Sep 21, 2023·edited Sep 21, 2023Liked by JJ Starky
First, I want to congratulate you on your research, which is first rate.
Every thing you say here with regard to fight for free speech, attacking the old Dineage and her 77th husband and your support for an individual who is purely under accusation at this time are 100% on point. However, Russell Brand is without any doubt, an operative of the opposition. Along with Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. I will direct you towards Miri Finch for a better description -
I know from personal experience that accepting the controlled oposition thing is a hard swallow, but swallow we must to get to where we need to be to get anywhere with this
always happy to read. I personally don't watch much of russell's content as he reviews stuff i've already seen. but will definitely have a look at what you linked 👍
I read the Mira Af article you linked to. You're suggesting that we destroy people without facts. That's all she was doing, using guesses for slander. Unless Brand is a sociopath, that would mean that he enjoys the affect of this sex scandal on his family.
I don't like Andrew Tate, her equivocal example, but she leaves out that Tate sat in a prison in Romania which isn't a comfortable way to be controlled opposition.
Although every angle is possible, why not go with what we know first eg., the Media is known for blowing up interesting characters, inflating and deflating them. They do it cause it makes them money.
On an off note, thank fuck Murdoch is retired. Please send me an obituary.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my link Mike. Its Ok that we disagree on this. But to counter slightly your reply. I am not suggesting that we destroy people without facts. I watched the channel 4 documentary and found the "evidence" that he is guilty of anything unlawful to be severly lacking. The only thing he is guilty of is being a very pushy controlling narcisist with a sex addiction who some women, crazily thought they could control when, if they had any sence what so ever, they would have stayed a million miles away from him. I am not defending enyone who want to destroy him on the basis of this "evidence". No, what I am saying is that there is copius amounts of evidence that he being used by the powers that be to lead and control a narrative to a subset of the opposition. Look, i'll agree that this takes a quite open mind, and many are not ready to see it yet, I don't mean that to be patronising, we have all been at the stage where we can't get our heads around this, right up to the day when we do finally get our head around it. Certain characters have always been used to control the opposition, this has always been the case, and Russel ticks pretty much every box. I strongly suggest you give the Mark Devlin link a watch too. As for Andrew Tate I could say pretty much the same thing.
He's been open about his past and his efforts to be a better human. What proof is there that he's been dishonest? He does appear to have the "look at me" aspect of narcissism but without me knowing the degree, that doesn't mean that Narcissist defines him. The counterweight is that his empathy seems sincere. There is a difference between his over-the-top monologues versus him sanely and cleverly interviewing people.
But onto the meat which is you saying "There is copius amounts of evidence that he being used by the powers that be to lead and control a narrative to a subset of the opposition."
Where is that?
Then you say: "Look, I'll agree that this takes a quite open mind, and many are not ready to see it yet, I don't mean that to be patronising, we have all been at the stage where we can't get our heads around this, right up to the day when we do finally get our head around it. "
I interpret that as patronising. Maybe I'm sensitive because the life I had was destroyed fighting corruption. I know conspiracies are real, and have been subjected to that by my government to silence me. I know 100% what its like to be on the receiving end of sex propaganda. That doesn't make me biased to conspiracy because fake ones detract from the real ones. My mind is open to what can be proved.
I have no intention of arguing with or patronising you Mike, I have read your bio and I have nothing but respect for what you are doing in SA and wish you well. Being in the UK I have followed his career since the outset. For what its worth I used to find him mildly amusing, then completely annoying and peverted, then a few years back I noticed he had changed considerably and was even a keen listener of his podcast.
You clearly haven't seen the Mark Devlin film that I also linked, which is where much of the evidence lies. I have no idea where you sit with the occult, I have been opening my mind to the occult for the last 5 years but it took the whole Covid BS to open my eyes fully to the evil in this world. Again, feel free to disagree.
I really didn't mean to be patronising, its just that, knowing how long it took me to accept how this world works (as I perceive it), I can appreciate how long it can take to see things differently.
But you ask for evidence of why he is controlled oposition and I feel I have supplied all you need. I'm not here to argue, feel free to disagree and continue the good work you are doing. I think we probably agree on far far more than that which we disagree.
I have read your "The Motive " article on Brand, and I also read Iain Davis' article. What I would say, on top of my initial response below, is that, you don't get to his (or Andrew Tate's) level of following unless the message you are pushing can be leveraged, we could argue all day over whether these hugely famous figures are knowingly controlled (I would argue that they know full well), but the fact that they have not been memory holed out of existence should tell you all you need to know. Memory holing in the digital age that we are in is beyond easy for the big tech companies. These guys are serving an important role, whether that is pied piper or limited hangout (strange that Iain didn't see this with his ties to Whitney Webb, and by the way, I am a keen reader of both Whitney and Iain). I know the next question: "what role is that then?" to which the only answer I have with any certainty is - Time will tell.
Their role? They (Stay Free and Co.) are a conduit for demoralisation. As witnessed, once a sufficient number of 'narrative opposing' have been garnered, they are shown how, in a global display of tyrannical shitfuckery, they will crush a crusader without one iota of due process or application of law. A beautiful display of power, demoralising all the hopeful followers believing that there may be a way out of this living hell.
Well, yes George, that is certainly one of the roles that Brand et al. play. The point though is that they ARE playing a role, and, i would argue, playing it knowingly. Brand was a shill for GOF bullshit and leading his 50 million followers down that flawed path, so he served at least 2 roles. Lead the millions up the garden, false binary, path, and then paint all those 50 million truth seekers (who should know better than to fall in to the controlled op trap) with the association of a rapist (not proven, i know, though he certainly was a predatitive pervert without a doubt, even admitidly). People always look for a leader and THEY will always provide.
I don't consider that to be an article and stated it was half arsed opinion. My data was running out and I posted hastily, but later linked to solid articles by others (as I will link to this page).
I'm not fruitlessly arguing. I'm trying to get you to prove your argument.
First, address the facts in Starky's article. Agree or disagree, with reason why. Separate fact from opinion.
Then list facts why Brand is controlled opposition.
1.
2.
3. etc.
I'm not a friend of Brand, and have no reason to support him. My mind is open to be changed. Until then, I'm going with the fact that there is an attempt to take him down, and that has been done to others. Government is more often simple and brutal than artfully sinister.
To finish this discussion, to try to list the points to win this debate would, for me, be like trying to debate why water is wet. It feels wet, I know its wet because it is. I appreciate this will not be enough for you. I leave the arguing and evidence game to those that put things far better than I do, hence the links I posted. Miri Finch has quite a few articles on Tate that I would recommend to you (easy to find on her stack). On that note, i'll bid you a good day
I'd hope for enlightenment but, unfortunately, you've confirmed that your intention was to distract.
1. You never discussed the article. You pointed away from it.
2. You provided two links which were slanderous innuendos without facts, using the technique of reasonable tone to be devilishly unreasonable. I read the full article but only reached 13 minutes into the video (but that seemed appropriate for its topic about Brand being the Pied Piper for the Illuminati).
3. You wouldn't list facts although, if you had them, would have taken less time than all these comments.
I am open minded. Maybe one day, Brand will be proven as an agent. If so, I will share the evidence. Until then, based on the evidence at hand, he's just another truthseeker getting fucked. I hope that Brand or his kind would do me the same courtesy when I'm imprisoned and someone says, "Mike is controlled opposition."
There is a major difference between what we want to believe and what we know. The real pied pipers rely on the former.
Your article is giving my paranoia "fecking hell." Much thanks for the forthcoming sleepless, dystopian nights. Maybe I'll move to the Donbas where the UK's missile are, at least, visible.
First, I want to congratulate you on your research, which is first rate.
Every thing you say here with regard to fight for free speech, attacking the old Dineage and her 77th husband and your support for an individual who is purely under accusation at this time are 100% on point. However, Russell Brand is without any doubt, an operative of the opposition. Along with Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. I will direct you towards Miri Finch for a better description -
https://miri.substack.com/p/the-re-branding-of-russell
And also to Mark Devlin to better understand the control mechanism
https://odysee.com/@markdevlintv:e/Russell-Brand---Pied-Piper-To-The-End%2C-17-9-23:a
I know from personal experience that accepting the controlled oposition thing is a hard swallow, but swallow we must to get to where we need to be to get anywhere with this
always happy to read. I personally don't watch much of russell's content as he reviews stuff i've already seen. but will definitely have a look at what you linked 👍
Thanks JJ. I meant the links to be in addition to what you reported, not as an affront. 😁
I read the Mira Af article you linked to. You're suggesting that we destroy people without facts. That's all she was doing, using guesses for slander. Unless Brand is a sociopath, that would mean that he enjoys the affect of this sex scandal on his family.
I don't like Andrew Tate, her equivocal example, but she leaves out that Tate sat in a prison in Romania which isn't a comfortable way to be controlled opposition.
Although every angle is possible, why not go with what we know first eg., the Media is known for blowing up interesting characters, inflating and deflating them. They do it cause it makes them money.
On an off note, thank fuck Murdoch is retired. Please send me an obituary.
Laura K has written a brilliant one here on substack🤣🤣
Laura K: She was only the age of consent so Russell must be Jimmy Saville :)
Here's the obituary you asked for 🤣 https://open.substack.com/pub/normalislandnews/p/rupert-murdoch-to-finally-resign?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=ukvw4
Redemption for the writer. Brilliant wit!
Yes, I think so too 😁
I appreciate you taking the time to read my link Mike. Its Ok that we disagree on this. But to counter slightly your reply. I am not suggesting that we destroy people without facts. I watched the channel 4 documentary and found the "evidence" that he is guilty of anything unlawful to be severly lacking. The only thing he is guilty of is being a very pushy controlling narcisist with a sex addiction who some women, crazily thought they could control when, if they had any sence what so ever, they would have stayed a million miles away from him. I am not defending enyone who want to destroy him on the basis of this "evidence". No, what I am saying is that there is copius amounts of evidence that he being used by the powers that be to lead and control a narrative to a subset of the opposition. Look, i'll agree that this takes a quite open mind, and many are not ready to see it yet, I don't mean that to be patronising, we have all been at the stage where we can't get our heads around this, right up to the day when we do finally get our head around it. Certain characters have always been used to control the opposition, this has always been the case, and Russel ticks pretty much every box. I strongly suggest you give the Mark Devlin link a watch too. As for Andrew Tate I could say pretty much the same thing.
He's been open about his past and his efforts to be a better human. What proof is there that he's been dishonest? He does appear to have the "look at me" aspect of narcissism but without me knowing the degree, that doesn't mean that Narcissist defines him. The counterweight is that his empathy seems sincere. There is a difference between his over-the-top monologues versus him sanely and cleverly interviewing people.
But onto the meat which is you saying "There is copius amounts of evidence that he being used by the powers that be to lead and control a narrative to a subset of the opposition."
Where is that?
Then you say: "Look, I'll agree that this takes a quite open mind, and many are not ready to see it yet, I don't mean that to be patronising, we have all been at the stage where we can't get our heads around this, right up to the day when we do finally get our head around it. "
I interpret that as patronising. Maybe I'm sensitive because the life I had was destroyed fighting corruption. I know conspiracies are real, and have been subjected to that by my government to silence me. I know 100% what its like to be on the receiving end of sex propaganda. That doesn't make me biased to conspiracy because fake ones detract from the real ones. My mind is open to what can be proved.
Stark listed valuable points. Counter them.
I have no intention of arguing with or patronising you Mike, I have read your bio and I have nothing but respect for what you are doing in SA and wish you well. Being in the UK I have followed his career since the outset. For what its worth I used to find him mildly amusing, then completely annoying and peverted, then a few years back I noticed he had changed considerably and was even a keen listener of his podcast.
You clearly haven't seen the Mark Devlin film that I also linked, which is where much of the evidence lies. I have no idea where you sit with the occult, I have been opening my mind to the occult for the last 5 years but it took the whole Covid BS to open my eyes fully to the evil in this world. Again, feel free to disagree.
I really didn't mean to be patronising, its just that, knowing how long it took me to accept how this world works (as I perceive it), I can appreciate how long it can take to see things differently.
But you ask for evidence of why he is controlled oposition and I feel I have supplied all you need. I'm not here to argue, feel free to disagree and continue the good work you are doing. I think we probably agree on far far more than that which we disagree.
I have read your "The Motive " article on Brand, and I also read Iain Davis' article. What I would say, on top of my initial response below, is that, you don't get to his (or Andrew Tate's) level of following unless the message you are pushing can be leveraged, we could argue all day over whether these hugely famous figures are knowingly controlled (I would argue that they know full well), but the fact that they have not been memory holed out of existence should tell you all you need to know. Memory holing in the digital age that we are in is beyond easy for the big tech companies. These guys are serving an important role, whether that is pied piper or limited hangout (strange that Iain didn't see this with his ties to Whitney Webb, and by the way, I am a keen reader of both Whitney and Iain). I know the next question: "what role is that then?" to which the only answer I have with any certainty is - Time will tell.
Their role? They (Stay Free and Co.) are a conduit for demoralisation. As witnessed, once a sufficient number of 'narrative opposing' have been garnered, they are shown how, in a global display of tyrannical shitfuckery, they will crush a crusader without one iota of due process or application of law. A beautiful display of power, demoralising all the hopeful followers believing that there may be a way out of this living hell.
Is that what you were try to figure out sir?
Well, yes George, that is certainly one of the roles that Brand et al. play. The point though is that they ARE playing a role, and, i would argue, playing it knowingly. Brand was a shill for GOF bullshit and leading his 50 million followers down that flawed path, so he served at least 2 roles. Lead the millions up the garden, false binary, path, and then paint all those 50 million truth seekers (who should know better than to fall in to the controlled op trap) with the association of a rapist (not proven, i know, though he certainly was a predatitive pervert without a doubt, even admitidly). People always look for a leader and THEY will always provide.
I don't consider that to be an article and stated it was half arsed opinion. My data was running out and I posted hastily, but later linked to solid articles by others (as I will link to this page).
I'm not fruitlessly arguing. I'm trying to get you to prove your argument.
First, address the facts in Starky's article. Agree or disagree, with reason why. Separate fact from opinion.
Then list facts why Brand is controlled opposition.
1.
2.
3. etc.
I'm not a friend of Brand, and have no reason to support him. My mind is open to be changed. Until then, I'm going with the fact that there is an attempt to take him down, and that has been done to others. Government is more often simple and brutal than artfully sinister.
"I cannot fuck myself to understanding
or dissolve questions with knives unbuttered
Conversations are cemented with lies
I’m the Outcast, wettened with truth
My passage is silent to gods and pigs
I don’t need the sun when I’m proud with matches
There’s tragedy in the presentiment of souvenirs
Sweets should never be sharpened
I stab my tongue through the lips of this world
whilst armies whisper inside of me."
Did you write this? Its good. Though not sure I fully comprehend it.
To finish this discussion, to try to list the points to win this debate would, for me, be like trying to debate why water is wet. It feels wet, I know its wet because it is. I appreciate this will not be enough for you. I leave the arguing and evidence game to those that put things far better than I do, hence the links I posted. Miri Finch has quite a few articles on Tate that I would recommend to you (easy to find on her stack). On that note, i'll bid you a good day
I'd hope for enlightenment but, unfortunately, you've confirmed that your intention was to distract.
1. You never discussed the article. You pointed away from it.
2. You provided two links which were slanderous innuendos without facts, using the technique of reasonable tone to be devilishly unreasonable. I read the full article but only reached 13 minutes into the video (but that seemed appropriate for its topic about Brand being the Pied Piper for the Illuminati).
3. You wouldn't list facts although, if you had them, would have taken less time than all these comments.
I am open minded. Maybe one day, Brand will be proven as an agent. If so, I will share the evidence. Until then, based on the evidence at hand, he's just another truthseeker getting fucked. I hope that Brand or his kind would do me the same courtesy when I'm imprisoned and someone says, "Mike is controlled opposition."
There is a major difference between what we want to believe and what we know. The real pied pipers rely on the former.
Boom.
Great article, thank you for the additional insight.
Your article is giving my paranoia "fecking hell." Much thanks for the forthcoming sleepless, dystopian nights. Maybe I'll move to the Donbas where the UK's missile are, at least, visible.
I like it.
He’s a man that’s been through hard ship and come out the other side
Innocent until proven guilty
Love it