Russell Brand on Revolution

Spread the love

Well worth reading and I will adopt and adapt some of his suggestions.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Cameron, Osborne, Boris, all of them lot, they went to the same schools and the same universities that have the same decor as the old buildings from which they now govern us. It’s not that they’re malevolent; it’s just that they’re irrelevant. Relics of an old notion, like Old Spice: it’s fine that it exists but no one should actually use it.

We are still led by blithering chimps, in razor-sharp suits, with razor-sharp lines, pimped and crimped by spin doctors and speech-writers. Well-groomed ape-men, superficially altered by post-Clintonian trends.

We are mammals on a planet, who now face a struggle for survival if our species is to avoid expiry. We can’t be led by people who have never struggled, who are a dusty oak-brown echo of a system dreamed up by Whigs and old Dutch racists.

We now must live in reality, inner and outer. Consciousness itself must change. My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite. The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.” Like a tanker way off course due to an imperceptible navigational error at the offset we need only alter our inner longitude.

Capitalism is not real; it is an idea. America is not real; it is an idea that someone had ages ago. Britain, Christianity, Islam, karate, Wednesdays are all just ideas that we choose to believe in and very nice ideas they are, too, when they serve a purpose. These concepts, though, cannot be served to the detriment of actual reality.

The reality is we have a spherical ecosystem, suspended in, as far as we know, infinite space upon which there are billions of carbon-based life forms, of which we presume ourselves to be the most important, and a limited amount of resources.

The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and in – clusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation.

[7.30pm edit: I don’t want anyone thinking that I intend to be some political or spiritual leader. There were suggestions of this in the Jerusalem Post articles of 7 & 8th July 2005 which were the script to be followed in the July 7 bombings and investigation.

Brand acknowledges the role of materialism and self-interest in his article. From a personal perspective, many years ago I had a young man and a young woman presenting themselves to be used and I have the different odd nod of acknowledgment [1/11/13 and respect which is appreciated] every now and again. Apart from that it’s been a real pain and nothing but a real pain. Granted while I am occasionally successful in my endeavours, I don’t personally benefit from it and it does take some effort. ]

Continue ReadingRussell Brand on Revolution

R.I.P. Jean Charles de Menezes

Spread the love

R.I.P. Jean Charles de Menezes murdered at Stockwell Tube Station 22 July 2005.

Jean Charles de Menezes was killed to send a message . The message was that another totally innocent person was to blame – somebody absolutely, completely not responsible – for the bombings. Ian Blair made many statements about how the murder of the innocent Brizzlian was so directly related to the ongoing terrorist investigation.

It is clear from the murder of Brizzlian Jean Charles de Menezes that there was absolutely no intention in pursuing those really responsible for the London bombings of 7 July, 2005.

I suggest that you look at all the shit Ian Blair did from the very start -libertines, cocaine. he was never a copper, always pursuing a different agenda

Frank ly it’s Jean Charles de Menezes

https://bristol.indymedia.org/article/691701

Later edit: The point about the murder of JCd was that it was a message of who should be targeted for responsibility for the July 7 explosions. Get it?

directly related to the ongoing terrorist investigation – all that shit …

Get it?

Later: http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/691701

7 October 2013

To clarify: Jean Charles de Menezes was killed 911 days after the introduction of the shoot-to-kill policy known as Operation Kratos. To clarify – I am saying 911 days after the introduction of Operation Kratos. If you do the math there is a difference of 912 days but it is still 911 days after. There is a similarity here that the event known as the Madrid Bombings or 3/11 occurred 911 days after the event known as 9/11 in New York. 911 is not a coincidence. It is the beginning of killing people under Operation Kratos.

I have shown that Jean Charles de Menezes’ name can be interpreted using Agrippa’s code. It produces a description that can be taken to indicate me and my location.

Jean Charles de Menezes was Brizzle-ian.

Ian Blair on the day described the police murder of Jean Charles de Menezes as directly linked to the ongoing terrorist investigation. JCd was deliberately murdered to send a message.

 

Continue ReadingR.I.P. Jean Charles de Menezes

I’ve been wondering … and the problem is that

Spread the love

I’ve been wondering what it takes to start an investigation by the police into a crime. I would expect that it would just be reasonableness that a crime has been committed. I wouldn’t expect much interest in trivial crimes like shoplifting or minor criminal damage but I would expect more interest in more serious issues like murder, incitement to murder, terrorism, etc.

and the problem is that it’s not normal criminals that are doing this. Instead it’s governments, police chiefs and international criminals protected by privy council above-governmental dictat according to some above-law divine protocol.

Don’t look at this the protocol says … this is above justice …

Instead the privy council dictat says everyone invited to G8 2005 are above UK laws. They can’t even be arrested or questioned. They are above the law. These Neo-Con cnuts can do what they like without any legal recourse …

They can’t even be arrested or questioned

They can commit murder or mass-murder without even being arrested or questioned

If these b’stards did the 7 July 2005 bombings they could not be arrested or even questioned because of a privy council dictat made by Tony Blair

next post

Later edit: I’m very pleased that at least some journalists are better informed now. I’m not really sure that that makes any difference since I’ve been warned of journalists being carp.

I wonder if journalists were so carp that they weren’t even aware of this coded bs

Isn’t it there every day on the sun?

Continue ReadingI’ve been wondering … and the problem is that

While my toung is looser …

Spread the love

There’s been a lot of talk about British values recently in political circles.

I am very proud to be Welsh and of Welsh culture, tradition and history. I also identify with a Celtic identity. I very much like living in Bristol which is great. I do not consider that by being Welsh that I am in any way better or superior to anyone else or to anyone of any other nationality or identity. I’ve said – probably repeatedly – that I respect all.

It may have been said in different terms. Isn’t that British values? Shall I clarify? It’s not nationality or belief system …  Actually I have to refine it much more than that … I am not prejudiced according to nationality or belief system but perhaps allow people to show themselves to be nasty.

To return to the idea of British values. I would hope that the concept of British values would include the idea of coming to the aid of those unfairly persecuted, of gross injustices, to oppose – previous – corrupt governments, etc. Doesn’t the concept of British values include standing up to and holding corruption – whatever the scale – to account?

Edit: Shouldn’t we try to get it out of the way now?

Later Edit: Probably should have said more about the democratic right of criticising politicians especially since I was so good and spot on about it.

 

 

Continue ReadingWhile my toung is looser …