A call for a revolution

[Thunder_Gooch]

The first guy can stand up and look like an idiot and everyone will laugh, but when a second person comes, he solidifies the idea that, "wait a minute, there might be something to this". When people see the 2nd, or in the case the first couple million views, they will the same exact thing. Than when it's becoming the new "trend" people rush to join so that they are not "left behind"

 

 

 

You mean like operation wall street.... Yeah that worked out real well.

 

The problem is people won't move if they are comfortable, and most people are comfortable.

 

They are still making enough money to cram their face with junkfood and cheap bear and watch honey boo-boo as their brain cells shrivel up and die by the thousands.

 

That is your average American citizen, an idiotic mouth breathing imbecile who has no idea WTF is going on.

 

Until these dip****s are force fed the red pill there will be no revolution.

 

I don't care what history book you quote, that's reality.

[abandonhope]

Happy people don't revolt, if you read it otherwise in your history books you should get a refund.

 

Spain, Egypt, Greece..

 

They looked pretty **** ****ed off to me.

 

Revolution will never occur until the populace wakes up and is outraged at the reality around them.

There is no reason to get upset, I didn't say happy people revolted. Are you saying people are happy today? Is that why there is so much medication being prescribed? Is that why so many people are using drugs? Is that why so many people are in prison?

 

I'm not sure why we are arguing. People are pissed, people just don't know what's going on. This video does that, this video can wake people up. You have an A list celebrity, you have the video being broadcast everywhere, and it explains in detail the problems with what's going on. It's the perfect way to wake up people who are tuned into to tv. Again, watch the video. I'm confused on why you are confused.

[abandonhope]

You mean like operation wall street.... Yeah that worked out real well

Watch the video.. I will not quote the video again. Russell explains the significance of this.

 

The problem is people won't move if they are comfortable, and most people are comfortable.

 

They are still making enough money to cram their face with junkfood and cheap bear and watch honey boo-boo as their brain cells shrivel up and die by the thousands.

 

That is your average American citizen, an idiotic mouth breathing imbecile who has no idea WTF is going on.

 

Until these dip****s are force fed the red pill there will be no revolution.

That's why it's important that this video be shared and viewed as much as possible. Again I don't understand why you are confused on this. This video has the potential to REACH these people, to expose the lies that are happening in front of them.

 

 

I don't care what history book you quote, that's reality.

 

 

I never quoted a history book. Now you are making things up. You are trying to win an argument that we both agree on. If you watched the video you would understand. You are getting frustrated and taking it out on me.

 

If you reply again with more chewed up jargon I will not reply. Please watch the video, come back than come argue with me. Until than you are really wasting my time.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I am not upset, just saying happy people never revolt.

 

Obviously people are just happy enough, just content enough to stop them from revolting, otherwise we would have passed the tipping point by now.

 

We are force medicated sodium fluoride to increase docility and reduce intelligence.

 

Our foods are sprayed with fluoride compounds, and it's in many medicines as well.

 

People get depressed they get medication.

 

People are depressed they smoke pot and drink.

 

People are upset, but not upset enough to rock the boat (obviously).

 

Who wants to be a Snowden and give up a cushy upper middle class lifestyle to wake people up, and run and hide the rest of your natural life as a consequence?

 

Who wants wants to paint themselves a target?

 

Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone.

 

Not until they watch people they love brutally murdered by military police under marital law, till they are starving and looking death in the face, not until they have lost everything, not until then will we see a real revolution.

 

There is no reason to get upset, I didn't say happy people revolted. Are you saying people are happy today? Is that why there is so much medication being prescribed? Is that why so many people are using drugs? Is that why so many people are in prison?

 

I'm not sure why we are arguing. People are pissed, people just don't know what's going on. This video does that, this video can wake people up. You have an A list celebrity, you have the video being broadcast everywhere, and it explains in detail the problems with what's going on. It's the perfect way to wake up people who are tuned into to tv. Again, watch the video. I'm confused on why you are confused.

Edited October 31, 2013 by More_Pie_Guy

[abandonhope]

I am not upset, just saying happy people never revolt.

 

Obviously people are just happy enough, just content enough to stop them from revolting, otherwise we would have passed the tipping point by now.

 

We are force medicated sodium fluoride to increase docility and reduce intelligence.

 

Our foods are sprayed with fluoride compounds, and it's in many medicines as well.

 

People get depressed they get medication.

 

People are depressed they smoke pot and drink.

 

People are upset, but not upset enough to rock the boat (obviously).

 

Who wants to be a Snowden and give up a cushy upper middle class lifestyle to wake people up, and run and hide the rest of your natural life as a consequence?

 

Who wants wants to pain themselves a target?

 

Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone.

 

Not until they watch people they love brutally murdered by military police under marital law, till they are starving and looking death in the face, not until they have lost everything, not until then will we see a real revolution.

 

 

Watch the video. Some of these are good arguments and I completely agree with you but as I said before. People are unaware of what's going on. Watching this video explains this to them. This video is for these people you speak about. If you want to see some change than share this video. Get fucking excited bro. These are exciting times and the sooner this video gets exposed the sooner things will change. MGG I spent to much time today on this. Good day and for the last time, watch the video and quit being so gosh darn stubborn about everything.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I watched the video but it didn't do much for me to be honest.

 

Just some Hippy declaring the revolution is going to happen and voting is stupid and stuff.

 

It might rile up the ones already riled up, but it's going to take watching people they love brutally murdered by military police, starving to death, and hell on earth to bring about a real revolution if it even happens then.

 

You don't get just how docile, ignorant and stupid the vast majority of our population really is.

 

They'd rather devour a bucket of KFC than take a day off work to go protest something they don't really understand anyway.

 

The situation we are in so insane you just have to laugh, because that's about all you can do.

[Thunder_Gooch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jQT7_rVxAE

[9th]

[thelerner]

Sure you guys aren't missing half the equation? Its often missed and people are usually sorry because of it.

 

 

 

hint: revolution is the first half.

the easy glorious half too.

Edited October 31, 2013 by thelerner

[Spotless]

I remember this jerk - he was a prince - deserted his family and went out and got enlightened.

Decided not to listen to anything he says because he was a jackass.

 

Oh - and there was a murderer, I think his name was Milarepa - complete freak into sorcery and the like.

 

(I have gotten out of the habit of writing myself off for a past that I used to view as someone other than myself)

 

In present time, regardless of who Russel may have been or is - the content was quite good.

I have no bone to pick here.

 

Regarding someones objection to my statistics regarding the internet - I did say (with a few exceptions).

 

It does not take a great deal of effort to see that of the percentage that does not have internet access - very few of them are in positions of power and throughout all of history - the segment of the population that they represent have almost never started or ended a revolution. Everything Russel said was clearly in protection and inclusive of this group.

Those in power or in a position to take power have internet connection to a very great degree.

 

A new age was born in the 60s and we are seeing the spiritual fruits of it all over this increasingly empowered planet.

 

Perhaps you are not aware of the sheer number of people Awakening. Or for that matter - the sheer number of Awakening individuals that are no longer going to the loony bin for what for many starts out as a very disorienting ordeal,

 

I have been surprised by the jaded and reactionary responses (to put it politely).

 

I also remember a bunch of non-voters that decided England could go F its self - they were quite successful even though they were a bunch of upstarts - they even joined forces with heathen Indians if I am not mistaken.

 

Look at the core of the 60s

I definitely do not look down upon the words hippie, new age, wholistic, organic, occult and many others.

I do look down upon those calling some "cult loving hippie new age tree hugging motherf---er!

 

He was correct - we are already well into a revolution.

 

Please check out the following: Buddha at the Gas Pump

Some 200+ and growing interviews with people that have Awakened and their account of what happened.

You can download on your phone hundreds of hours of interviews with awakened people and their discussions of the process.

Most of them practiced cultivation for many years, others just awoke. They are not preaching - they are being asked good questions and the pace it not slow and laborious.

 

I am not in the buzz any longer - though I do have a toe in the currents.

 

The currents have some strong refreshed beats, others have an ebbing pulse.

[Jetsun]

I like Brand and think he is a really interesting guy and so often a breath of fresh air, but I don't agree with him about not voting because basically all that does is mean that the politicians can ignore the wishes of young people. The old people get free bus passes and heating and stuff from the government because they vote so they get listened to, while young people don't as much so they are ignored. He us calling for a revolution but without some sort of even vague idea of an alternative it us just mindless destruction.

 

Also I don't like all these guys talking about awakening like its some awakening to not being controlled by the Illuminati or something like that. Not being controlled by the media is all good but real awakening us out of your own identity so it is out of your own chains in your own mind, it isn't about awakening out of the power of Rupert Murdoch.

 

There is a whole movement now propped up by people like Brand, Alex Jones and David Ike who are being tricked into thinking they are going through some sort of spiritual awakening where they think they have woken up out of the system, but it is a fake awakening because they just use it define themselves against the system so it is another trick by the ego to try solidify identity. Whereas real awakening is out of individual identity altogether. Brand is doing spiritual practice so he might escape out of that trap, but the others I doubt it, they have too much identity and sense of self invested in it.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Jetsun

[Brian]

What a curious thread.

 

First, KnowHope, a little detail about the mechanics of the forum -- if a member leaves a browser window sitting on a thread, the software shows that the member is "reading" that topic. Doesn't mean the member is busily typing a fevered response. In my case, I have three devices I frequently use to visit TTB and two of them are usually left connected, which means TTB thinks I'm on 24x7...

 

Second, I made a brief and highly dismissive statement about Brand and his interview. While you think the interview "could end up being the most important youtube video of all time," I think the interview was self-aggrandizing, hypocritical and without substance, and I think the interview is an accurate reflection of the man himself. You got all bent out of that I disagreed with your assessment, tried to paint him as a noble humanitarian, and accused me of "attacking him for trying to help the poor and the needy" (among other accusations). You demanded that I was "going to have to come up with some better arguments than that" so...

 

Third, I watched the video again (for the third time, mind you, in case I missed the substantive part), spent about 15 minutes researching him and maybe another ten typing. Not for the purpose of oppressing the poor and needy but because you ASKED me to! Despite a few positive things that I think smack of PR-man reputation management, the picture I gathered matched almost perfectly with my initial post. Your subsequent reactions were even more emotional than the first, saying you would ignore anything I posted subsequently, calling on everyone else to boycott me as well, and calling me a privileged conservative aristocrat intent on attacking the idea of helping starving poor people. (We'll ignore for the moment the fact that you know nothing about me or my history or my current life but yet you feel comfortable making class-warfare part of this thread...) You also accused me of fabricating news stories but if you read the court documents you'll see that Brand claims he didn't hurt the guy and then blames the poor starving homeless man for his own injuries sustained when Brand struck him and then says the guy's Workers Comp should have to pay since he was employed at the time...

 

Fourth, character matters. Always has and always will. People change over time but their behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their character and therefore recent behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their current character. This is especially important when it comes to revolutionaries. Vision is also important here. The interview showed no vision other than violent revolution followed by some nebulous massive redistribution of other people's money by a new ruling class. Let me repeat -- character matters. This is why I have abiding respect for Ho Chi Min but utter contempt for Che Guevera; respect for Pancho Via but not for Hugo Chavez.

 

Now, as to your questions related to revolution:

 

The main thing I see wrong with "the government" (and I'm making the assumption here that you are talking about the US Federal (national) government) is that it has become a bloated monstrosity far exceeding its mandate, bent on oversight in every aspect of life, run by egocentric career politicians rather than citizen-servants, and in an unhealthy relationship with corporations which would have thrilled Mussolini.

 

I would like to see a "constitutional reset" -- a rapid return to the basic principles upon which the republic was founded, in which the size, scope and authority of the national government are drastically curtailed and most rights and responsibilities are returned to the several states and to the individual. This would be jarring and disruptive but far less so than a revolution, especially a rudderless revolution. I would like to see the conversation switch from "democracy" back to "liberty" and I would like to see the concept of the sovereign individual restored so that people start taking care of themselves & each other again rather than expecting some anonymous government to do it for them.

 

Would I participate in a revolution? Depends on who is leading it (character matters, remember), what the intended result is, and whether the strategic plan appears likely to achieve the stated intended result. I have developed an adage for viewing many things -- when there is cognitive dissonance between stated objectives and demonstrated or most likely outcomes, question intent.

 

Who are the "aristocrats" running things? Well, first we have to look at your use of the word "aristocrats." The word "aristocracy" means "excellent power" and was given to those in Athens who were trained from birth to lead the front lines into battle -- literally leading by example. I assume this isn't what you meant. I suspect you mean, instead, the "ruling class" and that you REALLY mean "the evil rich conservative bankers & businessmen" who you consider to have corrupted the system. my view is a bit different -- I see power-hungry megalomaniacs from both sides of the aisle selling future generations into indentured servitude to the highest bidder, and gleefully trampling freedom in a march towards absolute centralized control while claiming to be doing it for the good of the "little people."

 

This the kind of discussion you had in mind?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Brian

[ralis]

What a curious thread.

 

First, KnowHope, a little detail about the mechanics of the forum -- if a member leaves a browser window sitting on a thread, the software shows that the member is "reading" that topic. Doesn't mean the member is busily typing a fevered response. In my case, I have three devices I frequently use to visit TTB and two of them are usually left connected, which means TTB thinks I'm on 24x7...

 

Second, I made a brief and highly dismissive statement about Brand and his interview. While you think the interview "could end up being the most important youtube video of all time," I think the interview was self-aggrandizing, hypocritical and without substance, and I think the interview is an accurate reflection of the man himself. You got all bent out of that I disagreed with your assessment, tried to paint him as a noble humanitarian, and accused me of "attacking him for trying to help the poor and the needy" (among other accusations). You demanded that I was "going to have to come up with some better arguments than that" so...

 

Third, I watched the video again (for the third time, mind you, in case I missed the substantive part), spent about 15 minutes researching him and maybe another ten typing. Not for the purpose of oppressing the poor and needy but because you ASKED me to! Despite a few positive things that I think smack of PR-man reputation management, the picture I gathered matched almost perfectly with my initial post. Your subsequent reactions were even more emotional than the first, saying you would ignore anything I posted subsequently, calling on everyone else to boycott me as well, and calling me a privileged conservative aristocrat intent on attacking the idea of helping starving poor people. (We'll ignore for the moment the fact that you know nothing about me or my history or my current life but yet you feel comfortable making class-warfare part of this thread...) You also accused me of fabricating news stories but if you read the court documents you'll see that Brand claims he didn't hurt the guy and then blames the poor starving homeless man for his own injuries sustained when Brand struck him and then says the guy's Workers Comp should have to pay since he was employed at the time...

 

Fourth, character matters. Always has and always will. People change over time but their behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their character and therefore recent behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their current character. This is especially important when it comes to revolutionaries. Vision is also important here. The interview showed no vision other than violent revolution followed by some nebulous massive redistribution of other people's money by a new ruling class. Let me repeat -- character matters. This is why I have abiding respect for Ho Chi Min but utter contempt for Che Guevera; respect for Pancho Via but not for Hugo Chavez.

 

Now, as to your questions related to revolution:

 

The main thing I see wrong with "the government" (and I'm making the assumption here that you are talking about the US Federal (national) government) is that it has become a bloated monstrosity far exceeding its mandate, bent on oversight in every aspect of life, run by egocentric career politicians rather than citizen-servants, and in an unhealthy relationship with corporations which would have thrilled Mussolini.

 

I would like to see a "constitutional reset" -- a rapid return to the basic principles upon which the republic was founded, in which the size, scope and authority of the national government are drastically curtailed and most rights and responsibilities are returned to the several states and to the individual. This would be jarring and disruptive but far less so than a revolution, especially a rudderless revolution. I would like to see the conversation switch from "democracy" back to "liberty" and I would like to see the concept of the sovereign individual restored so that people start taking care of themselves & each other again rather than expecting some anonymous government to do it for them.

 

Would I participate in a revolution? Depends on who is leading it (character matters, remember), what the intended result is, and whether the strategic plan appears likely to achieve the stated intended result. I have developed an adage for viewing many things -- when there is cognitive dissonance between stated objectives and demonstrated or most likely outcomes, question intent.

 

Who are the "aristocrats" running things? Well, first we have to look at your use of the word "aristocrats." The word "aristocracy" means "excellent power" and was given to those in Athens who were trained from birth to lead the front lines into battle -- literally leading by example. I assume this isn't what you meant. I suspect you mean, instead, the "ruling class" and that you REALLY mean "the evil rich conservative bankers & businessmen" who you consider to have corrupted the system. my view is a bit different -- I see power-hungry megalomaniacs from both sides of the aisle selling future generations into indentured servitude to the highest bidder, and gleefully trampling freedom in a march towards absolute centralized control while claiming to be doing it for the good of the "little people."

 

This the kind of discussion you had in mind?

 

 

Don't have time for a more detailed response but a few things must be responded to.

 

1. 'States rights'. Usually appealed to by southern right wing operatives who are against desegregation. 'States rights' was an issue during the framing of the Constitution. The recent gutting of section 4 of the voting rights act by SCOTUS, allowed a number of southern states to reimplement harsh voting laws. These states such as Texas, Alabama and of course your state of North Carolina, had in the past the most egregious civil rights violations.

 

2. Neoliberal economic policies which Libertarian/Tea Party Ayn Rand objectivists claim will cure the ails of government interference in the market place. The deregulation banks are a perfect example of failed neoliberal policies.

 

3. To trust human primates to self regulate? Repeal all laws that would infringe on the rights of an individual? Do you seriously expect persons reading this to buy into such absurd remarks? Historical facts are not on the side of your argument!

[Brian]

Gotcha. Big Brother knows best and anyone who suggests otherwise is a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather...

 

[ralis]

Gotcha. Big Brother knows best and anyone who suggests otherwise is a knuckle-dragging mouth-breather...

 

Another emotional response which says nothing and an attempt to derail the conversation!

 

Ron Paul saying he would not vote for the 'Civil Rights Act'

 

[Brian]

Emotional? Heavens, no. Although I guess "amusement" is an emotion, so yeah, you're right after all.

 

You seem to think that pointing to specific and individualized examples of breakdowns of otherwise generally functional systems somehow invalidates an underlying philosophy rather than attempting to speak to the merits of the system YOU advocate. Why is that?

 

History is actually quite clear on the results of the authoritarian central rule. I'd be curious, though, to hear you explain why the concept of the individual is insignificant unless collected into "protected classes" or how the human primate should not be trusted but small self-appointsed groups of elite human primates should.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Brian

[Spotless]

I did not see anything in the interview (which is necessarily a short time) that gave me the impression that he had no idea what he might propose - i saw a man on track who stayed on track and was not sidelined by a question that cannot possibly be answered in such a short time with the type of interviewer he was presented with. Certainly if he had even begun an attempt he would have been interrupted on every point.

 

It is quite possible and actually quite probable that some sort of constitutional changes are what he might have in mind - that could certainly constitute something that would be called a revolution. We use the word more often than not with a meaning that real change would occur in a sort of group up rising.

 

For the last two decades the Republicans have called a great number of their efforts a revolution.

We had the Prop 13 revolution - and it had sweeping effects across the country.

We had the Gingrich revolution and that was so effectively myopic that it carried over into the copy cat Tea Party Revolution.

 

Additionally, let us not assume that just because someone has not voted that it does not mean they have no intention of ever voting or working within or on the current system. In our last Governors race right here in California, the republican candidate Meg Whitman admitted that she had never voted.

 

I for one liked the simple fact that he did not bend in any manner to the robotic and completely common din of the interviewer.

 

This has been such a youthful discussion of such extremes with such exaggerated assumptions and personal indignation - the sheer egoism is a bit odd given the location.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Spotless

[Jetsun]

I much prefer this video

 

 

Shows the general dissociation these people in the media are in when they completely crumble when someone doesn't play by the usual rules

 

"Shaft grasper" lol

Edited October 31, 2013 by Jetsun

[Creation]

I saw this video on facebook. I was surprised at how much I agree with Brand, and happy to see someone saying these things in the public sphere. I myself have never voted for much the same reason as Brand, and I get the same reaction from people that Brand is getting, so good for him for standing up for this point of view.

 

The message he is giving must be understood for what it is: a negative reaction, pointing out what is wrong with the system. This includes the system's inability to change itself through the means that it allows for, ie. voting for different leadership. Almost ever time he is asked "How should it be" he says "Here is how it shouldn't be". It is common to think a lack of constructive insight negate the message, but I think it should just be accepted for what it is: taking a stand for what you don't want and don't believe in, so you won't be duped into believing in yet another half-assed stop-gap solution. Bravo, Mr. Brand.

 

But there must be the other half of the equation or there will just be mindless destruction, and a vacuum filled with something different but not necessarily better (French Revolution, etc), as thelerner pointed out. What is the other half? This is key. It is not by having some grand plan for a utopia, as some critics call for. That will never work. It is by people focusing on being the change they want to see and raising their own consciousness, even in small ways. Then they can become a powerful force for good, and positive developments will naturally occur when the time is right. But the danger in what Brand is doing is people glorifying him in his role as agitator and destroyer, and thinking that is how they should be and what they want in a leader. If people sink in to cynicism and self-satisfaction with their "seeing through the lies" and wish for destruction, when change finally comes it will be an expression of or a reaction to that negativity, rather than conscious and positive. If people do not keep in mind that destruction is a means and a first step, they won't get the positive change they initially wanted.

 

I like Brand and think he is a really interesting guy and so often a breath of fresh air, but I don't agree with him about not voting because basically all that does is mean that the politicians can ignore the wishes of young people. The old people get free bus passes and heating and stuff from the government because they vote so they get listened to, while young people don't as much so they are ignored. He us calling for a revolution but without some sort of even vague idea of an alternative it us just mindless destruction.

Also I don't like all these guys talking about awakening like its some awakening to not being controlled by the Illuminati or something like that. Not being controlled by the media is all good but real awakening us out of your own identity so it is out of your own chains in your own mind, it isn't about awakening out of the power of Rupert Murdoch.

There is a whole movement now propped up by people like Brand, Alex Jones and David Ike who are being tricked into thinking they are going through some sort of spiritual awakening where they think they have woken up out of the system, but it is a fake awakening because they just use it define themselves against the system so it is another trick by the ego to try solidify identity. Whereas real awakening is out of individual identity altogether. Brand is doing spiritual practice so he might escape out of that trap, but the others I doubt it, they have too much identity and sense of self invested in it.

Excellent post!

Edited October 31, 2013 by Creation

[Brian]

I much prefer this video

 

 

Shows the general dissociation these people in the media are in when they completely crumble when someone doesn't play by the usual rules

 

"Shaft grasper" lol

 

I really enjoyed that video! He showed himself to be intelligent and clever (especially in comparison to the pinheads with whom he was talking but not just relatively-speaking), his relaxed self-confidence came through in an unprotected/unprojected fashion that was missing in the revolution interview, and the central topic for his self-lampooningly-named tour sounds wonderful. (In fact, I read a most interesting book a few years ago by an Italian anthropologist in which he thoroughly documented numerous cases of martyred messianic figures arising within oppressed societal groups.)

 

Perhaps his cultivation over the past few years is having a positive impact. I know from personal experience that these things can be two steps forward and one step back at times...

 

[Creation]

Shows the general dissociation these people in the media are in when they completely crumble when someone doesn't play by the usual rules

It's funny you say that, because what I thought was really powerful about the interview in the OP was that he refused to play by the rules, which is to say, he refused to be sucked in to the paradigms and thought structures that typically govern political discourse, even in dialog with someone completely steeped in those paradigms and thought structures.

[zanshin]

I remember this jerk - he was a prince - deserted his family and went out and got enlightened.

Decided not to listen to anything he says because he was a jackass.

 

Oh - and there was a murderer, I think his name was Milarepa - complete freak into sorcery and the like.

 

(I have gotten out of the habit of writing myself off for a past that I used to view as someone other than myself)

 

In present time, regardless of who Russel may have been or is - the content was quite good.

I have no bone to pick here.

 

Regarding someones objection to my statistics regarding the internet - I did say (with a few exceptions).

 

It does not take a great deal of effort to see that of the percentage that does not have internet access - very few of them are in positions of power and throughout all of history - the segment of the population that they represent have almost never started or ended a revolution. Everything Russel said was clearly in protection and inclusive of this group.

Those in power or in a position to take power have internet connection to a very great degree.

 

A new age was born in the 60s and we are seeing the spiritual fruits of it all over this increasingly empowered planet.

Perhaps you are not aware of the sheer number of people Awakening. Or for that matter - the sheer number of Awakening individuals that are no longer going to the loony bin for what for many starts out as a very disorienting ordeal,

 

I have been surprised by the jaded and reactionary responses (to put it politely)

.I see the urban and rural poor getting poorer and harder and more closed off. If the Awakened see these flesh and blood people as powerless inconsequential exceptions, I don't like it. Class divides are getting bigger. It sounds like Russel has tried to move out and have conversations with flesh and blood people and I do admire that. Many people are badly broken and perhaps need to be protected. Perhaps others who are not Awakened or currently in positions of power can find their own power someday. I wish I believed a potential Revolution would be something but a transfer of power from one group to another. Nothing new under the sun.

 

 

I also remember a bunch of non-voters that decided England could go F its self - they were quite successful even though they were a bunch of upstarts - they even joined forces with heathen Indians if I am not mistaken.

 

Pretty much one group of rich white males to another- and then the heathen Indians got discarded.

Look at the core of the 60s

I definitely do not look down upon the words hippie, new age, wholistic, organic, occult and many others.

I do look down upon those calling some "cult loving hippie new age tree hugging motherf---er!

 

Certainly nothing wrong with hugging trees.

He was correct - we are already well into a revolution.

It's going to get a lot worse first, hope eventually better. Worried for future of my kids and potential grandkids.

 

Please check out the following: Buddha at the Gas Pump

Some 200+ and growing interviews with people that have Awakened and their account of what happened.

You can download on your phone hundreds of hours of interviews with awakened people and their discussions of the process.

Most of them practiced cultivation for many years, others just awoke. They are not preaching - they are being asked good questions and the pace it not slow and laborious.

 

I am not in the buzz any longer - though I do have a toe in the currents.

 

The currents have some strong refreshed beats, others have an ebbing pulse.

I'll look for that.

[abandonhope]

What a curious thread.

 

First, KnowHope, a little detail about the mechanics of the forum -- if a member leaves a browser window sitting on a thread, the software shows that the member is "reading" that topic. Doesn't mean the member is busily typing a fevered response. In my case, I have three devices I frequently use to visit TTB and two of them are usually left connected, which means TTB thinks I'm on 24x7...

If it said you were viewing this thread, than after my remark you were not longer viewing this forum doesn't that mean you were here and left, and not just letting your mobile device stay on the page?

Second, I made a brief and highly dismissive statement about Brand and his interview. While you think the interview "could end up being the most important youtube video of all time," I think the interview was self-aggrandizing, hypocritical and without substance,

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, to make the claim it has no substance. You are really stretching it there don't you think?

 

 

 

 

and I think the interview is an accurate reflection of the man himself. You got all bent out of that I disagreed with your assessment, tried to paint him as a noble humanitarian, and

accused me of "attacking him for trying to help the poor and the needy" (among other accusations).

 

If you remember correctly you came into the discussion with this little quote, "A shallow and privileged hypocrite steeped in victim language and offering no viable solution. Might as well be carrying this sign:"

Than I defended him. I showed you evidence of him donating a significant amount of money to a family who had suffered a tragedy. Than explained that he has worked for many years to get to his position and also to diffuse your privileged hypocrite accusation. You say he is a hypocrite, can you explain your reasoning for this? He has money and he power, he is using it to voice for change, to bring money back to the needy and the poor. I don't understand how you are so confused. Offers no solution? I than finish my argument with this quote "You must not have watched the video, he states he isn't trying to come up with a Utopian government in a hotel room during an interview. He is using his power, fame, and his time to point out there are people who are more qualified than him and "more importantly" more qualified than the people currently running the world."

You demanded that I was "going to have to come up with some better arguments than that" so...

 

Third, I watched the video again (for the third time, mind you, in case I missed the substantive part), spent about 15 minutes researching him and maybe another ten typing. Not for the purpose of oppressing the poor and needy but because you ASKED me to! Despite a few positive things that I think smack of PR-man reputation management, the picture I gathered matched almost perfectly with my initial post. Your subsequent reactions were even more emotional than the first, saying you would ignore anything I posted subsequently, calling on everyone else to boycott me as well, and calling me a privileged conservative aristocrat intent on attacking the idea of helping starving poor people.

 

You claim I was being emotional? I only pointed out that your arguments were not valid, or insightful. There just your OWN criticisms of a man that were based on no facts. You even claimed he ran someone over, which he did not. You make me laugh Brian, your imagination runs wild. I didn't boycott, I saw that you were not contributing intelligently only making harsh criticisms of a man's rough past. You can obviously read, so read the title of the thread, it says A Call for a Revolution. Not give me fabricated facts and personal attacks on Russell Brand and if you can come in here and derail the conversation with attacks on someone who is trying to help the people of the world, than don't get upset when I attack you. Seems fair doesn't?

 

(We'll ignore for the moment the fact that you know nothing about me or my history or my current life but yet you feel comfortable making class-warfare part of this thread...) You also accused me of fabricating news stories but if you read the court documents you'll see that Brand claims he didn't hurt the guy and then blames the poor starving homeless man for his own injuries sustained when Brand struck him and then says the guy's Workers Comp should have to pay since he was employed at the time...

You claimed Russell hit him with his vehicle. Russell struck his cart full of recyclables which he than helped the man gather afterwards. If Russell would of struck this man with his SUV, I'm quite sure they wouldn't of been picking up trash, it was only after this homeless man learned who Russell was that he decided to claim he had injuries. This is getting pathetic Brian.

 

Fourth, character matters. Always has and always will. People change over time but their behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their character and therefore recent behavior is generally a pretty accurate reflection of their current character. This is especially important when it comes to revolutionaries. Vision is also important here. The interview showed no vision other than violent revolution

 

Please quote where he mentions anything of violence. Quit making things up.

 

followed by some nebulous massive redistribution of other people's money by a new ruling class.

 

This is why I called you an aristocrat. You see Brian, just because a CEO managed a company to gain billions of dollars, doesn't mean it's his money. Does this CEO run the phones, the ads,or the cleaning of the building? Does the CEO break is back working everyday for shitty pay while someone above him sits in a nice office barking orders? The CEO didn't make all that money, the COMPANY DID. Everyone had a part in making that money. Money lenders since the beginning of money have preyed on the underclass by charging outrageous interest on loans, did they work for that money? Was it fair that the poor farmers lost their homes and land because they couldn't afford the interest? That's why I called you an aristocrat.

 

Let me repeat -- character matters. This is why I have abiding respect for Ho Chi Min but utter contempt for Che Guevera; respect for Pancho Via but not for Hugo Chavez.

 

Now, as to your questions related to revolution:

 

The main thing I see wrong with "the government" (and I'm making the assumption here that you are talking about the US Federal (national) government) is that it has become a bloated monstrosity far exceeding its mandate, bent on oversight in every aspect of life, run by egocentric career politicians rather than citizen-servants, and in an unhealthy relationship with corporations which would have thrilled Mussolini. Don't forget about the FED.

 

I would like to see a "constitutional reset" -- a rapid return to the basic principles upon which the republic was founded, in which the size, scope and authority of the national government are drastically curtailed and most rights and responsibilities are returned to the several states and to the individual. This would be jarring and disruptive but far less so than a revolution, especially a rudderless revolution. I would like to see the conversation switch from "democracy" back to "liberty" and I would like to see the concept of the sovereign individual restored so that people start taking care of themselves & each other again rather than expecting some anonymous government to do it for them.

Bravo this is what I was hoping for, a discussion and not personal attacks. "so that people start taking care of themselves & each other again rather than expecting some anonymous government to do it for them." You say you want people to help each other instead of the government. So wouldn't these aristocrats with all the money be able to help us? Or do they get to keep the money to themselves? I see you have no problem with poor people helping out poor people but when we talk about the rich helping poor people, that's where you draw the line? And you called Brand a hypocrite.

Would I participate in a revolution? Depends on who is leading it (character matters, remember), what the intended result is, and whether the strategic plan appears likely to achieve the stated intended result. I have developed an adage for viewing many things -- when there is cognitive dissonance between stated objectives and demonstrated or most likely outcomes, question intent.

 

Who are the "aristocrats" running things? Well, first we have to look at your use of the word "aristocrats." The word "aristocracy" means "excellent power" and was given to those in Athens who were trained from birth to lead the front lines into battle -- literally leading by example.

 

Thank you for the history lesson, You fully understood my use of the word, so don't play stupid. I love your use of big words, but anyone can use a dictionary when they have google to help. Please refrain from trying so hard to appear smart. If you provide a thoughtful and intelligent argument free from personal attacks, and fabricated stories you will appear to be intelligent.

I assume this isn't what you meant. I suspect you mean, instead, the "ruling class" and that you REALLY mean "the evil rich conservative bankers & businessmen" who you consider to have corrupted the system.

Of course you knew what I meant, quit being so pretentious. No I mean "ruling class", which happens to REALLY be banking cartel. Now here you are again fabricating things. You put quotations around the evil rich conservative bankers..... I not once said this. Why do you continue to fabricate things, it's very insulting and makes you look less intelligent than you already are.

 

 

 

my view is a bit different --I see power-hungry megalomaniacs from both sides of the aisle selling future generations into indentured servitude to the highest bidder, and gleefully trampling freedom in a march towards absolute centralized control while claiming to be doing it for the good of the "little people."

 

This the kind of discussion you had in mind?

 

You're doing better, but if this is your best work. An argument littered with false quotations, blunt lies, personal attacks mixed in with a few big words you looked up, and seasoned with ignorance. I will no longer respond to your comments and I suggest everyone else does the same.

 

Are you sure you want to continue to "discuss" with me? I'm not even trying, you are making yourself look like a fool. - personal attack.

Edited October 31, 2013 by KnowHope

[skydog]

yeh...

Edited October 31, 2013 by skydog

[abandonhope]

Incase anyone is wondering the red inside the quotes are also from me.