.
You: "They have clearly identified a threat that you [VST] have not."
VST: "What you’re looking at is another attack on a media/information threat actor, that will follow roughly the same MO as the attack on Julian Assange. It will be executed by the British establishment using the British media as an intelligence service cut out, but the operation will largely be orchestrated by the US/CIA.
VST: "The reason for the attack is that Russell Brand is an outspoken critic of the mainstream who, by VST’s judgement, has grown into someone adequately aware and cynical enough to be on the money enough of the time, with enough of an audience to make him a considerable disruptor of state propaganda among the sub 35-year old audience, and he has increasing cross-border reach. Despite being nearly 50, Brand is still pretty cool for millennials and perhaps some of Gen Z, which puts him close to the youth mind. Taking out in whole or in part Russell Brand sends a message to the rest of the alt media that they can be touched too. This will have deliberate and rapid chilling effects on the weak and the gutless in not just Britain but at least other Five Eyes nations and possibly the EU, given its increasingly draconian media/information laws. Brand is less protected and likely less wealthy than Joe Rogan."
VST: "We can’t know if Brand is considered a threat to the establishment to such a degree that the state itself would come after him using its organs. It’s possible at the extreme and it’s the most likely thing his fan base and supporters/audience will say/are actually saying, hence why we led with it. In no way do we think that there’s equivalency between Brand and either Assange or DSK as political or public figures. Brand is a British Jimmy Dore with more hair and less self-control and wisdom. He’s not in Assange’s league and never will be. He’ll also never represent the pointed threat to the global financial system that DSK did when he said the 2008 bail out plan was wrong. Brand will not be tortured to death by anyone other than his own ego combined with lack of public attention."
VST: "...Brand is vulnerable to attack irrespective of a big political objective. He is a prime media sensation target for column inches. He may actually also have crossed the line more than once and there is a possibility that he has transgressed and committed offences."
VST: "Then there’s the obvious question of timing. Why now, after all this time? That should be answered given that we are in the post-Saville era."
VST: "It is a dead cert that his supporters will attach even more strongly to the “Brand is being targeted because he’s a thorn in the media’s side re truth”..."
VST: "If, however, no serious attempt is made to progress the story to an objective and serious criminal investigation, the likelihood that this is a politically motivated hitjob escalates into a chase down for cash where possible."
VST: "This is the problem with and power of the sex crime narrative. It’s one of the most powerful weapons in the establishment’s arsenal and it does permanent damage the moment it is unleashed, irrespective of the truth and final outcome."
VST: "If Brand is formally charged, VST would see this, paradoxically, as the most likely indication of a full on, serious and backed from the shadows attack, as well as possibly completely legitimate prosecution."
VST: "This could be a very effective technique to employ in a real hitjob."
VST: "The superficial significance of this is, as per the political objectives of our hypothesis, that Brand is a media/awareness threat to the system and he’s being taken out. VST actually thinks that's not really worth losing sleep over."
If you interpret all of the above as a total inability of VST to assess and recognise Brand as varying degrees of political target including a direct threat, then we have no understanding of how you read what we write.
---
In case you hadn't noticed, the second article in particular tried to tread a line of objectivity.
Just as the best propaganda has a kernel of truth, so the best political hitjobs have seeds of truth that can be amplified, grown and woven into powerful weapons of perception management. This particular situation may have a degree of truth in it, but it may not be discernible to anyone but the accusers and Brand. We recognise that possibility in the article.
VST has laid out its take across multiple facets and possibilities based on the very limited information available at this stage, in the context of testing a theory:
"Is it possible to guess the political objective & context, format and content of a possible political hitjob from next to no information, based almost solely on the present standing/position of this particular target?"
We think we proved the answer is yes. The point of doing that was to illustrate that this could be a such an obvious political hitjob on the alt media that we could predict it. The clue was in the title of the first article. What we didn't set out to do was render a judgement on Brand, one way or the other.
We are neither fans nor detractors.
Just exactly how have we minimised or patronised Russell Brand?
Do you say that because the last line reads "What Russell Brand does can be and is done by others"? That is a statement of fact as proven by the existence of Jimmy Dore, as we made clear. They are both comedians doing exactly the same thing as each other, in case you hadn't noticed. Neither one of them originates information. They simply comment on their choice of information, from perspectives that significantly overlap.
Watch some Bill Hicks if you think that Brand's comedy "insight" schtick is original.
Brand was 17 when Hicks performed the seminal Revelations in London. If he had lived past 38, we can only speculate at what he would have done in later life.
Then again, we can simply look at George Carlin as an example of the almost quintessential and literal-to-the-point-of-it-not-being-comedy exemplar of anti-establishment.
Can you hear your tone? Never mind. If you are deaf to your own tone, nothing I say will penetrate. Do you have a real name, by the way, or do you live on the fame of others?
Tone? That's predominantly in your head, such is the nature of writing and reading.
We have addressed your accusation with self-referential evidence from our material that you are critiquing.
VST is aware of "what [Brand] is actually saying or doing, so that we can work out why the powers are so afraid of him" in some regards, as reflected by the content of our articles that, contrary to your claim, recognises what Brand may be perceived as.
Please answer the question we posed to you:
"Just exactly how have we minimised or patronised Russell Brand?"
And advise us of how, given the quoted material in the previous response, we have not identified him as a "threat" to some (namely the state) and how we have not answered the questions you pose of:
"What ARE they so afraid of, that they will accept alienating at least the 6 million people who are following him? Why try to silence him?"
Which is self-evident to anyone who has seen Brand's output from at least the last three years.
To us, tone notwithstanding, your original critique seems otiose.
You do realise the we know what you have just attempted to do, don't you?
Yours is quite literally the most unsophisticated and amateurish attempt to doxx someone we've seen.
At least have the decency to employ easily available tools to up the degree of sport.
What exactly do you require a name for?
What are you intending to do with it?
What "fame" are you referring to with regard to VST?
Have you not realised that if you believe people to be writing and publishing under a pseudonym, then fame inherently cannot follow? And that is said people write and publish for free, they cannot "live" off the back of that writing, no matter if it sometimes references other persons who are actually famous?
For complete transparency, this substack user chose to block VST rather than answer any of our reciprocal enquiries that stem purely from her initial and otiose critique, further rendering her entire engagement even more otiose.
While your article is spot on in many respects, my current opinion about this can't help by be influenced by the overly slick and purposefully emotionally manipulative production values of the Channel 4 accusathon.
That was not a news organization reporting a story so much as a prosecution team provided with an unlimited special effects budget.
Yes, this is why we refuse to watch it. The trailer, the title and the Times article all indicate that the programme would be pure propaganda.
Reading text is less powerful because one's cognitive filters are easier to use and the language can be scrutinised.
The programme assaults on multiple levels and channels. Best avoided.
The story is getting modest pushback from the get go for the right reasons. Tim Ballard formerly of OUR is now under similar attack (truth unknown). There are likely to be others in the next year.
Could probably set up a fantasy league based on it.
I wonder if the US establishment felt it needed to act fast as Brand has been openly advocating for RFK Jr, ramping up his overt backing to the point of planning a pull-up challenge as a big publicity and fund raising event...
Brand is a dilletante compared to Assange but the DC liberal establishment won't see him as an insignificant force when it comes to votes and election campaigns.
Just a thought.
There's a serious Mockingbird element to this. Assuming that the CIA's Mockingbird legacy is what many think it is (there's a hell of a lot of proof), and assuming that Assange, Rogan, and many alt media actors (even very small ones) are actually totally untouched by the Mockingbird infrastructure, those running modern day MB could have been actively tasked with media politics by other means i.e. 5G hybrid media warfare. They've been properly fingered across SocMed, they're being called out as totally in league with the Uniparty across every facet of power structure, of which J6 is a damning indictment. Mockingbird, when secret, was sophisticated enough to become hugely pervasive and no one wanted to entertain the idea/"conspiracy theory" that their gov was perma-fucking them harder than the soviets ever did to their people. So, now the mask's slipped, the Ponzi scheme of Empire is in the last chance saloon and people keep chucking out receipts, what's left to lose if you just go full tilt overt smash down? They don't care about showing how bent they are by changing the Dem process for RFK or denying him SS details. Meanwhile, psycho Cirilo says "we'll murder these journos, in addition to the ones we've already killed," while still posting pictures of UKR troops sporting nazi badges. It's nuts and it's totally open. The whole thing is literally the major components of the Fourth Reich being increasingly admitted to, so what's the point pretending any more?
The Five Eyes ex-USA are all fucked. The legal systems in all of them are gone. The quality and amount of lying to hide the insanity in these nations is at an all time low, such is the contempt for the citizenry and the total impunity of the ruling classes.
The West is now the USSR and it is our turn to face our version of hypernormalisation.
The irony is that a reset is actually needed, but it's still likely to be 85% on the elite's/WEF's terms because Joe Average cannot effectively mobilise.
That's a dense first paragraph! Hard to disagree with any of your description, bleak though it is.
The US/UK/Nazi thread goes back to pre-OSS times. I've read pretty convincing docs detailing NSDAP bankrolling by City of London and Wall Street, backed by factions in both the British and American elite politicians.
It's hard not to see Ukraine today as a continuation of a covert operations strategy that started in earnest in the 1920s with building and arming Hitler's band of bitter Munich thugs into a real nationally popular fascist party - a paramilitary mobilization of the working class against their own interests - and using them as a battering ram against communism and Stalin's Soviet Union. WW2, Cold War, Gladio, Neo-Colonialism, Sectarian Extremism, Azovifying Ukraine; it's a continuous lineage of state violence, its continuity in the quasi-religious (anti-Russia/anti-China) global domination mission driven by the same Anglo-American shadow state cabal...
Enough on that for now. It's a hard history to summarize and then not sound like a raving Cassandra.
I agree with you on the mask falling, the increasingly brazen cannibalization at home and existential aggression everywhere else. Every year the out-of-control Five Eyes oligarchy isn't stopped we're gamblimg worse odds against omnicide.
What you write at the end about needing the population to wake the fuck up and how little sign any wake-up happening (or likely to happen) is hard to argue.
I'll leave it there for now.
Who else has 6 million followers and appeals to both youth and women? Come on? Give me some names? Of course he is the best person in the 5 Eyes nations to take out currently . His past and his academic credibility are of no consequence. He IS clever, and 6 million people like what he is saying. What matters now is his potential future, not his past. He is far more intelligent that most of you realise, even if he is not that well educated, and he is poised to make a serious nuisance of himself if he ever decides to do so.
There a few others lining up behind him, but they are not in his league. Neil Oliver is preaching revolution at the moment, and he also has a good following - but only in the hundreds of thousands, not in the millions. And he is far too well educated to appeal to the youth or to Americans. And maybe Lawrence Fox? He is very clever, but also far too well educated and arrogant to boot. So he will never be that charismatic leader that Russell Brand can be. His followers LOVE him for his imperfections, not despite them.
Nop. Russell Brand it is. Cut him out and you cut loose 6 million people who need a new figurehead to lead them, and who are very unlikely to be able to find a replacement for him. And whatever some of us might like to think, the human race is rudderless without leaders.
I urge you to consider the difference between a "Content Provider" and a "Leader".
Please explain exactly why Russell Brand is a "Leader".
He may or may not be a "leader", but by modern standards he is certainly a "thought leader" and an "influencer". The old world and the old style of leadership is gone, dead and buried. Brand is working in a modern way with modern tools, and he has charisma by the bucket load. What he uses that for is another matter altogether, but currently he is way ahead of any other English personality as an "influencer".
But what I think of him, or what you think of him, is not the question here.
Whatever skills he does or does not have, the "powers that be" have assessed him to be worth of effort of taking out. That's what matters. They have clearly identified a threat that you have not. What ARE they so afraid of, that they will accept alienating at least the 6 million people who are following him? Why try to silence him?
It serves no-one to be minimising or patronising Russell Brand at this point in time. You can do that when you get to 6 million followers. Until then, let's pay a bit more attention to what he is actually saying or doing, so that we can work out why the powers are so afraid of him.
Perhaps Brand is "the man for this time and place".
You appear to have read VST's output on a highly selective basis.
You: "They have clearly identified a threat that you [VST] have not."
VST: "What you’re looking at is another attack on a media/information threat actor, that will follow roughly the same MO as the attack on Julian Assange. It will be executed by the British establishment using the British media as an intelligence service cut out, but the operation will largely be orchestrated by the US/CIA.
VST: "The reason for the attack is that Russell Brand is an outspoken critic of the mainstream who, by VST’s judgement, has grown into someone adequately aware and cynical enough to be on the money enough of the time, with enough of an audience to make him a considerable disruptor of state propaganda among the sub 35-year old audience, and he has increasing cross-border reach. Despite being nearly 50, Brand is still pretty cool for millennials and perhaps some of Gen Z, which puts him close to the youth mind. Taking out in whole or in part Russell Brand sends a message to the rest of the alt media that they can be touched too. This will have deliberate and rapid chilling effects on the weak and the gutless in not just Britain but at least other Five Eyes nations and possibly the EU, given its increasingly draconian media/information laws. Brand is less protected and likely less wealthy than Joe Rogan."
VST: "We can’t know if Brand is considered a threat to the establishment to such a degree that the state itself would come after him using its organs. It’s possible at the extreme and it’s the most likely thing his fan base and supporters/audience will say/are actually saying, hence why we led with it. In no way do we think that there’s equivalency between Brand and either Assange or DSK as political or public figures. Brand is a British Jimmy Dore with more hair and less self-control and wisdom. He’s not in Assange’s league and never will be. He’ll also never represent the pointed threat to the global financial system that DSK did when he said the 2008 bail out plan was wrong. Brand will not be tortured to death by anyone other than his own ego combined with lack of public attention."
VST: "...Brand is vulnerable to attack irrespective of a big political objective. He is a prime media sensation target for column inches. He may actually also have crossed the line more than once and there is a possibility that he has transgressed and committed offences."
VST: "Then there’s the obvious question of timing. Why now, after all this time? That should be answered given that we are in the post-Saville era."
VST: "It is a dead cert that his supporters will attach even more strongly to the “Brand is being targeted because he’s a thorn in the media’s side re truth”..."
VST: "If, however, no serious attempt is made to progress the story to an objective and serious criminal investigation, the likelihood that this is a politically motivated hitjob escalates into a chase down for cash where possible."
VST: "This is the problem with and power of the sex crime narrative. It’s one of the most powerful weapons in the establishment’s arsenal and it does permanent damage the moment it is unleashed, irrespective of the truth and final outcome."
VST: "If Brand is formally charged, VST would see this, paradoxically, as the most likely indication of a full on, serious and backed from the shadows attack, as well as possibly completely legitimate prosecution."
VST: "This could be a very effective technique to employ in a real hitjob."
VST: "The superficial significance of this is, as per the political objectives of our hypothesis, that Brand is a media/awareness threat to the system and he’s being taken out. VST actually thinks that's not really worth losing sleep over."
If you interpret all of the above as a total inability of VST to assess and recognise Brand as varying degrees of political target including a direct threat, then we have no understanding of how you read what we write.
---
In case you hadn't noticed, the second article in particular tried to tread a line of objectivity.
Just as the best propaganda has a kernel of truth, so the best political hitjobs have seeds of truth that can be amplified, grown and woven into powerful weapons of perception management. This particular situation may have a degree of truth in it, but it may not be discernible to anyone but the accusers and Brand. We recognise that possibility in the article.
VST has laid out its take across multiple facets and possibilities based on the very limited information available at this stage, in the context of testing a theory:
"Is it possible to guess the political objective & context, format and content of a possible political hitjob from next to no information, based almost solely on the present standing/position of this particular target?"
We think we proved the answer is yes. The point of doing that was to illustrate that this could be a such an obvious political hitjob on the alt media that we could predict it. The clue was in the title of the first article. What we didn't set out to do was render a judgement on Brand, one way or the other.
We are neither fans nor detractors.
Just exactly how have we minimised or patronised Russell Brand?
Do you say that because the last line reads "What Russell Brand does can be and is done by others"? That is a statement of fact as proven by the existence of Jimmy Dore, as we made clear. They are both comedians doing exactly the same thing as each other, in case you hadn't noticed. Neither one of them originates information. They simply comment on their choice of information, from perspectives that significantly overlap.
Watch some Bill Hicks if you think that Brand's comedy "insight" schtick is original.
Brand was 17 when Hicks performed the seminal Revelations in London. If he had lived past 38, we can only speculate at what he would have done in later life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wG0wZD3Kh8
Then again, we can simply look at George Carlin as an example of the almost quintessential and literal-to-the-point-of-it-not-being-comedy exemplar of anti-establishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxmiSRD0ZqU
Can you hear your tone? Never mind. If you are deaf to your own tone, nothing I say will penetrate. Do you have a real name, by the way, or do you live on the fame of others?
Tone? That's predominantly in your head, such is the nature of writing and reading.
We have addressed your accusation with self-referential evidence from our material that you are critiquing.
VST is aware of "what [Brand] is actually saying or doing, so that we can work out why the powers are so afraid of him" in some regards, as reflected by the content of our articles that, contrary to your claim, recognises what Brand may be perceived as.
Please answer the question we posed to you:
"Just exactly how have we minimised or patronised Russell Brand?"
And advise us of how, given the quoted material in the previous response, we have not identified him as a "threat" to some (namely the state) and how we have not answered the questions you pose of:
"What ARE they so afraid of, that they will accept alienating at least the 6 million people who are following him? Why try to silence him?"
Which is self-evident to anyone who has seen Brand's output from at least the last three years.
To us, tone notwithstanding, your original critique seems otiose.
You do realise the we know what you have just attempted to do, don't you?
Yours is quite literally the most unsophisticated and amateurish attempt to doxx someone we've seen.
At least have the decency to employ easily available tools to up the degree of sport.
What exactly do you require a name for?
What are you intending to do with it?
What "fame" are you referring to with regard to VST?
Have you not realised that if you believe people to be writing and publishing under a pseudonym, then fame inherently cannot follow? And that is said people write and publish for free, they cannot "live" off the back of that writing, no matter if it sometimes references other persons who are actually famous?
otiose
in British English
(ˈəʊtɪˌəʊs IPA Pronunciation Guide, -ˌəʊz IPA Pronunciation Guide )
ADJECTIVE
1. serving no useful purpose
otiose language
2. rare
indolent; lazy
For complete transparency, this substack user chose to block VST rather than answer any of our reciprocal enquiries that stem purely from her initial and otiose critique, further rendering her entire engagement even more otiose.
QED.
We smell self-inflated tripe. If I wanted that, I’d stick with MSM.
Feel free to provide specific critique.
While your article is spot on in many respects, my current opinion about this can't help by be influenced by the overly slick and purposefully emotionally manipulative production values of the Channel 4 accusathon.
That was not a news organization reporting a story so much as a prosecution team provided with an unlimited special effects budget.
Thanks.
Yes, this is why we refuse to watch it. The trailer, the title and the Times article all indicate that the programme would be pure propaganda.
Reading text is less powerful because one's cognitive filters are easier to use and the language can be scrutinised.
The programme assaults on multiple levels and channels. Best avoided.
The story is getting modest pushback from the get go for the right reasons. Tim Ballard formerly of OUR is now under similar attack (truth unknown). There are likely to be others in the next year.
Could probably set up a fantasy league based on it.