Russell Brand on Revolution

[Pickman's model]

Cheesypoof not sure you should be going down the original/authentic line here when your most original contribution here your championing of the genius doherty and the genius brand despite a complete absence of evidence presented for the first and a great ton of evidence to the contrary for the second.

 

[caleb]

Anyway, I caught some of Brand's documentary on the war on drugs and he's strikes me as incredibly confused and incoherent about something he's managed to get a lot of mileage out of. He talks to a copper and says, fairly correctly imo, that people will take drugs and so we should have the resources and infrastructure in place to make sure that's done with minimum damage to themselves / wider society, but when he visits a clinic in Bern doing just this he has a hissy fit because a) it's not doing enough to treat "the disease of addiction" and b) there's no wider "spiritual revolution [/awakening]" (seriously...) accompanying it. So you have a clinic where addicts are able to use safely in a controlled environment, and all of those filmed seemed happy and healthy, and were by all accounts functioning, but for Brand this just resembles a "well run crack house" - well what else did he expect?

 

[Nice one]

Sorry. who exactly said he was required to do any of that? To make any of that happen?

And what have i been saying about him on here? Where did i say anyone was fooled?

Fantastic 'i forget nothing' even ten years later post btw.

it's an extended 'hand your money over and don't interfere' plea. Everything else you wrote is what you think should happen - maybe you should have said 'here's what community activists should do'. Maybe it's in hand, maybe you're getting it done.

Those on here who have praised, supported and defended brand as media figure and political campaigner have been given a hard time over it. Given that, were new era/e15 people wrong to accept brand's imput as part of their campaign strategy? Have they simply ignored the ample evidence (provided and commented on here in great detail) of his attitude towards women, dodgy political associations and rampant egomania?

If brand's a damaging figure because of who he is why didn't the new era/e15 campaigns (and may as well throw in the fire fighters as well) see him for what he is? And would you give them the same hard time for praising brand and his contribution to their campaigns?

 

[butchersapron]

What have i said about brand on here? Who have i said has been fooled. That's what i asked you. Can you answer them questions?

 

[Nice one]

we're answering questions with questions - that's the game isn't it? Do you think the new era/e15 people have been fooled by brand's charismatic media persona and that's why he was invited to be involved in their campaigns? It was a question. No they weren't fooled... is one potential answer.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, i thought you would not be able to.

 

[butchersapron]

Let's take the form of this poundland lawyery and change the content slightly:

So nice one, do you still think brand is a paedo? Would you really be prepared to say that to the people involved in the new era campaign?

That would be a rats trick to try and play, and one, i hope, that would be easily spotted and ran out of business.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apart from acting like a prick on here and shouting down others ideas, have you devised any manifestos of your own?

if so, we'd love to hear them.

Is that the royal "we", or are you presuming to speak for others?

 

[Pickman's model]

Is that the royal "we", or are you presuming to speak for others?

she's taking the royal wee

 

[ViolentPanda]

so you dont have any then.

Laughable. He's probably done more local political action in the last year than you've done in your life, and yet you're doing him down to defend another of your idols, because unlike Brand he doesn't seek or want publicity.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apart from acting like a prick on here and shouting down others ideas, have you devised any manifestos of your own?

if so, we'd love to hear them.

you've already established, on this very thread, you don't know a manifesto when you see one.

 

[cesare]

Laughable. He's probably done more local political action in the last year than you've done in your life, and yet you're doing him down to defend another of your idols, because unlike Brand he doesn't seek or want publicity.

Exactly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

where did you?
you just come on this thread and act like a cunt. and quote all kinds of intellectual bullshit without any substance of your own. You are a pathetic, insecure charlatan and a rotten bully. Urbans are scared to come on here and take you on cos you are such a nasty cunt but im not. i dont think you are clever, thats why. if you were, i would not say anything,

However, im not scared to say any of this to you, because i dont think you are a massively clever poster whom i respect.

By their likers shall ye know them.
The above post was liked by diana9 and DexterTCN, two of the most empty-headed Brand ditto-heads on this thread. You should feel proud of accomplishing such a following.

 

[chilango]

Are "manifestos" the new "credentials"?

 

[ViolentPanda]

i've asked you for your opinion on how society should change.

In which case you're asking the wrong question.
Before you can change society, you have to hope to change the outlook of people as individuals and as communities. Only then do you have a fulcrum with which you can lever society into a new mode, and which people can use if they wish to.

Publishing a book outside of the affordability of a significant minority of people doesn't do the above in any coherent fashion - instead it "turns on" people who were mostly already fans, people who appear to prefer solutions to be offered to them - and because it isn't coherent, at best all it will do is convince a relative handful of people to examine extra-parliamentary politics. It won't cause Russell's "spiritual revolution", or a political revolution.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Are "manifestos" the new "credentials"?

I certainly hope not, given how low the credibility of manifestos has fallen in the last 20+ years.
Frankly, too, any "revolution" of political thinking doesn't need, require or want a manifesto. What it needs is to evolve its' philosophy or ideology through action and practice - through "doing" at the grassroots, rather than attempting to impose what is almost always a "one size fits all" solution from above. And make no mistake, this is what some of the Brand evangelists are pushing: "You should do what Russell suggests", as if what Russell suggests (when he puts any meat on the bones of his revolutionary philosophy, which he hasn't done much of, yet) is a panacea, rather than an ill-defined diversion.

 

[rioted]

Laughable. He's probably done more local political action in the last year than you've done in your life, and yet you're doing him down to defend another of your idols, because unlike Brand he doesn't seek or want publicity.

LOL

 

[ViolentPanda]

You want to be careful now.

Down with that sort of thing!

 

[ViolentPanda]

LOL

Oh look, the whiny twat who only ever contributes to do down a couple of other posters has turned up. There's a surprise.

 

[Pickman's model]

I certainly hope not, given how low the credibility of manifestos has fallen in the last 20+ years.
Frankly, too, any "revolution" of political thinking doesn't need, require or want a manifesto. What it needs is to evolve its' philosophy or ideology through action and practice - through "doing" at the grassroots, rather than attempting to impose what is almost always a "one size fits all" solution from above. And make no mistake, this is what some of the Brand evangelists are pushing: "You should do what Russell suggests", as if what Russell suggests (when he puts any meat on the bones of his revolutionary philosophy, which he hasn't done much of, yet) is a panacea, rather than an ill-defined diversion.

tbh if it was a choice between russell brand and slavoj zizek, i'd be with zizek. might not know what he's on about but it would at least be entertaining.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you should explain them, rather than come onto threads, acting like a prick, BULLYING people? thats why i am probably the only person on this thread calling you out. you have an aggression problem. But Urbans fear taking you on. why? i dont know. and they should not, and instead stand up for themselves. i find it ludicrous, weird!

So now you're a heroine, taking on the evil folk?
You don't have a clue, do you? People don't fear taking him on. If I think he's talking shit I pull him up, same with Pickman's Model, same with any poster who talks out of their arse.
The issue here is that you are doing your usual wafty airy-fairy hero-worship of some poor schmuck, and any criticism of them knocks you off balance, so you start shouting the odds and accusing whoever is criticising your hero of injustice of whatever happens to pop into your head, like a kid in a playground.

Lets think. You've done this to (just off of the top of my head, it's not an exhaustive list):
People who didn't take your line on Lester Bangs.
People who didn't take your line on Pete Doherty.
People who didn't take your line on Jim Morrison and/or The Doors.
People who didn't take your line on Amy Winehouse.
People who didn't take your line on Syd Barrett.
People who don't take your line on Russell Brand.

You're all over the place. It's unedifying.

 

[ViolentPanda]

butchers, you are one sick fuck.

Probably better than being a vapid ditto-head like yourself though, frankly.

 

[Pickman's model]

So now you're a heroine, taking on the evil folk?
You don't have a clue, do you? People don't fear taking him on. If I think he's talking shit I pull him up, same with Pickman's Model, same with any poster who talks out of their arse.
The issue here is that you are doing your usual wafty airy-fairy hero-worship of some poor schmuck, and any criticism of them knocks you off balance, so you start shouting the odds and accusing whoever is criticising your hero of injustice of whatever happens to pop into your head, like a kid in a playground.

Lets think. You've done this to (just off of the top of my head, it's not an exhaustive list):
People who didn't take your line on Lester Bangs.
People who didn't take your line on Pete Doherty.
People who didn't take your line on Jim Morrison and/or The Doors.
People who didn't take your line on Amy Winehouse.
People who didn't take your line on Syd Barrett.
People who don't take your line on Russell Brand.

You're all over the place. It's unedifying.

Cheesypoof, it's true he has pulled me up now and then. it's been a bit like being taken to task by len goodman

 

[Nice one]

Let's take the form of this poundland lawyery and change the content slightly:

So nice one, do you still think brand is a paedo? Would you really be prepared to say that to the people involved in the new era campaign?

That would be a rats trick to try and play, and one, i hope, that would be easily spotted and ran out of business.

eh?

Let's have a real world example. You've got your community activist conference off the ground, all the grassroots groups have signed up, but people are worried there hasn't been much publicity about the content. Someone in the little oaktrees collective suggests getting brand to do a talk, maybe open the morning session on the second day about successful campaigns against evictions, something like that. After all he's raised a fuck load of money for the conference from all the benefit gigs he's put on over the past year and it would be great publicity.

Would you be happy for that to go ahead or would you argue, sighting the many and varied examples given on this thread, it would be a bad idea?

Ancillary question: if you thought it was a good idea and voted in favour, how would you then justify it to your internet pals?

 

[ViolentPanda]

anti-poll tax campaign revisited.

Apart from the money aspect brand isn't really required for any of that. Maybe people are already organising such things. Maybe fishponds anarchist federation could draw up a template starter pack just to get the ball rolling, give people ideas, create possibilities?

All this talk of branding when you know the real killer to any future campaign will be the assortment of left wing groups jumping on the bandwagon fronting fake anti-eviction groups, fighting for the right to have the most authentic jargon.

From what i understand both the new era residents and e15 focus women both greatly appreciated brand's involvement in their campaign. Did they get it wrong? Were they so easily fooled?

And what do you think their response to you would be if you said to their faces what you've been saying about brand on here?

All questions that are answered earlier in the thread.
You did read the thread before weighing in, didn't you?

 

[Pickman's model]

eh?

Let's have a real world example. You've got your community activist conference off the ground, all the grassroots groups have signed up, but people are worried there hasn't been much publicity about the content. Someone in the little oaktrees collective suggests getting brand to do a talk, maybe open the morning session on the second day about successful campaigns against evictions, something like that. After all he's raised a fuck load of money for the conference from all the benefit gigs he's put on over the past year and it would be great publicity.

Would you be happy for that to go ahead or would you argue, sighting the many and varied examples given on this thread, it would be a bad idea?

Ancillary question: if you thought it was a good idea and voted in favour, how would you then justify it to your internet pals?

what you seem to be saying is the working class can't do it for themselves, iyo. you'd have people work russell brand into an early grave doing what they can't (iyo) do for themselves.



perhaps if it did work brand into an early grave there might be some point to what you were suggesting. or people could get on with what they're doing and let the sexist pig with very dubious mates wend his way to oblivion.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Cheesypoof, it's true he has pulled me up now and then. it's been a bit like being taken to task by len goodman

My Len Goodman to your Lucy Worsley.

 

[Pickman's model]

My Len Goodman to your Lucy Worsley.

i'll let you lead then

 

[Nice one]

All questions that are answered earlier in the thread.
You did read the thread before weighing in, didn't you?

 

[killer b]

Its a bit unreasonable to expect someone to read 91 pages of circular, tedious arguments before they weigh in tbf.