027dbcc44d

bitcoin

COVID19; less harmful than the vaccine? Russel Brand targeted in smear campaign?

Ok...what are you saying? Russel Brand is part of the cover-up? He's notentioned anywhere in that article...and his opinion is completely contrary to all those people on the list. He advocates for critical thinking and points out every inconsistency he can find from the media..so I think maybe you're confused.

Who agrees that Mr. Brand, has rustled some feathers? Pun intended. As far as I can say, I think Mr. Brand appreciates the decentralized origins of Bitcoin and the idea of redistributing wealth among the masses. He's made informational crypto videos and conveyed the message, and for that reason; I think he deserves a spot here for debate.

This isn't me telling you what I think happened and I make no claims with any type of certainty. All I'm saying is it seems like a very real possibility. I honestly don't think he did it. And then there's Danny Masterson; that man is guilty af, in my opinion.

So, being the 4th most influential person on the planet and going against the media, condemning big pharma, news personalities, politicians, educators, etc...nobody can fight a strong current without huge pushback.

So here I've put together some hypothetical scenarios that describe possible motives of someone looking to make Mr. brand less credible.

1. **Undermining Influence and Promoting Agendas**: By discrediting Russell Brand with a fabricated sex scandal, this hypothetical individual could weaken his influence and credibility, making it difficult for him to sway public opinion on important matters. This could serve the interests of the perpetrator, such as advancing their own agenda or suppressing opposing views.

2. **Eliminating Competition and Protecting Interests**: If the individual sees Brand as a rival or threat, tarnishing his reputation through a scandal could eliminate him as competition. This would be particularly enticing if there's a business or personal rivalry at play, or if Brand's beliefs clash with the perpetrator's financial or ideological interests.

3. **Political Smear Campaign**: Fabricating a scandal could be a means to undermine Brand's strong political or ideological views that clash with those of the person with deep pockets. The aim could be to discredit him and hinder his influence on political discourse.

4. **Undermining Advocacy and Credibility**: If Brand is known for advocating certain causes or social issues, a fabricated scandal could make it seem like he's a hypocrite or morally compromised, thereby undermining the causes he supports and reducing his credibility as a spokesperson.

5. **Control Over Media and Narrative**: A person with significant resources might manipulate media outlets to spread the scandal widely, ensuring its reach and impact. This control over the narrative could further amplify the discrediting effect on Brand.

6. **Preemptive Reputation Defense**: If the person with deep pockets has a reputation or image to protect, discrediting Brand could be a preemptive measure to divert attention from their own potentially damaging information, shifting the focus away from their own wrongdoings.

7. **Financial Gains and Investments**: There could be financial interests at play, such as investments or business ventures that would benefit from Brand's downfall. A scandal might damage Brand's public image and potentially affect his financial standing or investment opportunities.

The timing just seems too perfect, his ex's all say he's a gentleman, he's already admitted to being an ex sex and drug addict, these broads came out 10 years later and had never reported anything to the cops, they're all remaining anonymous... and lastly, I don't think he would have ever fully recovered from the mental anguish enough to be sober and accomplished for as long as he has been, if it were true.