This is hilarious!!!

[www.youtube.com]
Russell Brand on MSNBC Mocking Media
8:34 Minute Video

A very funny interview with comedian Russell Brand who is setting out on a world comedy tour. Buy your tickets by visiting his website. Comedian Russell Brand terrified anchors on MSNBC's Morning Joe program by lecturing them about how the media distracts from real news by obsessing about superficial distractions. Brand almost immediately put host Mika Brzezinski on the back foot by describing his tour as an exploration of how Malcolm X, Gandhi, Che Guevara and Jesus Christ "are significant culturally and how icons are appropriated and used to designate consciousness and meaning....they're all people that died for a cause, they're all people whose icons are used to designate meaning, perhaps not in the manner in which they intended."

Brand then poked fun at MSNBC's army of "actors" in the back of the shot who were supposedly tweeting, noting that they were merely a gimmick to create the impression that the program was a hotbed of news.

The anchors began to get visibly uncomfortable when Brand made the point that mass media was an operation in changing information "so it suits a particular agenda" and that viewers were being manipulated.

Instead of addressing Brand's point, the anchors instead obsessed about the comedian's accent and his clothing.

"You're talking about me as if I'm not here and as if I'm an extraterrestrial," responded Brand, "thank you for your casual objectification."

"I'm a little nervous," retorted Brzezinski, presumably not used to entertaining guests on her program who act like real people.

When the conversation began to break down, Brand asked , "Is this what you all do for a living?" before hijacking the broadcast to talk about Edward Snowden, the NSA spying scandal and Bradley Manning.

"Look beyond the superficial, that's the problem with current affairs, you forget about what's important, you allow the agenda to be decided by superficial information -- what am I saying -- what am I talking about -- don't think about what I'm wearing, these things are redundant, superficial -- don't be distracted," said Brand as Brzezinski physically cowered.

Brand, who is a close friend of David Icke and was the only celebrity of note to draw attention to the Bilderberg Group with a recent tweet, is known for broaching topics of conversation which firmly go against the establishment grain. He also follows Alex Jones on Twitter.

His Brand X show routinely features guests from the counter-culture as well as those with controversial political views.
[www.youtube.com]

[www.naturalnews.com]
Russell Brand shatters hypnosis of mainstream media with hilarious, high-IQ domination of dumbfounded MSNBC hosts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

…

"This is a hotbed of neurosis and psychosis... I'm grateful to be here," Brand says to the other three hosts at one point, and they have zero reaction seemingly because they don't understand the multi-syllabic words he's using.

…

[www.naturalnews.com]

Peace and Love..........John

What Gandhi really thought about guns


Representation of Gandhi from the pro-gun blog Everyday No Days Off. (© Everyday No Days Off)

Those familiar with pro-gun activists know that they love a good quote. Do some surfing on pro-gun websites and you will find a cottage industry of quotations from American leaders and other voices of wisdom from throughout history. Some are legitimate, and some are completely bogus, but all are cherry-picked and presented entirely without context to suggest that their subjects hold the same pro-gun beliefs as Ted Nugent.

Even history’s greatest proponents of nonviolence are not immune from such treatment. This includes Mohandas Gandhi himself, whose words appear on countless pro-gun websites as follows: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

Pro-gun activists frequently use those words to suggest that Gandhi supported individual gun ownership both as a means of defending oneself and as a tool to violently resist government tyranny. But are these assertions true?

In that passage, Gandhi references India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry firearms but prevented Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. The full text of what he wrote is: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”

These words come from a World War I recruitment pamphlet that Gandhi published in 1918, urging Indians to fight with their British colonial oppressors in the war, not against them. According to K.P. Nayar, chief diplomatic editor for The Telegraph in Calcutta, Gandhi saw “an opportunity for a political struggle against the colonial rulers and for the repeal of the unjust Arms Act,” not “for more Indians to have access to guns.” Peter Brock, a noted historian of nonviolence, wrote in his article “Gandhi’s Nonviolence and His War Service” that Gandhi “believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.” The British, that is, would regret passing the Arms Act because they’d discover Indians to be such valuable fellow soldiers.

At this time, Gandhi was still a British loyalist. He hoped to encourage the British to repeal the Arms Act and grant India Home Rule within the British Empire. In his autobiography, Gandhi quotes a letter he wrote to the viceroy of India during the war, in which he declared, “I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”

Gandhi wanted Indians to fight in World War I to prove themselves trustworthy with arms and fit for citizenship. He was advocating for appeasement of India’s colonial rulers, not independence from them. Later, Gandhi’s thinking on this subject would change dramatically, but when he did initiate a campaign for full independence from the British Empire, he advocated only nonviolent means of resistance.

Pro-gun activists frequently try to claim with that one, out-of-context sentence that Gandhi supported violence to defend oneself and others. This is a vast oversimplification of Gandhi’s views.

In truth, Gandhi did not oppose the use of violence in certain circumstances, preferring it to cowardice and submission. Even though Gandhi’s spiritual philosophy of ahimsa rejects violence, it permits the use of violent force if a person is not courageous and disciplined enough to use nonviolence. Gandhi regarded weakness as the lowest human flaw, and would rather see a person use violent force in self-defense than be passive. His attitude stemmed in part from the British view at the time that Indians were a “weak” people. This also explains why Gandhi encouraged Indians to serve alongside the British in war. He believed such military service would give Indians, as Brock explains, “‘an opportunity to prove their mettle’ and disprove the allegations frequently made by Europeans that they were mostly cowards.”

Even while allowing for violent force in place of cowardliness, Gandhi remained a staunch advocate of nonviolence his entire life. And to Gandhi, nonviolent resistance was anything but passive. The form of nonviolent resistance that Gandhi himself consistently practiced, satyagraha — loosely translated as “insistence on truth” — rejects violence in any and all forms. Indeed, in the same document that pro-gun advocates cite to claim that Gandhi was a supporter of armed self-defense, he stated, “I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier.”

Gandhi practiced what he preached, even when violently attacked. His autobiography contains an account of such an incident that occurred during a trip to South Africa. Gandhi was traveling on a ship from India to Natal province with 800 other passengers, including his family. Racial discrimination in the province was rampant. Once white residents learned that Gandhi was aboard the ship, they became furious. They accused him of denouncing Natal whites while he was in India and bringing Indian immigrants to settle in the province as provocation.

Gandhi was innocent of both charges, but the residents attacked him when he disembarked from the ship anyway. He was hit with punches, kicks, stones and bricks, but refused to retaliate and simply kept walking (to the best of his ability). The mob was subdued only when the wife of the town’s police superintendent opened her parasol and stood between Gandhi and the mob. Later, Gandhi remembered thinking, “I hope God will give me the courage and the sense to forgive them and to refrain from bringing them to law. I have no anger against them. I am only sorry for their ignorance and their narrowness. I know that they sincerely believe that what they are doing today is right and proper. I have no reason therefore to be angry with them.” Ultimately, the press condemned the mob and the whole affair “enhanced the prestige of the Indian community in South Africa and made [Gandhi’s] work easier.”

Gandhi’s nonviolent strategies were also a key component in the satyagraha campaigns, which often consisted of masses of unarmed men and women courageously blocking the path of British soldiers. On several occasions, they were fired upon, and many were killed, sacrificing their lives to the movement for Indian independence. Even during his World War I recruitment campaign, Gandhi called satyagraha India’s mightiest weapon. “But he cannot be a satyagrahi who is afraid of death,” he cautioned.

Perhaps the most powerful piece of evidence is Gandhi’s own absolute refusal to use firearms. During his work with the ambulance corps in England in 1914, Gandhi said, “A rifle this hand will never fire.” And it never did.

Gandhi’s philosophy and satyagraha campaigns became indomitable after World War I, and on August 15, 1947, India won its independence. The British-era Arms Act of 1878 would not be repealed for 12 years, however, until it was replaced by the 1959 Arms Act and the supplemental Arms Rules of 1962 — laws that strictly limited civilian access to firearms. In the years up to and following independence, until his assassination in 1948, Gandhi did not speak out against the Arms Act of 1878 again. One can infer that Gandhi did not regard the Arms Act as significant enough to advocate against once India had actually achieved independence. Thus, individual gun ownership proved to be unimportant to Gandhi, who was far more concerned with establishing nonviolence as a principle of state policy.

In the end, India rejected the “doctrine of the sword” and gained independence from the British Empire through “Soul Force.” Indians learned from Gandhi the methods of the strong, the methods of satyagraha; acknowledging that guns only add more violence to the world. Will the United States be so brave?

Co-authored with Caitlin Rosser.

Absolutely nothing about that article proves that Gandhi did not believe that a populous should be armed. All it proves, and just barely, is that the context of the Indian and American situations are different yet the same.

Yeh now what about Che??????

Ive read the book hh have been going to cuba for over 15 years with vets for peace bringing med supplies and a schoolbus every so often more than one time via Mexico
and Know how the cubans feel about che, I suggest you go back and reread the book!
and other historys on Che.


too much propaganda soup Im afraid HH
or better yet go to cuba and then you can dump all those preconceptions and see with your own machine.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 01:30AM by riverhousebill.

The thing that I've understood from studying Guevara is that his killing was supposed to be a means to a peaceful, liberating end. After a while of looking into him, his killing starts to resonate as a murder habit, something that he enjoyed. He wasted a lot of people simply because they disagreed with him. I'm pretty sure he killed all the people who had the brains to not admire him too. Or maybe his terror still lingers and people are afraid to do anything but outwardly love him. How do you explain all the Cubans who risked their lives to flee to Florida? I don't know why you're going after me. I've never done anything but advocate for peace. Che Guevara is a piss-poor excuse for a peace icon. Nothing good ever came from his methods.

IMO, and this is the dreaded psychoanalyst in me talking, Guevara just wanted to watch the world burn after his young love dumped him. I don't think that he was really committed to anything after that beyond hating life and trying to mend his broken heart (ego) by making others feel his pain. I think that even up to the time of his death he was trying to prove himself to her, make her regret that she didn't want him because he became the great Che.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 01:29AM by HH.

I'm sure that I would love Cuba. I've loved it for a long time and haven't even been there. Peace.

With the embargo by the U.S. and Russia Cuba was forced to go organic Could not buy chemical ferts,They found out Organic was the best root.

Then in 1997Cuba Accused the U.S. of Waging Bug Warfare

















UNITED NATIONS — In an episode that mixed Cold War rhetoric with sci-fi conspiracy theory, Cuba accused the United States of sprinkling the island with the larvae of crop-destroying insects in an act of "biological aggression."

Most people ive talked with about the bio atack say it happened.
Cuba trains and sends more Doctors around the world to where needed than any other.

Fidel is the only Political leader I ever heard say Hunger starvation in this world today is because of world leaders not the shortages.

In the sixties and early 70s I had my red button I wore that said ( I LIKE FIDEL)
still do! much respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2013 07:36PM by riverhousebill.