If you just have kneejerk conclusions, you going to make a LOT of mistakes. Finding truth is like zero-ing in on it. You take in the facts, the evidence, the context, all of it, and zero in on the picture it paints.

I mean, how do you know that Brand should or should not be doing? Where is YOUR channel? Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to be saying what Brand should be doing, as if you know and as if your judgment is infallible?

So, consider the facts and the context, etc.

2018, Brand was NOT aware, as most of us probably weren't, that the WEF is the devil incarnate.

Brand rose up in the entertainment world, has made mistakes, overcome them, been through the shit like most probably haven't. He gets paid for his work. This was a talk set up by Penguin, not Brand. Brand constantly counters and engages the "guest" the professor, in a way that is certainly not promoting or propagandizing the Professors views.

Brand is who he is. He loves people. He had this gig, engaged with Harari, and gave the guy a hug. It's completely consistent with Brands style, if you watch or know a bit about him.

2022, Brand is dropping red pills like no one's business, pills that are perfectly tailored to His target audience, the vast majority of who would be left-leaning, almost new-agey, conscientious people.

Me? I'm a reborn person for the last 40 years, and I'm very clearly in what was traditionally the "right" side of the aisle. I'm openly Christian, but have also worked in the interfaith field. My brother, who is very awake in many ways, is traditionally left. In the last few years, we've come closer and closer in our views, but he has been apolitical most of his life.

But he gets good info these days via Brand, so when I tell my brother about this thing or that, like Ukraine, like WEF, etc, or raise the topic of Gates and the Injections, etc, he gets it, because Brand is a point of reference that suits him. He probably can't relate to Trump quite yet (we're not American, by the way), but he's keeping up with the Great Awakening via Brand's stuff, mostly.

My approach to truth is this: I need to see a coming together of three axes: 1, the spiritual/internal/intuition or guidance of the holy Spirit, scripture 2. Logic, reasoning, clear thinking and mental clarity 3. The evidence, real world facts, results, experience etc. Where these three intersect the closest, that's likely to be the closest to the truth.

Personally, I think that anons who see one picture or take a few points of reference, and try to draw the WHOLE conclusion based on that, are doing themselves and and the awakening movement a disservice.

3 years ago, I had ZERO idea about Schwab, the WEF, or the Great Reset. And I was awake to a LOT of things.

I think it's fine to withhold judgment until you have enough evidence. I think there's nothing wrong with being skeptical or NOT investing trust or giving credence to someone until you have enough input to be able to make that judgment. "I don't trust him yet" isn't a bad thing, as long as you leave your mind open to learning more and getting more input.

Personally, what I don't think is useful or productive is drawing conclusions without a significant preponderance of evidence, facts, context and reasoning, but I guess we all do that some times.

Final PS. I've been aware of brand for about 6 years+. I've listened to him talk on various things, and also watched stuff he was doing 10, 12 years ago when he was in the thick of the entertainment stuff. I've noticed his development and am really happily surprised that he's dropping this red pills now.

Think about JP sears. Also dropping red pills, heaps. About a month ago he came out and talked about an anti-gun video skit he did about 3 years ago. He apologized, and just came clean, saying he just had no idea. Now, he is full on 2nd amendment. He's another who has come from the more liberal side of town, but who is undergoing an awakening.