PDA

View Full Version : Russell Brand Calls For Social Revolution - Interview with Paxman



Dr. FIVE
24-10-2013, 01:50 AM
good in fairness


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

bernadette
24-10-2013, 02:10 AM
good in fairness


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

very good and he does seem to care, perhaps he's growing up. He's right about one thing people are getting angry.

C. Flower
24-10-2013, 07:30 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

Short and sweet.

Holly
24-10-2013, 01:01 PM
Russell Brand is a shallow hairy celebrity creep.

Mowl
24-10-2013, 02:16 PM
Russell Brand is a shallow hairy celebrity creep.

I would have said the same, only I'd be saying it about Jeremy Paxman. Brand speaks for a younger generation.

As far as I'm concerned, the more flies there are in the ointment, the less the value of the petroleum base. Let him rant. He's perfectly entitled. As are we all.

Seán Ryan
24-10-2013, 02:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

Short and sweet.

It's good to see stuff like this. He's very quick and he's very articulate. You can see his thought process in action as he adds jokes to what he's got to say, giving himself room to ponder. A very impressive sight.

I think it's excellent, that the process that facilitates his thinking, is the thing that made him famous and now it's rightfully taking a second seat to his real talent. This is Bill Hicks like stuff being taken to a whole new level.

The big joke is that the truth is very funny. It is funny because it's quite an alien concept, the truth.

Kev Bar
24-10-2013, 03:01 PM
good in fairness


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

Ranting, raving and exceeding speed limits in a manner not unfamiliar to me.

Quite good.

Saoirse go Deo
24-10-2013, 04:21 PM
I would have said the same, only I'd be saying it about Jeremy Paxman. Brand speaks for a younger generation.

As far as I'm concerned, the more flies there are in the ointment, the less the value of the petroleum base. Let him rant. He's perfectly entitled. As are we all.

He doesn't speak for anyone besides himself.

Mowl
24-10-2013, 05:25 PM
He doesn't speak for anyone besides himself.

I'll counter your complete and offhand dismissal of Russell Brand and reaffirm my point that he speaks for - though possibly not on the direct behalf of - an enormous swathe of modern British and Irish youth, entirely disillusioned with modern so-called democratic politics and who also tend to abstain from participation in our pointless modern democracy.

He hit the nail on the head when he referred to changing modes of communication, instant exchange and trade of information, and people's patience with the present two and three tiered model wearing extremely thin. In fact, it brought this to mind:


It's the age of the internet, of open source, of technology eradicating barriers to information flow, dismantling hierarchies and destroying gatekeeper models, the freeing and democratisation of information, radical new concepts in the organisation and direction and delivery of work, profound implications for the future structure of society, the nature of employment, the way all the current 19th century models and institutions of Government will be forced to evolve....and those morons want to chatter about squirrels and hairdressers

A nod to Sidewinder - quotes aren't possible when threads are locked.

http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?14623-A-new-member-s-thoughts&p=349198#post349198

Saoirse go Deo
24-10-2013, 05:37 PM
At the risk of making people feel old, I'll point out that Russel Brand is 38. Not exactly "youth". I'm not dismissing what he is saying I'm just disputing the claim that he speaks on behalf of the "youth" or indeed anyone besides himself. If he is supposed to speak for the youth - god help us.

He can be entertaining at times but there are innumerable other people we would be better off spending our time listening to.

C. Flower
24-10-2013, 05:47 PM
"Shouldn't destroy the planet
Shouldnt create enormous disparity
Shouldn't ignore the people"

Generations of lies from the political class - a completely demoralised underclass-

Calls Paxers out on TINA.

Refuses to accept he does not have a right to political views because he is an actor.

"A huge underserved impoverished underclass"

"It is the politicians who are apathetic - they are apathetic to our needs"

Brand may be to some extent provoking and posturing, but he is expressing an objective need for revolutionary change to overcome the massive disparity between rich and poor, and to remove exploitation from the system.
Also, of course, to save the planet :)

Saoirse go Deo
24-10-2013, 06:04 PM
I'm not disagreeing with what he is saying but I loath this celebrity worship nonsense whereby someone who is famous for dating Katy Perry and acting like a nasty child on a BBC radio show is deemed to be speaking on behalf of others. You get this ***** all the time with John Lennon in particular with his quotes getting put all over the place like he was some great thinker or philosopher. The thought process seems to go something like this: "Wow, someone famous said something somewhat profound I agree with - he/she is the second coming!"

If a socialist revolution came money hungry media whores like Brand would be the first heading off to tax free land. Hey, some good might be done if it gets people thinking but he knows well that it will get people and the media talking about HIM.

Yes I'm very cynical but with good reason. I think he's an idiot who can turn a good phrase. No good can come from buying into "celebrities".

Kev Bar
24-10-2013, 06:06 PM
Culture, real culture, is radical and transformative. It is capable of expressing what lies deep within us. It gives words to our reality. It makes us feel as well as see. It allows us to empathize with those who are different or oppressed. It reveals what is happening around us. It honors mystery. “The role of the artist, then, precisely, is to illuminate that darkness, blaze roads through the vast forest,” James Baldwin wrote, “so that we will not, in all our doing, lose sight of its purpose, which is, after all, to make the world a more human dwelling place.”Really excellent stuff


Chris Hedges giving a more intellectual and historically aware version of Brand's rant



The resistance needs a vibrant cultural component. It was the spirituals that nourished the souls of African-Americans during the nightmare of slavery. It was the blues that spoke to the reality of black people during the era of Jim Crow. It was the poems of Federico Garcia Lorca that sustained the republicans fighting the fascists in Spain. Music, dance, drama, art, song, painting were the fire and drive of resistance movements. The rebel units in El Salvador when I covered the war there always traveled with musicians and theater troupes. Art, as Emma Goldman pointed out, has the power to make ideas felt. Goldman noted that when Andrew Undershaft, a character in George Bernard Shaw’s play “Major Barbara,” said poverty is “[t]he worst of crimes” and “All the other crimes are virtues beside it,” his impassioned declaration elucidated the cruelty of class warfare more effectively than Shaw’s socialist tracts. The degradation of education into vocational training for the corporate state, the ending of state subsidies for the arts and journalism, the hijacking of these disciplines by corporate sponsors, severs the population from understanding, self-actualization and transcendence. In aesthetic terms the corporate state seeks to crush beauty, truth and imagination. This is a war waged by all totalitarian systems.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_sparks_of_rebellion_20130930


What will poor Sam and our dour donkey jacketed 'revolutionaries' do given that future revolutions may grant a role to the bourgeois?



Occupy articulated the concerns of the majority of citizens. Most of the citizenry detests Wall Street and big banks. It does not want more wars. It needs jobs. It is disgusted with the subservience of elected officials to corporate power. It wants universal health care. It worries that if the fossil fuel industry is not stopped, there will be no future for our children. And the state is using all its power to stymie any movement that expresses these concerns. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show Homeland Security, the FBI, the Federal Protective Service, the Park Service and most likely the NSA and the CIA (the latter two have refused to respond to FOIA requests) worked with police across the country to infiltrate and destroy the encampments. There were 7,765 arrests of people in the movement. Occupy, at its peak, had about 350,000 people—or about 0.1 percent of the U.S. population.

“Look how afraid the power structure was of a mere 1/10th of 1 percent of the population,” Zeese said. “What happens when the movement grows to 1 percent—not a far reach—or the 5 percent that some research shows is the tipping point where no government, dictatorship or democracy can withstand the pressure from below?”

C. Flower
24-10-2013, 06:16 PM
I'm not disagreeing with what he is saying but I loath this celebrity worship nonsense whereby someone who is famous for dating Katy Perry and acting like a nasty child on a BBC radio show is deemed to be speaking on behalf of others. You get this ***** all the time with John Lennon in particular with his quotes getting put all over the place like he was some great thinker or philosopher. The thought process seems to go something like this: "Wow, someone famous said something somewhat profound I agree with - he/she is the second coming!"

If a socialist revolution came money hungry media whores like Brand would be the first heading off to tax free land. Hey, some good might be done if it gets people thinking but he knows well that it will get people and the media talking about HIM.

Yes I'm very cynical but with good reason. I think he's an idiot who can turn a good phrase. No good can come from buying into "celebrities".

All good points, that I agree with. I don't think Brand is a new Che, nor do I think we should be looking for one. But I do think it is one of those little straws in the wind, for an inane and nutty celeb to be talking revolution.

Saoirse go Deo
24-10-2013, 06:56 PM
All good points, that I agree with. I don't think Brand is a new Che, nor do I think we should be looking for one. But I do think it is one of those little straws in the wind, for an inane and nutty celeb to be talking revolution.

To be fair to him he spoke very well.

C. Flower
24-10-2013, 06:56 PM
Apologies - I posted Brand in a separate thread. Would it be ok if these posts join it ?

Kev - I also posted two days ago (on the Boston Bombings thread) a report on a young Occupy camper set up in a bomb provocation by the FBI and sent down for 13 years. Not really any evidence that he had any idea what was going on. They were taken apart in all kinds of ways.

Brand is talking about the underclass, created in the west by globalism which has taken manufacture elsewhere. They are the children both of workers and middle class people. In the US Occupy had some real substance in the main because it did to some extent link up with organised workers in Trade Unions.

Apart from saying that they should not be shut up, I don't think Brand is talking about intellectuals.


Really excellent stuff


Chris Hedges giving a more intellectual and historically aware version of Brand's rant




http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_sparks_of_rebellion_20130930


What will poor Sam and our dour donkey jacketed 'revolutionaries' do given that future revolutions may grant a role to the bourgeois?

Apjp
24-10-2013, 07:12 PM
Don't think he's nutty or even a celeb. anyone famous who manages not to whote themselves completely is impressive. to maintain opinions like this is good. He stimulates debate and offers a good platform for the abandoned

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk 2

C. Flower
24-10-2013, 07:19 PM
Don't think he's nutty or even a celeb. anyone famous who manages not to whote themselves completely is impressive. to maintain opinions like this is good. He stimulates debate and offers a good platform for the abandoned

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk 2

I'm going by his autobiography "My Booky Wook." He is taking on the role of court jester. But if it take a clown to break through the taboo about talking about social revolution, well, send in the clowns. Perhaps the only people who can do it right now.

Spectabilis
24-10-2013, 07:25 PM
I'm not disagreeing with what he is saying but I loath this celebrity worship nonsense whereby someone who is famous for dating Katy Perry and acting like a nasty child on a BBC radio show is deemed to be speaking on behalf of others. You get this ***** all the time with John Lennon in particular with his quotes getting put all over the place like he was some great thinker or philosopher. The thought process seems to go something like this: "Wow, someone famous said something somewhat profound I agree with - he/she is the second coming!"

If a socialist revolution came money hungry media whores like Brand would be the first heading off to tax free land. Hey, some good might be done if it gets people thinking but he knows well that it will get people and the media talking about HIM.

Yes I'm very cynical but with good reason. I think he's an idiot who can turn a good phrase. No good can come from buying into "celebrities".

You express my views exactly. I do not need to add anything.

morticia
24-10-2013, 08:26 PM
Don't think he's nutty or even a celeb. anyone famous who manages not to whote themselves completely is impressive. to maintain opinions like this is good. He stimulates debate and offers a good platform for the abandoned

Sent from my GT-I8190 using Tapatalk 2

I'd be inclined to agree. He hit the nail on the head when pointing out the corporations have too much power altogether....

Difficulty is, national governments can't control transborder corporations. Until we all set a global tax rate, perhaps varied to compensate for regional disparities, but global nonetheless, the corporations have us over a barrel in a giant game of beggar my neighbour.

The first step would be to abolish the tax havens and set a minimum global corpo tax of say 10%

And resource usage taxes...yeah, Russell, save the planet!

bernadette
24-10-2013, 08:54 PM
I read somewhere that those who can't make it as actors become politicians. Brand is entitled to his views. He has the thoughtless huge ego of those eager to do anything for publicity, but he's also entitled to grow up. I thought he showed quick intelligence and humour. He didn't have much choice with the manic behaviour even if he wanted to he can't change the character he created over night but he does seem to be moving in a new and interesting direction.

Youth is still his market he connects with the young. Interesting to see the new thoughtful Brand.

Dr. FIVE
24-10-2013, 09:22 PM
he speaks the truth and seems to understand it very well

That performance would have run rings round any of Irish media gatekeepers

People Korps
24-10-2013, 11:08 PM
It is no longer about protest or limited warfare it is time for total war

Apjp
25-10-2013, 12:19 AM
I agree Cass. Clowns are needed. Look at Russell, Frankie Boyle and I'm sure there are others. There is definitely a need on the established corporate stand up roadshows in the west to have 'positive humour' like Micke Mcintyre talking ***** and hysteria. Even Dara O Briain is at this too. If it's a choice between Bill Hicks type comedy and dumbing down ourselves, it's not a hard choice.

Slim Buddha
25-10-2013, 04:17 AM
Brand is a creation of the modern day fascination with "celebrity". This is a phenomenon particularly virulent in the Anglo-Saxon media. Brand was let off extremely lightly by Paxman who, had he chosen to, could have sliced him to pieces on the painful shallowness of his "treatise" of social revolution. He speaks in paragraph headers but fails to articulate anything in any kind of detail or even hints that he is capable of this. He is hardly a spokesman for a generation because he is saying absolutely nothing of significance, as Paxman repeated points out. If the "youth" have him and endorse him as a spokesman for them , they deserve to be ignored. The only subject I have heard Russell Brand speak on with any kind of depth or insight is West Ham United. Otherwise I regard him as I do most "celebrities": boring, tedious and irritating.

jmcc
25-10-2013, 06:28 AM
He is hardly a spokesman for a generation because he is saying absolutely nothing of significance, as Paxman repeated points out. If the "youth" have him and endorse him as a spokesman for them , they deserve to be ignored.So he's like that Rick character from "The Young Ones" comedy from the 1980s? He doesn't seem to be quite the same kind of 'celebrity' as others of the type but he's no Bill Hicks.

Regards...jmcc

Kev Bar
25-10-2013, 11:24 AM
Apologies - I posted Brand in a separate thread. Would it be ok if these posts join it ?

Kev - I also posted two days ago (on the Boston Bombings thread) a report on a young Occupy camper set up in a bomb provocation by the FBI and sent down for 13 years. Not really any evidence that he had any idea what was going on. They were taken apart in all kinds of ways.

Brand is talking about the underclass, created in the west by globalism which has taken manufacture elsewhere. They are the children both of workers and middle class people. In the US Occupy had some real substance in the main because it did to some extent link up with organised workers in Trade Unions.

Apart from saying that they should not be shut up, I don't think Brand is talking about intellectuals.

All fine by me.

I think it is a little daft to let personal feelings about Brand get in the way of veracity.

Personally I fluctuate from respect to cringe.

Seán Ryan
25-10-2013, 01:34 PM
First, though, I should qualify my right to even pontificate on such a topic and in so doing untangle another of revolution’s inherent problems. Hypocrisy. How dare I, from my velvet chaise longue, in my Hollywood home like Kubla Khan, drag my limbs from my harem to moan about the system? A system that has posited me on a lilo made of thighs in an ocean filled with honey and foie gras’d my Essex arse with undue praise and money.

I once, during the early steps of this thousand-mile journey to decadent somnambulance, found myself embroiled in a London riot. It was around the bafflement of the millennium and we were all uptight about zeroes lining up three wide and planes falling from the sky and the national mood was weird.

At this point I’d attended a few protests and I loved them. At a Liverpool dockers march, the chanting, the bristling, the rippedup paving stones and galloping police horses in Bono glasses flipped a switch in me. I felt connected, on a personal level I was excited by the chaos, a necessary component of transition, I like a bit of chaos however it’s delivered. The disruption of normalcy a vital step in any revolution. Even aesthetically, aside from the ideology, I beam at the spectacle of disruption, even when quite trivial. As a boy a bird in the house defecating on our concept of domesticity as much as our settee, a signal of the impermanence and illusory nature of our humdrum comforts. The riot in question came when I was working at MTV and for the first time in my life had money, which to me was little more than regal letters to be delivered to drug dealers.

My involvement in the riot came without invitation or intention, I was in fact oxymoronically shopping (emphasis on the moron) with a stylist in the West End, at the expense of MTV, which is perhaps the planet’s most obvious purveyor of neurodross and pop-cultural claptrap – like a glistening pink pony trotting through your mind shitting glitter.
Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition” (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution)

Very nice.

Kev Bar
25-10-2013, 02:07 PM
Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition” (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution)

Very nice.


That's pretty good.

Pretty eloquent too.

Perhaps could have been a little shorter as it will just add fuel to those who claim he is a vainglorious poppycock in love with the sound of his own voice.

But those who claim someone with money has no right to talk are being bigoted and intolerant.

C. Flower
25-10-2013, 02:29 PM
That's pretty good.

Pretty eloquent too.

Perhaps could have been a little shorter as it will just add fuel to those who claim he is a vainglorious poppycock in love with the sound of his own voice.

But those who claim someone with money has no right to talk are being bigoted and intolerant.

It's not a question of money - it is entertainers who are slammed down for speaking out politically.

Money not only talks, it buys newspapers and tv channels.

bernadette
25-10-2013, 02:32 PM
There is a part of me that's thinking: well okay its good but I bet someone proof read it, checked the occasional error, did a quick think about image etc. and finally the polished product is on display, but it is a good, articulate, almost emotional in its strength article. For all his idiosyncrasies and I've no doubt most of his are plastic, he's shown intelligence and the kind of controlled anger that attracts youth. And he's a West Ham supporter, home of Keir Hardy the first elected Labour politician gotta like that.

bernadette
25-10-2013, 02:37 PM
Brand has apparently already been slammed by Frabricant so he must have got something right.

http://order-order.com/2013/10/25/listen-fabricant-calls-russell-brand-a-twt-live-on-air/

musashi
25-10-2013, 02:50 PM
That's pretty good.

Pretty eloquent too.

Perhaps could have been a little shorter as it will just add fuel to those who claim he is a vainglorious poppycock in love with the sound of his own voice.

But those who claim someone with money has no right to talk are being bigoted and intolerant.

There's something about his mode of comms I like, and his Wildean propensity to self-deprecation.
I've also come to like his improvised call to arms, indistinct tho it is.

Seán Ryan
25-10-2013, 03:04 PM
I must say, I lost all interest in Mr Brand when he left that message for poor Andrew Sachs. I thought it a stupid and insensitive act. It didn't help Mr Brand's cause when he admitted as such in his first interview with Paxman.

But over the last few months he's caught my interest, firstly by dropping some US mainstream goons' jaws to the floor, and now this stuff.

I'm not inclined to confuse the message with the messenger. That way, if history shows Mr Brand to be a self obsessed tool, who only used his celebrity and gifts to ensure the satisfaction of his own base urges, I will not have to engage in the battles of "Toldyouso."

I like the new Brand, truth be told. I think he's found his groove. But I'm way more impressed by what he's had to say and that he's said it. I'd not consider myself in total agreement with it, but my disagreements with it are insignificant and mostly aesthetic.

C. Flower
25-10-2013, 03:10 PM
I hope it is more than canny promotion of the political journal he will be lending his name to.

But in a sense, that doesn't matter - he knows he has an audience for what he said, and that it would resonate with many people. That has nothing to do with the journal, and everything to do with the state of the UK and the world.

Mowl
25-10-2013, 03:40 PM
Clearly this verbose and self-involved young dandy has already achieved what any modern social agitator would have wished for? He drew massive amounts of attention to his cause, dividing all viewers down one side or the another, whilst stirring up as much controversy as possible in broad reaction to his wildly animated way of putting his half-crazed ideas across.

You either love him or hate him for these recent statements - there is no middle ground.

This interview is everywhere, and the reactions to it are generally absolute.

If that's not a total success, I don't know what is.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/russell-brand-not-only-dangerous_b_4155341.html

C. Flower
25-10-2013, 03:54 PM
Clearly this verbose and self-involved young dandy has already achieved what any modern social agitator would have wished for? He drew massive amounts of attention to his cause, dividing all viewers down one side or the another, whilst stirring up as much controversy as possible in broad reaction to his wildly animated way of putting his half-crazed ideas across.

You either love him or hate him for these recent statements - there is no middle ground.

This interview is everywhere, and the reactions to it are generally absolute.

If that's not a total success, I don't know what is.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/russell-brand-not-only-dangerous_b_4155341.html

First the soundbite, now the full Brand political statement -

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

That's something to get the teeth stuck in to, for or against.

Mowl - I don't agree that "you either love him or hate him" - I think that the response here has been quite nuanced.

"on the one hand...on the other"

The context, it appears, is not a new journal, as I had wrongly taken it, but that Brand has edited one edition of the New Statesmen.

Kev Bar
25-10-2013, 05:02 PM
First the soundbite, now the full Brand political statement -

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

That's something to get the teeth stuck in to, for or against.

Mowl - I don't agree that "you either love him or hate him" - I think that the response here has been quite nuanced.

"on the one hand...on the other"

The context, it appears, is not a new journal, as I had wrongly taken it, but that Brand has edited one edition of the New Statesmen.

Enter the impressive Paul Mason - who I see has bailed to C4news


On balance, Russell is right about the prospect of a revolution. It won't be a socialist revolution, nor even an anti-capitalist one in design. It will be a rejection of the corrupt values of those who run society.
It will be something cultural - like the mass uprising of Turkish youth I saw in Taksim Square this year. A complete rejection of the corrupt and venal values of those who run society. In fact, as I've written before, it's already going on.

Mason's Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere is well worth a read.

http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-anti-capitalist-revolution-bbc

Seán Ryan
25-10-2013, 05:12 PM
Clearly this verbose and self-involved young dandy has already achieved what any modern social agitator would have wished for? He drew massive amounts of attention to his cause, dividing all viewers down one side or the another, whilst stirring up as much controversy as possible in broad reaction to his wildly animated way of putting his half-crazed ideas across.

You either love him or hate him for these recent statements - there is no middle ground.

This interview is everywhere, and the reactions to it are generally absolute.

If that's not a total success, I don't know what is.

Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/robin-lustig/russell-brand-not-only-dangerous_b_4155341.html

I agree, he splits things. The mistake is in believing that it's an even split. I'd wager that a vastly superior number people will resonate with what Brand's said, than the number of those who will be appalled.

I found the Huffington Post article to be boorish and full of opinion not accompanied by facts. It slagged Brand off and was itself guilty of what it accused Brand of. It mocked quite a few points made but refuted none.

The primal question one must pose when seeking to refute or disprove some argument is: "Is this a logical argument and if it is what are the falsifiabilities of it?"

Let's take Brand's assertion that the problem is not about the alleged apathy of the masses, it is about the apathy of the privileged and those in control. What makes that assertion falsifiable? Well, if one were able to show that mass apathy was directly responsible for abysmal governments and their diabolical performances. I say such an assertion is self-evidently an absurdity. The larger the number of people who vote, the more unpredictable the result, keeping in mind that it will result in a random mix of government from a group of mostly pre-ordained tossers who consider it their birth right to rule. Thus the result is always random and one's mood or outlook, at the time of voting, is quite irrelevant.

No, I think Brand is quite correct. It's because useless lazy slobs don't give a damn if the majority are enslaved due to their malfeasance.

It seems to me that this adds weight to Brand's point about not voting. Fair enough, we do have world peace and South Africa is a utopian multicultural State, not at all being raped by multinationals and their vote enabled government lackies. If one takes the Huffington Post's hyperbole to its logical conclusions...

There's no argument to be found in hyperbole.

When Brand adds hyperbole to what he's saying it makes it funny and memorable. But he isn't doing hyperbole free from good argument.

C. Flower
25-10-2013, 05:21 PM
Enter the impressive Paul Mason - who I see has bailed to C4news


On balance, Russell is right about the prospect of a revolution. It won't be a socialist revolution, nor even an anti-capitalist one in design. It will be a rejection of the corrupt values of those who run society.
It will be something cultural - like the mass uprising of Turkish youth I saw in Taksim Square this year. A complete rejection of the corrupt and venal values of those who run society. In fact, as I've written before, it's already going on.

Mason's Why It's Kicking Off Everywhere is well worth a read.

http://www.channel4.com/news/russell-brand-jeremy-paxman-anti-capitalist-revolution-bbc

I think I caught Brand mentioning class, and a change in power.

He goes a lot further than anti-corruption.

Dr. FIVE
25-10-2013, 06:19 PM
If we had more celebrities talking about how class reproduces itself we might not have so many celebrities

Holly
25-10-2013, 07:34 PM
I have no doubt that no one pays the slightest attention to Russell Brand except as an entertainer.

Kev Bar
25-10-2013, 07:38 PM
If we had more celebrities talking about how class reproduces itself we might not have so many celebrities

:cool: Apt


Holly - lots of people are as we speak

musashi
25-10-2013, 07:54 PM
Brand's foppish dandy gent persona gives MSNBC a good telling off :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADJhErmJuoQ

C. Flower
25-10-2013, 08:22 PM
Big flirt :)

Dr. FIVE
25-10-2013, 08:57 PM
His ability to disarm people like that is very good fairness.

It is just one bullshit against another but refreshing all the same.

Dr. FIVE
25-10-2013, 10:22 PM
Im not saying classic soviet imagery and Brand's new tour fit very neatly in photoshop but...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXdHssyCQAE36lZ.png

bernadette
25-10-2013, 10:35 PM
Im not saying classic soviet imagery and Brand's new tour fit very neatly in photoshop but...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXdHssyCQAE36lZ.png

593

Sorry can't get the pics any larger.

Theresa
26-10-2013, 11:00 AM
It's a brilliant interview - very articulate and stays on topic. My hero - for today, well half of anyway!

Holly
26-10-2013, 11:57 AM
It's a brilliant interview - very articulate and stays on topic. My hero - for today, well half of anyway!

Good Lord! Are you serious? Jeepers!

Shaadi
26-10-2013, 02:19 PM
Interesting clip, and there was plenty of truth in it. The uber-wealthy are in full control of the Western World, the future they have planned for society is jobBridge type income disparities where the masses run on the spot in their hamster wheels. We haven't got there yet and so the masses are still placated to a large extent. At some stage the income disparities will just explode Western society into a revolutionary phase.

A life of minimum wage scraping to get by for the masses who've got used to the good life pre-crash isn't politically sustainable. When the tipping point comes it'll be chaos, the reordering of societies on a local scale won't be enough to address the problems, because the problem is about the uber-wealthy's hegemony over individual countries available choices through the globalisation process.

If you don't play by their game rules then how are you going to operate in their world? Which leaves the way open for the old socialist utopian overthrow of the capitalist system on a multi-country scale, but that revolution may not be even be realistically possible in a world where the Western World's populations needs and wants are only serviceable by the very capitalist system that's kicking the ***** out of them.


A mad dystopian future awaits... Does anyone think that the current situation can result in anything other than permanently reducing living standards. What do the rich need the Western underclass for when they can just bring in cheap Labour or use technology to replace them in their traditional jobs?

bernadette
26-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Interesting clip, and there was plenty of truth in it. The uber-wealthy are in full control of the Western World, the future they have planned for society is jobBridge type income disparities where the masses run on the spot in their hamster wheels. We haven't got there yet and so the masses are still placated to a large extent. At some stage the income disparities will just explode Western society into a revolutionary phase.

A life of minimum wage scraping to get by for the masses who've got used to the good life pre-crash isn't politically sustainable. When the tipping point comes it'll be chaos, the reordering of societies on a local scale won't be enough to address the problems, because the problem is about the uber-wealthy's hegemony over individual countries available choices through the globalisation process.

If you don't play by their game rules then how are you going to operate in their world? Which leaves the way open for the old socialist utopian overthrow of the capitalist system on a multi-country scale, but that revolution may not be even be realistically possible in a world where the Western World's populations needs and wants are only serviceable by the very capitalist system that's kicking the ***** out of them.


A mad dystopian future awaits... Does anyone think that the current situation can result in anything other than permanently reducing living standards. What do the rich need the Western underclass for when they can just bring in cheap Labour or use technology to replace them in their traditional jobs?

+1

C. Flower
26-10-2013, 04:53 PM
Interesting clip, and there was plenty of truth in it. The uber-wealthy are in full control of the Western World, the future they have planned for society is jobBridge type income disparities where the masses run on the spot in their hamster wheels. We haven't got there yet and so the masses are still placated to a large extent. At some stage the income disparities will just explode Western society into a revolutionary phase.

A life of minimum wage scraping to get by for the masses who've got used to the good life pre-crash isn't politically sustainable. When the tipping point comes it'll be chaos, the reordering of societies on a local scale won't be enough to address the problems, because the problem is about the uber-wealthy's hegemony over individual countries available choices through the globalisation process.

If you don't play by their game rules then how are you going to operate in their world? Which leaves the way open for the old socialist utopian overthrow of the capitalist system on a multi-country scale, but that revolution may not be even be realistically possible in a world where the Western World's populations needs and wants are only serviceable by the very capitalist system that's kicking the ***** out of them.


A mad dystopian future awaits... Does anyone think that the current situation can result in anything other than permanently reducing living standards. What do the rich need the Western underclass for when they can just bring in cheap Labour or use technology to replace them in their traditional jobs?

Very clearly set out. There is a clear danger of fascism, with disappointed middle classes looking for a strong hand to keep order. Don't have to look any further than Greece and Egypt to see that.
Capitalism has only delivered the degree of hyper consumption we have just experienced through unsustainable debt creation. This has some way to go to implode - the last five years are only the beginning.
What you describe is the old capitalist west. Elsewhere, a big working class has formed, that is militant and is organising itself. The threads on South Africa are one illustration. Other pluses are the loosening of the hold of religion, and increased education and internet communications.

Capitalism is hollowed out, and only maintains profit levels by driving down living standards and by war and disruption to take over natural resources. Technology becomes more and more of a cost on manufacturing production, the more complex it becomes.

Every jolt in the economy further impoverishes the majority and concentrates wealth in the hands of a smaller proportion of the population, that inhibits reinvestment and searches out new bubbles and new ways of turning what used to be the necessities of life into commodities. It becomes more and more obvious that this state of affairs is destructive and wrong.

I agree with you that a big danger is the extent to which people and organisations have been softened up by the boom. It may be a new young generation, coupled with the best remains of the old, will move things on. That is not unheard of in history.

Kev Bar
27-10-2013, 12:34 AM
Good critique of the Brand rant

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should _you/

Shaadi
27-10-2013, 01:05 AM
Good critique of the Brand rant

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should _you/Interesting that the right on brigade and the bourgeois liberal IT want to shoot the messenger.

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/2.695/russell-brand-is-dispensing-childlike-simplicities-in-a-convoluted-language-1.1573695

Brand was actually articulating the reality facing the non bourgeois masses who aren't part of the cushioned administrative classes who are prepared to live the €100,000+ a year lifestyle and proclaim themselves leftist. Micky D and all those mega salaried advisers, Vincent Brown and Fergus Finlay charity heads on their €100,000+ salaries are far less leftish in action than Brand's phony baloney persona is. They'd crap themselves at the thought of income redistribution that'd actually make them equal with the masses.

Dr. FIVE
27-10-2013, 01:40 AM
Does anyone think that the current situation can result in anything other than permanently reducing living standards.




Our dystopia is already here, but hey we did save the Seanad and Brand was only making that hierarchies reproducing themselves bit up.

Shaadi
27-10-2013, 01:13 AM
Our dystopia is already here, but hey we did save the Seanad and Brand was only making that hierarchies reproducing themselves bit up.
It was the dystopia corporation that was selling the abolition;)

C. Flower
27-10-2013, 01:34 AM
Good critique of the Brand rant

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/25/i_dont_stand_with_russell_brand_and_neither_should _you/

Not really. She didn't even bother to read his article.

bernadette
27-10-2013, 02:15 AM
Not really. She didn't even bother to read his article.

+1

Seán Ryan
27-10-2013, 02:41 AM
Not really. She didn't even bother to read his article.

Have to agree. The author relied on two devices: sexism and idolatry.

Don't follow Brand cause he's sexist and don't follow him cause 'no gods, no masters.'

Seems to me, that she's preaching to an audience she thinks inferior to herself. Insofar as she sees Mr Brand's downside in a way that she thinks her readers will not. Me, I think her audience won't see it her way simply because she's quite wrong. She didn't even absorb what little was said in the Paxman interview, never mind read the substantial article itself. Maybe if Mr Brand were to release a "Vine" on what he has to say...

There was an awful lot of anarchist style thinking in what Brand had to say. What stood out for me, in what he's done, is that he's realised he wants to be part of whatever type of revolution comes about. He didn't put himself forward as a leader. He didn't seek to narrow the parameters of revolution by branding any particular form as sacred. Indeed, he said, very bluntly, that there were lots of people vastly more qualified than himself, to present ideas as to what would happen after the revolution.

Again, I've no idea whatsoever whether Mr Brand is playing out some cynical exercise in manipulation or not. I know that most of what passes for analysis of all of this doesn't seem to lead in that direction. But I'm not convinced. But that's irrelevant. Because I've no intention of worshipping Mr Brand or of being seduced or disenfranchised by him. When you strip what Brand's said, down to its fundamentals, minus the hippy happy funny stuff, there's a powerful message. It's the message that's important.

Most naysayers, especially the illiterate ones in the Irish media, are evoking a picture of millions having died for democracy, to facilitate a hairy funny guy being able to lambaste it. He should be thankful that he can do what he does, because millions of Jesuses died for him...

Democracy is good because people die for it. Maybe our next political system will be Ebola or maybe Spanish Flu. Yeah, I'm being facetious. But even that is better than any of the alleged counter arguments.

I feel sorry for Mr Brand. The old camel and the eye of a needle picture comes to mind. He has an idea as to how lethal the left can be towards its potential own. He most certainly knows the lethality exists. But he has absolutley no idea of its magnitude and power.

Still, it'll be interesting to see the hiararchical gods of the leftlike non-hiararchy do battle with an imp, who on the face of it, didn't come looking for enemies and didn't come prepared for a fight.

He might do quite well, given that gods shouldn't be seen to exist...

Saoirse go Deo
14-11-2013, 04:47 PM
He was at the Twaddell camp earlier today for some reason

smiles
08-12-2013, 11:30 PM
Paxman agreeing with some of what Russell Brand said during interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FfSGhNuU5k

Holly
09-12-2013, 12:24 AM
Paxman agreeing with some of what Russell Brand said during interview ...

Neither Paxman nor Brand are worth the time of day.

smiles
09-12-2013, 06:56 PM
Neither Paxman nor Brand are worth the time of day.


Why is that Holly? Am I completely missing something, as all I can hear in that original interview is a man using his high profile to spread the message that we need alternatives to the current system. I am interested to know your perspective :)

Holly
10-12-2013, 02:35 AM
Why is that Holly? Am I completely missing something, as all I can hear in that original interview is a man using his high profile to spread the message that we need alternatives to the current system. I am interested to know your perspective :)

To begin with, Russel Brand is a hairy creep, a promoter of the drug culture, fired by the BBC for making a disgraceful phone call live on air to Andrew Sachs. His pop star sex symbol shallowness makes him a bottom feeder.

Jeremy Paxman is overpaid, lazy, full of self regard and rude. He is not fit to have replaced Bamber Gasgcoigne on University Challenge.

smiles
10-12-2013, 11:36 AM
To begin with, Russel Brand is a hairy creep, a promoter of the drug culture, fired by the BBC for making a disgraceful phone call live on air to Andrew Sachs. His pop star sex symbol shallowness makes him a bottom feeder.

Jeremy Paxman is overpaid, lazy, full of self regard and rude. He is not fit to have replaced Bamber Gasgcoigne on University Challenge.

I actually agree with you about Jeremy Paxman but I think he just needs a shaking, and I think Russell Brand may have given that too him. It will be interesting to see whether that encounter will alter the way he interviews politicians.

As for Brand.. Yep he is shallow, but he is also not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bKQXmvdr8o

and I believe that his ability to free think could be a great influence on a generation brought up by media..

bernadette
10-12-2013, 11:54 AM
Paxman is still one of the best political interviewers its hard to think of anyone who even gets close to him.

we're all locked into little boxes, this career, that image. Brand stepped out of his allocated box and caused a furore and some confusion. He'd been edging out for quite a while but his interview with Paxman was his real debut and he did well. I don't like his past, who could, but that doesn't mean I won't like his future and if a role in politics is his ambition he made a good start in that interview.

fluffybiscuits
10-12-2013, 01:03 PM
I actually agree with you about Jeremy Paxman but I think he just needs a shaking, and I think Russell Brand may have given that too him. It will be interesting to see whether that encounter will alter the way he interviews politicians.

As for Brand.. Yep he is shallow, but he is also not:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bKQXmvdr8o

and I believe that his ability to free think could be a great influence on a generation brought up by media..

A generation that gives more prominence to who wins Im a Celebrity than what is happening to their community will take more of an interest if Brand does push it. Leaders for young people at the moment are those they see in the media and someone like Brand who ok lacks the charisma, charm and is very rough around the edges is the tonic that could take people out of their apathy. Its his rough edge that is his saving grace though, no one expected him to come out of the traps holding the hare by the ears .


Paxman is still one of the best political interviewers its hard to think of anyone who even gets close to him.

we're all locked into little boxes, this career, that image. Brand stepped out of his allocated box and caused a furore and some confusion. He'd been edging out for quite a while but his interview with Paxman was his real debut and he did well. I don't like his past, who could, but that doesn't mean I won't like his future and if a role in politics is his ambition he made a good start in that interview.

Very true and no to put too much a fine point on it, Brand has shocked them. :)

Holly
10-12-2013, 01:18 PM
Paxman is still one of the best political interviewers its hard to think of anyone who even gets close to him.
http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j480/rogerduke1/JonSnow_zps7014d33c.jpg
Jon Snow


... Brand stepped out of his allocated box and caused a furore and some confusion.
LOL He'd like to think so.


He'd been edging out for quite a while but his interview with Paxman was his real debut and he did well.
You appear to think so.


I don't like his past, who could, but that doesn't mean I won't like his future and if a role in politics is his ambition he made a good start in that interview.
A "role in politics"! Are you serious? Next you will have us believe that hairy apes can run a country. http://i.imgur.com/uZYOq.gif

smiles
10-12-2013, 01:33 PM
A generation that gives more prominence to who wins Im a Celebrity than what is happening to their community will take more of an interest if Brand does push it. Leaders for young people at the moment are those they see in the media and someone like Brand who ok lacks the charisma, charm and is very rough around the edges is the tonic that could take people out of their apathy. Its his rough edge that is his saving grace though, no one expected him to come out of the traps holding the hare by the ears .

I agree with this except for the charisma and charm, I think his cheekiness is charming (He does seem to have discovered the boundaries there).

His destiny seems to be folding out in front of him and I wish him well for as long as he is trying to improve things for everyone, not just for himself. I recently read something about Bill Gates and I think it applies a little here too; he could be sitting on his rear end sunning it up for the rest of his life (and in Russell Brands case partying) but he is not, he is trying to show people where its going wrong and should be supported in working towards a change.. May the people with the possible solutions step forward please!

Reckon him and Stephen Fry would be an interesting interview..

bernadette
10-12-2013, 01:36 PM
http://i1087.photobucket.com/albums/j480/rogerduke1/JonSnow_zps7014d33c.jpg
Jon Snow


LOL He'd like to think so.


You appear to think so.


A "role in politics"! Are you serious? Next you will have us believe that hairy apes can run a country. http://i.imgur.com/uZYOq.gif

Jon Snow? No. Not in the same league.

The rest:

He did step out of his allocated box what else is this thread about.
Yes I do think so. He may not want a role in politics but he evidently does want to be seen to be taking part and voicing not just his own opinions but the youth he aligns with.

Hairy apes? Well they could hardly do worse.

fluffybiscuits
10-12-2013, 02:14 PM
I agree with this except for the charisma and charm, I think his cheekiness is charming (He does seem to have discovered the boundaries there).

His destiny seems to be folding out in front of him and I wish him well for as long as he is trying to improve things for everyone, not just for himself. I recently read something about Bill Gates and I think it applies a little here too; he could be sitting on his rear end sunning it up for the rest of his life (and in Russell Brands case partying) but he is not, he is trying to show people where its going wrong and should be supported in working towards a change.. May the people with the possible solutions step forward please!

Reckon him and Stephen Fry would be an interesting interview..

Stephen Fry strikes me as being someone who could throw a tantrum, very eloquent speaker but prone to hissy fits on twitter.

Dr. FIVE
24-06-2014, 03:18 AM
lol, good read


http://freedompress.org.uk/news/2014/06/22/newsflash-labour-doesnt-care-about-you/

fluffybiscuits
27-06-2014, 08:21 PM
50000 marched in an anti Austerity march

BBC compltely ignored it...