Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russell Brand on Revolution

Jean-Luc said:
I'm trying to be objective as to whether he's sincere or not by listening to both sides, but are you saying that what he says in the first minute and a half of this video is insincere?



Maybe it isn't, but it must be a sign of something, of some movement on his part. What would he, or anyone else who's expressed such views in the past, have to do to convince you that they no longer held them?
Click to expand...

On question time last week he called someone love and then apologised, saying it was sexist and that he was working on it (i'm not convinced at all that it is in itself btw). He did the same thing on american TV in June last year. I think his 'i'm working on it' is a tool that allows him to do what he was doing before rather than being a genuine commitment to personal change - the fact that he's doing what he considers to be sexist 18 months later...
 
Jean-Luc said:
I'm trying to be objective as to whether he's sincere or not by listening to both sides, but are you saying that what he says in the first minute and a half of this video is insincere?



Maybe it isn't, but it must be a sign of something, of some movement on his part. What would he, or anyone else who's expressed such views in the past, have to do to convince you that they no longer held them?
Click to expand...

Who knows, but this was 2006:
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-04/28/gq-film-russell-brand-seduction-tips-
 
Jean-Luc said:
I'm trying to be objective as to whether he's sincere or not by listening to both sides, but are you saying that what he says in the first minute and a half of this video is insincere?



Maybe it isn't, but it must be a sign of something, of some movement on his part. What would he, or anyone else who's expressed such views in the past, have to do to convince you that they no longer held them?
Click to expand...


It doesn't really matter whether he's "sincere" or not.

It matters whether his involvement aids or damages.
 
frogwoman said:
I think the called people love thing is a bit of a red herring tbh. There's much worse we can get hom on.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just like really, he can plausibly say "yeah shouldn't have had a photo with that cunt, dunno why I did, didn't know who he was, etc." - quite a bit harder to get out of singing praises of a book like The Game.
 
Never had much to say about RB - never found him amusing and was baffled by his popularity. He would probably have been analogous to an annoying midge - irritating, but hardly worth getting worked up about. I confess to some confusion though, since he appears to be acting in exactly the way he suggests the rest of us avoid. t His disdain for the manipulative and hateful media....which is directly sponsoring him, seemingly everywhere. Top down hierarchies - the whole figure head thing wtf? The message is laughable, the mode of delivery insulting (I think the dispossessed and downtrodden require a more considered attitude than whimsy and drollery) and what the fuck is 'Trews'? We are not 6 years old, we do not require nitwits speaking up for us....and we certainly do not need injustice pointed out to us. He has inserted himself into numerous causes, appropriating them in order to boost his own media presence, his bank account and his sense of self-importance. The very act of taking the lead position mitigates against all the 'changes' he appears to be calling for...and doing so in a particularly infuriating and arrogant manner. I do not think he means well - I think he has a massively hyperbolic sense of his own importance - very probably going to bed at night, smeared in an emollient virtue and pride, puffing up his chest (which he inflicts upon us at every opportunity) and congratulating himself on his vision and rebel status - a legend in his own head....but essentially, he was initially a nuisance, but is rapidly festering into a harmful virus - a parasite of the most insidious sort.

My last word on this subject or thread as I resent spending the time having Brand lodged in my brain when my time could be used more profitably (and enjoyably) planning dinner and sowing some onion seeds.
 
You can be sincere but wrong and a work in progress looks like a tactic on some issues but behind the curtain it looks like there's a joined up dots agenda when he talks about elites. Given the company he's keeping, maybe it's time he started saying what he doesn't think if he doesn't think it, like not believing there's an elite cabal of Jewish lizard bankers ruling the world, did 911 and want to chemtrail your mercury fillings into placid acceptance of a corrupt media. It's the dog whistle, nose tapping, knowing wink of it that stinks. We can't say that lads, they can't handle the truth but we know. We all know what's going on. The knowingness. Fuck that.
 
campanula said:
My last word on this subject or thread as I resent spending the time having Brand lodged in my brain when my time could be used more profitably (and enjoyably) planning dinner and sowing some onion seeds.
Click to expand...
Much as I agree with this, just one more diversion: wonder what people's experiences are of the 'Brand Effect'? In particular, I'm thinking of new people coming into radical/anti-cuts/solidarity groups - or at least new people joining facebook/mailing pages. In terms of class struggle groups, I've not surprisingly seen him have nil impact - he isn't going to generate new recruits because he's a world away from all that. However I've seen a few people - new and established - namechecking him and posting his videos in general anti-cuts stuff I'm involved in. It has echoes of the way new people were coming in and posting assange/wikileaks stuff a couple of years ago, though isn't quite as bad. Not quite the same messiah veneration, not quite the same revealed truth, maybe a bit more rooted in an actual politics - but definite echoes.

In terms of building actual struggles my question is irrelevant :oops:, fuck him, fuck em all, just get on with building something around people's real experiences. Still, I'm mildly curious as to what impact he is having outside of the commentariat.
 
benedict said:
Looks like his upcoming feature-length documentary 'Brand' is in post-production and scheduled for a 2015 release.

Featuring Cameron Diaz, David Lynch, Mike Tyson, Noel Gallagher, and Simon Amstell. Among others.
Click to expand...

Wonder if he'll tackle Iron Mike about that rape he committed.
 
Wilf said:
My initial instinct is to dismiss him - for his dodgy past and for the sleb focused nature of his 'revealed truth' and all that. The older I get though I do try and develop a bit of generosity of spirit about him trying to live in a different way - and also the idea of it maybe a good thing for him to be getting a generalised anti-capitalist message out (providing that's part of a bigger struggle). Trouble is, as you say, he doesn't seem to have renounced his own exploitative behaviour and, equally importantly, he doesn't seem to be involved in grassroots politics*, day to day hard graft. Without that his 'involvement' remains one of celebrity involvement. Even if he doesn't present himself as a 'leader' in the traditional sense at least, his 'involvement' is utterly different to that of the people affected by capital and austerity.

* q for his defenders (or anyone else!) - is that correct, does he do any day to day 'quiet politics', getting involved when the cameras aren't rolling?
Click to expand...


He has spent some time with the Focus mums painting the occupation flats, etc.
 
Jean-Luc said:
I'm trying to be objective as to whether he's sincere or not by listening to both sides, but are you saying that what he says in the first minute and a half of this video is insincere?



Maybe it isn't, but it must be a sign of something, of some movement on his part. What would he, or anyone else who's expressed such views in the past, have to do to convince you that they no longer held them?
Click to expand...


The problem with this is he says (paraphrased) "I would never, never, never endorse something that treats women badly", but as recently as 2011 (possibly more recently, as there's more than one edition of that Neil Strauss book) he very definitely did endorse both the person and the methods that do exactly that. He says as "a kid" he was attracted to pua stuff, but that was only 3 years ago. He needs to be far more upfront about his past, about what he used to do, why he's come to see it as wrong, what he's doing to change himself, and he needs to address pua wankers too. This needs to be backed up with action and time showing that he has actually changed. He needs to be given the space and time to change but this minute and a half doesn't cut it by a long, long, long way. Remember that this is not just association, he has publicly and explicitly endorsed the methods and book of cheif pua wanker Neil Strauss, only 3 years ago. For all the reasons Froggy said in her post a page or two back about how the left has learnt nothing from Delta, Sherridan, Healey etc., if he can't do any better than that minute he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything.
 
Buckaroo said:
http://blog.squandertwo.net/2014/12/an-open-letter-to-russell-brand.html?m=1

"Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I've always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that's an illusion.
Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty fucking aggressive, Russell. I'm sure you're aware of the effect. Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight.
I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you're keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.
Click to expand...

Article is by a cynical Tory and leftie baiter, though he does make some salient points.
 
BigTom said:
The problem with this is he says (paraphrased) "I would never, never, never endorse something that treats women badly", but as recently as 2011 (possibly more recently, as there's more than one edition of that Neil Strauss book) he very definitely did endorse both the person and the methods that do exactly that. He says as "a kid" he was attracted to pua stuff, but that was only 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

If he's in his forties, i doubt being a kid is an accurate descriptor for the time he got into that PUA stuff - something of the internet era..even if his involvment preceded the publication of that book he endorsed
 
treelover said:
He has done a fair few benefits over the years, firefighters, steel workers, Tyson, accused of rape, that's it..
Click to expand...
Convicted of rape. But Cameron Diaz, David Lynch, Noel Gallagher, and Simon Amstell? I don't get why you didn't direct the same question of them - and then by implication, celebrity itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kid_Eternity
Is a revolution possible in the UK?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
195
Views
7K
A380
A380
A380
For those who believe in revolution by force, a question?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
161
Views
6K
8ball
8ball
N
Jo Brand's "throw acid not milk" at politicians joke
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
231
Views
11K
hash tag
hash tag
editor
Iceland supermarkets to ban palm oil in own-brand products
Replies
20
Views
1K
friedaweed
friedaweed
editor
Lillian Bilocca and the "headscarf revolutionaries" from Hull [BBC documentary]
Replies
11
Views
896
dessiato
dessiato
Back
Top Bottom