Russell Brand: From Actor and Entertainer to... Truth-teller and Enemy of the State?

Niall said:
Because Brand is not doing The Work, in which, as Gurdjieff said, sincerity with everyone is weakness. You imagine we injure Brand by frankly expressing our opinions here rather than directly to him on his social media pages, but in fact by doing it this way we are being externally considerate to him.
Click to expand...
I think Gurdjieff was talking about self restraint to one's reactive sincerity that might put another down.
 
Stella Jones said:
Why do you say this? Is there something wrong with being baptised? Coming from people who talk to aliens with a ouija board, I find this line of conversation odd.
Click to expand...
The good or bad of things is relative, it is clear, however the issue of baptism is clearly a ritual.

It's just my opinion, but in this ritual the priest draws a cross on the baby's forehead with his finger.

I seem to remember that at the baptism of a baby from a royal family which was televised, several relatives even drew a cross on the baby's forehead with their fingers.

Anyway, I don't like it when someone decides for another that the connection with higher abilities will be blocked for that person in their life.

The third eye area of Hinduism is crossed out.

What that man does doesn't matter to me, but personally it seems to me that it is a clear ritual of submission.

By the way, I was baptized without my permission like many others in Catholic societies.
 
SOTTREADER said:
I'm a meat eater too 😁

Had a lovely rib eye from the butchers yesterday. Yum yum 😋

I was only saying that Russell, as an adult, can make his own choices on what to eat. If he wants vegan, well, that's his choice 🤷.

Btw, did you notice the squat position he was in in that clip. Supposedly meant to be good for you if you can get to it and hold it for a few minutes regularly.
Click to expand...
It's even better with a loaded barbell for three sets of five
 
Ina said:
I think Gurdjieff was talking about self restraint to one's reactive sincerity that might put another down.
Click to expand...

There's a great deal to External Considering besides that. To reduce it to that is to take part of his discussion way too literally and ignore both the nuances AND the wider implications.

I find it interesting that Brand has converted especially considering the findings of Bob Altemeyer in his book "Amazing Conversions."

There you learn learn that people who are looking for something "higher" to believe in are generally full of fear and have lots of psychological issues, not to mention problems in their lives, that they are unable to cope with or unwilling to discipline themselves to deal with. They also tend to be less intelligent than non-believer type people. Some of the folks who got very low scores described in Altemeyer's book were atheists to the core, evolutionists, etc., which goes to show it is not the ideology but the slavish following of it that is the issue.

See also:
www.sott.net

Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis

Last week, in the posting in which I asked the NSB community for aid (see "The Wind Up, and Here's the Pitch"), I closed by saying, In the days to come, as a reminder of what NSB has contributed to the effort to address this national crisis, I...
www.sott.net www.sott.net

And: The Third Person Effect

One factor that makes Brand's case interesting is his vegetarianism. Here is an excerpt from one of the sessions on the topic:

11 Jun 2011

Q: (L) Speaking of diet, that leads me to my question. Hold on here, let me get my page. Since our awakening in respect of vegetarianism versus meat eating, and that awakening quite by chance, by experience, by experiment, by learning things, by ya know, hard lessons, we've been publishing a lot of material that we've been finding because of course coming to some realizations has propelled us or induced us to search for the material, the research, that explains what we experienced in the vegetarian vs. meat eating experiments. So, we have been publishing these things, and as we've been publishing things along that line, things about gluten, about the evils of dairy, about lectins and plant foods, about the necessity for eating more meat, and eating much more fat, and basically just that the Paleo diet is best suited for the human being, we've attracted a whole lot of what I can only describe as "vegetarian trolls". I mean, they're like fanatics.

So last night, I was thinking about this. And while the authoritarian personality as defined and described by Bob Altemeyer can easily explain some of these behaviors, what we really come down to again is another split. I mean, you have the split between people who know that consciousness exists outside of the body, or that consciousness exists prior to the body. And then you have the Darwinists where consciousness is a byproduct of material evolution. And of course, the Darwinists are the Big Bang type people too, which is really kind of a really bizarre creation theory.

So, you get this subdivision. You have the people who are Darwinists and Big Bangers, and then you have people who are fundamentalists who basically, in a funny sort of way, are like the Darwinists because they too believe in a miraculous creation. So even though they may seem, or may appear to be, on exactly opposite sides of the fence, in a certain sense they're both authoritarian-type personalities. Which kind of highlights what Altmeyer said about authoritarians. They follow the beliefs, dictates, or ideas of the constituted authorities according to what they're brought up with.

An authoritarian personality in Moscow would believe that communism - maybe not today, but at some time - that communism is the best way of life. Do or die, communism is what's real and good and proper. And the same individual, the same personality type on the other side of the ocean in the United States believes that capitalism is the best option. In other words, people are brought up with certain authorities in their lives that espouse certain ideas about things, and they're acclimated or enculturated to these ideas. Their personalities make them follow it slavishly - that being the key word: slavishly.

It seems to be that this same divide - even though the divide is not defined by an ideology, because any ideology serves this slavish following - what is different is the slavishness of the follower versus the person who actually cares about the facts and is able to emerge from their enculturated conditioning and consider other ideas. So, hang on, I'm going somewhere here!

So, the thing is Altemeyer wrote another book about "amazing conversions" where he gathered data and analyzed people who had been born in a strongly religious family and background, and experienced a lot of this programming as they were growing up. But then, they grew up and emerged from it. They didn't necessarily turn against it, but they stopped believing, they changed their minds, they became something else. And then there were also people who were brought up in completely non-religious environments. Some of them were even anti-religious, who then, when they grew up, converted to religion or fundamentalism. Usually it's fundamentalism when they do these conversions. Most people don't convert to Catholicism or Methodism, they convert to fundamentalism. So, the key thing that he noticed about the people who grew up in non-religious households and then converted to religion was that most of them had very serious psychological issues. They were abused, damaged in some way, and just basically there was not something inside them that helped them to come to terms with themselves, or life, or the world. So they had to seek, basically, a savior on the outside or something that would give them the answers. Because once again, they were individuals who needed someone or something to follow slavishly.

And then about the people who converted out of religion, they were quite different all the way around. They were more independent. There was such a variety of them because they could think and do and be somewhat differently. Some of them became atheists, some of them became spiritual - but not religious. They followed all different paths. They were very individualistic. But the main thing was that they had a strong inner belief in what was right. In a funny sort of way, their religious background actually really worked on them. It led them to search for the truth even if they came to the idea that they could not find the truth or that it certainly was not to be found in their religion. It was ingrained in them that religion was about truth, and they themselves were more intelligent than their peers. They were people who made good grades, were successful in intellectual endeavors. And then they came to the idea that using their minds to find the truth was a useful way to get through or understand life. So, they used their minds to search for truth, which was inculcated in them as the highest value, and that search was turned on their religion which didn’t stand up very well to scrutiny.

So, you have these two different kinds of people. Once again, there is this divide between people who want or need to be slaves, and people who individuate, who are able to do this against all odds – certainly against their family, social and cultural programming. I mean most of these people who become free of religions because they wanted the truth, simply discovered that their religions were not - they didn't consider them to be adequate explanations of anything. They weren't believable. So these people, they wanted the truth and they were individualistic and they were completely different from the slavish followers who, even if they were brought up in anti-religious households, needed to “find religion” because they NEEDED to be slaves! Just as some individuals “find” Darwinism and become slaves of it. Or any other idea that is followed slavishly..

I guess what I'm getting to is that I'm seeing this again in the issue about vegetarianism. Now, all things being equal, we gave the strong vegetarian approach a really good try. During that period of time, all of us had issues and we kept referring it to detox. You're detoxing, you've got detox symptoms. And that's what nearly everybody who was on these detox diets talks about. "Oh, you're having detox symptoms." And of course we believe that there is a certain amount of detoxing that is needed and can be done, but to go on forever having detox symptoms every time you turn around and that everything is written off to detox symptoms is kind of - you wonder when is it going to end? When is your body going to start working on detoxing on a regular cyclical basis in a 24-hour period so that you don't have to go through some horrible ordeal every three or four days. And of course there was the experience that Atriedes had that led to a few little clues that in fact, vegetables may not be as good as they're cracked up to be.

So now we have all of these vegetarians. And they're fanaticism is amazing. However, I thought about this last night. I starting thinking: Ya know, there are people who are like cockroaches: they can survive on anything. Some of these people say, "Oh, I'm very, very healthy. I've never had any problems. I've never lost any weight. I didn't lose any strength." Ya know, if somebody tells you that, maybe it's true. I don't know the person personally, but I'm going to accept the fact that maybe they're telling the truth. On the other hand, I've known a lot of vegetarians who are not healthy. They may feel alright for awhile, and it may be kind of a relative thing: they don't know how good they could feel, so they think they feel relatively well. But then they develop some kind of sickness and they die and people wonder about it because their diet was so “healthy”.

And then they go after the people who eat meat and say, "Oh, you're meat eaters, you're always sick!" Well, the problem is that those people who are ordinary meat eaters that are being accused of always being sick are not really eating a Paleo diet. They are eating meat along with all kinds of corrupt and polluted and toxic foods. Drinking sodas, eating lots of carbs, etc. Because if you're eating a Paleo diet, you're minimizing carbs and not eating dairy and all that stuff.

So, anyhow, what I'm getting to is that while I was thinking about all of this, I was thinking about this divide once again between the slavish following of something, and being able to have the courage to say, "I was doing that, I tried it, there were problems, I began to explore, and I learned this and this and this and tried something different." There's this divide, this split. I started wondering about people who are fanatical vegetarians. I'm not talking about people who can be a vegetarian and maybe if they really receive some information that suggests that being a vegetarian is not such a good, they could then change. Which is kind of what happened to a lot of people we know and a lot of people in our group... We can name a dozen or so people who were strict vegetarians for 20 years, and they've stopped being vegetarians and their health improved!

So then, I remembered something that was said in a session on October 7, 1995 when we were discussing another topic entirely, but what come out what was this exchange:




Q: (L) But isn't the nature of a person determined by their soul and not the physical body?

A: Partially, remember, aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure.

Q: (L) So you are saying that particular genetic conditions are a physical reflection of a spiritual orientation? That the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential?

A: Yes, precisely.

Q: (L) So a person's potential for spiritual advancement or unfoldment is, to a great extent, dependent on their genes?

A: Natural process marries with systematic construct when present.


So, after this long preamble and introduction, my question is: Is it possible that there is a genetic profile of a vegetarian who actually does do well on a vegetable diet, a vegetarian diet? That is, being a human being which is supposed according to all standards to be carnivore?

A: Somewhat on the right track but the question is not as precise as it could be.

Q: (L) Okay, let me try again. You said, "...aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure." (Galaxia) Oh, maybe because they are slavish, vegetables are good for them? (L) Well, that's not where I want to go yet. So, the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential. Oh boy... How to ask this... I once asked if vegetarian was the way that one should eat, and you said that no, not generally, as that was concentrating on the physical. What did you mean exactly by that? Let's see if I can come at this in a sideways direction.

A: Most vegetarians are such, believing that it is more "spiritual". This is a belief that eating a certain way will change the nature or destiny or tendencies of the soul. This is as effective as confessing one's sins to a priest and doing penance and then sinning again. Besides, as you have noted, the vegetarians you have encountered have been singularly "unspiritual".

Q: (L) Okay, let me try to ask it this way: Is the fact that we eat meat detrimental to us spiritually?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: (L) But I would say that just the eating of meat is not a spiritual issue at all. (Perceval) Eating food is a thing of the body. (L) Yeah, I mean we just try to eat in an optimal way to give our bodies the right fuel so that we can do our other work. That's our whole thing is to give the body optimal fuel.

A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Q: (L) Okay then. (Perceval) I was saying that in the scheme of things, plants eat rocks, animals eat plants, and some eat other animals. But from a physical point of view in the hierarchy that humans would eat... (Burma Jones) If only seems that way if you understand densities, but in terms of what they think, physically we're just animals to them. (Perceval) But I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about in respect of our understanding...

A: Yes, you just hit upon an important point: The genetic body tends toward the animal nature. Note that we said "tends". In those of the "fanatical" vegetarian nature, this tendency is very strong. In fact, you could even say that there is strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically.

Q: (L) So what do you mean, "strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically"? Is that what I was thinking, that these fanatical vegetarians do not want to eat meat because for them, it's like eating their own kind? For them, eating a cow is like cannibalism because they identify with the animal kingdom so strongly that...?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, that would lead to the next part of what I was thinking last night, which is that some - and I'm not saying ALL - really fanatical vegetarians of the slavish authoritarian follower type personality could be, can you say the word for me there, Belibaste? (Belibaste) OP's. (L) Organic portals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay. (Galaxia) So basically they're people with the essence of an animal?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They identify with the energetic... (Galaxia) They look like people, but they're not.

A: Yes.

Q: (Galaxia) They don't eat cows because they have the essence of a cow!

A: Yes.

Q: (Ark) They care more about the cows than about other human beings.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) That means they have empathy for animals - that is, their own spiritual kind - and not for humans.

A: Yes.

Q: (Burma Jones) Is that also why psychopaths can be so kind towards animals while they treat humans with such indifference?

A: Yes. Though psychopaths often are brutal toward all that cannot contribute to their aims.

Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.

Q: (L) Well, what about the fact that for example the Cathars were supposed to be vegetarian? Cathars were the ones that were the Perfecti. They were vegetarian and they didn't eat meat.

A: They didn't succeed in surviving either!

Q: (Galaxia) Can I ask a question? Does all this mean that vegetarians are more inclined towards cannibalism?

A: No.

Q: (L) No, what I was saying that they would perceive... (Galaxia) I know, but I was saying that since they have such disregard for people... (L) Oh, I see what you're saying. Would they have less feeling for people and be inclined to eat them under certain circumstances? (Galaxia) Yes. (Perceval) Given the choice, would they eat a person or a cow? (Galaxia) If they were starving?

A: In some cases, perhaps, but not generally.

Q: (Ailen) Now, among vegetarians, you could say there are two groups. There's the group that says they feel better, they don't want to kill animals, they feel more sorry for animals than for veggies. They kind of stop there - they don't have spiritual ideas. On the other hand, there are those vegetarians who say that humans eat meat and therefore they are attached to physical reality. So by eating veggies and then fasting or sungazing for example, they're going to become illumined beings. So those are two different groups. So what is the intrinsic difference between them?

A: Two variations on the same theme!

Q: (L) The kind that just don't want to be cruel to animals identify with the animals more strongly. They just don't have anything else. And then those that think it's spiritual, they're just kind of like New Age fundies. (Ailen) Yeah, but I was thinking that there might be some kind of difference in their essence or genes in the sense that some of them make a choice...

A: Not really. The only evidence for "soul potential" is the realization that the body is just a machine and needs optimal fuel.

Q: (L) Okay, there's something else I'm thinking about. Getting back to this genetic construct marrying with the physical potential... It seems that higher soul potential has been historically associated with physical problems. It's like the soul, being a strong energy, expresses itself through the body, and if the soul is unhappy, or if the soul is ill at ease, or if it's in distress, or for some reason not at peace as it is very easy to be in this day and time when there is so much cruelty and insanity rampant on the Earth, that these people with higher soul potentials tend to have more physical problems and disabilities. Is that going in a proper direction?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, individuals with the soul potential whose soul afflicts the body with its issues need to really understand the body, give it optimal fuel, and learn how to deal with the soul issues themselves separately or in a soul-based way.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) I mean it's like the whole Ra thing was about Wanderers. Wanderers according to the traditional definition are people who tend to have... (Psyche) They're more sensitive. (L) They're more sensitive, and they have to be more efficiently nourished and have better fuel and they have to really be careful with detoxification. And those people it seems to me would be susceptible to the belief that being a vegetarian would help them - only it wouldn't!

A: Yes. Carla is an example!

Q: (L) Yeah, Carla of the Ra group. She is just practically crippled with arthritis. I don't know what she eats, but the Paleo diet might do her some good. (Ailen) But then you have psychopaths who are very sick, too. (L) Yeah. I think that sometimes it's just a roll of the genetic dice. But in some cases, there's this connection. (Psyche) And we're exposed to too much toxicity these days. (L) Okay, have we done this subject? (Ark) Yes, I have a question. From a higher point of view - not just ethics and such things - but from the higher philosophical point of view, what's really wrong with cannibalism? (L) What's really wrong with cannibalism? (Perceval) We may or may not publish this answer. [laughter]

A: In some instances, nothing. But in general one does not eat one's own kind for energetic reasons. Carnivores do not eat other carnivores because it is not optimal energy source.

Q: (L) In other words, we get optimal energy from eating creatures that eat vegetables. That way, we get our vegetables. But another carnivore processes all of that so that what we would get from eating another carnivore would not be optimal nutrition?

A: Yes.

Q: (Andromeda) But then we could eat vegetarians. [laughter]

A: Don't laugh! That has been the case for some groups at certain times and places. In fact, that is still the case in some dark circles extant on Earth today. As we once pointed out, higher density beings derive nourishment from some humans and human body products. Preferred are fat children and nonsmoking vegetarians.

Q: (Psyche) There are some religions that say that you have to be vegetarians. (Burma Jones) They're basically just farms for 4D STS looking for a good lunch. (Belibaste) Good food. And it's organic vegetarians usually! (PoB) Does it mean that the meat from meat-eating predators is not good for us? (L) That's what they said, yes. (Burma Jones) So then India is just one big cattle ranch. (L) And with so many people that they have there, nobody would even notice when people go missing. People go missing there all the time. (Burma Jones) And they have the worst poverty in the world. (Belibaste) Remember in the sessions they were talking about the missing children, and there was a lot from India - vegetarian children. (L) The loss of children of India is just stupendous. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Bottom line seems to be that most people who get "saved" need something outside of them to solve their problems by giving them a formula. They are generally lower in intelligence overall, emotionally immature and poor problem solvers. All of these factors can affect their research, reporting, and more.
 
Cognitive dissonance and noise. All influencers take advantage of this. Social media economy is a great energy market in the form of attention shares. NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU EAT. You can be vegan vegetarian carnivore or breatharian or supporter of this or that. In a predatory realm like this, what matters is established in terms of the market for attention. Which reaches surreal limits in silly areas like this. But welcome. Very funny even if merciless about our condition as total idiots. :lol:
 
Ina said:
Hi @christx11 , [1] my comment was related to baptism, one's decision to convert to Christianity, hence be baptized. I said that no one has the right to pass judgements on that aspect about someone else's case. [2] Actually, the invitation to comment was for everyone who wants, to share their own experience.

[3] I was baptized Christian Orthodox when I was a small baby. Do you want to talk about that? I am inviting you to ask me details about my baptism event on this platform, and I can provide second hand information about it.
Click to expand...
In regards to [2]:

What invitation to comment? I don't see anywhere in your previous 3 posts regarding this thread that an invitation to comment was made for everyone to share their own experiences.

Ina: #120
Ina: #124
Ina: #128

There were others making posts regarding the nature of public posting in public spaces that implied a natural right for others to discuss one's public post and that could be inferred as an invitation to talk about said public posts. Is that what you are talking about? Or is there something I am missing in your 3 previous posts where you invited everyone to share their own experiences about baptism? I am confused.

The only place I can find where I might be able to make an inference to you saying "Actually, the invitation to comment was for everyone who wants, to share their own experience.", is in your comment to @Ben in post #128, where you said "Why not commenting directly where invitation was made, and directly to the person who made the invitation?". But I am really confused (kind of feel gaslighted here), that somehow this statement of yours:

"Why not commenting directly where invitation was made, and directly to the person who made the invitation?"

was supposed to have the meaning of

"Actually, the invitation to comment was for everyone who wants, to share their own experience."

I don't know how to get from one statement to the other. But I also admit I may be missing something huge here or even simple that when pointed out to me I will bonk my head and say to myself, that was stupid of me, here it is in plane sight, duh!

Maybe you are saying Russell's invitation to comment was for others to respond with their own experiences. If so, the lack of contexts really confused me and I apologize.

In regards to [1]:

I know your comment was about baptism. I know you are advocating that no one has a right to pass judgements on that aspect about someone else's case.

In regards to [3]:
I too was baptized in a Lutheran faith when I was little and I was also circumcised. So what.
And
No I don't want to talk about [your baptism event on this platform].

I may be really mistaken again, but your above statement seems to me to be emotionally driven.

First you seem to say: "No one has the right to pass judgements on that aspect about someone else's case."

But now you seem to want me to ask you about your case"? Once again I am confused as it seems you want to talk about your own case (of baptism), but you want to use me to do that. You can talk about your baptism without me asking you to talk about it (without me implicitly accepting your invitation). If you want to talk about something, you do not need my permission.

The words "no one has the right to pass judgements" are strong words. Specifically "no one has the right" and "judgements". I think many people here thought Russell was very clued in on the insanity of the world. He uses irony very effectively to point out to his audiences the insanity he sees in the world. He sees a lot. Many people here were shocked that he can see so many things, but not see the nonsense of western religions. That does not invalidate what he does see. Many people here were also surprised when Jordan Peterson went off the rails perse. I don't know what upsets you about that in regards to how people here are reacting to that. We are surprised all the time.

That does not make Russell a bad person. What comes through a person is being discerned (or in your words judged). I think everyone here has a right to discern and discuss what comes through a person. That seems to be a major reason why we are here trying to figure things out. Veganism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, history, cataclysms, Darwinian evolution, psychology, behaviorism, psychopathy, Russia did it, Semites, Quantum Theory, Relativity, Space-Time, Space-Consciousness, the devine union of the material and non-material, STS, STO, true love and compassion.
Who knows, maybe this is just Russell's ultimate prank!
 
Laura said:
There's a great deal to External Considering besides that. To reduce it to that is to take part of his discussion way too literally and ignore both the nuances AND the wider implications.

I find it interesting that Brand has converted especially considering the findings of Bob Altemeyer in his book "Amazing Conversions."

There you learn learn that people who are looking for something "higher" to believe in are generally full of fear and have lots of psychological issues, not to mention problems in their lives, that they are unable to cope with or unwilling to discipline themselves to deal with. They also tend to be less intelligent than non-believer type people. Some of the folks who got very low scores described in Altemeyer's book were atheists to the core, evolutionists, etc., which goes to show it is not the ideology but the slavish following of it that is the issue.

See also:
www.sott.net

Moral Endo-skeletons and Exo-skeletons: A Perspective on America's Cultural Divide and Current Crisis

Last week, in the posting in which I asked the NSB community for aid (see "The Wind Up, and Here's the Pitch"), I closed by saying, In the days to come, as a reminder of what NSB has contributed to the effort to address this national crisis, I...
www.sott.net www.sott.net

And: The Third Person Effect

One factor that makes Brand's case interesting is his vegetarianism. Here is an excerpt from one of the sessions on the topic:



Bottom line seems to be that most people who get "saved" need something outside of them to solve their problems by giving them a formula. They are generally lower in intelligence overall, emotionally immature and poor problem solvers. All of these factors can affect their research, reporting, and more.
Click to expand...
Thank You for the amazing insight, brought about like a knowledge tornado that left lots of food for thought.
 
Laura said:
Bottom line seems to be that most people who get "saved" need something outside of them to solve their problems by giving them a formula.
Click to expand...

I was actually wondering if the recent issues he had with his former promiscuous lifestyle has any connection with his conversion, that the media/ powers got to him a bit more that he outwardly admits, that this destabilised him more than it looks like. So his conversion, if that wasn’t something ‘cooking’ in the background for a while could be an attempt to re-stabilise his mental state?
 
nicklebleu said:
I was actually wondering if the recent issues he had with his former promiscuous lifestyle has any connection with his conversion, that the media/ powers got to him a bit more that he outwardly admits, that this destabilised him more than it looks like. So his conversion, if that wasn’t something ‘cooking’ in the background for a while could be an attempt to re-stabilise his mental state?
Click to expand...
...and thus stave off disintegration.

In which case, good for him - 'Jesus' is better than intravenous heroin - but it doesn't bode well for him long-term.
 
Niall said:
...and thus stave off disintegration.

In which case, good for him - 'Jesus' is better than intravenous heroin - but it doesn't bode well for him long-term.
Click to expand...

No, he seems way too fragile. That's usually the case with people lost in drugs and/or sex. If they manage to get out of that pit, they still need crutches, it seems. Maybe being vegetarian for a bit was that crutch, but eventually it wasn't enough.

But, you never know. Religion might help him have time to really sort himself out eventually. If there is time.
 
Laura said ' There you learn learn that people who are looking for something "higher" to believe in are generally full of fear and have lots of psychological issues, not to mention problems in their lives, that they are unable to cope with or unwilling to discipline themselves to deal with. They also tend to be less intelligent than non-believer type people. Some of the folks who got very low scores described in Altemeyer's book were atheists to the core, evolutionists, etc., which goes to show it is not the ideology but the slavish following of it that is the issue.'

yes so very true ,in my experience of recovering from addiction the first stage is learning to stay of the substances and physical connections with active user and bars etc- in 12 step programs meeting attendance on a daily basis is he guideline- so in early recovery people get through the first year of so drug free - then the usual go tos manifest - sex lust porn gambling food and a whole plethora of fixations- basically its all addiction playing out but not to the substances ! for many it does require support of others whove been through it -certainly in my case - but there comes time to continue recovering and dealing with the historical issues that drive the addiction and encourage the hungary ghosts to attach and feed off the individual. Thats encouraged in 12 step with the inventory work in the 4th and fifth steps etc but many dont go much deeper in my experience. In other word the addiction plays out in supposedly more hidden ways - need for validation ,saviours someone else to make it easier for them to avoid really taking full on reponsibilty for doing The Work.
Yes hes 21 years clean but like Laura mentioned hes weak - his celebrity status , and trying out the latest new thing etc are all ways to distract from direct connection to himself imo - hes still acting out and feeding the hungary ghosts.His investment in all this makes it all the more difficult to really sit with himself and be still enough to do something about his dilemma( his addiction has set up a failsafe system to avoid the void within himself - i see many like that and at 21 years clean I was pretty much the same - yesterday was 38 years since i used mood altering shemicals etc- and its really only in the last 10 years have I really been able to engage in The Work and commit in a genuine way. Moving to a rural location and living alone certainly helped in that respect. Either way I wish him all the best- but time is limited I hope he uses it wisely .Also being confronted with my mortality through severe illness was quite a massive awakener .
 
I think that video says less about Russell Brand and more about the current social trend towards Trad-Con and reversion back to fundamentalist religion. On the one hand it's better than drag queen story hour, but on the other hand this new crop of Christian NPCs seem particularly closed minded, preachy and uninspiring.

The pendulum swings again and again and nothing seems to be learned :lol:

Another recent, notable example:

jjmilt.substack.com

From OnlyFans to Born Again Christian?

Why we should be rejoicing at Nala Ray’s spiritual conversion, not hating on it.
jjmilt.substack.com jjmilt.substack.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom