THE ROLE OF TELEVISED MASS MIND CONTROL & THE LICENSED COMIC.
Here’s a question ~ “Is life worth living?”
From this original question which demands that the individual wakes up to the tragedies of his life and those of the world, there often emerges, as a coping mechanism, that most familiar of so-called British characteristics: a sense of humour and, in times like these, it may well be behoove us to make light of all that is so heavy just now.
There arrive several times in a man’s life when this question will pop up. When did it first enter RM’s head? It has always lurked at the back of his mind but certainly it emerged in his teenage years. As is usually the case, it was brought on by frustration, the restraints of parents exerting unethical control, adults stepping in when it was none of their fucking business and/or they had absolutely no idea of just what they were doing.
“Oh, come on! Cheer up! Let’s hear a joke.”
How about this? THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED… THOUGH IT MAY BE SHOWN ON YOU TUBE…
Hahaha. The irony! Oh what a wit! What a wag! What a knave!
There are innumerate examples of how fucked up this planet and its inhabitants are and the most glaring is that which manifests as a result of television programming, especially the injections of religio-drama known as ‘News’.
All news is scripted, just like a church service and those adults who erroneously believe that because they have watched a segment of some media ‘programme’ wrapped around a series of commercials then they are somehow magically well-informed enough to offer their opinion on say, the ‘Syrian situation’ are as full of shit as a cesspit. The fact is they are self-evidently not in their right minds if/when they believe this to be the case.
Their statements and claims are thus based on the false words and hypnotic images that are inherent in the programming and their minds inability to fit in the missing chunks of that which they profess to know something about (because the knowledge is not there).
The evening news is accurately described by Jon Rappoport as being akin to an evening service at a church. The alter is the desk and the minister sits behind it, clad in the garb of his ilk ~ a tie, collar and dark suit. He feigns knowledge but all he is doing is reading from an auto-cue. The alter is where the truth is sacrificed and the television is the pulpit from whence the lies are spread.
When i was a lad in the boy scouts, the ‘troop’ had a committal once a month to a Church service at St Philip’s Parish Church, 2 miles North West of the town of Huddersfield. The vicar was called Norman Tidswell and he had baptised me as a bairn. He appeared as an old man with little if any charisma and even at that young age of 11, it was clear to me that he was a phony ~ he exhibited no warmth, had nothing to impart to his audience; every utterance was from a book, be it bible, prayer sheet or hymn, and thus he was operating as a mere dry old drone repeating the lies, distorting the frequencies and attempting to fill my young old self’s mind with the kind of sound-bites that form the basis for the ‘evening song’ which is all television broadcast ‘news’ amounts to. It is candy floss for the brain, hypnosis of the soul and a sop to the conscience of the viewer/listener/congregation who switches off his critical thinking to bathe in the fake blue light of religion.
noun ~ the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
“Latin religio(n-) ‘obligation, bond, reverence,’ perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind.’”
It is called a religion since it means ‘to bind’ ~ in this sense, it is binding the mind like an infinite spider’s web in the warm slime of fake knowledge whilst simultaneously fracturing it into thousands of pieces, like a smashed mirror.
The priests of television and radio news are no more than the Vicar Tidswell was: repeaters of other writers’ scripts that are mere segments of greater wholes, fragmented into splintered chunks which leave the brain and the perception of the viewer/listener scattered asunder to the point where he is incapable of (and disinterested in) anything approaching true cognisance of that which is expressed, let alone what is actually happening in the world he inhabits on a daily basis.
Divide and rule is the modus operandi at play. The medium so effectively divides the mind of the victim into so many parts that is becomes easy to rule it. This tried-and-tested technique is beloved of Govern-mental-ists the world over because it works.
Religion is Television is Religion.
All of which brings me to the question of Comedy.
Given that the BBC (Bread, Beer and Circuses) is quite possibly one of the greatest propaganda and religious institutions known in modern times ~ so effective is it in its ability to deceive, it successfully hid the real paedophilic activities of its children’s presenters from the congregation (priests abusing children…well i never, who’d have thought it?) for fifty years ~ why would it be so tolerant of those who work in the spheres of comedy?
In fact, why would it reward so highly those who work in its religio-mind-programming operation who take the piss, extract the michael and get to act the clown?
Those who work in the art of comedy are rewarded handsomely for their compliance with the owners of the media and for their services in ‘amusing‘ the masses. (‘Amuse’ means to be in a state of ‘no-thought’, from ‘a’ and ‘muse’ ~ ‘ORIGIN late 15th cent. (in the sense [delude, deceive] ): from Old French amuser ‘entertain, deceive,’ from a- (expressing causal effect) + muser ‘stare stupidly.’ The current senses date from the mid 17th cent.’).
They are carrying out mass a-musement and this role has been acted out for thousands of years.
Why is this? What is comedy and what is its purpose?
“ORIGIN late Middle English (as a genre of drama, also denoting a narrative poem with a happy ending, as in Dante’s Divine Comedy): from Old French comedie, via Latin comoedia, from Gr kōmōidos from komos, revel + aoidos singer (from aeidein sing)”
‘Revel’ ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French reveler ‘rise up in rebellion,’ from Latin rebellare ‘to rebel.’
So, in its true etymological sense, a comedian is a ‘singer of rebellion‘.
Potentially, he has, like the bards of old, the ability to inspire and uplift his audience and, through his observations at the ridiculous aspects of life, he is able to highlight the absurdity of our lives on a planet on which so few own so much.
In this sense, he is a danger to the establishment as he has the potential to reach the hearts and minds of many, which is exactly why he has been and continues to be co-opted by the criminal elites who are so desperate to cling on to their plundered zillions.
The image of the ‘daring political jester’ is more fictional than factual. Think of the so-called political comedians of recent times. Alexi Sayle springs to mind: he started off as an angry, marxist agent for change and has become a fat grand-daddy figure, humorously tolerated by his handlers at the BBC. Spitting Image was satire but did it lead to any real change?
The purpose of comedy in Britain (and everywhere, in fact) is to act as a safety valve for the frustrations of its brow-beaten people: an outlet for the ever-expanding pressure being deliberately increased in line with the boiling of the frog that is the modus operandi of a ruling kleptocratic oligarchy whose end game is a world population reduced to under 500 million.
There is a slow kill genocidal plan going on and the jesters are not here to focus your attention on any of that ~ far from it, their intention and usage is one of distraction. The fact that ‘Mrs Brown’ was voted best comedy show when it is on a par with that mind-stewingly dumb 70s children’s show called ‘Rentaghost’ speaks volumes for the levels of herded bovine stupidity the masses have been reduced to. The fact that Peter Kay can perform to sell out audiences in their tens of thousands in huge arenas illustrates how great the attraction and the need for ‘light relief’ is.
The scale of Kay’s crowd pulling is matched by Russell Brand ~ a man who speaks about taboos, who spins out airy-fairy webs of nothingness and who purports to pontificate about all manner of things that others dare not mention.
Only he doesn’t.
Like Kay, Michael McIntyre and a jester like Jonathan Ross, he creams in millions of pounds on the back of this ability to a-muse millions into states of inaction.
They are skimming off moneys from the unhappiness of their audiences who, as Brand himself has noted, ultimately are seeking a messianic figure to come and sort this shit out: anyone but the individual himself in other words.
The biggest joke, some might say, is that Russell Brand, who is literally in bed with one of the heiresses to the colossal plundered fortunes of the Goldsmith family and its associates, is actively promoting a socialist solution to mankind’s problems that, if followed through, would be the equivalent of the house slave agreeing a deal with his masters whereby he volunteers to give them more of his sweat equity in a way designed to squeeze more from the other slaves and/or offer those slaves a phony remedy which amounts to the same-old-same-old. A kickback or reward for his actions will necessarily be offered to him. Brand is tolerated by the establishment in the same way the Court Jester was ~ he is nothing less than a useful fool (or house slave)who can be used to lead the unwary and unthinking into further subjugation.
After reading this piece about him, I was watching a compendium of George Carling’s work and the conclusion that Cliff Richardson has reached is a valid one: the canned laughter is a smoke screen to the prophetising and sermonising that goes on by and through Carling’s prowling, growling, lone wolf persona.
Cliff points out that, ultimately, Carling was not a comedian: the content of his material brought on only nervous laughter for his audience, audiences who seek light relief from the heaviness of their hearts and their concrete-ladened lives.
It is temporary relief that only serves as an outlet for the emotional, philosophical and psychological hang-ups of each and every member of the audience. We laugh because in our hearts we are weeping buckets of salty acid tears at how fecked everything is on the personal and impersonal levels of that which passes for individual and collective reality.
This is why Brand has been manipulated into promoting a faux solution that utterly fails to address the over-arching problem that this world faces: how to remove the satanic psychotic controllers from our midsts.
Never does he touch on the creation of money as debt, never does he mention how and why our unalienable freedoms as divine fragments of the whole are threatened by the phony stranglehold of Admiralty Law. He is not a singer of rebellion: his scripted role is to play the part of the colourful jester who distracts millions from the objective truth (1).
And that is also why not one of those highly-rewarded jesters in the employ of the mainstream media is contributing anything to the upliftment and nourishment of our minds and hearts. In fact, along with the blue-toned evening service of the ‘news’, they only serve to fracture, to confuse and to distract the collected congregations from the reality of that which is going on behind the scenes and in their own lives.
Don’t make me laugh.
No. Seriously. Stop it.
(1) Laughing jester
“The Royal Shakespeare Company provides historical context for the role of the fool:
In ancient times, courts employed fools and by the Middle Ages the jester was a familiar figure. In Renaissance times, aristocratic households in Britain employed licensed fools or jesters, who sometimes dressed as other servants were dressed, but generally wore a motley (i.e. parti-coloured) coat, hood with ass’s (i.e. donkey) ears or a red-flannel coxcomb and bells. Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests.
Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558–1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool.
One may conceptualize fools in two camps: those of the natural fool type and those of the licensed fool type. Whereas the natural fool was seen as innately nit-witted, moronic, or mad, the licensed fool was given leeway by permission of the court. In other words, both were excused, to some extent, for their behavior, the first because he “couldn’t help it”, and the second by decree.”