Paxo v Brand starts in 5 minutes

[frogwoman]

And neither is it likely they'll be. Celebrity has power. Whether it should or shouldn't is irrelevant. So shunning it out of some sort of leftist puritanism is just self-defeating.

er

he supports david icke, a previous thread described that he gave money to him to set up this tv channel, to me im sorry, but thats as bad as giving money to the bnp or the edl, and he knows better (or should do)

he is part of the bbc milieu that jeremy paxman is part of, so that raises the question about whether he's serious about his views given that if there was a revolutuon he'd have to give up his millions?

he edits the new statesman magazine which both puts him firmly in the establishment and is also a magazine with little relevance to anyone

he's annoying and not funny

the end

 

[Divisive Cotton]

millionaire Icke supporters are calling for revolution against their own class on news night and this is a good thing? how is this any different to what laurie pennie is doing when she becomes an editor of the new statesman and gets up in the oxford union and calls herself a revolutionary socialist?

the point I'm making is that the Russell Brand interview was better than a kick in the bollocks, no more

 

[discokermit]

She edits the paper this brand character edited this time. The last time this happened the rich person jemmima khan paid to take it over and guest edit. It's worth pointing out the pot they all piss in.

nobody reads it. nobody gives a fuck. it's youtube/facebook that he's all over.
lot's of working class people like russel brand. he's one of us made good, due to some intelligence and a big mouth. he's conscious of the contradictions between his success and his background and to his credit airs this. he comes out with some right shit now and again but don't we all?
he doesn't piss in the same pot as those others.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

So shunning it out of some sort of leftist puritanism is just self-defeating.

lol

 

[killer b]

have people basically got this the wrong way round? the reason brand was on newsnight talking about this shit, and the reason it's been a talking point for days after is because these ideas are actually already what people talk about. he's not sparked anything - just reflected what people are already thinking and talking about, with a bit of showmanship and some nonsense spirituality chucked in (which i note most people seem to be ignoring).

 

[butchersapron]

nobody reads it. nobody gives a fuck. it's youtube/facebook that he's all over.
lot's of working class people like russel brand. he's one of us made good, due to some intelligence and a big mouth. he's concious of the contradictions between his success and his background and to his credit airs this. he comes out with some right shit now and again but don't we all?
he doesn't piss in the same pot as those others.

He does, BBC, new statesman, same production companies, same promoters, same networks that he is now bought into (87 quid for his gig here last week) - same pot, different level.

 

[Orang Utan]

have people basically got this the wrong way round? the reason brand was on newsnight talking about this shit, and the reason it's been a talking point for days after is because these ideas are actually already what people talk about. he's not sparked anything - just reflected what people are already thinking and talking about, with a bit of showmanship and some nonsense spirituality chucked in (which i note most people seem to be ignoring).

he did at least have the good grace to ask why they were talking to him when there were people who knew more than him.
before continuing to entertain us on newsnight.

 

[butchersapron]

nobody reads it. nobody gives a fuck. it's youtube/facebook that he's all over.
lot's of working class people like russel brand. he's one of us made good, due to some intelligence and a big mouth. he's concious of the contradictions between his success and his background and to his credit airs this. he comes out with some right shit now and again but don't we all?
he doesn't piss in the same pot as those others.

Pointing out his personal contradictions isn't here to say that poshoes shouldn't declare revolution and whatever they feel like, but to say that, well they too needs to get questioned - don't they rusell with your defence of you richness on the basis of productive inequality.

 

[Corax]

er

he supports david icke, a previous thread described that he gave money to him to set up this tv channel, to me im sorry, but thats as bad as giving money to the bnp or the edl, and he knows better (or should do)

he is part of the bbc milieu that jeremy paxman is part of, so that raises the question about whether he's serious about his views given that if there was a revolutuon he'd have to give up his millions?

he edits the new statesman magazine which both puts him firmly in the establishment and is also a magazine with little relevance to anyone

he's annoying and not funny

the end

All valid.

Seems to me that unless someone is entirely unblemished, then they'll be rejected rather than used to spread awareness and recruit.

The Icke stuff I admit I feel the same about. Not comfortable with the rest, but fuck it, beggars can't be choosers IMO. And the left isn't even a 'beggar' right now, it's struggling for breath in a deep Victorian sewer and unlikely to last til nightfall.

If he were to genuinely recant and reject Icke, Jones et al - would he still be an unacceptable ally?

Because if so, then we're on a hiding to nothing IMO. There's a constant and unrelenting focus on the negative, and I fail to see that ever achieving anything.

 

[frogwoman]

depends what else he did

 

[discokermit]

Pointing out his personal contradictions isn't here to say that poshoes shouldn't declare revolution and whatever they feel like, but to say that, well they too needs to get questioned - don't they rusell with your defence of you richness on the basis of productive inequality.

i agree. but questioned from a standpoint of general solidarity.

 

[butchersapron]

All valid.

Seems to me that unless someone is entirely unblemished, then they'll be rejected rather than used to spread awareness and recruit.

Traitor gait#4.

Recruit eh?

 

[frogwoman]

do you not think the fact that politics is seen as something for rich people is a problem? do you not think that a well known celebrity talking to paxman about revolution on newsnight actually could reinforce some of the problems that are wrong with the left?

 

[killer b]

do you not think the fact that politics is seen as something for rich people is a problem? do you not think that a well known celebrity talking to paxman about revolution on newsnight actually could reinforce some of the problems that are wrong with the left?

it certainly reinforces the idea that we need to be led into it (as has much of the language used in the ensuing discussion). although i don't think brand is suggesting he should.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

it certainly reinforces the idea that we need to be led into it (as has much of the language used in the ensuing discussion). although i don't think brand is suggesting he should.

Yep. He never once said he was the revolutionary leader. You nailed it with your post above tbh.

 

[frogwoman]

you don't think that some people will watch the video knowing how much money he must be raking in and just think he's a hypocrite?

you've not heard of the concept of "champagne socialists"?

im not saying this is intentional on his part but i think this is a much much bigger problem than people realise, and its reflected in things people have said to me in the past when ive said i'm going on demos or whatever

 

[8den]

Y'know I've hated Brand for one reason. About two years before her death he was making cheap jokes about Amy Winehouse and after she died he wrote fucking yards of prose about addiction, both his and hers. It's a amazingly shitty behaviour.

 

[discokermit]

it certainly reinforces the idea that we need to be led into it (as has much of the language used in the ensuing discussion). although i don't think brand is suggesting he should.

i don't think brand suggested any sort of leadership?

 

[killer b]

i don't think brand suggested any sort of leadership?

no. but this is making him into a figurehead anyway.

 

[camouflage]

Everyone else and the left. They won't embrace me and my wonderful message because they are shit and traitors. That's what he said and what you just endorsed.

Have to say, you have a very peculiar blind-spot with some posts.

 

[frogwoman]

when i talk to people about going on demos about local hospitals and that sort of thing and they say stuff like "I'm not cleverer enough to know about things like that" and that sort of thing. you dont think this is a problem? i think the whole celebrity mutual reinforcing/debating/backslapping bubble is sickening and i think people are clever enough to see through it. part of the entire probelm with the left is its obsession with leaders, whether that's the leader of trot sects, or george galloway or celebrities that happened to endorse something that sunds like its vaguely left wing, the entire thing makes people think that that stuff is nothing to do with them and not something they're qualified to know about.

 

[camouflage]

You're reading that through very jaded eyes IMO.

There's a lot to like in that article. And stuff that I disagree with as well. And then there's the 'lizard' things from previous work...

But instead of focusing on the areas of agreement, it's the habit of many to just casually nod to them - "yeah, of course" - and then zero in on the points that diverge. It's not a new idea invented by brand, it's become an adage. Which, to me, suggests that there may be at least a kernel of truth to it.

ETA: Also, he wasn't calling anyone else a traitor anyway. He was talking about being treated a traitor (loosely) himself.

The left seeks people who would change the standing system because it is unjust, thus to 'betray' it, is what I thought he meant.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

but this is making him into a figurehead anyway.

You reckon? It'll all be forgotten about next week, & OJ will be back in the driving seat! <pukes>

 

[Orang Utan]

no. but this is making him into a figurehead anyway.

he's a little bit like jesus, if you think about it

 

[camouflage]

have people basically got this the wrong way round? the reason brand was on newsnight talking about this shit, and the reason it's been a talking point for days after is because these ideas are actually already what people talk about. he's not sparked anything - just reflected what people are already thinking and talking about, with a bit of showmanship and some nonsense spirituality chucked in (which i note most people seem to be ignoring).

Zeitgeist. *nods wisely*

 

[killer b]

The left seeks people who would change the standing system because it is unjust, thus to 'betray' it, is what I thought he meant.

no, that isn't what he meant. he meant what butch said. it's a fairly long running trope.

 

[butchersapron]

Have to say, you have a very peculiar blind-spot with some posts.

Say it then. Where and when and why you think this happened. Don't not say it.

 

[camouflage]

no, that isn't what he meant. he meant what butch said. it's a fairly long running trope.

Very well, my mistake.

 

[killer b]

You reckon? It'll all be forgotten about next week, & OJ will be back in the driving seat! <pukes>

i said they're making figureheads for us. not that we want 'em.

 

[yield]

he's a little bit like jesus, if you think about it