Russell Brand on Revolution

[Pickman's model]

And you are like a less funny Brand with about as much nous.

a) i'm not trying to be funny here;
b) lots of people, of whom i am but one, have pointed out your absence of coherent politics - perhaps we're right and you're wrong;
c) imitation is the lowest form of flattery.

 

[teqniq]

Out of curiosity can anyone name a celeb who actually changed anything? I don't mean people who subsequently became a celeb because they did. I can't think of one. Even Jesus didn't change anything. If he had, people wouldn't still need him.

This may not be the sort of answer you were expecting in fact it almost certainly isn't but Heddy Lamar is directly responsible for giving us mobile phone technology and wi fi [emoji41]

 

[articul8]

a) i'm not trying

I beg to differ, you are exceptionally trying. As someone whose idea of 'coherent politics' would appear to be consist of onanism whilst imagining murdered coppers, I am glad you think little of mine.

 

[teqniq]

.

 

[Cheesypoof]

He's not "calling for a revolution", he's saying a revolution is needed and necessary. You know, the same thing people have been saying since the end of the fucking interregnum in the 17th century. He admits he has no plans, that he isn't a leader, so saying he's calling for a revolution is either stupidity or poor English usage on your part.

Stupidity on your part, rather. I have always said (and have already stated around twice already on this thread if you bothered to read my earlier posts) that he doesnt put himself on a pedestal nor claim to want to be a leader, nor would I want him to. Selective reading is a bit rich, VP....

 

[frogwoman]

It's not a case of being that bad meaning terrible - it's all over the shop and about a millimetre in depth - but then so are many other things. That's not really why i posted that. It's like those michael moore books really but wih loads of rich people name-dopping. The things to criticise are not the factual errors or misunderstandings but the potential damage of the only religion can save us ('we all need someone to lean on') and that challenges must be made in this specific way or that, that we all need what Russel Brand needs/wants and so on - and the misdirection down blind alleys,

Fair enough. The Michael Moore books despite their limitations actually were a good starting point for me when I was first getting into politics. I liked his book about 911. Although I would probably think it was shit if I read it today.

 

[Cheesypoof]

No-one has said that Brand should stop. Most of us have said that he needs to be more aware of his effect on causes, as well as how the media will spin such involvement. It's not about Brand, except for you, a Brand fangrrll.

whatevs. I actually agree with lots of what he says (and he is bang on the money about Irish water charges and the kerfuffle kicking off about it here in Ireland, for example). More power to him as he bothers to read up on what he talks about (although some of his 'manifesto' is a bit of 'whimsy' and overtly Utopian - i agree). He doesnt need to be knocked for that though. I do like him as a 'character' but its shallow to make dumb assumptions about what a woman thinks of him, jus cos he is a charismatic fellow.

As for people on this thread saying he should stop? isnt that what frogwoman and others who are suspicious of his 'motives' or sincerity are calling for? if not, what are they saying??

 

[DotCommunist]

I re-read 'dude wheres my country?' the other week as a bog book and its the most liberal crap.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Stupidity on your part, rather. I have always said (and have already stated around twice already on this thread if you bothered to read my earlier posts) that he doesnt put himself on a pedestal nor claim to want to be a leader, nor would I want him to. Selective reading is a bit rich, VP....

Way to miss the point. You stated that he's calling for a revolution, which he isn't.

 

[Pickman's model]

I beg to differ, you are exceptionally trying. As someone whose idea of 'coherent politics' would appear to be consist of onanism whilst imagining murdered coppers, I am glad you think little of mine.

perhaps you could link to a post, or a series of posts, in which i combine autoeroticism with dead constables. perhaps you could link to a post or a series of posts in which i say, suggest, intimate or imply that there is nothing to my politics beyond wanking over dead cops. but you can't, because there are no such posts, taken either singly or in combination.

by contrast your entire output here is utterly incoherent, as you try to make out you're in some way a socialist - revolutionary or otherwise - while defending your affiliation to a reactionary neo-liberal party which has no connection with socialism, and not even (these days) with any sort of genuine social democracy.

 

[Pickman's model]

whatevs. I actually agree with lots of what he says (and he is bang on the money about Irish water charges and the kerfuffle kicking off about it here in Ireland, for example). More power to him as he bothers to read up on what he talks about (although some of his 'manifesto' is a bit of 'whimsy' and overtly Utopian - i agree). He doesnt need to be knocked for that though. I do like him as a 'character' but its shallow to make dumb assumptions about what a woman thinks of him, jus cos he is a charismatic fellow.

As for people on this thread saying he should stop? isnt that what frogwoman and others who are suspicious of his 'motives' or sincerity are calling for? if not, what are they saying??

what i find particularly peculiar about brand is the way his manifesto apparently only starts two-thirds of the way through his book 'revolution'.

i suppose that still makes it a bit longer than the 1848 communist manifesto.

 

[killer b]

Three Brand threads (counting the QT thread) bumping along at the top of new posts at the moment, all of them talking about Brand, rather than the politics and issues he hopes to amplify.

Urban might be a special case due to it's politics, but my own (admittedly partial) observations elsewhere suggest a very similar overall effect - that people's additional engagement with issues as a result of Brand's activism and media interventions appears to be little more than saying they agree with him, and defending him in online arguments. Can anyone report anything more solid than this?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Farage puts chest-hair obsessed Brand in his place.

But I know what you’re really reading this to hear. And that’s my take on Russell Brand. The leader of the revolution. The messiah of hipster, new media. The doyen of stock statements and half-funny jokes. Well I’ll tell you what I found out tonight: the messiah has feet of clay, and the revolution is not occurring on Mr Brand’s side – it’s happening with UKIP, and it’s happening fast.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...est-hair-but-where-are-his-ideas-9919668.html

 

[ViolentPanda]

whatevs.

For someone who's a journo and has a double first, your ability to sustain an argument sucks rhinoceros cock.

I actually agree with lots of what he says (and he is bang on the money about Irish water charges and the kerfuffle kicking off about it here in Ireland, for example).

Sure, he's "bang on the money". My point was that it wasn't Mr. Brand who was "exposing" (your word) the water charges, or Walmart's treatment of employees, they'd already been exposed - in the case of Walmart, at least 15 years ago - what he's done rather than exposing these things is simply to publicise them through his mention of them.

More power to him as he bothers to read up on what he talks about (although some of his 'manifesto' is a bit of 'whimsy' and overtly Utopian - i agree). He doesnt need to be knocked for that though. I do like him as a 'character' but its shallow to make dumb assumptions about what a woman thinks of him, jus cos he is a charismatic fellow.

You voice your opinion of him in exactly the same way you voice your opinion of Jim Morrison or Pete Docherty - as a fan rather than someone making an impartial critique, therefore fangrrll is appropriate, just as calling you a fanbhoi would be if you were male.

As for people on this thread saying he should stop? isnt that what frogwoman and others who are suspicious of his 'motives' or sincerity are calling for? if not, what are they saying??

As I've already explained to you twice (once today, once on Tuesday or Wednesday) we're saying he should think about what he's doing, and how his involvement will affect a cause, before getting involved. Because he's in the public eye of course means attention for the cause, but if the media decides to be hostile, then his "frontline" involvement could cost some of those causes support they need from locals rather than celebrities.

 

[frogwoman]

There were mass campaigns against water charges in Ireland for years.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Three Brand threads (counting the QT thread) bumping along at the top of new posts at the moment, all of them talking about Brand, rather than the politics and issues he hopes to amplify.

Urban might be a special case due to it's politics, but my own (admittedly partial) observations elsewhere suggest a very similar overall effect - that people's additional engagement with issues as a result of Brand's activism and media interventions appears to be little more than saying they agree with him, and defending him in online arguments. Can anyone report anything more solid than this?

Not really.
I'm sure that people will be pulled into activism by his politics, but how many or few is anyone's guess, and what the quality of the politics they adopt will be is similarly unclear. The problem with talking about revolution (IMO) is that if you're going to talk about it as a concrete thing rather than an abstract, you need to actually construct it around something less vague than "the current system is bad, mmkay" and some waffle about neoliberalism - you need to offer a coherent alternative or, at the very least a coherent commentary.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I beg to differ, you are exceptionally trying. As someone whose idea of 'coherent politics' would appear to be consist of onanism whilst imagining murdered coppers, I am glad you think little of mine.

Interesting.
You appear to have a deeply-rooted fantasy that Pickman's Model masturbates to pictures of dead police officers.
How does that make you feel?

 

[SpineyNorman]

Posting on the shithouse at work so haven't got time to find posts to quote but in answer to the question about celebs making positive change igive you Barry Mainwaring.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I re-read 'dude wheres my country?' the other week as a bog book and its the most liberal crap.

Mind you, Moore himself has often said that he sees his books and his films and TV shows as "stepping off points" for people interested in issues, not as definitive documents.

 

[DotCommunist]

just as an off point about the 'spiritual' component to Brands rhetoric. There is absolutely no problem with holding a faith and calling yourself a socialist as well. It's not a heresy. But to tie it too closely to a critic of modern society runs the risk of seeing capitalism as a moral failure, and spiritualism as the panacea- people can be good if there is space for them to be good in.

It means you ignore the fact that capitalism isn't a moral failure. It is a system, a shit one. Faith has little to do with it.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/russell-brand/answer-time_b_6313936.html

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

just as an off point about the 'spiritual' component to Brands rhetoric. There is absolutely no problem with holding a faith and calling yourself a socialist as well. It's not a heresy. But to tie it too closely to a critic of modern society runs the risk of seeing capitalism as a moral failure, and spiritualism as the panacea- people can be good if there is space for them to be good in.

It means you ignore the fact that capitalism isn't a moral failure. It is a system, a shit one. Faith has little to do with it.

If one is given to moral / spiritual assessments it is entirely possible to see it in both lights. But in a largely secular society with so much agnosticism and atheism it's often strategically better to go with the "it's shit" line.

 

[Blagsta]

I think his spiritual thing comes from him being active in 12 step circles. It's a big element of that. Doesn't have to mean religion and God either, but a belief in the power of the collective or a "Good Orderly Direction".

 

[rekil]

He reminds me of David St.Hubbins.

Before I met Jeanine, my life was cosmically a shambles, it was ah...I was using bits and pieces of whatever Eastern philosophies happened to drift through my transom and she sort of sorted it out for me, straightened it out for me, gave me a path, you know, a path to follow.

We can probably sub Keiser/Icke/Jones/Hari for Jeanine.

 

[Wilf]

On balance, it's a good thing that there's somebody in the media talking radical politics - at least as opposed to there not being someone in the media talking radical politics. The danger is though, that some people might actually listen to the shite he comes out with.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Way to miss the point. You stated that he's calling for a revolution, which he isn't.

Russell Brand is calling for a revolution, not just outlining 'ideas.' When he was asked directly by (I think Paxman), 'Are you calling for a revolution?' he said 'yes.' What is your point, or maybe you are pontificating for the sake of it. ..?

 

[Cheesypoof]

what i find particularly peculiar about brand is the way his manifesto apparently only starts two-thirds of the way through his book 'revolution'.

i suppose that still makes it a bit longer than the 1848 communist manifesto.

i guess not comparing him to others, and regarding him as a regular bloke who has expressed his views helps.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think his spiritual thing comes from him being active in 12 step circles. It's a big element of that. Doesn't have to mean religion and God either, but a belief in the power of the collective or a "Good Orderly Direction".

Pretty sure he was banging on about spirituality in his broad Buddhisty kind of way before he got into recovery though, but yeah...there's a lot of 12 step lexicon that comes out of him.

 

[Cheesypoof]

For someone who's a journo and has a double first, your ability to sustain an argument sucks rhinoceros cock.

I wont take that personally....I'm not as good a writer as you, but quite tuned in.

Sure, he's "bang on the money". My point was that it wasn't Mr. Brand who was "exposing" (your word) the water charges, or Walmart's treatment of employees, they'd already been exposed - in the case of Walmart, at least 15 years ago - what he's done rather than exposing these things is simply to publicise them through his mention of them.

i agree. i think people as in the public need to be reminded, it will incense them to be more active and passionate about changing things - i hope. There is certainly no harm in what he is doing.

You voice your opinion of him in exactly the same way you voice your opinion of Jim Morrison or Pete Docherty - as a fan rather than someone making an impartial critique, therefore fangrrll is appropriate, just as calling you a fanbhoi would be if you were male.

So what? if it comes across that way to you? you wont believe me if i say i happen to be crazy about music. And i do revere artists and am very knowledgable on the music that i like. I'm also an idealist. However, as i get older, im becoming more cynical and dont want to become bitter - you should watch your own self as sometimes come across as up yourself, keen to piss on people's parades especially if they are sensitive

As I've already explained to you twice (once today, once on Tuesday or Wednesday) we're saying he should think about what he's doing, and how his involvement will affect a cause, before getting involved. Because he's in the public eye of course means attention for the cause, but if the media decides to be hostile, then his "frontline" involvement could cost some of those causes support they need from locals rather than celebrities.

i think he does think about what. What harm do you think doing the Trews or publishing his book has done, exactly? (serious question). And how would you suggest he go about getting his message across instead? By working directly within the community ? You think that Russell Brand would be better 'spent' getting stuck into community aid anonymously? If not, what do you suggest he do?

 

[frogwoman]

They were very useful for me. As a starting point.

Mind you, Moore himself has often said that he sees his books and his films and TV shows as "stepping off points" for people interested in issues, not as definitive documents.