Where's the humor? What's the joke? Explain how it's funny.
He doesn't explain how it's filling the world with bile and garbage, that's just a claim. And sure, it may qualify as criticism, but it's empty criticism. You could easily say that about most things. Bill Hicks is filling the world with bile and garbage. You'd want me to qualify that. Defend it, prove it. Something you're not asking of him.
Yes, advertisers want you to buy shit. Anyone who works in advertising will tell you that their job is to get you to buy shit. Advertising's job is to get you to buy shit. Maybe one brand of shit over another. Or shit you may not necessarily need, but all the same. You may disagree with the utility of what they're trying to sell you, but that's kind of irrelevant. The job itself is to make the product appealing enough to purchase.
You can bitch about advertisers who take on clients of products known to be harmful. That companies that do advertising for cigarettes are morally suspect. But the job in and of itself is no better or worse than a lot of others. Do you think Hicks blamed advertisers for making him a chain smoker? Then again, he was mostly a chain smoker to deal with his other addictions. But last time I checked most illegal narcotics don't have an advertising arm. Unless you count Bill Hicks, who advertised for them essentially for free.
Also, don't use acronyms unless you are going to explain what they mean. The only hit for KLM I got was the Royal Dutch Airline. It was only once I searched "KLM burning money" that I got the result that I think you were talking about, the KLF burns a million quid. And apparently, they went on a lecture circuit after that, Bill Drummond started writing, Jimmy Cauty continued as a music producer (which I don't know how that fits in with the whole "renouncing the industry" bit) and artist. So it's not like they fucked off and became bus drivers. They still leveraged that fame. And they regard that stunt as a mistake now.
As for Rage Against the Machine, I do see their predicament. They could go full Fugazi and reject most of the corporate structure, but then their reach becomes much less. Your message can't really reach.
And here's the thing, I'm not totally against what they're doing. I do think it's a bit ironic preaching anti-consumerism using the vehicle of consumerism to get your message. "Buy this thing that tells you that buying things is stupid". I think they're wrong in rejecting the entire notion of consumerism. Just like Hicks is wrong in rejecting the entire notion of advertising and marketing (which is a bit of an anti-consumerist screed). But the answer isn't to become a charge card wielding shopaholic either. No matter the extreme you go to, you've gone to the wrong one. Extreme isn't the answer, ever. There is value in a lot of things.