• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: axe battler | Pissed_and_messed

Russel Brand... your thoughts?

When it comes to swarmy, sexually aggressive men who do things that violate and go way past a women's boundaries on camera: One can only imagine what they do off camera. Actually I don't really want to think about it too much, It is disgusting
 
I actually got sucked into the right wing rabbit wormhole for a while (but never into RB's orbit).

It's so weird looking back on it now.

How on Earth was I that lost?

Jnowhere said:
When it comes to swarmy, sexually aggressive men who do things that violate and go way past a women's boundaries on camera: One can only imagine what they do off camera. Actually I don't really want to think about it too much, It is disgusting
Click to expand...

+1,000
 
So lost.

So disconnected from my heart.

Left wing is God.

Ring wing is the devil.

I was a hippy, then I became a hardcore conservative. Now I am a mega-hippy.

It feels amazing to be back home.
 
To be fair, I don't think you can really classify RBs politics. In the 90s he clearly signalled professed left-wing beliefs but now it's a mixture of dodgy-data, conspiracy theories and generalized spiritualism.

Maybe he attracts a more right-leaning audience but who knows what HE actually believes? In the UK his whole 'don't vote' ethos certainly helped the Tory party but I do think that he consciously sought that outcome.

It's all very vague, possibly that IS a conscious decision?

I have no objection to people who act out of self-interest as long as they aren't implying that they are doing something for other reasons. I still think their are people who truly believe he is acting out of altruism in spite of the fact that he dropped the largest streaming platform because said platform stopped placing ads around his work and therefore stopped paying him royalties. They didn't BAN him. Youtube was acting out of self-interest in not wanting to lose advertisers.

The CONSTANT refrain that his free speech is being attacked. The fact that he hosts a podcast gives him an audience that most people in that game would love to have suggests that he's not struggling THAT hard. Of course, the places that host his podcasts also sell his audiobooks so in essence the podcasts are to support sales. I noted that every guest was promoting their book/site/podcast/product(s) which is the way of all talk shows.
 
Frog Dreams said:
Nobody is fully right or left unless they are lemmings.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I merely stated that RB professed a left-wing bias and suggested that maybe his more recent works are more right-leaning.

I cannot divine his or indeed anyone's position on any issue unless they state it. But indeed, it's ridiculous to assume anyone can be defined by such a monolithic term. That said, their DOES appear to be a minority who will mirror a politician's views on every subject they mention.

Politicians are possibly the best exponents of self-interest masquerading as deeply-held ethical beliefs.
 
Bleaney said:
Yes I agree that the moves to attempt to de-platform and de-monetise Brand by the Tory MP involved in 'online safety' and 'Covid Misinformation" (meaning any dissent to the narrative peddled by the MSM) is sinister and they have well and truly overstepped their grounds in this regard.

It is a blatant assault on free speech and an attempt to silence an inconvenient voice of truth telling regarding the lies we are all sold my the MSM.

I don't agree with everything Brand says, but some of what he says rings true, and he has a right to say whatever he wishes to say, in a supposed free country.

The moves to attempt to silence him in this regard are very concerning.

Whether he's guilty of the accusations or not, he still has a right to his opinions, and he also he has a right to earn a living.

It is noticeable that many people's view on this matter mostly seem to boil down to whether they like him or not.

He's always been a divisive figure.

@Tranced As a matter of interest, do you have a link to your post that the reported replied to?

I had a "Facebook FACT CHECK" attempt to censor one of my posts, for posting a meme, taking the piss of the new style weather forecasts making out hot temperatures to look like fear, death, and destruction. Hot temperatures and sunny days used to be cause for celebration, but now it has become something the media tells us that we should be in fear of. You're apparently not allowed to make observations about things like this any more. This is the kind of thing the likes of Brand are absolutely correct about calling out the media on it;s fearmongering bullshit attempting to keep the population perpetually scared of one thing after another.
Click to expand...

Your post is bang on. I used to hate Russel Brand and always thought he "told girl jokes", jokes that seemed to make only woman laugh. Then I realised "ahhh, indeed he does tell girl jokes, and it's genius!". I've liked him ever since, plus he was doing his trew news stuff around then and his comedy has evolved a lot.

Agreed though he is total divisive and I'm extremely surprised to see people here supporting corporate media smeers.

Yes the girls would have a right to go to a voice... just not because the fucking media contacted you! How does that even work?! Actually map out the process and you will see what can only be a corrupt trail.

People are more bothered about this than they are the WEF. Unbelievable!

P.s @Bleaney - I've pm'd you the link regarding that beeb reporter who replied to my post, and please don't like or reply, as I much like it when she is NOT posting here. =D
 
Frog Dreams said:
What does demonetize mean?
Click to expand...
It means to remove the possibility of making money out of user created content posted on social media platforms such as you tube and Rumble. Brand has 6.6 million followers on You Tube, and the viewing numbers on some of his videos is in to the millions, so he would have been making a tidy sum out of his content on there. The money comes from advertisers.

Youtube de-monetised him almost immediately the allegations surfaced. And that tory minister contacted a load of other platfroms trying to pressurise them to demonetise him accross all of them too. That was a massive over reach. She has no right to attempt to do such a thing.

Rumble flat out refused and basically told her to Fuck Off in their reply.

Good on Rumble I say.
 
Last edited:
Since when was Russel Brand right wing?

Are people certain that their definition of right wing has not simply changed?
 
Bleaney said:
Youtube de-monetised him almost immediately the allegations surfaced.
Click to expand...

I've had this conversation with many intelligent people. I still fail to understand.

Look at it from the company's perspective. They are a company. They want money. So does Brand, who is already a millionaire. Let's not forget that. He has 6.6 million followers. So what? Let them follow him like the pied piper. If I own and operate Youtube (or Netflix), I don't need to endorse anyone I don't want to endorse.

People have an outrageously entitled attitude (it seems) about free speech.

Free speech doesn't extend to receiving money through a particular service that requires money and manpower to continue operating.

Brand is driven by self-interest. He pretends to be a guru. He pretends to be a champion for free speech. He pretends to care about politics. He doesn't care. He cares about himself.

Youtube cares about itself.

This is the nature of humans.

You seem to be suggesting that Youtube is unethical for "demonetizing" him; I tend to think they are unethical for monetizing him in the first place: I guess it is a matter of perspective.
 
Tranced said:
Since when was Russel Brand right wing?

Are people certain that their definition of right wing has not simply changed?
Click to expand...
It's not clear that he is, although he does side with Trump in several issues involving the "fake news" generated by the MSM, and the apparently unequally negative way Trump is treated by the majority of the American and world media, as opposed to the Democrats, for doing the same or similar things. Data breaches etc is one example he's used.

The whole fake news thing completely fits one of Brand's main themes, and it's something we need more people speaking out about imo..
 
If you start pointing fingers about people being fake, except them to point fingers back at ya.
 
In one of his recent videos, Brand screened a clip of Trump describing Covid lockdowns and mask wearing as "woke nonsense" and saying that there will be no further lockdowns or mask mandating if he's re-elected.

It seems incredibly bold to me for a politician to fly in the face of the apparently accepted media narrative like this regarding Covid.

But Trump doesn't fear going his own way, and so many people have some to similar conclusions..

It will be interesting to see what verdict history comes to regarding all the Covid lockdowns and other measures imposed in 2020. Or it may remain a divisive issue forever.
 
Last edited:
You're suggesting his motivation is pure?

Do you really think he is a champion of free speech because he cares about free speech, or because he cares about himself?

Same thing for RB.
 
Frog Dreams said:
I've had this conversation with many intelligent people. I still fail to understand.

Look at it from the company's perspective. They are a company. They want money. So does Brand, who is already a millionaire. Let's not forget that. He has 6.6 million followers. So what? Let them follow him like the pied piper. If I own and operate Youtube (or Netflix), I don't need to endorse anyone I don't want to endorse.

People have an outrageously entitled attitude (it seems) about free speech.

Free speech doesn't extend to receiving money through a particular service that requires money and manpower to continue operating.

Brand is driven by self-interest. He pretends to be a guru. He pretends to be a champion for free speech. He pretends to care about politics. He doesn't care. He cares about himself.

Youtube cares about itself.

This is the nature of humans.

You seem to be suggesting that Youtube is unethical for "demonetizing" him; I tend to think they are unethical for monetizing him in the first place: I guess it is a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

Please, allow me to help you, lest you be next.

He is not guilty of any crime, correct? That's one very big reason why.

Youtube has allowed abusers and sex offenders to monitise off their platform in the past, correct? Link & Link

Also, the adverts on his previous videos, youtube still collects revenue from them, correct? Link

The media obviously knew about these crimes, if they're true, correct? So they are complicit in covering up sex problems, again, if true, correct?

If they didn't know, then they went and found the girls, correct? How? Picture it. That's a problem, right?

Youtube actually has a new policy of not allowing people to accuse people of sex crimes, correct? So that's a conflict of interest, right? Link

"If creators have off-platform behavior, or there's off-platform news that could be damaging to the broader creator ecosystem, you can be suspended from our monetization program," Mohan told "CBS Mornings" co-host Tony Dokoupil. "It's impacted a number of creators and personalities on the platform in the past. And that's what played out in this particular case around the serious allegations."
Click to expand...

So you can get in trouble with google for off-platform behavior now, behavior which people deny and that were initiated by media? That's a huge problem, given googles monopoly... right? If it was you, you would be outraged at google, no? What if you get de-platformed for being a drug user posting on a drugs forum? It will never happen, right?

September 19th: The only safety bill passed Link
September 16th: Russel Brand was accused. Link
September 19th: UK Gov sent out letters to Tik Tok and Rumble Direct link to the UK Gov letter they sent to Tik Tok

Russel Brand has criticised said bill, and the BBC's Trusted News Initiative, and the government, etc etc. Coincidence?

Coincidence on the dates there?

What if bluelights next? Or more to the point, when is bluelight next? When are you next?

Because (link):
Waving Palestinian flag may be a criminal offence, Braverman tells police

Waving a Palestinian flag or singing a chant advocating freedom for Arabs in the region may be a criminal offence, Suella Braverman has told senior police officers.

In a letter to chief constables in England and Wales, the home secretary urged them to clamp down on any attempts to use flags, songs or swastikas to harass or intimidate members of the Jewish community.

Her words, which follow deadly attacks by Hamas on Israelis and a military response, will deeply concern freedom of speech advocates and members of the Muslim community.

In the letter, Braverman said police should not restrict themselves to potential offences related to the promotion of Hamas, a proscribed organisation.

“It is not just explicit pro-Hamas symbols and chants that are cause for concern. I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ should be understood as an expression of a violent desire to see Israel erased from the world, and whether its use in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence.

“I would encourage police to give similar consideration to the presence of symbols such as swastikas at anti-Israel demonstrations. Context is crucial. Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism"
Click to expand...
God forbid people advocate freedom. So seriously, who could be next? Me? For posting this?

The very same committee that sent the letter owns the BBC, who were instrumental in spearheading the allegations, as were channel 4 who were created by, and answer to, that very same committee.

Last time I pointed out these ties between these news organisations and the government committee on here, a fucking BBC journalist responded and called me a conspiracy theorist (!!)

At the time, the BBC were in talks about losing their license fee rights, Which they were allowed to keep. The BBC trusted news initiative exists. Do you know what that is? Link to BBC explanation:
The Trusted News Initiative is a partnership, founded by the BBC, that includes organisations from around the globe including; AP, AFP, BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Financial Times, Information Futures Lab, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, The Nation Media Group, Meta, Microsoft, Thomson Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post, Kompas – Indonesia, Dawn – Pakistan, Indian Express, NDTV – India, ABC – Australia, SBS – Australia, NHK – Japan.


TNI members work together to build audience trust and to find solutions to tackle challenges of disinformation. By including media organisations and social media platforms, it is the only forum in the world of its kind designed to take on disinformation in real time. Our most recent conference took place in London and Delhi in March 2023 – you can watch all of the sessions again.

What we do​


  • Fast alert against the most harmful disinformation
  • Discuss trends
  • Media education and shared learnings
  • Engineering solutions
Click to expand...

The head of the BBC committee in question (culture, media and sport), didn't even know how to tell the committee where channel 4 now receives its funding Link to Huffington Post Article, when they were threatened with privitasation:

The broadcaster is publicly-owned and came under review (link to UK gov) in July after the department for culture, media and sport said the changing media landscape, and the growing support for streaming platforms, means it was time to consider privatising it.
Click to expand...

So do you think the media maybe follow along now and do as they're told, given they've been threatened with losing their license fee/becoming privitised? Given that, how can you trust them? How can you trust them given the collaboration on "disinformation" that's clearly a part of the trusted news initiative? Ever wonder how the news corporations all agreed on absolutely everything during covid? Ever wonder not even just why, but how?

This is corrupt to the core. If you do not believe in the ethos of "innocent until proven guilty", then god forbid you're next.

Everything I've just posted is a damn good reason and a damn good indication that this was designed purely to take a dissenter with a voice, out of the picture.

Hopefully you now understand, because this is a fucking huge issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top